Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 20

Mon, 04 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: Hanaah from Chametz (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Hanaah from Chametz (Zev Sero)
• 4. partnership minyanim (saul newman)
• 5. new sources on internet (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Jonathan Baker)
• 7. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Zev Sero)
• 8. Sisra and Yael (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. hazaka (Simi Peters)
• 10. tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Chana Luntz)

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:44:57PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Mishne Berura 448:28 -- "Because he gets hanaah, in that he fulfills
: his desire to satisfy the animal. And see the Beis Yosef, that even if
: he finds chametz which isn't his own, it is also assur to throw it in
: front of a dog."
...
: >From there, my mind jumped to another situation which seems very
: similar. Suppose one is in an ordinary non-Jewish supermarket on Chol
: Hamoed Pesach, and a non-Jewish shopper asks me, "Sir, I cannot reach
: those cookies. Could you please hand me that box of cookies?" Being a
: nice guy, it is my nature to want to be helpful, and so I cheerfully
: pass it to him. Was that mutar or assur?

I would think assur for two reasons.

First, hana'ah.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:07:21AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> A possible chiluk: your hana'ah, to the extent that you have any, is from
> handing him the box, not the contents; it would be the same regardless of
> what the contents were.  He could just as easily have asked you to hand
> down a box of matzah, or a roll of toilet paper.

And the animal could just as well been given non-chameitz feed. The
hana'ah isn't from the wheat -- had you found rice based food you would
have been just as glad.

Second issur: it's not mei'ever lanahar so it's not lifnei iveir, but
isn't it mesayei'ah?

Back to RAM's post:
: Someone suggested that this might be another example of Eivah and/or
: Chilul haShaym. I certainly don't want him going home and complaining,
: "That Jew was standing right there and wouldn't help me out!"

But if it's assur, it's assur. You wouldn't violate Shabbos derabbanan
for this level of eivah, would you?

What I do in awkward situations that I can't get out of is share with
them my experience. Here it would invite empathy rather than enmity.
Give them a simplistic level of the points of this discussion against,
say something like, "It's the very inclination to help another Jew that
makes it hard to help you ignore this gift of Passover. You know, garlic
salt and butter on matzah tastes pretty good..." (That last line must be
said with a huge wry grin to work, so that they know you're half-joking
and not giving real diet advice...)

If the conversation goes well, maybe you'll have a guest for a Shabbos
ch"m meal!

But at least you'll create understanding and get both of you a few
moments of mitzvah of talmud Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:02:52PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: No, it's not. Read the scholarship, read the texts.  Sure, there's meditative
: material in Chasidism which is drawn from the earlier ideas, and in other
: kabbalistic texts, but Kabbalah itself was a new creation written (or revealed)
: in the 1200s.  It did not form part of the old Merkabah mysticism in either
: case. 

As I wrote yesterday, I think that the particular area of nistar we tend
to call Qabbalah is from the Bahir, not the Zohar.

Merkavah mysticism evolves into the heikhalos literature.

The Bahir develops angelology futher. But it also mixes in ideas from
peirushim on seifer haYetzirah. Thus, seifer haYetzirah's 10 sefiros,
which are only discussed in terms of being a 10-fold count, are identified
with 10 high angels / spiritual existences to become the sefiros we
later find in the Eitz Chaim.

The Zohar then has the basic ideas, and adds to the structure.

To my mind the next discontinuity, where a new idea is published rather
than details and develops added to an existing system, is by the Ari.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 31/01/2013 5:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>> A possible chiluk: your hana'ah, to the extent that you have any, is from
>> handing him the box, not the contents; it would be the same regardless of
>> what the contents were.  He could just as easily have asked you to hand
>> down a box of matzah, or a roll of toilet paper.

> And the animal could just as well been given non-chameitz feed. The
> hana'ah isn't from the wheat -- had you found rice based food you would
> have been just as glad.

However, your intention is specifically for the food; the hana'ah you get
(such as it is) is from the dog being *fed*, not just being given an object.
If the dog were for some reason not able toeat what you had given it, you
would not achieve your goal.  So if it happens to be chametz it's easy to
see how your hana'ah is coming from chametz.  But here you don't care what
is in the box.  Your hana'ah (again such as it is) is merely from handing
the box to the person, and it makes no difference to you what it contains.
For all you care it could even be empty.  That in this case it happens to
contain edible chametz doesn't is therefore arguably irrelevant to your
hana'ah.


