Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 116

Thu, 16 Aug 2012

• 1. is this ok (saul newman)
• 2. Re: is this ok (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Who did Hakhel? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Who did Hakhel? (Joel C. Salomon)
• 6. Re: Who did Hakhel? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Sleeves that Cover the Elbows (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Sleeves that Cover the Elbows (Chana Luntz)
• 9. The Talmud"s Many Demons (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 10. The Talmud"s Many Demons (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 11. Re: The Talmud"s Many Demons (Micha Berger)
• 12. I've Been Vindicated (mi...@aishdas.org)
• 13. Shimshon -- contemporary evidence (Micha Berger)

http://collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=21363&;alias=picture-of-the-day

would there be  any reason to say that  a functionary  of another religion
is somehow  not allowed  to  be mekayem  mitzvot  while  staying in that
status?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120815/b0da12fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/08/2012 5:06 PM, saul newman wrote:
>
> would there be  any reason to say that  a functionary  of another
> religion is somehow  not allowed  to  be mekayem  mitzvot  while
>  staying in that status?

Why would one say that?  Surely you must have a svara in mind, in order
to suggest such a thing.  What difference does it make to the Torah what
made-up position someone holds in a made-up religion?  Surely the only
thing that matters to the Torah is that this man is oved AZ, but in that
he is no different than a layman.  And it's clear from Tanach that a mumar
laAZ, while he might be like a nochri for some purposes, is still mechuyav
in mitzvos, and is punished for not keeping them.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I did not mean this as a metaphor.  I take it for granted that
> shedim do exist. ... I simply don't see a greater problem with
> believing in sheidim than in yetis. (The cat-ash recipe, OTOH,
> needs to be explained away somehow, because I can't believe
> that it actually works.)

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. But the cat-ash recipe
bothers me quite a bit, and I'm not satisfied with saying that it "needs to
be explained away somehow". I am stuck between these two ideas:

A) As RZS and others wrote, "sheidim" could be just another way of talking
about germs, radios, and psychological phenomena. We can leave it at that,
and wonder about the cat-ash recipe another day.

B) Or, perhaps the cat-ash recipe -- or more specifically, its ability to
make these sheidim large and visible -- demonstrates a fundamental error in
understanding the entire subject. The connection between sheidim and germs
doesn't merely need to be fine-tuned, but it needs to be thrown out
altogether.

R' Joel Rich cited Theodoric of York:

> "You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning
> all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease
> like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or
> witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering
> from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad
> or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

The problem with this response is that it addresses only conjecture and
developing theories. It cannot stand up to visual testimony. Indeed, we ARE
learning all the time, and explanations of what causes an illness will
constantly change. But when a reliable source says, "Do such-and-such, and
you WILL see the sheid," I must either believe it, or conclude that he was
hallucinating.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/502c505af2a78505a5815st04vuc

On 15/08/2012 5:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The shevatim returned in Yoshiahu yr 18. That's when they started
> counting the yovel -- not actually observing a yovel year.   There
> are 14 years of Yoshiahu and Yehoyakim and Yehoyachin were 11 yrs,
> Tzidqiyahu another 11. 14+11+11 = 36 years. So, as the gemara concludes
> (Eirchin 12b), the next yovel would have been 14 years after the churban.

I don't understand.  To get 17 yovlos in 850 years they *must* have
counted a yovel year during the 90 years that the shvatim were away,
as the Rambam says in Hil' Shmita veyovel ch 10.  The gemara you cite
is dealing with R Yehuda's opinion, but according to him one *never*
counts a yovel year, because the yovel is the first year of the next cycle.
So either way your statement  "That's when they started counting the yovel
  -- not actually observing a yovel year" doesn't seem to make sense.



> Yoshiahu's restoration of enough of the shevatim

Don't you mean Yirmiyahu?  What role did Yoshiyahu play in it?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:58:49PM -0400, R J Chesky Salomon wrote to Areivim:
> : Enough of the 10 shevatim returned under Yoshiyahu so they could have
> : a Yovel year; would Hakhel not have occurred as well?
>
> Since according to Qoheles Rabba it didn't, this shitah's answer must be
> "no". (I now also see that QR includes Rashi's source.) Now we just
> have to figure out why.
<snip>
> Yoshiahu's restoration of enough of the shevatim to restart yovel didn't
> lead to an opportunity for Haqhel.

But Haqhel takes place every 7 years, after shemitta.

Perhaps because the bulk of the 10 tribes remained in galus the
Haqhels under Yoshiyahu don't count?  (Presumably kings after Shelomo
-- Chizkiyahu at least -- read the torah in the Azarah but since the
10 tribes absented themselves QR doesn't count them.)

