Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 86

Thu, 09 May 2013

• 1. Re: doresh el hameisim (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Local Batei Dinim's Prerogatives Under Sanhedrin (was Lag Baomer) (Arie Folger)
• 3. Ret: doresh el hameisim (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Lag Baomer (David Riceman)
• 5. symbolology (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Lag Baomer (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: symbolology (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Lag Baomer (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Fwd: Interesting parallel to babel but dated earlier.... (Reuven Meir Caplan)
• 10. Luach for Shavuous 5773 (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Shvartz Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 12. yeush on land (Eli Turkel)
• 13. must the tefillas haShlah segula work? (Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier)
• 14. Re: must the tefillas haShlah segula work? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: must the tefillas haShlah segula work? (Micha Berger)

On 5/05/2013 9:49 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> RCM's view is too depressing for me. It reminds me of Dante passing
> through the gate of Hell, which bears the inscription, "Abandon hope,
> all ye who enter here." I concede that it is within Hashem's ability
> to impose a deadline (such as death) beyond which no more zechuyos
> will be accepted.	But I hope that He does not actually do so.

He certainly does not do so!  There is never a point at which nothing will
help, and surely RCM agrees with that.  Even if there's nothing the person
can do to help himself, others may help him -- mitzvos done here on earth,
by his relatives or for his zechus, will certainly help him, as we know from
the story of R Akiva teaching a boy to say kaddish, from Chazal's tefillos
for Acher, from David Hamelech bringing Avshalom out of seven levels of
gehinnom and into Olam Haba, and from Moshe Rabbenu elevating Yehudah's
position with his bracha to Shevet Yehudah.  We also know that what happens
to a person's body can effect a kaparah, as we see with Yerav'am ben Nevat,
who, despite the mishna using him as an example of the *sort* of person who
does not have a part in the Next World, did in fact attain just that when
his remains were exhumed and subjected to humiliation centuries after his
death.


> On 6/05/2013 6:36 PM, hankman wrote:

> I would think that the pashtus hagemara in San. 91a (the discussion
> of Antignus and Rebbi)

You mean Antoninus.  Antignus was centuries earler!

> is most simply understood per my last posting in this thread. I think
> that RZS might be able to explain the gemara but it won?t be as glat
> ? he will have to qvetch a bit.

Please explain how you see anything like that in this gemara.  I can't
see any mention of bechira, or any hint at it.  It doesn't even say that
the neshama can't sin after death, just that it doesn't.


> Furthermore. the drasha of ?hayoim la?asoson? isn?t quite right
> either if you hold that bechira is possible after misa and there is
> sechar veonesh for those choices. So even if you say this is not
> common, nevertheless ?lemachor? la?asosn remains a possiblity.

Again, how is this relevant?  Hayom la'asoson doesn't say anything about
bechira at all; it just says that after death there are no mitzvos.  Even
if the neshama could somehow figure out a way to do one of the 613 mitzvos
it would be meaningless, like eating matzah when it isn't Pesach.  That
doesn't imply that it's incapable of doing good or bad things, making good
or bad decisions, just that the mitzvos are no longer "good things".


> I would suggest that there is a difference between ?choice? and
> bechira. Not every choice constitutes the exercise of bechira. The
> consequence of becira is sechar ve?onesh, whereas mere ?choice? has
> no such consequences

But then how is this whole discussion relevant to the topic of this
thread, which is RJR's contention that the dead literally have no choice,
and therefore there would seem to be no point in asking them for mechila
because they're incapable of giving it?   Once you concede that they can
make choices, then the discussion is over -- there is a point in asking
them for mechila, or for their tefillos, and they are capable of accepting
or rejecting that request.


> Finally, the ?punishment? here ? ?tsei mimechitsasi? ? can be
> understood not as a punishment but as a natural consequence of the
> events ? much like if the temperature of a block of ice is raised
> above zero centigrade it melts ?  the loss of its solidity is not a
> ?punishment? but just a natural consequence of the new circumstance.

Is that really a distinction that makes a difference?  Is sechar ve'onesh
really different from what you just described?


> RZS assertion that it is just that there is no (little) opportunity to
> do mitzvos after death doesn?t really make sense.

I don't recall making any such assertion.   If I did, please bring it to
my attention.  On the contrary, I distinctly recall writing that since the
whole purpose of mitzvos is to elevate this world they don't exist in the
Next World.


> While that would be true for most mitzvos, it is certainly not the
> case for learning Torah. So it would seem that there would be ample
> opportunity to do many mitzvos all the time!

But it isn't a mitzvah for them.  They certainly do it, and enjoy doing it,
and achieve yichud with Hashem in doing it, but they get no sechar for it,
not even like a woman doing it here in this world.


> Finally you very commonly see in various meforshim the assumption
> that this is the olam ha?asiah

Olam Ha'asiyah has nothing to do with doing mitzvos!  It's the nature of the
world, a physical one which can be described as having been "made", as opposed
to Atzilus, Beri'ah, and Yetzirah.