> Second issur: it's not mei'ever lanahar so it's not lifnei iveir, but
> isn't it mesayei'ah?

Mesayeia` what?  The chametz is perfectly muttar to the other shopper.
Why shouldn't you help him buy it?


>  "It's the very inclination to help another Jew [...]
> If the conversation goes well, maybe you'll have a guest for a Shabbos
> ch"m meal!

We're talking about a non-Jewish shopper, so this doesn't arise.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/
item/partnership_minyanim_a_response_to_rabbi_barry_freundel
http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/ite
m/partnership_minyanim_a_follow_up_by_rabbi_zev_farber
http://www.jewishjournal.com/more
thodoxy/item/partnership_minyanim_a_defense_and_encomium_by_rabbi_zev_farbe
r

all in response to--

http://torahmusings.com/2013/01/partnership-minyanim/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20130131/146e46a5/attachment.html>

*I am pleased to inform you that several new ETC publications are NOW
available on Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy?s wonderful Torah resource site
www.halakhah.com (http://halakhah.com/index.html).*

* *

*Newly uploaded are:*

* *

***1.     ****An updated and revised edition of 25 RULES FOR PERFORMING
MITZVOHS derived from the famous Halachic compendium, the Chayei Odom.
This is available at   http://halakhah.com/rst/25rules.pdf.*

***2.     ****A completely new translation with commentaries of SEFER
MISHLEI (the Book of Proverbs).   This you can find at
http://halakhah.com/rst/mishlei.pdf.*

***3.     ****The first volume (Bereishis) of Dr. Seligmann Baer?s (author
of Siddur Avodas Yisroel) famous MASORETIC TEXT OF THE TANACH.  This can be
accessed at http://halakhah.com/rst/baer1.pdf.  The remaining books of
Tanach (except for Shemos through Devorim which were never produced) will
be available, too, but due to their large size we are trying to figure out
if it should be made available as zip files or on Drop Box or something
like that.*

***4.     ****Another volume in the Hadgashas Hane?emar series, SEFER YONA
http://halakhah.com/rst/yona.pdf.  Soon to be available onhalakhah.com,
please G-d, will be Sefer Esther (in time for Purim) and Sefer Ruth
http://halakhah.com/rst/ruth.pdf.  BTW, the entire Tanach has been
formatted like this and, please G-d, will be made available in due time, as
well.  I think this format is an excellent study tool, particularly for
young students, facilitating faster and better comprehension of the text.*

* *

*Besides these items, halakhah.com hosts a number of other ETC monographs
and works including the comprehensive Hebrew Verb Root thesaurus Shoroshim
http://halakhah.com/rst/shoroshim.pdf, hundreds of non-esoteric passages
from the Zohar http://halakhah.com/rst/kkz.pdf, an index to the usage of
all verses and passages from Tanach in our liturgy, called Shimush Pesukim
http://halakhah.com/rst/pesukim.pdf, a nice translation of Pirkei Avos with
many unique and interesting lists http://halakhah.com/rst/pirkeiavos.pdf
and lots more unique, fun and educational material.*

* *

*On top of all this, you have the entire two-column, easy to read and
download, REFORMATTED SONCINO TALMUD - the only complete, online, English
language translation of the Talmud at http://halakhah.com/indexrst.html as
well as the more traditional format of the Soncino, found scrolled-down
lower on the same page.  Rabbi Zahavy has made available some of his
excellent works there, too, including access to an outstanding, world-class
and highly-recommended philosophical exposition called Whence and
Wherefore written
by his late father, Rabbi Zev Zahavy, ztz?l.   This book explores the most
fundamental issues of the purpose and meaning of the creation, life and
existence.   *

* *

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130201/f11e337a/attachment-0001.htm>

RMi:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:02:52PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> : No, it's not. Read the scholarship, read the texts. Sure, there's meditative
> : material in Chasidism which is drawn from the earlier ideas, and in other
> : kabbalistic texts, but Kabbalah itself was a new creation written (or revealed)
> : in the 1200s.  It did not form part of the old Merkabah mysticism in either
> : case. 
 
> As I wrote yesterday, I think that the particular area of nistar we tend
> to call Qabbalah is from the Bahir, not the Zohar.

That's the first, yes, but the Zohar is the far more developed (library of)
text(s).

