Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 67

Sat, 30 Apr 2011

• 1. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (David Riceman)
• 2. Birchos ha-re'iyah (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 3. Shlissel Challah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Hankman)
• 7. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Micha Berger)
• 8. Shlissel Challah (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: ain Od Milvado v. Bechira (Zev Sero)
• 10. RSRH on nature of Torah; implications for Dox vs. Prax (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 11. If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (Meir Rabi)
• 12. Re: Shliss Challah (Rafi Hecht)
• 13. Re: Ashkenazi minhag (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 15. Question regarding "hoiche kedusha" (Joel C. Salomon)

On 4/29/2011 11:11 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> 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.
I don't understand your point.  How does this differ in Spinoza and in 
Hassidus? In both schools you naively don't realize it, but by assiduous 
study you can come to realize it.

David Riceman

Hello all,

I was once at an aquarium, and saw a walrus. Though I'd seen pictures 
and figurines of walruses, it really made an impression in person as the 
strangest creature I'd ever seen. I figured this was an ideal time to 
say the berachah of "meshaneh ha-beriyos," but I think I recall from 
RNS's zoo tour that the "official" animals of this berachah are the 
elephant and monkey. So, I called up a (rather righty) rav I was close 
to for his opinion.

He said that some poskim prefer not to say the berachah at all nowadays, 
given our familiarity with these animals. So I didn't.

Recently I was at the Bronx Zoo, and seeing a giraffe, had a similar 
reaction. I also composed the following haiku later:

Tall and spotted beast
Unlikely grace and beauty
Canter, amble, stoop

But I digress. This time, as I contemplated the question, I felt a wave 
of despair. Chazal instituted these berachos (IIUC) as an avenue to keep 
our relationship with the world in sync with our relationship to the 
Creator. So how can one /not/ say a berachah when experiencing the very 
feeling the berachah is meant to embody? I said the berachah.

Similar experience at the Great Falls in Paterson, one of the country's 
largest falls.

So. It now occurs to me that the rav's logic does not appear to hold, in 
view of the fact that we say berachos over thunder and lightning, 
notwithstanding that we are familiar with these, and anyway might see 
pictures etc. within 30 days. But anyway: I think the question that 
comes out of this for me is, how formalistic is halachah when it comes 
to issues like this? It seems like taking pesak to its formalistic 
extreme leads to this type of chilling effect, where the personal 
relationship with the mitzvos is cut off in favor of the system. Related 
to the unnatural (IMO) results when one tries to be choshesh for all 
opinions.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

I assume by now most of you have read R' Jeffrey Saks' post at
<http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/shliss-challah>. He gives three reasons
for the minhag:

    1. Based on "Pitchi Li Achoti, Ra'ayati..." ..., on which the Midrash
    states "Pitchu li petach ke-chudo shel machat...," ... = something
    like "Open your hearts (in teshuvah) like the eye of the needle,
    and I (God) will open the rest like [a very large opening].

    2- According to Kabbalah on Pesach the gates to heaven were open,
    and following Pesach the lower gates are shut, and it's up to us
    to open them again...

    3- In the desert the Jewish people ate from the manna until after
    Pesach upon entering the land (with the bringing of the Omer, see:
    Josh. 5:11), at which point the ate from the produce... The key
    in the challah after Pesach is a request the God should open the
    Sha'arei Parnasah... Alternatively, the manna began to fall in the
    month of Iyyar, and this Shabbat is always Shabbat Mevarchim Iyyar.

A more prosaic explanation...

Sourdough is hard to come by this week, as it takes over a week to
ferment. The other source of yeast frequently used before the Fleishman's
figured out how to isolate it is barm, a sideproduct of making bear.
But barm has more yeast and is more reactive than they were used to,
and would make softer more floury bread than sourdough. Most metals kill
yeast, although stainless steel doesn't. So they put a piece of metal
into the challah to kill some of the extra yeast off.

Then, once people did it, they reverse-engineered kavanos for the
practice.

Just made it up -- I'm not saying it's emes, just plausible.

-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 1:29 PM, David Riceman wrote:
> On 4/29/2011 11:11 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 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.

> I don't understand your point. How does this differ in Spinoza and in
> Hassidus? In both schools you naively don't realize it, but by assiduous
> study you can come to realize it.

I neither know nor care what Spinoza had to say on the subject, since he
didn't believe in an actual god anyway.  But I don't understand how any
amount of study can tell you in advance what decision you're going to
make, or what you're going to do.  Take the example from the passuk,
that chassidus uses as a proof-text: "ki Hashem amar lo kalel".  How
could Shim`i possibly have known, before he decided to curse David, that
Hashem wanted him to do so?  And yet David says that that was the case;
if Hashem hadn't wanted Shim`i to curse him he wouldn't have cursed him.