> The terms of omeid and holeich are applied in this sense ?
> after death you become an omeid during life you are a holeich.
> According to RZS in theory you remain a holeich after misa.

I think you are completely mistaken in this.  "Omdim" are mal'achim, not
neshomos.  On the contrary, "tzadikim ein lahem menucha" because they are
constantly moving and ascending higher and higher in Gan Eden.

-- 
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

> On 5/6/2013 1:54 PM, Arie Folger wrote
>> Pardon my ignorance, but where do you take this idea from, that lower
batei din were not allowed to be medameh davar le-davar and be lomed davar
mitoch davar?
>>

To which RnLL replied:
> From the Rambam's description of the process at the beginning of Hilchot
Mamrim.  He doesn't say "if they were able to work it out, they'd tell
them, and if not..."  He says "If they knew."  Which seems to indicate that
they either knew the halakha pertaining to a particular issue, or they
didn't.

My reply: nu, nu, nisht mukhrach.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130507/aea2f8ed/attachment-0001.htm>

I asked:

> ... But is a sincere charata impossible? Whatever charata
> he accomplishes won't be worth as much as if he had done it
> before he died, but is it worth *zero*? Isn't it possible
> that this "rasha" was only slighty lower than the midpoint,
> and this tiny amount of charata might elevate him to be
> above the midpoint? ... Is it really too late?"

R' David Cohen responded:

> It should be too late, because by now there is no longer any
> bechira. Once the person/neshama has actually experienced the
> presence of HKBH, how can there be bechira? If you actually
> knew (not just believed) that HKBH commanded you to "jump",
> the only question would be "how high?" But your bechira is
> taken away at that point. With no bechira, teshuva is
> meaningless.

Actually, I think we might be in agreement. I concede that once the person
has actually experienced Hashem's presence in the afterworld, the value of
his charata will plummet tremendously. But NOT all the way to zero. The
only points I am trying to make are that he does still have bechira, and
can exercise that bechira, and that the value of that bechira will be
something above zero, but not actually zero.

By invoking the question, "How high?", I suggest that RDC has (perhaps
unwittingly) revealed that he too concedes that there may be some small
areas where this neshama CAN use his bechira, for whatever small amount of
good it might accomplish.

R' Chaim Manaster wrote:

> Finally you very commonly see in various meforshim the
> assumption that this is the olam ha'asiah and the next is not
> - it is for the gemul. The terms of omeid and holeich are
> applied in this sense - after death you become an omeid during
> life you are a holeich. 

Yes, I do concede this point. It is what I was referring to when I wrote
that Hashem does have the ability to impose a "deadline" after which
teshuva and mitzvos are no longer accepted. My point is that it still
possible in theory to do them, and that in theory they might have some tiny
amount of zechus for the individual. But if this zechus is not accepted in
practice, well, those are the breaks.  :-(

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 60 But Looks 25
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5188f37e26723737d06f2st04vuc

RAM:

<<The second part of the teshuva, which is what I quoted, dealt with a 
different question, which is that of whether a person who counts the 33 
days of aveilus one way is allowed to attend the wedding of a person who 
counts the 33 days of aveilus a different way. His argument there was 
that as long as *I* am not getting married on a day that *I* am 
observing aveilus, then there's no problem.>>

How does he deal with Kesubos 4a Tos. s.v. "aval ipcha lo" which says 
that a person (under certain conditions) may marry during shloshim but 
may not attend someoone else's wedding?

David Riceman

I'm looking for an elementary text on the application of Jewish symbols 
(for my son who is in the tenth grade).  I am aware of a lot of texts 
which apply symbols in particular circumstances (e.g. MN, Rabbi Hirsch, 
the Maharal, the Gaon's biurim on aggada, Likutei Moharan, ...), but I'd 
prefer something which is explicit about the logic it's applying.  Maybe 
something like Yad Malachi for aggadta.

Is anyone aware of such a book?

Thanks,

David Riceman

On 7/05/2013 9:26 AM, David Riceman wrote:
> RAM:
>
>> The second part of the teshuva, which is what I quoted, dealt with
>> a different question, which is that of whether a person who counts
>> the 33 days of aveilus one way is allowed to attend the wedding of
>> a person who counts the 33 days of aveilus a different way. His
>> argument there was that as long as *I* am not getting married on a
>> day that *I* am observing aveilus, then there's no problem.
>
> How does he deal with Kesubos 4a Tos. s.v. "aval ipcha lo" which says
> that a person (under certain conditions) may marry during shloshim
> but may not attend someoone else's wedding?

What's the issue he would have to deal with?  The aveilus of Sefirah is
clearly not the same as that of Shloshim, and doesn't follow the same
rules.  One can't learn from one on the other.  In particular, an avel
is not allowed to attend *any* simcha, while in Sefirah there is no ban
at all on simchos, but only on getting married.


