Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 187

Mon, 19 Sep 2011

• 1. Re: Echoes of Eden-non human humanoids (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Echoes of Eden-non human humanoids (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 7. Hasidism and the Akedah (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Anu Ratzim (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Hasidism and the Akedah (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. Re: Sim shalom-Shalom Rav (Micha Berger)
• 12. Frum Week (Micha Berger)
• 13. Zeh leUmas Zeh (Micha Berger)
• 14. Al Menas Laasos (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Modern-day essurai, etc. (Micha Berger)

 
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.du...@juno.com>
>> R'  Micha quoted (on Areivim) the new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari
Kahn as  saying that Adam Harishon co-existed with non-human humanoids

....Rabbi  Moshe Eisemann learns that this is the position of the  Ramban.<<
Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com




>>>>
 
When were those humanoids created?  And when did they disappear from  the 
earth?
 

--Toby  Katz
================




_____________________  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110916/a9fc1f00/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/16/2011 9:11 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.du...@juno.com>
> >> R' Micha quoted (on Areivim) the new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari
> Kahn as saying that Adam Harishon co-existed with non-human humanoids
>
> ....Rabbi Moshe Eisemann learns that this is the position of the Ramban.<<
> Gershon
> gershon.du...@juno.com
>
> >>>>
> When were those humanoids created?  And when did they disappear from 
> the earth?

I think the idea is that human beings who were not Adam evolved along 
with the rest of the animals on Earth.  And that when Hashem created 
Adam, he was morphologically the same species, but not Adam/human in the 
sense of having free will and a higher soul.  As far as disappearing 
from the earth, some of them may have bred into Bnei Adam, and the rest 
died in the Flood.

It's possible, but I'm not entirely convinced.  And I'd like to know 
where R' Eisenmann sees the Rambam as saying this.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110916/625eb2a1/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Sim Shelomekha is not in the Y-mi. Nor is the chasimah "ve/Oseh
> hashalom". For that matter, there is no indication from the Y-mi
> at all what the nusach they used was.

Are you able to find the nusach of the other brachos? If you are able to find for the others, but not for this bracha, then I wonder...

I have vague memories of once hearing that originally, the last bracha of
the amida was not said by the individuals at all, but rather it consisted
of the Kohanim saying Birkas Kohanim.

I've always wondered whether my momory on that was accurate, and if so, how
it would be played out on a practical level. Perhaps your lack of finding a
text is the answer. Perhaps this is a case where "lo matzinu" *IS* a
raayah!

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e738076c1e5539033st02vuc

From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 


On 15/09/2011 5:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But a youth is  a nar, not a nayr.

A nar is a fool, not a youth, and has nothing to do  with "na`ar".
It comes directly from the German "Narr".

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




>>>>
 
Although Yiddish famously borrowed its vocabulary from German, in a  few 
cases, German actually borrowed from Hebrew.  The best-known such  German 
loan-word is "meschugge."  I found this on wikipedia:
 
--quote--
 
Meschugge ist ein aus dem _Hebr?ischen_ (/wiki/Hebr?ische_Sprache) 
/_Jiddischen_ (/wiki/Jiddisch)  entnommenes _Lehnwort_ (/wiki/Lehnwort) . Es  wurde 
im 19. Jahrhundert aus dem Jiddischen (meschuggo _verr?ckt_ (/wiki/Verr?ckt) 
?) ?bernommen, das seinerseits aus dem  gleichbedeutenden hebr?ischen Wort 
meschugga (?????) von  lehischtage`a (?????? ?verr?ckt sein/werden?) 
hervorging. 
--end quote-- 
I could not find anything similar about the word "narr" but I suspect it 
was  originally borrowed from Hebrew na'ar, and although it now means 
something like  a joker, a jester, it may well have originally meant a foolish 
person --  immature, childish.  Maybe someone else here would know more about  
this.

--Toby Katz
================






_____________________  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110916/9100828f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:12:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 5:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But a youth is a nar, not a nayr.
>
> A nar is a fool, not a youth, and has nothing to do with "na`ar".
> It comes directly from the German "Narr".

What does that have to do with the qorei who leins "vehinei nar bokheh"?
(Other than aiding me in thinking of the example.) Ever hear "vehinei
nayr bokheh"?