?Chesky

On 15/08/2012 5:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:58:49PM -0400, R J Chesky Salomon wrote to Areivim:
> : On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Micha Berger<mi...@aishdas.org>  wrote:
> :>  Side-note: Shelomo calls himself "Qoheles ben David" in a fit of Ruach
> :>  haQodesh. He was the only king to fulfill Haqhel -- before him there was
> :>  no BHMQ, and after him 10 of the shevatim wouldn't come. Related is the
> :>  yeish omerim in Rashi, that Qoheles is a collection of things said he
> :>  at Haqhel.
>
> : Enough of the 10 shevatim returned under Yoshiyahu so they could have
> : a Yovel year; would Hakhel not have occurred as well?
>
> Since according to Qoheles Rabba it didn't, this shitah's answer must be
> "no". (I now also see that QR includes Rashi's source.) Now we just
> have to figure out why.

Hang on, where in Qoheles Rabba does it say this?  I'm looking at it now
and I don't see it.  All I see is the same as Rashi's yesh omrim, that he's
called Koheles because his words were said at Hakhel.  Where do you see that
no other king did hakhel?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

At 05:50 PM 8/15/2012, Chana Luntz wrote:


>Rav Henkin thus concludes on pages 24-25:
>
>     It thus emerges from Rashi, Yerushalmi and Korban Ha-Edah that pritzut
>     in exposure of the upper arms comes not from the arms themselves
>     but from the body being visible via the arms. ...
>
>Rav Henkin himself prefers to follow the view that more than a tefach of the
>upper arms is a problem, and hence writes as follows:
>
>     A typology can be established according to this as follows:
>
>     1. sleeveless dresses - forbidden by all opinions, as the body can
>        be seen;
>
>     2. short sleeves, loose - forbidden if body can be seen;
>
>     3. short sleeves, tight - body cannot be seen, but prohibited if
>     most of the upper arm is uncovered (rubo k'kulo);
>
>     4. sleeves halfway to elbow - proscribed because of tefach meguleh,
>        room for limmud zechut;
>
>     5. sleeves to within a tefach of the elbow - minimum permitted;
>
>     6. sleeves to elbow - recommended;
>
>     7. sleeves to below elbow - first level chumra;
>
>     8. sleeves to wrists - second level chumra.
>
>     The above does not supplant any communal or familial minhag.

Then I guess I have to conclude that what R. Fuchs wrote in Halichos 
Bas Yisroel is either misleading or incorrect or both.  See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bas_yisroel.pdf

On the other hand, given the Kedusha of EY wouldn't one expect women 
living there to conduct themselves at least according to 7 above.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/f82a33af/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL writes:


>Then I guess I have to conclude that what R. Fuchs wrote in Halichos Bas
Yisroel is either misleading or incorrect or both.  See

>http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bas_yisroel.pdf 



Yes, exactly.

 

Rav Henkin wrote Understanding Tzniut and various other articles and pieces
because he was concerned that standards were being articulated at the most
chumradik level to an audience without the knowledge to determine when (or
whether) what they are being told is a chumra, and when it is not.  

 

There is, unfortunately, a lot around on this topic that is indeed
misleading or incorrect (or correct only for particular communities) or
both.  


>On the other hand, given the Kedusha of EY wouldn't one expect women living
there to conduct themselves at least according to 7 above. 



There is an assumption here, that chumra equals kedusha.  

 

But there are good reasons to understand that not to be the case.  The one
time that we had a conflict between a more stringent opinion and a more
lenient opinion and it was resolved by HaShem himself, namely the disputes
between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, HaShem ruled in accordance with Beis
Hillel.

 

And two reasons are given in the gemora there (Eruvin 13b) - one is
precisely because Hillel was the more lenient, and Shammai was the more
strict and the second was because Beis Hillel studied both their own
opinions and the opinions of Beis Shammai, but not the reverse.

 

And to make reference to a recent daf yomi - we see this in action.  Beis
Shammai held that when saying krias shema in the morning, one was required
to stand up, and when saying it in the evening, one was required to sit
down, while Beis Hillel did not require any special positioning (Brochos
10b).  So, a number of rabbis thought - well what is the harm in doing it
Beis Shammai's way - as a chumra - it doesn't contradict Beis Hillel, it
just adds to it.   So for example R' Elazar on Brochos 11a where he was
standing up, but decided to lie down to say Shema - and Rabbi Yishmael
criticised him, because, even if he was only following a chumra, the
students might see and assume that was the halacha, distorting the halacha.

 

So too here, if these women had not dressed the way they did, RYL over in
America (not to mention others in Eretz Yisrael) might have no reason to
learn that there is a lot more variance in the halacha than he is or they
are aware of.  That is surely a mailah and arguably more fittingly derived
from the kedusha of eretz yisroel than following mere chumra.

