Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 66

Fri, 29 Apr 2011

• 1. Re: ashkenazi minhag (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: ashkenazi minhag (Zev Sero)
• 4. Ashkenazi minhag (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Ashkenazi minhag (Joel Schnur)
• 6. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Ashkenazi minhag (Aryeh Herzig)
• 12. Re: Ashkenazi minhag (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (menucha)
• 14. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 15. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: HaShem HaMelech (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: ktuba of son of non jewish father (Zev Sero)

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17:51AM -0500, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
: Or maybe the Chabadnikim are irrelevant to minhag EY for some reason,
: because they don't say barechu after davening in chutz l'aretz (except
: on Friday night), and they don't duchen every day in chutz l'aretz,
: and both of those were on list A.

Was it simply that they were the smallest of the three groups, and
therefore sometimes their practices were railroaded?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 29/04/2011 10:54 AM, menucha wrote:

> The chatan is distraught at the thought of his father not being
> mentioned, and by the fact that this is not "the normal way of writing a
> ketuba".
> There are definitely issues here of not getting the chatan "turned off
> to judaism" etc.

Is he upset at the very idea that the ketuba will be written differently,
that halacha regards his circumstances as different, or is it just that
he's afraid of being embarrassed if it's read out loud?  Because if that's
the problem, there's a simple solution: whoever reads it under the chupah
should skip the fathers' names on both sides.  Nor is there any need at
all to have the ketuba framed and put on the wall for all to see (another
very modern "tradition" that has no more basis than lining up for pizza on
motzaei yom tov).

As for the actual halacha, a get (and therefore also a ketuba) is kosher
if there is no father's name listed at all, and of course it's also kosher
if both parents are listed, since more detail is better than less.  The
one thing we don't want is to list names that are wrong!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 28/04/2011 10:17 AM, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:

> Or maybe the Chabadnikim are irrelevant to minhag EY for some reason,
> because they don't say barechu after davening in chutz l'aretz (except
> on Friday night), and they don't duchen every day in chutz l'aretz,
> and both of those were on list A.

On daily duchening, Chabad and the Prushim were on the same page: yes
in EY, in principle yes in Chu"l too, but in practise no.  So it's no
surprise that it was established.


On 28/04/2011 12:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Was it simply that they were the smallest of the three groups, and
> therefore sometimes their practices were railroaded?

I'm not aware of any statistics, but there's another problem: they
weren't all in the same area.  The chassidim originally settled mainly
in Tzfas, and then after the earthquake in Tveryah, and -- in the case
of Chabad -- in Chevron.   In Y'm the legal position of Ashkenazim was
tenuous for a long time, so they had to adopt certain Sefardi practises;
e.g. they weren't allowed to have their own shechita, so they accepted
the Sefardi shitos on nikkur.  That's also why Yerushalmim wear those
gold bekitches with the blue stripes.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

At 12:14 PM 4/28/2011, R. Joel Schnur wrote:
>Rav Pam, who put on tefilin during chol hamoed, once told me that he "does
>not understand why ppl raise Lo sisgodidu when it comes to chol hamoed
>minyanim. Nowadays everyone knows that there are different minhagim...
>                            I first met him succos 1967, standing at the
>entrance of the Young Israel of Rugby(?) in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, trying
>to drum up a few more ppl for his tefilin minyan.

I find it hard to believe that it was the YI of Rugby, which was R. 
Avigdor Miller's shul.  R. Miller put on tefilin on Chol Moed, and, 
IIRC from the times that I davened in his shul after it relocated 
from East Flatbush and became the Bais Yisroel Torah Center, many 
others also did.  I certainly did.  YL

Which is why I wrote YI of Rugby with a (?). i think the rabbi was a Rabbi
Zimmermen. I was a Bronx Boy visiting a relative in East Flatbush and was
only taking a stab at what the shul's name might have been.

From: Prof. Levine [mailto:llev...@stevens.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:33 PM

> I find it hard to believe that it was the YI of Rugby, which was R. Avigdor
> Miller's shul.  R. Miller put on tefilin on Chol Moed, and, IIRC from the
> times that I davened in his shul after it relocated from East Flatbush and
> became the Bais Yisroel Torah Center, many others also did.  I certainly
> did.  YL

 

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:10:22AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: Frankly this is all as clear as mud to me (and I suspect to [most]
: everyone else as well)...

I think everyone else, including the Baal haTanya. At some point,
theological discussion resorts to invoking kavayakhol and using metaphor,
because human reason can only take you so far.

:                         The bigger question throughout this line
: of thought is not so much how do "you" have bechira, but even more
: troubling is who is the "you"?