Now it could be that narr got back-interpolated to corrupt "na'ar".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 16/09/2011 5:46 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> What does that have to do with the qorei who leins "vehinei nar bokheh"?

I've never heard that.  I'm not sure whether he'd have to reread it,
since there's no such Hebrew word as "nar", so the listener hears "naar";
but I'd send him back anyway.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

I have no doubt that many will disagree with the 
article at http://tinyurl.com/3p7plvb which says in part

Largely focusing on Hebrew scripture as its 
foundation for presenting its views, Hasidic 
literature views the Akedah as a template for 
worship. While most modern readers critically 
view this story from a Kantian perspective ? how 
a benevolent God who forbids murder could command 
human sacrifice and how Abraham could be a model 
for humankind if he is willing to kill his son, 
even for God ? many Hasidic masters seem 
uninterested in these questions. They generally 
do not focus on what we might call the ?ethical? 
implications of the story. In some way, the story 
is itself superfluous; like other biblical 
episodes, it is merely an occasion to illustrate 
a dimension of Hasidic piety (avodas HaShem). 
Unlike classical biblical exegesis, Hasidic 
literature is not primarily focused on solving 
problems in scripture. Rather it uses scripture to promote its agenda.

<Snip>

In all three cases, the classical dilemmas of how 
God could ask such a thing of Abraham and how 
Abraham could agree are not at play. The episode 
is not taken literally, or as real, but as a 
spiritual metaphor for teaching the reader how to 
serve God. Were these Hasidic masters disturbed 
by the ?ethical? implications of the story? We do 
not know. But we know that they read this story 
as they read all other biblical stories ? as a 
guide toward serving God, avodas HaShem. The 
details and dilemmas of the biblical narrative 
are left to non-Hasidic exegetes and their 
readers. For better or worse, Hasidic masters 
mostly had other things on their minds.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110918/9b5e2aee/attachment-0001.htm>

A thought I had this past shabbat:


Gemarrah Brachot 28b states that when R' Nechunya ben Hakanah used to leave
the beit medrash, he would say the famous line that is made at a siyum "Ani
Mashkim, v'heim mashkimim: Ani Mashkim l'divrei torah, v'heim mashkimim
l'dvarim beteilim. Ani amel, v'heim ameilim: Ani amel u'mekablel sechar,
heim ameilim v'einam mekablim sechar. Ani ratz, v'heim ratzim: Ani ratz
l'chayei haolam haba, v'heim ratzim l'beir shachat." (I get up early and
they get up early: I get up early for divrei torah, but they get up torah
for worthless things. I toil and they toil: I toil and get reward, they toil
and don't get reward. I run and they run: I run to the World to Come and
they run to hell.)



This is a strange thing to say when you are finishing learning. It would
make much more sense to say this when you start learning.



The simple answer to this question is that we are praising the fact that we
got up early to learn and are now getting on with the rest of our day. We
are grateful for the fact that we were able to toil in our torah learning,
and were able to use our time to run (in learning) towards heaven.



I thought of a different understanding. Elsewhere in Brachot Rabbeinu Tam
(if I remember correctly) asks why one doesn't make birchat hatorah
(blessings on the torah) every time one learns. He answers that since when
you stopped learning and went to work, you were (austenisbly) thinking about
your learning the entire time and were working solely so that you could get
back to the Beit Midrash. As such, there was no interruption between your
first learning, and any subsequent learning in the day, so you would not
make a new bracha.



With this in mind, we can understand this Gemarrah differently. When one
says "I toil" they could just as well mean in their work. They are saying "I
go to work and work hard, and they go to work and work hard" but since my
motivation for all the work is to further enable my torah study, I receive
reward not just for the torah study, but for the work too! Similarly, "I run
and they run" - I run around all day doing whatever I need to take care of,
and they do too, but all my running is with the end goal of getting back to
my relationship with Hashem, and as such, all the running around I do is
getting me closer to the World to Come.