 

And indeed the second story on Brochos 11a has R' Tarfon going on the way,
and davka going out of his way to lie down to say the evening Shema, to be
choshesh for the view of Beis Shammai, and he then concludes that he put
himself in danger from bandits, and the Chachamim say that it would have
been appropriate if he had indeed come to harm - and here it doesn't sound
like there were anybody (except possible bandits) watching.  The message
would thus seem to be that inappropriate chumra may at times be more
destructive and wrong than going m'ikar hadin,

 

BTW on one of Avodah and Areivim recently, there was a bit of a discussion
about MO citing more charedi poskim but not vice versa, as if that was some
sort of a lack.  Rather I would have thought we see from the whole incident
with Beis Hillel, Beis Shammai and the Bas Kol, that citing more stringent
opinions that one does not agree with is the derech of Beis Hillel and does
not mean that one ultimately holds that one must or should follow such
positions or such poskim.


>YL

 

Regards

 

Chana

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/ef35481a/attachment-0001.htm>

Chaza"l failed in their attempts to see them because they 
didn't have the tools.  Today, we have the tools to detect 
them and have given names to many of the demons, e.g., 
germs, microbes, bacteria, microorganisms, viruses, etc. 
We've even found them in water. all kinds of usually 
invisible single or multiple cells, amoeba, paramoecia, 
etcetria and etcetria.

We even have found some of the good demons, yehudain, and 
they are added to our yoghurt and called probiotics that 
improve digestion.

Very brilliant of chazal to have figured out the existence 
of invisible demons and differentiating between types, from 
noting the results of their activities without any further 
knowledge of how to see them or control their actions.

As has been already pointed out, that's definitely not what chazal 
meant by demons. They were not speaking metaphorically. 
However, I've given the following analogy which seem to resonate 
well with my students:	If someone were told in the 18th century that	   
									   
									   
						     there was a machine
which gave invisible rays, and if you stood in front 
of it, and allowed the invisible rays to penetrate your body, within a few 
hours or days (exact time is irrelevant for the analogy), you would be dead,
you would say the person was mentally deranged and demented. Then
if the same person continued and said that a similar machine also gave 
off invisible rays and if you had cancer and allowed the rays to penetrate
the tumor, you would be healed, you would "KNOW" with certainty that 
your original analysis of this person's mental state was validated. 
Get the point??  Context is everything! 

The closer one comes to context, the closer one comes to truth
rw  Aug. 16 2012

For me context is the key - from that comes the understanding of everything.
Kenneth Noland (1924-2010)  One of the best-known contemporary American Color field painters




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/1d3ea7b4/attachment-0001.htm>

There's a big difference between skipping the topic and ridiculing it 
the way this guy does.

"This guy" is not ridiculing it at all.
Whereas Rabbi A. Miller skipped it and said he could not teach what
he could not understand, this guy has much more of an insight and
understanding and therefore tells it like it is. If one doesn't like that, it is
quite unfair to say he is ridiculing it. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/48f83685/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:19:47AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
:> There's a big difference between skipping the topic and ridiculing it 
:> the way this guy does.

:> "This guy" is not ridiculing it at all.
:> Whereas Rabbi A. Miller skipped it and said he could not teach what
:> he could not understand, this guy has much more of an insight and
:> understanding and therefore tells it like it is. If one doesn't like
:> that, it is quite unfair to say he is ridiculing it. 

(This topic has gotten a little Areivim-y, but since Cantor Wolberg
doesn't get Areivim, I'm bending the border a bit.)

I don't know if we can assume Adam Kirsch has "much more of an insight".
He may have more secular education, and thus a historical eye toward
Chazal's context. But knowledge isn't insight. With Torah, it's
internalization of knowledge; with academia, one tries one's best to
stay objective. Academic knowledge doesn't provide Torah insight.

R Avigdor Miller, like the denizens of an O mailing list, take Chazal's
words seriously enough to try to find any possible way of understanding
them as saying something we consider within the realm of possibility.

For some of us that may mean adjusting our notion of what is possible.
Are demons more unlikely than angels? But if so, what's with that
cat-ash formula?

For others, it means understanding them as taking the general approach
of utilizing the philosophical theories of their day. In taking this
approach we would ask what phenomena they're trying to address, and how
do we take a parallel approach using the science of /our/ day.

Another direction would be that Prof Levine has been advocating, the
approach of the Rambam, RSRH, RYS and others, that Chazal's non-halachic
writings are allegorical. (PERHAPS a way to balance the desire to record
these ideas with the desiderata of not recording TSBP. Allegory wouldn't
work for halakhah, but for aggadita, the approach at least gives the
mnemonics that would help keep the Oral tradition going.)