IIUC, you are bothered by the same loop in reasoning as I am. I exist
through the illusion that I am distinct. But also I can have that
illusion only because I am distinct. It's a circular dependency -- the
illusion must preexist me, but I must preexist the illusion. But then,
time too is part of the illusion...

Another logical step in the Tanya I never "got" was his notion of the
relationship between physical objects and Or Ein Sof. The Tanya appears
to liken all of existence, including the physical, to the light emitted
from the Source. But, he also compares the physical to the circle of
light left when the beam hits the wall. The Shefa E-loki is described
as both being the beri'ah and being its cause. First, what's the "wall"
in this mashal -- it too is light. Second, what's the light -- it too
is the Source. Third, is a physical object the beam of light itself or
the spot it makes at its intersection with the wall?

All of which is really an elaboration of the kavayakhol-s one invokes
when saying the word "tzimtzum".

As I'm not a Chabad-nik, I haven't found these questions very pressing.
But they have been on my back-burner list of hashkafah questions for
many years.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            most appropriate?

RMB:

<<In Izhbitz thought the only bechirah we have is whether we interpret

our decisions as being in concert with that Plan, or in rebellion.>>

Is this any different from Spinoza?

David Riceman

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:00:31PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> In Izhbitz thought the only bechirah we have is whether we interpret
>> our decisions as being in concert with that Plan, or in rebellion.>>

> Is this any different from Spinoza?

I never looked at Spinoza, as I never came across a baal hashkafah who
builds on / defines a contrast to him.

However, Spinoza taught pantheism, whereas lehavdil Chassidus teaches
panentheism.

(From wiki:
    Panentheism (from Greek ... "all-in-God") is a belief system which
    posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature,
    and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished
    from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the universe.)

How Chassidic panentheism relates to what you quoted me saying above
depends, yet again, on how one understands tzimtzum as being both real
and not quite.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            most appropriate?

On 28/04/2011 4:00 PM, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> In Izhbitz thought the only bechirah we have is whether we interpret
>> our decisions as being in concert with that Plan, or in rebellion.>>

> Is this any different from Spinoza?

Very different.  Spinoza says that "elokim" is just another word for
Teva, while Torah says that "teva" is just another word for Elokim.


On 28/04/2011 4:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Another logical step in the Tanya I never "got" was his notion of the
> relationship between physical objects and Or Ein Sof. The Tanya appears
> to liken all of existence, including the physical, to the light emitted
> from the Source. But, he also compares the physical to the circle of
> light left when the beam hits the wall. The Shefa E-loki is described
> as both being the beri'ah and being its cause. First, what's the "wall"
> in this mashal -- it too is light. Second, what's the light -- it too
> is the Source. Third, is a physical object the beam of light itself or
> the spot it makes at its intersection with the wall?

The use of light as a mashal depends on an understanding of light's
nature which is inconsistent with modern physics. You have to set aside
what you know about light's actual nature and think like a medieval.
Light has no physical substance, its source is no smaller for emitting
it, or indeed in any way affected by emitting it, and it's permanently
entangled with its source, so that if the source were to disappear the
light would instantaneously disappear too. The same light is perceived
differently in different circumstances, but it remains the same; what
changes is the viewer's perspective. In the mashal of the spot on the
wall, no actual wall is required; the mashal is about the spot, which
is made up of the light itself, not of the wall.

Light is basically Chabad chassidus's way of reconciling tzimtzum
with "Ani Hashem lo shanisi". Tzimtzum is not literal anyway, but
whatever non-literal tzimtzum happens, happens only to the light,
not to the Source. It's a pity that modern physics has rendered the
mashal obsolete, but that happens. Perhaps Moshiach will come up with
a better mashal.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Rav Moshe Feinstein says not to write a kesuba in a way which people 
will assume that a non-Jew is Jewish

Y.D. III 106.3
Y.D. I 159

On 4/29/2011 10:54 AM, menucha wrote:
> a kallah who is modern orthodox from birth is marrying a son of a jewish
> mother and non jewish father.  They were told that the chatan's name in
> the ktuba would be written as (names are being changed) David ben Malka
> bat Dov, i.e him the son of his jewish mother, who is the daughter of
> dov her jewish father.
> The chatan is distraught at the thought of his father not being
> mentioned, and by the fact that this is not "the normal way of writing a
> ketuba".
> There are definitely issues here of not getting the chatan "turned off
> to judaism" etc.
> does anyone know of any piskei halacha on this issue, or have an idea of
> a Rav who would be worth discussing this with?
> one idea which came up is by using the names of both parents for both
> bride and groom.
> aviva bat reuven veleah, and david ben malka vechristopher.
> any leads would be appreciated.
> thanks
> menucha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>

On the first day of Chol HaMoed, I davened in Yeshiva Shaarei Yosher in Boro
Park because of an urgent matter I had to discuss with Rabbi Rosenblum, the
Rosh Yeshiva.

