Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 121

Thu, 30 Aug 2012

• 1. Re: mi k(h)mocha (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: How Does G"d Put On Tefillin (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. mezuzah (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: mezuzah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Siyum Sources (Micha Berger)
• 6. When Are Mitzos Rewarded, The Passul Mezuza (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Re: When Are Mitzos Rewarded, The Passul Mezuza (Zev Sero)
• 8. Ein haPargod Nin'al biFneihem (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: mi k(h)mocha (Poppers, Michael)
• 10. When Are Mitzos Rewarded, The Passul Mezuza (Meir Rabi)
• 11. Tzniyus; At What Age? (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Avoiding Sefeikos, Ben Pekuah and Fruit from ChuL (Meir Rabi)
• 13. Amida with 24 brachot (Lisa Liel)

On 23/08/2012 5:29 PM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
> In the b'rachot after shema, why do we say mi KHamokha baeilim HaShem,
>      mi Kamokha nedar bakodesh. In other words, why is there a dagesh in
>      the second Kamokha, but not in the first?

So it should not sound like "Hashem Micha".

-- 
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

 

From: Arie Folger <_afolger@aishdas.org_ (mailto:afol...@aishdas.org) >

Dear  Ovedim,

About ten days ago someone posted a link to an article in  Tablet
magazine critical of aggadeta's theology. Posters on list focused  on
the author's focus on demonology, however I want to address his  other
points, about anthropomorphism in the aggadeta, particularly  regarding
G"d's tefillin. I penned a response on my blog, which I am linking  to
here: 
_http://ariefolger.wordp
ress.com/2012/08/17/did-the-talmud-suggest-gd-has-a-head-learning-to-interp
ret-rabbinic-legend/_ 
(http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2012/08/17
/did-the-talmud-suggest-gd-has-a-head-learning-to-interpre
t-rabbinic-legend/) 


Reactions  welcome. Kol tuv,

--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on _http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/_ 
(http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/) 

 
>>>>
 
A foolish man wrote,  "How exactly can G-d wear tefillin? Can we  imagine 
G-d with an arm and a forehead?" -- a very foolish man who imagines  that he 
is the wise man and the rabbis of old are the fools.
 
You answered him very well and explained what is meant by G-d's tefillin,  
basing your answer on the gemara.  But I want to add my own  remarks, based 
on a piyut that is said in many shuls every  Shabbos.
 
In "An'im zemiros" it says, "Dimu oscha velo kefi yeshcha, vayashavucha  
lefi ma'asecha" which means, "They have compared You [or described You] but 
not  as You are, rather they described You [or allegorized You] according to 
Your  deeds."  
 
The piyut goes on to say that Hashem has often been described in physical  
terms, but these are all allegorical.  "Vayechezu vecha zikna uvacharus" --  
they have visualized You in both old age and in young manhood, as a 
white-haired  old man on the Yom Hadin and as a black-haired young man in war time, 
when  Hashem fights our enemies for us.
 
Then it says, "Pe'eiro alai ufe'eiri alav" -- His splendor is on me and my  
splendor is on Him -- referring to His tefillin that we wear and our 
tefillin  that He wears.  "Kesher tefillin her'ah le'anav" -- He showed the knot 
of  His tefillin to the humble one, i.e., to Moshe Rabbeinu.  Moshe was only  
allowed to see the back of Hashem after He passed by but could not see His 
face  -- in reality, He could not see His back either, but saw something 
that looked  like a figure wrapped in a tallis, and saw the tefillin knot worn 
at the back of  the neck.  What Moshe saw was not anything physical in 
reality, but the  effects of Hashem having passed by.
 
That Hashem wears tefillin expresses an idea that Hashem is tied to us with 
 bonds of love, as we are tied to Him with love.  What does a man say in 
the  morning when he puts on tefillin?  He repeats Hashem's words to us, as  
written in Sefer Hoshea, "Ve'eirasteech li le'olam, I will betroth you to Me  
forever."  That Hashem wears tefillin indicates that He loves us and is  
bound to us in a relationship that can never be severed.
 
Many of the phrases and words in An'im Zemiros are quoted and borrowed from 
 Shir Hashirim, in which the relationship between the Ribono Shel Olam and 
Am  Yisrael is allegorized as a relationship between a husband and wife who 
love  each other and who see each other as beautiful beyond compare. The 
description  of the "beloved man" is all physical -- black hair, lips of honey, 
fingers of  ivory with precious stones inlaid, legs of marble and so on -- 
yet no one would  imagine that this is meant to be an actual description of 
a physical  presence!  It is all allegory beginning to end, and that is 
exactly what  An'im Zemiros says.
 