This is why we say this at the end of our learning. It is to remind us when
we leave the beit midrash that we are not finishing with our daily dose of
religion. Rather that we must imbue the rest of our day with the same drive
and holiness that Torah learning provides, and remember that the ultimate
goal is to get back to learning and coming closer to Hashem.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110918/c711c21d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 18/09/2011 1:05 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I have no doubt that many will disagree with the article at
>  http://tinyurl.com/3p7plvb which says in part

Why are you even citing an article by a C "rabbi", who writes that:
> most modern readers critically view this story from a Kantian
> perspective ? how a benevolent God who forbids murder could command
> human sacrifice and how Abraham could be a model for humankind if he
> is willing to kill his son, even for God
; what do you expect such a kofer to see in chassidishe divrei torah?
To him indeed "The episode is not taken literally, or as real, but as a
spiritual metaphor for teaching the reader how to serve God", so naturally
he sees that in whatever sources he consults.  The three tzadikim he
cites certainly took the story literally and as real, and they were
certainly not bothered by its "ethical" implications, any more than were
any of the non-chassidic meforshim.  All one needs do is look at the
siddur and machzor to see the correct attitude, the universal Jewish
attitude to the akeda.  His claim that "Hasidic masters mostly had other
things on their minds" is just his own excuse to exploit and twist their
words for his own purposes.



-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

The nusach eretz Yisrael from the geniza is:
??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? 
??"? ???? ?????.
Sim shlom'kha 'al Yisrael amekha v'al 'irkha v'al nahaltekha 
uvarkhenu kulanu k'echad. BA"H 'oseh ha-shalom.

kvh"t,
David 

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:15:53PM +0300, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> The nusach eretz Yisrael from the geniza is:
...

Except that there are two other nusachos from the geniza, and AFAIK
none of them give context about where they were said. In addition to
Sim Shelomekha, there are also Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav.

Shalom Rav in particular is a candidate for Nusach EY, as it is used by
Ashkenazim but not Sepharadim. Although we would have to explain how it
traveled from EY to Ashkenaz without stopping off in Italy. But still,
it has the Roman Empire connection (as opposed to Bavel off in the
Sassanid [neo Persian?] Empire). And if we don't presume a Roman Empire
connection, then there is little reason to assume Nusach Kahir (Cairo)
has any connection to Nusach EY.

Interestingly, the version of Sim Shalom is identical to Ashkenaz.
The Cairo Geniza version of Sim Shalom doesn't have "bishlomekh" nor
"berov oz veshalom" in the phrase immediately before the chasimah.

Moreso than R' Saadia Gaon's, which I'll try to give here:
    Sim shalom tovah uvrakhah aleinu chein vachesed verachamim
    uvorkheinu kulanu ke'echad bime'or panekha
    ki mime'or panekha nasata lanu YYY E-lokeinu
    Torah vechaim, ahavah vachesed, tzedaqah verachamim
    vetov be'eimnekh levareik es amkha Yisrael bekhol eis.
    Sim shalom ba'olam
    ve'al amkha Yisrael yehi na shalom
    me'atah ve'ad alom.
    BA"H hamevreihk es amo Yisrael bashalom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Reform Judaism Magazine carried a story by Emily Langowitz about her
attempt to spend a week living as frum woman would. As for her motivation,
to quote, "For seven days, I would do every Jewish ritual I could think
of -- big or small, no exceptions -- to see whether rituals I had never
tried or been mindful of would be meaningful to me."

See <http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2854>.

She gives this beautiful description of that halachic Judaism is all
about, which is why I am writing about this here rather than on Areivim:

    The new level of observance I experienced during frum week also
    gave me a different way of connecting to God. Previously I believed
    that some undercurrent of Divinity was in the world around me; to
    experience it I simply needed to enter the world with open eyes
    and wait for God's presence to appear to me. During frum week,
    each action I took was a forced pause of mindfulness of the Divine,
    an awareness that my every deed was meant to advance me toward God,
    regardless of how I was feeling at that moment.

(Conceptions about feminism and the role of women in O pretty much
sabatoged the chance of a week 2.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

I had this sitting on my to-do list for a few days.

R Chaim Brown, claimng to lack the cheshek to write, posted three comments
about the collection of R' Gifter's letters available on Hebrewbooks.org.