I arrived a bit late for Shachris and, to my surprise, I found about a
minyan spread around the Bais Medrash and twice as many men - including the
Rosh Yeshiva himself - were crowded behind a curtain.

Then I noticed that those sitting comfortably in most of the Beis Medrash
were wearing Tfillin.  Those stuffed behind the curtain were not wearing
Tfillin (I squeezed myself in there, as well).

The majority (including the revered Rosh Yeshiva) were deviating from the
Minhag haMokom and were "ousted".

At Hallel, Tefillin were removed as well as the Mechitza.

Aryeh Herzig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110428/9d07ddb7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Aryeh Herzig wrote:
: The majority (including the revered Rosh Yeshiva) were deviating from the
: Minhag haMokom and were "ousted".

This description and language here ("ousted") got me wondering...

When we started sticking behind a mechitzah those who don't conform to
the minyan, did we expect a large crowd? Or was it one or two people
who would be unnoticed in the back? Because that would be a quiet thing,
whereas what went on in the yeshiva -- or in the minyan I was in as well
-- really is "agudos agudos". The very splitting into two subpopulations
we're trying to avoid!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            most appropriate?

Has anyone ever seen this done in practice?- a ktuba with no parent's names?
thanks
menucha

Zev Sero wrote:

>
>
> As for the actual halacha, a get (and therefore also a ketuba) is kosher
> if there is no father's name listed at all,

R' Chaim Manaster wonders:

> The bigger question throughout this line of thought is not so
> much how do "you" have bechira, but even more troubling is who
> is the "you"?  In this line of thought you are some sort of (for
> lack of a better way to express this)  chelek of HKB"H, so there
> is no "you"! (No Id). The whole thing is a stage with HKB"H
> playing all the parts. Then there IS no me. There is no one to
> reward or punish, nor anyone who desires reward (there is only
> G-d), nor any bechira etc. In fact the isur of avoda zara needs
> biur, as everything, including you and me, is a manifestation of
> HKB"H! I fail to see how tsimtsum helps answer anything, all it
> does is add another turtle (it's turtles all the way down).

I do understand what you mean about the turtles. (For those who don't, see Wikipedia, article title: "Turtles all the way down")

But I'd like to suggest another way of looking at it: It's *not* turtles all the way down. Tsimtsum is where the turtles stop.

Over the millenia, as our understanding of nature has developed, miracles
are no longer violations of nature, but are natural events, albeit divinely
engineered ones. The scientists are working hard to explain even Creation
itself as a natural phenomenon, and our only real disagreement with them is
our position that Creation was directed by G-d, rather than by random
chance.

I'm not going to pretend to have any real understanding of what tsimtsum
is, or what it means, but one thing which seems to be acknowledged is that
tsimtsum is an impossibility, a contradiction in terms, yet real and true
nevertheless. That in mind, I'd like to suggest that tsimtsum is an
uber-miracle, totally beyond nature, and even beyond logic. 

Going back to RCM's post, where he wrote:
> The whole thing is a stage with HKB"H playing all the parts.
> Then there IS no me.

I did a google search to look for former listmember R"n Gila Atwood's
famous tag line, "We are pixels in G-d's imagination." And I came across
this post from R' Micha Berger from slightly over ten years ago, in Avodah
6:143:

> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001
> From: Micha Berger
> Subject: Re: chelek Elokah mimaal
>
> RMMS holds that "ein od milvado" means mamash "ein od", and not
> "ein od eloha". Much like Gila Atwood's "pixels in G-d's
> imagination". According to this, tzimtzum is the illusion that
> there are a multiplicity of existances, including the possibility
> of us existing as individuals. Bekitzur, panentheism. (No, not
> pantheism.)
>
> IOW, the question asked about how our souls don't violate yichud
> haBorei could be asked about the beri'ah in general.

RMB seems to be saying that if "ein od milvado" truly means that we have no
identity outside of Hashem, then it is our thoughts, our bechira, and our
very selves which are the illusions. But I find that difficult to accept,
because if our existence is only an illusion, then reward and punishment
must also be merely an illusion.

Rather, I'd like to suggest that tzimtzum is very real, and that somehow,
Hashem did perform this uber-miracle, and that as a result, reward and
punishment are very real as well. When tzimtzum is said to refer to Hashem
removing Himself from somewhere, I suggest that it means that He removes
His control and dominion from those upon whom He bestowed free will. If we
are part of Hashem, then free will is absurd; yet we believe that we *do*
have free will, and my suggestion is that this is made possible by the
uber-miracle of tzimtzum.