In that very piyut it talks about Hashem's tefillin, which -- it could  not 
be stated more clearly -- is allegorical.  "Dimu oscha velo kefi  yeshcha."
 
This is not news, that physical descriptions of Hashem are meant  
allegorically.  An'im Zemiros was written in the twelfth century, and Shir  Hashirim 
was written by Shlomo Hamelech.
 
There are people who imagine that they are oh so intellectual  and 
sophisticated to read poetry allegorically, while the chachamim of  old were 
childlike and unsophisticated and read poetry literally.  Such  people are 
dishonoring our ancestors and merely flattering themselves.
 
I would like to add a word about poetry -- about shira.  In poetry it  is 
possible to find a depth of emotion, of love and longing and yearning, that  
one cannot express in plain prose.  A person with a poetic heart and mind  
will read about Hashem's tefillin and feel that poignancy and that depth of 
love  that Hashem has for His people and the yearning that we have for Him, 
especially  in Elul.  "Ani ledodi vedodi li."
 
A person who just thinks pragmatically -- "So, exactly how /does/  Hashem 
put on His tefillin, and were our ancestors more or less  mentally 
sophisticated than we are?" -- is just so, so, so MISSING THE  POINT!  Missing the 
whole beauty, depth and intensity of the bond  between the Ribono Shel Olam and 
Am Yisrael.
 
 

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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120823/dedf048d/attachment-0001.htm>

<< On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:23:06PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Nevertheless it is brought down that the mezuza protects the house (see
: story with Onkeles).

The Rambam would say that the mitzvah of mezuzah earns shemirah. Straight
sekhar va'onesh, nothing about the power of an object.  >>

Nevertheless it is clear that it is the mitzvah of mezuzah that gives
shmira and not just
getting schar from any mitzvah.
Also halachically one should put the mezuzah as far outside as possible to
include whatever possible of the house within the shmira.

Connecting this to "inanei de-yoma" while during asetert yemei hateshuva
all mitzvot are encouraged nevertheless the stress is
on certain mitzvot like charity and prayer as saving us and not just the
schar from any mitzvah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120824/bc0fa7e8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:39:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> The Rambam would say that the mitzvah of mezuzah earns shemirah. Straight
:> sekhar va'onesh, nothing about the power of an object.
: 
: Nevertheless it is clear that it is the mitzvah of mezuzah that gives
: shmira and not just getting schar from any mitzvah.

But midah keneged midah would imply that the sekhar for having a reminder
of the true Shomer dalsos Yisrael whenever you enter your shelter would
be shemirah.

Just as someone who isn't medaqdeiq in sanctifying the act of eating,
elevating a basically animalistic activity, runs the risk of timtum
haleiv and being as spiritually insensitive as an animal.

: Also halachically one should put the mezuzah as far outside as possible to
: include whatever possible of the house within the shmira.

There are two reasons given on Menakhos 33b for Raba's statement that the
mezuzah should be on the tefach closest to reshus harabim. The Rabbanan
say that it's in order to encounter the mitzvah as early as possible. R'
Chanina of Sura says it's so that more of the house gets shemira.

Is R' Chanina offering a fundamentally different answer than the
Rabbanan? Or is he saying that we want to encounter the mitzvah as
early as possible SO THAT more of the house gets shemira. (Why not simply
zerizim maqdimim? I don't know.) I would suggest that the followup quote,
also from R' Chanina leans away from a mechanistic interpretation of
the shemirah of the mezuzah. He contrasts a king to HQBH. A king sits
inside and the nation guards him, but HQBH "avadav yoshevin mibifnim,
vehu mashamran mibachutz." It wouldn't be a meaningful followup to R'
Chanina emphasizing the object of the mezuzah as a step between between
HQBH and the shemirah. (In this, R' Chanina is paraphrasing Unqelus
haGeir's response to the Roman soldiers sent to fetch him on AZ 11a. The
quote different pesuqim, though.)

: Connecting this to "inanei de-yoma" while during asetert yemei hateshuva
: all mitzvot are encouraged nevertheless the stress is
: on certain mitzvot like charity and prayer as saving us and not just the
: schar from any mitzvah

And I'm saying that /is/ sekhar. By extending ourselves to others and
connecting to HQBH we do more to earn being saved in particular than
with other mitzvos. Besides, teshuvah, tefillah and tzedaqah are Torah,
Avodah and Gemillus Chassadim, respectively. We're committing to renewing
the foundations upon which the rest of Avodas H' stands.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

Another source is the Rama's explanation of why R' Papa's 10 sons
are mentioned in every siyum. R' Papa grew wealthy selling beer, and
used to throw lavish parties for the siyumim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:13:06 -0400
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> If the mezuzah is pasul then the mitzvah is *not* being done properly.