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:16:13PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: 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.

Yes... From the perspective of the Yeish, we are ayin. (And from the
perspective that we are yeish, then Hashem is the Ayin of yeish meiAyin.)

We are illusory beings having illusory experiences, including sechar
va'onesh. And, for that matter, illusory bechirah. However, this doesn't
violate the ikkarim. It defines down what existence means. All people
are still subject to sechar va'onesh that is just as real or unreal as
they and their decisions are.

Which is why I got more stuck on the circular dependency -- that the
illusion requires the person who has it who in term only exists with
the illusion. It's an infinite regress, but each time the loop gets
to a lower and lower ontology. It's an illusion held by a mind that only
exists within the illusion. Maybe looking at these two MC Escher works
would help explain my problem
    http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/recogn-bmp/LW410.jpg
    http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/back-bmp/LW355.jpg

: 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...

The machloqes about what is tzimtzum is one of the earliest points in
the logical plain where chassidus and hisnagdus split. The Gra held of
literal tzimtzum of the Or Ein Sof, the Besht of figurative tzimtzum of
the Ein Sof Himself. Which is the logical underpinning of the Chassidic
focus on immanence and thus justifying a derekh built on deveiqus.

See the thread at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TZIMTZUM%20KEPES
HUTO>.
I particularly like how my summary of the machloqes between REED and RMMS
came out at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n063.shtml#09>. Retouching
a snippet:

    The L Rebbe adds two axis to this:
    - Tzimtzum could be taken (1) literally (2) or figuratively; and
    - It could be taken as referring to (a) Atzmuso or to (b) His Or.

    In RYGB's lexicon "tzimtzum kipeshuto" is (1a) the literal tzimtzum
    of Atzmus, and he cites REED that this is heretical....

    It seems clear that numerous misnagdim of the Alter Rebbe's era
    held of (1) literal tzimtzum. It is far less clear whether they were
    speaking of (a) Atzmus or (b) Or. The L rebbe asserts that they did
    hold of (1a) literal tzimtzum of Atzmus. And that's what one finds
    described as the misnagdic position in numerous L web sites. Because
    of the above, RYGB asserts thay they're mistaken, confusing misnagdic
    belief in (1b) literal tzimtzum of Or with the kefirah of (1a).

:                     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.

My suggestion was that we reached the point at which the real answer
is beyond the limits of human intellect, and trying to provide one is
more likely to produce error than anything useful. I would argue this
is why chassidus doesn't stop a line of reasoning just because it seems
to produce paradox, IOW, because the limitations of being human forces
it into Kant-like antinomies.

:-)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?

Another thought occurred to me. I always scoff when I hear the Xtian notion
of the trinity with a man as part of the divine - couldn't be! Yet lehavdil
tsimtsum (with this understanding of it) seems to do what they do but in
spades, everybody is a chelek Eloka mima'al which of course I find very
troubling, now that the thought occurred to me. (Don't all flame me at
once).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110429/19ee8fe3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:05:15PM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: Another thought occurred to me. I always scoff when I hear the Xtian
: notion of the trinity with a man as part of the divine - couldn't be! ...

One thing is to say that something looks like a paradox when people
try to understand it. Another is to say that God could catch a cold --
or any other limitation.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

At 02:32 PM 4/29/2011, Micha Berger wrote:

>I assume by now most of you have read R' Jeffrey Saks' post at
><http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/shliss-challah>. He gives three reasons
>for the minhag:

This "minhag" is supposed to be a segulah.  (My 
quotes around minhag are intentional, because I 
am sure that many of us have never heard of it 
and that in previous generations it was unheard 
in many Ashkenaz communities. I really think that 
a discussion of this issue is in order.)

I will kick it off this discussion with

The Hamodia gave me permission to post on my web 
site an article that it printed some time ago about segulos.  It is at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/segulos.pdf) 
In part the article quotes  the Mezhbuzher Rav, 
Harav Avraham Yehoshua Heshel Bick. According to him

[Segulos ] are nothing more than bubbe maasos, eitzas yetzer hara that
give people a license to spend money way beyond their means and then ask
for a yeshuah. All these formulae ? saying Shir Hashirim forty times, Tehillim
HaChida, etc. ? are methods used by the yetzer hara to take from us the little
[spirituality] we have left.