Falsifying the "common knowledge" that Chazal repeated for their mashal
has nothing to do with the truth of the nimshal.

All of which are approaches that presume that Chazal know what they're
talking about and our job is to glean wisdom from their words. An idea
central to RAM's teachings (although I doubt he would like the "allegory"
approach much) and yet something we can't take for granted is shared by a
blogger for the Tablet. His thesis is to laud how much Judaism allegedly
"progressed" since the days those words were penned.

And even if Mr Kirsch didn't intend ridicule, the Table's editor chose
a belittling graphic -- a black cat with Rashi and Tosafos on the sides,
as though the cat was the gemara.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I don't like to beat a dead horse (pardon the pun), but I felt recently
like I was a lone voice. Obviously, Dr. Tali Lowenthal is a recognized
authority and has a PhD in Chassidism. I just received the following
article from Chabad.org and it uses the word "PAINLESS"! (Emphasis
is mine).

    Why Shechitah Is Important
    By Tali Loewenthal

    The Jewish people today are facing many conflicts. One of these
    concerns shechitah, the ritual slaughter of fowls, lambs and beef
    so that Jews are permitted to eat the meat. A number of groups are
    applying pressure in an attempt to ban shechitah, or to impose
    government laws which would prevent it from being carried out
    effectively.

    Why is it important to protect our right to perform shechitah?

    In practical terms, shechitah is virtually painless for the
    animal. The special shechitah knife is honed razor sharp: if it
    sliced a person's finger he would not feel it. The act of shechitah
    generally cuts the carotid arteries, causing immediate cessation
    of the blood supply to the brain. This is an effective, swift and
    pain-free stunning procedure. Many contrast this with the fixed bolt
    form of stunning used in non-kosher slaughter which anti-meat-eating
    groups describe in very negative terms.

    In terms of life in modern society, there is another issue:
    religious tolerance. We live in a pluralist society where freedom
    for religious practice can be claimed so long that it does no harm
    to other human beings. As mature human beings in the 21st century,
    we can claim acceptance of shechitah as a human right. Further,
    attacks on shechitah are often a disguised form of anti-Semitism:
    during World War II, shechitah was banned in all countries under
    Nazi control.

    The real issue, however, is the spiritual question. The Torah commands
    the Jew to use the method of shechitah in order to eat meat.

    The Torah does not regard meat-eating as something to be taken
    for granted. Before Noah, human beings were not permitted to eat
    meat. Then, in a law given by G-d to Noah after the Flood, meat
    eating became permitted as long as the animal is killed first. We
    generally understand this law, applying to all humanity, as demanding
    avoidance of wanton cruelty to animals.

    For the Jew, of course, there are further restrictions. Since we are a
    special people, with a special spiritual task in the world, additional
    rules apply to us. Only certain animals can be eaten: the kosher
    animals ("kosher" means fit, suitable). The rules for kosher animals,
    birds and fish are given in the Torah.1 If the animal is unhealthy,
    again it is forbidden. The word treif (which we use for non-kosher)
    literally means "torn": an animal which has been torn internally
    and is ill may not be eaten by a Jew.2 The Torah also tells us that
    blood may not be eaten, and meat and milk must be kept separate.3

    There is more. For the Jewish people in the time of Moses, meat
    could only be eaten when it was part of a sacrifice brought to
    the Sanctuary. In a sense, the meat was considered sacred. Then,
    shortly before entering the Land of Israel, the Jewish people were
    told that they could eat meat, but only if they slaughter it in a
    special way.4 This method was revealed to Moses at Sinai. It was
    the mode of slaughter used in the Sanctuary and Temple, and it is
    still used by the Jewish slaughterer (shochet) today.

    All food, including plants and animals, has within it a spiritual
    life-force. Chassidic teachings tell us that when a Jew eats permitted
    food and serves G-d with the energy it gives him or her, a crucial
    spiritual cycle is completed, helping to perfect the universe.5 This
    is our global task. The detailed laws and practice of shechitah help
    us to carry it out, for the ultimate benefit of all humanity.

    FOOTNOTES
    """""""""
    1. Deuteronomy 14:3-21
    2. Exodus 22:30
    3. Deuteronomy 12:23-25; 14:21 as explained by the Sages
    4. Deuteronomy 12:21. See Rashi
    5. See Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi's Tanya Part 1, chapters 7 and 37

H/T Avakesh blog.

See http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/article00524.html

    Archaeologists of the Tel Aviv University have unearthed a seal,
    measuring about a half-inch in diameter, which depicts a human
    figure next to a lion at the archaeological site of Beth Shemesh,
    located between the Biblical cities of Zorah and Eshtaol.

It realy does look like a long-haired man fighting some animal that
could well have a mane.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 116
***************************************

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..."