The Gemara insists that HKBH is Metzaref a well intentioned plan and
deems it to be as though it was performed. Whoever takes proper care
to install a Kosher Mezuzah gets the full Sechar of having had a Kosher
Mezuzah, in spite of the fact that it is Passul.

I presume there is a difference if we need to rely upon this Machshova
Tova for this person's Sechar or if we need to establish a Halachic
status that reflects upon secondary considerations, such as when a
mikveh is discovered to have been pasul making terumah tamei; or he
who discovers that he isn't Jewish, making the animal he shechted treif,
the mezuzah he wrote pasul, etc.

So even in these cases he will receive full Sechar, even though he DID
NOT DO IT. He does not need to do it to be rewarded, to be loyal.

> This is pashut and I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

Best,
Meir G. Rabi

On 25/08/2012 5:15 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
>
> The Gemara insists that HKBH is Metzaref a well intentioned plan
> and deems it to be as though it was performed.

"Metzaref" means "joins".   Hashem joins a good thought to a deed done
without thought.  What has that got to do with pretending someone has
done a mitzvah when he has not?  Where did you get such an idea?  What
does "keman de`avad lo amrinan" mean?


> Whoever takes proper care to install a Kosher Mezuzah gets the full
> Sechar of having had a Kosher Mezuzah, in spite of the fact that it is Passul.

That is absolutely without foundation.  I cannot imagine where you could
have seen such a thing.


> So even in these cases he will receive full Sechar, even though he DID
> NOT DO IT. He does not need to do it to be rewarded, to be loyal.

Sechar mitzvah is not for being loyal, it's for doing the mitzvah.  If
you didn't, then what are you getting sechar for?



-- 
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

H/T R' Mordechai Torczyner <http://torahbyemail.blogspot.com/>

BM 59a (also Tanchuma Noach 4):
    Amar Rav Avohu
    3 devarim ein hapargod nin'al bifneihem:
        ona'ah
        vegezel
        vaA"Z
    Ona'ah, dikhsiv:
        "Hinei H' nitzav al chomas anakh
        uvYado anakh." (Amos 7:7)
    Gezeilah, dikhsiv...

(I had to look up "anakh". It's a plumbline.)

I'm wondering. If HQBH won't stop looking (especially) at someone's
"geneivishe shtick", why does R' Avohu need to mention actual gezeilah,
never mind prove it from a separate pasuq?

And would R' Avohu say this means "teshuvah tefillah utzedaqah" about
everything else in someone's year won't amount to a hill of beans if
he didn't do something about these three aveiros in particular? That's
what I would take away from being told they're not ignorable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

In Avodah V30n120, R'Micha wrote:
> Shemos 15:11...the trop matches: the first "mi-khamokha" has a maqaf connecting the
words, the "mi kamokha" does not.
> There are two other such inconsistancies in Pesuqei Dezimra -- this is based on the mesoretic text, not your siddur publisher:
> Tehillim 148:2:
    Haleluhu khol mal'akhav
    haleluhu kol  tzeva'av
> and Teh' 150:5:
    Heleluhu vetziltzelei shama
    Heleluhu betziltzelei seru'ah
> And again the trop too fits. In both cases the first iteration has a
merkha for haleluhu connecting it to the next word, and the second has a
revia-mugrash (a trop specific to sifrei Emes -- Iyov, Mishlei, Tehillim). <
"Mi kamocha" is an exception to the observed rule re elision of a dageish
qal (i.e. based on the rule, it should really be "mi chamocha" -- among
other satisfied criteria, the two words are connected because there's a
ta'am m'shareis on the first word, not a ta'am mafsiq).  In my Hirsch
T'hilim, the first "Hal'luhu" of both 148:2 and 150:5 has a d'chi [and a
dageish qal in the kaf] -- no reason for elision -- but if your text has a
meircha, a m'shareis, no surprise the dageish qal of the following word's
first, BGDKFTh consonant is elided by rule, so I'm unsure why you refer to
them as "inconsistancies," unless you're asking why different trop were
used for similar phrases, for which the answer may be musical/usage
regardless of whether the first "hal'luhu" in each case has a m'shareis or
a mafsiq.