> Merkavah mysticism evolves into the heikhalos literature.

And some Heichalot material was incorporated into the Zohar.  To
lend credence to the Zohar's antiquity?  I think the Gra broke
some of that material out and wrote peirushim on them.

http://hebrewbooks.org/30795
 
> The Bahir develops angelology futher. But it also mixes in ideas from
> peirushim on seifer haYetzirah. Thus, seifer haYetzirah's 10 sefiros,

Are you sure?  The "kabbalistic" peirushim on Sefer Yetizrah seem to be
Ramban onward, which means roughly contemporaneous with the Zohar's 
writing/editing.  The earlier ones, such as Shabtai Donnolo and RSG,
are (according to Kaplan and Scholem, I haven't really learned any of
them) more philosophical.

> which are only discussed in terms of being a 10-fold count, are identified
> with 10 high angels / spiritual existences to become the sefiros we
> later find in the Eitz Chaim.

Eitz Chaim?  Oh, you mean the structure, not the sefer.

> The Zohar then has the basic ideas, and adds to the structure.
 
> To my mind the next discontinuity, where a new idea is published rather
> than details and develops added to an existing system, is by the Ari.
 
Continuous revelation!  Which is how the Reform talk about revelation, and
how (R' Brill characterizes) the chasidim think.  Since the term was
floated by the Reform, the Chasidim, who really believe in it, will
quickly demur that that's what they're doing. I suppose it could be 
justified in the chasidic system as improving perception of the divine
reality that underlies the finity of the "real world".

If you're going to believe in the Chasidic system, you have to believe
in continuous revelation insofar as the system depends on revelations:

-1275 CE      The Torah
-1235 - -516  The Na"ch
c. 140        the Zohar
1553          the Arizal
mid-1700s     the Besht
since then    assorted Tzaddikim

If you're a Kabbalist, substitute the Rashash (late 1700s) for the Besht.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On 1/02/2013 3:29 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> Continuous revelation!  Which is how the Reform talk about revelation, and
> how (R' Brill characterizes) the chasidim think.  Since the term was
> floated by the Reform, the Chasidim, who really believe in it, will
> quickly demur that that's what they're doing. I suppose it could be
> justified in the chasidic system as improving perception of the divine
> reality that underlies the finity of the "real world".
>
> If you're going to believe in the Chasidic system, you have to believe
> in continuous revelation insofar as the system depends on revelations:

Very different.  Reform's idea of "revelation" is someone having an idea,
with no way of verifying that it's true, let alone knowing where it comes
from.  It's all made up.  How can you compare that to Eliyahu Hanavi and
Achiya Hashiloni coming from the Other World to teach the Arizal and the
Baal Shem Tov, etc?  That is not some wishy-washy "inspiration", it's
direct communication of hard data from one person to another.



-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Listmembers might be interested in seeing a (former? lurker?) listmember's
take on a discussion from a while back.

 

http://bdld.info/2013/01/09/did-she-or-didnt-she/

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130203/dc8fcf5a/attachment-0001.htm>

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a bur (bura?) am ha'aretz (can't
feminize that, sorry) about gemara and halakha, but I always thought that a
hazaka is a presumption (as in, "presumption of innocence", for example)
and is not meant to be understood as an absolute statement.  Thus, tav
lemeitav would mean: we *presume* that, all other things being equal, a
woman would rather stay in a lousy marriage than be alone, but not that
this presumption applies in every single case.	Is this a hopelessly
mistaken understanding of hazaka?

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130204/81ac8e0a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:32:01AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>                                A woman is better off with any man 
>> than with none, because most women find it difficult or impossible to 
>> support themselves....

And RMB replied:

>But then it would be a rov with known exceptions, even in Chazal's day. 
>Thee are enough stories of a matrionis discussing a matter with a 
>tanna. These estate-holding balebastas didn't need income at all.
>(Barring the unexpected tragedy, like losing everything in the fall of 
>Y-m.)

>The gemara makes an exception for such nashim chashuvos in requiring 
>them to do heseibah at the seider. (Pesachim 108a) And the Rashbam 
>talks of the general heter in terms of most women having a yir'ah for 
>and dependency on their husbands.

>So why would tav lemeisiv not be treated as an umdena or rav, given the 
>identifiable exceptions, rather than a chazaqah?