I don't mind being as minimalist as possible in this regard. I don't mind,
for example, saying that our bodies don't have any real existence outside
of Hashem. I don't even mind saying that our souls don't have any real
existence outside of Hashem. I'm only asking for one thing, and that is
bechira. When Hashem created Adam HaRishon, He found a way of doing it such
that Adam could actually choose for himself, and not be restricted to
instinct or determinism. Perhaps that was the ruach which He blew into
Adam, and perhaps this is the tzimtzum that I've heard about - a tiny part
Creation which can somehow act independently of the Creator.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dbaac468b8ef163fd1st06vuc

>> RMB:
>>> In Izhbitz thought the only bechirah we have is whether we interpret
>>> our decisions as being in concert with that Plan, or in rebellion.>>
> Me:
>> Is this any different from Spinoza?
> RMB:
>
> However, Spinoza taught pantheism, whereas lehavdil Chassidus teaches
> panentheism.
RZS:

<<Very different.  Spinoza says that "elokim" is just another word for
Teva, while Torah says that "teva" is just another word for Elokim. >>

I was unclear.  It's true that Spinoza has a law-like version of 
determinism, and, while I don't know about Izhbitz, the versions of 
Hassidus I think I understand have a Kalam-like version of determinism 
(see MN I:75, the third argument).

What they seem to have in common is their way of harmonizing absolutist 
determinism with free will: free will consists exclusively in assenting 
to the inevitable (which, in turn, presupposes a Cartesian mind-body 
duality).

David Riceman

On 29/04/2011 9:31 AM, David Riceman wrote:

> What they seem to have in common is their way of harmonizing absolutist
> determinism with free will: free will consists exclusively in assenting
> to the inevitable

Except, of course, that you don't *know* it's inevitable, and that
nothing *makes* you consent to it.  You're free to choose otherwise,
but you never do.

Remember that chassidus (at least Chabad, but I'm pretty sure all)
accepts and embraces paradox.  It rejects C.S. Lewis's contention that I
quote in my .sig below.  It claims that Hashem is "nimna` hanimno`os",
and that "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul kach yesh Lo koach
bigvul".  IOW that He is not constrained by logic; that He *can* make a
rock that He can't lift, and that He can nevertheless lift it.  "Mekom
ha'aron einah min hamidah"; it took up space and yet it didn't.  And the
nes chanukah was that the menorah burned ordinary oil, consuming it at
the ordinary rate at which oil is consumed, and no new oil was being
created, yet it didn't run out; it was a suspension not of physics but
of logic.  So applying logic to Hashem, at least in this system, shouldn't
be expected to always work.


  --
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:27:32PM +0000, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
: As a metaphor it seems to work in an obvious way if you think of
: a king like Henry the Eighth or someone: Absolute and widespread
: power. But, was that really what a melekh was like in the days of
: matan Torah?

I am not sure it's a metaphor. It could be that Melukhah is an
exact *description* of the relationship between G-d and man.

Thus the obligation, twice daily, of qabbalas ol malkhus Shamayim.

As for how we should think of it. I couldn't find "Melekh" or "haMelekh"
referring to HQBH in chumash or Neviim rishonim. The first (in historical
order) reference I could find is Tehillim 10:16, which I believe is
attributed to David haMelekh. So Judaism's first king was probably the
first to refer to Hashem as King. I would therefore start there.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> Hence "HaMelech, Malchei HaMelachim."...

The Achaemenid Emperors (c. 550-330 BCE) of Paras called themselves
Cheshaytheiya Cheshayathiyanam -- Mkelekh haMelakhim. (And thus the
Shah was more fully called "Shahanshah", Shah of Shahs.) Eg Daryaveish
writes on the Rock of Behistun something generally translated, "I am
Darius the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia, the king
of the provinces..."

So, Melekh Malkei haMelakhim quite probably dates back to that
period, declaring HQBH as above even the emperor. And thus dovetails
well to what I said about the idiom being David haMelekh's invention.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On 29/04/2011 3:26 AM, menucha wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen this done in practice?- a ktuba with no parent's
> names?

I've never seen it in practise, but _Seder Kidushin Venisu'in_, by R
Mordechai Farkash, says "When the father is a goy and the mother a Jew
write the mother's name, and some say to write just the person's own
name (32); and some write the name of the mother, the daughter of her
Jewish father (e.g. Yosef ben Rachel bas Yaacov). (33)"

Footnote 32 says: "See Otzar Haposkim 66:129 and 66:151, and see what
I wrote in Kovetz He'oros Uviurim #864."


On omitting the fathers' names in a get, see
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8471&;pgnum=42
(This reference was posted to Avodah by R Yitzhak Grossman a few years
ago; it's a fascinating sefer)

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 66
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."