Prayer, on the other hand, is not a segulah ; 
prayer is a way of communicating with the Ribbono
shel Olam. When we use segulos to get what we 
want, it?s as if we are stealing something from Him,
something that is not rightfully ours. It reminds 
me of today?s Chinese auctions at charitable events.
Whereas women used to give charity without 
ulterior motives, they have now replaced their mitzvos
with Chinese auctions.

See also what I have posted it at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html

and at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_2.html

and what Moshe Ben-Chaim wrote about segulos at 
http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/shliss-challah

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110429/69f7a70e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/04/2011 2:05 PM, Hankman wrote:
> Another thought occurred to me. I always scoff when I hear the Xtian
> notion of the trinity with a man as part of the divine - couldn't be!
> Yet lehavdil tsimtsum (with this understanding of it) seems to do what
> they do but in spades, everybody is a chelek Eloka mima'al which of
> course I find very troubling, now that the thought occurred to me.
> (Don't all flame me at once).

Not the same thing at all; they claim that there is a division *within*
HKBH, and that Y is one of those parts, and in fact the part to which
prayer should be directed.   That's very different from saying that the
"nefesh hasheinis beyisroel" is a "chelek Eloak Mimaal mamash".  It's
actually the exact opposite.

*If* one looks at a person and sees only the Atzmus that's in him, then
one may indeed address him as Hashem and worship him, as we find many
examples of in Tanach and Chazal.  But what they do is the opposite:
they look Above and see the person, and worship *him*!  And that's AZ.

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

Hello all,

 In contrasting the Torah with "religion" and its trappings (theology,
 worship), R' Hirsch comes to contrast thought/belief/opinion with practice
 in a way that seems like it might have relevance to the recent Orthoprax
 discussion. I haven't thought it out yet, but I thought I'd share now.
 This is from Sivan I in the Collected Writings, v.1. By "Torah," it seems
 from the rest of the essay that he is discussing Torah she bi-chesav
 specifically, but it's not 100% clear to me. That is, some of what he says
 does not appear to apply to the whole "package" of Torah: Midrash,
 Rishonic philosophy, etc. The rest of this email quotes an excerpt of the
 essay.

 [...] But unlike "religion" the Torah is not the thought of man, but the
 thought of God, expressed in Divine Laws which are to be carried out by
 man as symbolic actions. It is by these symbolic actions ordained in the
 Torah that the Divine thought is first implanted in man. This symbolic
 action is, therefore, of primary importance; it is the most important
 element in the Pentateuch. The Torah is, therefore, a Divine document the
 authentic form of which mus be kept and preserved with scrupulous
 accuracy, so that man should be able to study and assimilate the Divine
 thoughts contained in it.

 This idea has important legal consequences. Any Jew who by word of mouth
 expresses the opinion that the world was not created by God is not liable
 to punishment according to the penal code of the Torah; and, conversely,
 if he had merely expressed his conviction of the Divine origin of the
 universe by words, sermons or lyrical poems, he would not have fulfilled
 his duty as a Jew. Both acts as the mere utterance of views would remain
 in the sphere of "religion," of what the world calls "faith," as the
 expression of an opinion held at a particular time. But opinions change
 and creeds alter. The atheist of today may become a devout hymn-singer
 tomorrow. And what he imagines to be an advanced study of natural science
 may create in the religious poet of yesterday the conviction that his
 religious hymns were nothing but childish fancy. The penal code of the
 Torah does not punish, therefore, the expression of opinions about
 religious matters. It is quite different with the symbolic 
 language of God as expressed by the commandments of the Torah. He who
 celebrates Sabbath in the Divine symbolical language of abstention from
 work has proclaimed the truth that God created the world; and he has
 thereby expressed this truth not as a human belief, but as a revelation of
 the Creator to man; he has preserved a monument for himself and mankind
 which may help his children and grandchildren to rise to the profoundest
 conception of God at at time when a misguided science has blocked the way
 to a true knowledge of God the Creator. And again, anyone who desecrates
 this symbolism of the celebration of the Sabbath has thereby over=thrown
 for himself and others the Divine monument, he has torn to pieces the
 Divine document which is intended to immortalize the conception of God not
 as "religion," not as a human credo, but as Torah, i.e., as actual
 revelation of God to man.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/b422ecce/attachment-0001.htm>

If the Kinyan was not completed correctly or the rabbi did not get to make
the sale until past the time or whatever, would there be ANY real problem?
After all, as far as the original owners of the Chamets are concerned, the
rabbi's congregants, they are utterly divested from their Chamets interms of
what the Torah demands that they deem it to be of no relevance to them and
also as far as Takonas Chazal is concerned, they have been bodek and MeVaEr
to meet all requirements.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110501/c706cf3b/attachment-0001.htm>

Some people cover the key with tin foil prior to inserting it in the Challah
to make sure the "lead poisoning" is contained.