Because, as I have said many times, chazakah is a rebuttable presumption.
That is different from both an umdena or rav.   Where a chazaka or a rov
coming into conflict, we posken, as we have discussed before, for the rov.
ruba v'chazaka ruba adif - see eg Yevamos 119b ie chazaka carries *less*
weight than a form of rov.  While you keep trying to give it if anything
more weight than a Rov.

>Of course, this reopens the question of whether all chazaqos are 
>unchanging realities or situational. My current line of reasoning would 
>imply that all chazaqos disvara would be existential parts of human 
>nature. And that would be what makes them differ from a ruba deleisa 
>leqaman which is a kelal that only happens to be true.

Which is why I think this attempt to try and strengthen chazakos beyond that
of rov into some form of existential principle - although presumably
necessary to justify RYBS's position (which as I have said before, seems
inherently flawed), just doesn't work in any other context.  

>But since RYBS does invoke a pasuq, and the argument above doesn't 
>entail one, it is my own thought/question about the existential nature 
>of chazaqos, not RYBS's.

Yes, it seems to me that RYBS, because he identifies a pasuk as behind this
particular statement of tan du, therefore is giving tan du a status of an
existential truth about human nature - over and above any other chazaka - so
to stretch this to any other situation described by the use of the term
chazaka in the gemora is going beyond the point even he was prepared to go.

Where I disagree with RZS slightly is that I don't just think it was about
(or just about) economic support.  I think it was more about social
standing.  An unmarried girl had no social standing whatsoever.  A married
woman did, due to having a husband.  A widowed or divorced woman with (but
only with) significant property (ie a matrona) also did.  Now a lot of that
has to do with the economic reality that RZS describes.  Ie a single girl
could by and large not support herself, and, unless there were no brothers,
she had no reasonable expectation of becoming financially independent.  So
long as her father was alive, he might well take another wife and produce a
male heir, so the only situation where an unmarried woman would be
financially independent was if she was orphaned prior to marriage where
there were no male heirs.  That is pretty rare, and clearly nothing to do
with her personally, so she could hardly take any pride from any of this,
nor would such rare cases be built into social standing.

Today a single girl can take pride in accomplishments, financial or
otherwise, without needing to marry.  Of course, in certain social circles,
that doesn't cut much ice.  I have told the story before, but when I went
for shabbas once to my charedi relatives in Boro Park, I was 26, with a
Masters Degree in Law from Harvard, a Fulbright Scholarship, and having
already worked a number of years as a lawyer ... but I was unmarried.  The
oldest child (daughter) of the house was 18 ... and engaged.

On Friday night I at 26 was put on the table with the younger children (ie
15 and below), and the 18 year old was put on the table with the adults.

Now I did speak to the lady of the house afterwards and told her that this
was quite inappropriate, and for shabbas lunch I was put on the table with
the adults - but look at the automatic message and assumption that was made,
prior to my intervention.  Marriage brought social status as an adult.
Higher degrees and scholarships and high financial earning capacity did not
(I had probably already in my short earning life working as a lawyer earned
more than the family income aggregated for most of their years of marriage,
given that the father was in kollel and had been all his life).

But in a society where higher degrees and significant earning capacity did
not exist as a means to demonstrate that I was indeed an adult and not a
child, the only way out of that children's table (in my mind and in anybody
else's) would have been marriage.  And hence the social pressure to marry -
anyone at all, to achieve adult status would have been immense.  I can very
easily see just from this one experience, that if the years had continued to
pass on the children's table, and younger children had leapfrogged me onto
the adults table, I might well have become increasingly willing to say yes
to anybody at all, even someone the size of an ant (as the gemora so pithily
describes), just to launch one's adulthood.

As I wrote in the previous go round of this debate at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n099.shtml#11

>Not only is RYBS's interpretation not muchrach in the pasuk, but, as I 
>keep pointing out, it is not muchrach in the gemora's description of 
>tav lemaisiv either.  The gemora seems rather to be discussing the 
>social status that a woman gains by having her "MRS", even if the man 
>concerned is completely inappropriate.  The relevant piece of gemora 
>ends by concluding that a woman who takes one of these inappropriate 
>men and yet is happy to flaunt her married status also satisfies her 
>sexual needs by taking lovers and bringing up those children as her 
>husband's - see eg Yevamos 118b "v'kulan mezanos v'tolos b'balehen".  
>That is hardly a description of a woman who ve'el isheich teshukateich. If
anything the opposite.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 20
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)