RCB's post: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2011/09/rav-gifters-letters.html
The collection: http://hebrewbooks.org/50397

This example of zeh le'umas zeh seemed the kind of thing our chevrah
would be interested in:

    3. Rav Gifter quotes (p. 80-81) the AB"D of Telz (I am assuming he
    means R' Leizer Gordon here, unless it's R' Bloch?) as saying that
    if in Telz they don't eat butter made of cholov aku"m, in Paris
    they will be careful and not eat pig meat, but if in Telz they are
    meikil on butter, in Paris they will eat tarfus. I have seen the same
    idea quoted in the name of R' Yisrael Salanter, and I had assumed
    it reflected the notion that Klal Yisrael is a unified entity,
    and where the head goes, the tail will follow, albeit a few steps
    behind. However, R' Gifter quotes R' Daniel Movshovitz of Kelm (R'
    Simcha Zisel's SIL?) who understood the idea far more broadly. He says
    that GR"A's delving into the deepest truths of Torah in his little
    hidden kloiz in Vilna caused the light of truth to shine more brighly
    into the world, and because of that Immanuel Kant sitting a world
    away in Berlin was able to formulate his categorical imperative. (I
    don't know yiddish -- hope I'm right in assuming based on the context
    that it's the categorical imperative he is referring to. And just
    agav urcha, maybe I'm too cynical, but are the days when a gadol
    might refer to an insight of Kant as a "he'ora nifla'ah amukah"
    gone forvever? Just asking.)

His suggestion, as filtered through my exposure to R' Tzadoq, appears
to be (as per my subject line) that Gra and the Kant were consequences
of the same mystical revalation. In R' Tzadoq's thought whenever more
chokhmah comes to the world, it emerges in both Torah and chol venues.
He calls this zeh le'umas zeh, but the chol isn't always le'umas qodesh.
His example is Greek thought, I'm invoking it WRT Kant. Both were
harnessed and put to qodesh work. So I never understood his use of
the idiom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Last Shabbos I saw the following in the Meshekh Chokhmah (daf 202, amudah b;
a/k/a pg 403, top of 2nd column). See
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14061&;st=&pgnum=396>.

The Y-mi Berakhos says that one interrupts learning to build a sukkah
or set up a lulav.

Rashi (Mes' Sukkah) says that someone going to teach is patur from sukkah
and lulav.

The MC gives a "taam mufla" (his words) -- that learning just to learn is
something he could have done before being born. Learning only has value
if he is learning al menas la'asos. And this is the essence of Moshe's
answer to the mal'akhim at Har Sinai -- "It says 'kabeid es avikha', do
you have parents?" The ability to do a mitzvah, even a hechsher mitzvah,
is the whole justification of being born, and placing that seikhel which
can hold Torah into a body that can act.

However, that's not true for *teaching*. Therefore, the hekhsher to
teach Torah outranks mitzvos maasios even as the hekhsherim for those
very same mitzvos outrank learning.

The contrast to Nefesh haChaim cheleq IV and its ideal of Torah lishmah
appears to me to be drastic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:13:30AM -0700, Garry wrote:
> Moderator:  If this is too elementary for this list, I apologize; feel 
> free to omit.
>
> I have been puzzling over the list of vows in Kol Nidrei.  I finally have 
> some grasp of their halachic definitions, but I'm having trouble thinking 
> of modern day situations when each type of vow is made.  We have Neders,  
> Assurs, Cherems, Konams, Kinuyei, Kinusei, and Shevuot...

Nidrei -- I'm donating that shas to the yeshiva library.

Esarei -- From now on I'll be machmir not to eat chadash (in chu"l).

Shevu'ei -- I'll never eat one of those again.

Charamei -- You're not allowed to get any future benefit from me. (Nedarim
    47b) There is another flavor of cheirem, charmei kohanim, but we
    don't often donate something to a kohein for personal use, at least
    not qua kohein.

Qonam and qonas are foreign words that mean roughly the same thing as
qorban, and thus are examples of kinuyei. (See Nedarim 1:2) They were
used to avoid someone accidentally saying the idiom "qorban Lashem"
and thus take sheim H' lashav. But the mishnah is clear, they are kinuyim.

They are effectively kinuyei neder, as they are maqdish an object, and
don't know why they are spelled out on a list of expressions coined in
the days of the ge'onim. That long after qorbanos, who would use the
turn of phrase "like a sacrifice"?

Also, why do two examples of kinui straddle the word "vekinuyei"? I
could see "vekiniyuei [such as] qonamei veqinusei" or "qonamei, qinusei
[and other] kinuyei".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 187
***************************************

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..."