I didn't do Shlissel Challah this year. I kept an open-door policy. No
locks, no need for keys.

Best Regards,

Rafi Hecht
rhe...@gmail.com
416-276-6925
www.rafihecht.com
---
Never Trust a Computer You Can't Throw Out a Window - Steve Wozniak


On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  Please see http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/shliss-challah/  YL
>
> I note the following comments posted after this article.
>
> I hope you have a ?segulah? against the dangerous traces of lead your
> antique key will leave in your bread. See:
> http://matzav.com/danger-of-eating-shlissel-challah
>
>
> Segulas: Open Letter about the Shliss Challah from Moshe Ben-Chaim(
> Mesora.Org )
>
> ???????????????????????????
>
> The Torah teaches that Hashem punishes the wicked, and rewards the
> righteous. It does not say that challah baking or any other activity will
> help address our needs, as those practicing ?segula? suggest.
>
> When the matriarchs were barren, they did not resort to segulas, but
> introspected and prayed. On Devarim 10:17 ?Hashem does not take bribes?,
> Sforno wrote the following commentary:
>
> ?The punishment of a sin will not be removed at all due to the reward of a
> mitzvah that this sinner performed. As the Rabbis taught, ?A mitzvah does
> not extinguish a sin?. And all this teaches that one should not be confident
> that if he sins, that his sin is removed at all?except by complete
> repentance.?
>
> <Snip>
>
> Nothing in Torah supports this concept of segula; Torah sources reject the
> idea of a segula. If we deserve a punishment, and we don?t address our
> shortcomings, baking challas with brachos cannot help. And if we have no
> sin, then the correct approach to infertility is medical treatment. In
> either case, segulas are useless, and violate the Torah prohibition of
> Nichush. Nichush in common day terms, are good luck charms. It does not
> matter if the charm is a rabbit?s foot, a horseshoe, a challah, key or a red
> bendel. The practice assumes that forces exist, which do not, and it is
> idolatrous. Tosefta Shabbos chapter 7 prohibits red bendels openly. It
> refers to bendels as ?Emorite practices? which are idolatrous. This applies
> to all practices where we assume a causal relationship, which does not
> exist. Separating challa so that we remove infertility, find a shidduch,
> etc., assumes a causal relationship that does not exist. Hashem gave us
> sechel ? intelligence ? precisely because He desires we use it in all areas,
> especially in our Torah lives. Hashem prohibited many idolatrous rites since
> they were not supported by natural law. That is why He wiped out so many
> people, since they worshiped stone gods, or believed in demons, spirits, and
> other forces that defy natural laws. Hashem wants us to follow what our
> minds tell us is true, and not what our emotions ?wish? to be so. I
> understand your good intent, but our actions must be based on Torah and
> reality.
>
> Please help to remove false practices from Jewish culture, and instead of
> supporting segula, we should spread these Torah sources to our friends, for
> whom we desire to help. We must adhere meticulously to Hashem?s Torah?the
> Torah He said, ?not to add to or subtract from?. (Devarim, 4:2)
>
> It is time to use our minds and realign our path of life with Torah
> sources, not blind faith practices.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/62ef3058/attachment-0001.htm>

I saw in Nefesh HaRav that RYBS would daven in Maimonides without teffilin 
(per the psak of the Gra), the regular folks would wear teffilin, and the 
Rav did not consider this to be a problem of lo tigodidu.

Ben 

See Piskei Tshuvos 443:1 footnote 8  (see also ibid 448:31) .

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the Kinyan was not completed correctly or the rabbi did not get to make
> the sale until past the time or whatever, would there be ANY real problem?
> After all, as far as the original owners of the Chamets are concerned, the
> rabbi's congregants, they are utterly divested from their Chamets interms of
> what the Torah demands that they deem it to be of no relevance to them and
> also as far as Takonas Chazal is concerned, they have been bodek and MeVaEr
> to meet all requirements.
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>


-- 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110430/b97e9d1d/attachment-0001.htm>

I've been davening Mincha lately in a minyan that does a "hoiche
(hohche, heicha, whatever) kedusha (Nussach Ashkenaz).  I'm wondering,
though, if the Sh"Tz should be saying "Atah Kadosh" or "L'dor Vador"
after kedusha -- is the switch related to Chazaras HaSha"Tz (which isn't
happening) or to kedusha?

--Chesky


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 67
**************************************

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..."