Regarding a pasuq found in the siddur which exhibits an exception to the
dageish-qal-elision rule, I understood another example to be at the end of
Minchah l'Shabbas, in "Tzidqas'cha"'s "adam uvheimah toshi'a H'" (36:7),
where by rule the dageish in the 3rd word should be elided (NB: one should
pause between "toshi'a" and "H'," especially as "adam uvheimah" and
"toshi'a" are connected despite "toshi'a" exhibiting an exception to the
elision rule)...but I see that the Hirsch T'hilim graces "uvheimah" with a
r'vi'a mugrash, so if I'm being consistent in this post, I have to withdraw
that example :). 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

I posted earlier;
 The Gemara insists that HKBH is Metzaref a well intentioned plan

> and deems it to be as though it was performed.
>>
>
Zev responded;

> "Metzaref" means "joins".   Hashem joins a good thought to a deed done
> without thought.


I now ask Zev;
Do you mean that HKBH CREATES a good thought to join to the action that was
performed without thought?
Or do yo mean that the action, performed without good thought, or performed
with negative thought, will be corrected when connected to a good thought
that is later on provided by doer of that action? i.e. when he regrets and
is Chozer.

Regarding Zev's defining of the word Metzaref meaning "joins";
Metzaref means "refines" The joining you are thinking of is the joining
that is achieved between the elements when the impurities are removed from
the mix. HKBH instructs that we should Shecht from the throat and not chop
from the back of the neck, in order to be Metzaref humanity, LeTzaRef Es
HaBeRiyos.

Regarding; "keman de`avad lo amrinan":
it means, if you have not been able to perform the Mitzvah of Lulav for
example, and then near the end of the day get the opportunity to perform
it, you must perform it.

Zev asks what is the foundation that whoever takes proper care to install a
Kosher Mezuzah gets the full Sechar of having had a Kosher Mezuzah, in
spite of the fact that it is Passul.

The source for this is your heart. We KNOW it is right because HKBH is
looking for loyalty. Is this not the imagery we all hold so precious, that
HKBH treasures the commitment of Avraham and sees Avraham's slaughtered son
Yitzchak. Indeed, this is a highlight of our High Holiday imagery.

Zev also argues that:

> Sechar mitzvah is not for being loyal, it's for doing the mitzvah.  If
> you didn't, then what are you getting sechar for?


But it is clear that SeChar Mitzvah is most certainly for being loyal and
loyalty is a matter of the heart. RaChaMaNa LiBa Ba'i, Gd desires the
heart, that means the heart and not the action.

An action without heart is worse than nothing, it is an attempt to bribe
Gd, to twist Gd's arm, to fool Gd. It illustrates a stupidity that is
unforgivable. What does any person feel when they become aware that the
pledges of loyalty and commitment were not at all altruistic but for a
self-serving purpose? That is unforgivable. Those emotions we experience
are the resonance of our Neshama. It is the Tzelem in which we are created.
It is the foundation of the anthropomorphism that is the substance of our
communication with Gd.

Zev seems to be looking at HKBH as though He is a machine; you wont get a
snack from the machine unless you put in a coin or find a suitable decoy.
But HKBH is a Zaidy, when everyone else is deservedly scolding this naughty
child, Zaidy hugs her and gives her prizes and tells her I KNOW YOU ARE A
GOOD GIRL AND DONT MEAN TO BE NAUGHTY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120829/31f987df/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see the article by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz at http://tinyurl.com/9otn776

: It was suggested that since breeding herds of BP would sidestep
: Hilchos Shechitah,Tereifos, Cheilev and Gid, it must be a non preferred
: option.

Reb Micha says
SA YD 13:4 says that the child of two BP would require shechitah
medrabbanan.
But the general question of whether it's a bad thing to engineer an
avoidance of a qiyum asei in order to avoid poasible issurim is itself
an interesting one. It reminds me of the people on-list who preferred
eating non-Israeli produce so as to avoid making mistakes in hafrashas
teruman uma'aser. Rather than learning how to be mafrish and thereby
get those mitzvos, a holier fruit, and aiding the Jewish economy in EY.

I should like to make the following observations:
Requiring Shechita MiDeRabbanan does not promote it to the preferred Torah
option, if there is such a thing.
Fruit from EY can be assumed to have greater Qeddusha and certainly
supports industry and the economy in EY, two very good reasons to embrace
fruit from EY in spite of their increased risk of MitHaBaAretz

However, BP has only upsides, unless we suggest that Shechita has a
positive spiritual value, as does removing Gid and Cheilev.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120830/41fb800e/attachment-0001.htm>

When do we have an Amida with 24 brachot?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120830/d514fbe6/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 121
***************************************

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..."