-- 
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

On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:33:49AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>                                     ...  I am aware of a lot of texts  
> which apply symbols in particular circumstances (e.g. MN, Rabbi Hirsch,  
> the Maharal, the Gaon's biurim on aggada, Likutei Moharan, ...), but I'd  
> prefer something which is explicit about the logic it's applying.  Maybe  
> something like Yad Malachi for aggadta.

> Is anyone aware of such a book?

I know you excepted RSRH, but your follow-up means you might not be
aware that a sizable percentage of the Collected Writings of RSRH vol
III is about the philosophy behind his symbology.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Regarding Rav Moshe Feinstein, I wrote:
> His argument there was that as long as *I* am not getting
> married on a day that *I* am observing aveilus, then there's
> no problem.

R' David Riceman asked:
> How does he deal with Kesubos 4a Tos. s.v. "aval ipcha lo"
> which says that a person (under certain conditions) may
> marry during shloshim but may not attend someone else's
> wedding?

I have two wild guesses:

1) Even if it is one of the days of Sefirah on which *I* would not get
married, I abstain from getting married only because of *minhag*. There's
no actual *halacha* forbidding me to get married, and there's even less
reason to abstain from merely *attending* a wedding. Therefore, for the
mitzvah of simchas chasan v'kallah, I can attend their wedding. However,
during shloshim, there is (I think) an actual halacha which forbids
attending such simchas.

2) The one who is in shloshim is probably just one of a very small number
of people, and there will be many others who can be m'sameach the chasan
and kallah, so their absence will probably not be felt too keenly and there
is not so much need for leniency. But during sefirah, it is probably a much
larger number who would be unable to attend, so there is more room for
leniency.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51893f87ec46e3f8748d1st04vuc

I'm reposting something I found on a public group on Facebook.
If anyone has the author's email address, please point him to
this post.

-micha

[R] Reuven Meir Caplan posted in Orthodox Jewish Scientists

Interesting parallel to babel but dated earlier. I'm not sure how they
traced this since the oldest written languages we can read only date
back to about 5000 years ago:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accoun
ts>
except for undesiphered symbols which may not even be languages:  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeciphered_scripts>. Thoughts?

Researchers Trace Languages Of Billions Back To One Ancient Ancestor
http://www.popsci.com/science/arti
cle/2013-05/researchers-trace-languages-billions-back-one-ancient-ancestor<
/a>
[or <http://j.mp/16eKpSc>]

At least 15,000 years ago, a single language started to break up. It
broke into about seven different languages and, over the next 5,000
years, splintered.

Please see 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/luach%20_shavuos_5773.pdf

This is based on earlier versions prepared by Rav Mordechai Geller,  Z"L.

YL

This Shabbos is Shvartz Shabbos.  Those unfamiliar with how it is 
commemorated according to old Ashkenaz minhag should see

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/shvartz_shabbos_5773.pdf

YL

<<In Jewish law, the concept of yei'ush ba'alim ['owner's despair']
     applies also to real estate. [That is, the owner of a stolen tract
     of land forfeits his ownership if he gives up hope of ever retrieving
it.]

On the contrary, karka einah nigzeles. The land remains his not only after
he gives up hope, but even after his descendants no longer even remember
that he ever owned it. >>

Independent of this discussion (on areivim)  a review of the halachot of
yeush on land
taken in part from a recent article of Rav Ariel in Techumim.

1) It is a mchloket Yerusalmi and Bavli if there is yeush on land that no
one remembers who the originals owners are. SA paskens like the Bavli that
there is no yeush on land even in this case

2) Radvaz (1:514)paskens that dina demalchuta dina and so anyone who has a
"michtuv" (I assume something similar to Tabu) is the legal owner of the
land
The Chida *Birchei Yosef OC 649) brings a smag (aseh 133) that for maaserot
the goyim own the land by virtue of kibush
Sefer Hatrumah also states that a goy can have kinyan on land through kibush

Rav Ariel adds his remark that of course this not negate the promise to
Avraham and sefer Haterumah is only talking about terumot and maaserot.(
Hence, even though individual plots can legally belong to a goy
nevertheless holy sites cannot be given away.)

Rav Ariel concludes that if buildings were built on land that everyone
assumed were ownerless and it was found that some Arabs indeed had title to
the land that one has to pay the Arabs for their land as it is legally
their's and not assumed to be stolen.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130509/058039ba/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone presented me this morning with what I thought was a crazy 
presumption.

This person asked me to help write out the names of their children in 
Hebrew for a tzedaka organization that was promising to daven the 
tefillas haShlah on their behalf at the grave of the Shlah.

ok..

this person continued and said to me thatit was also possible to call 
the organization and tell them the names. The only problem is that last 
year this person called and told them the names, but because it "did not 
work" for all the children she listed, this person was assuming that the 
secretary who took the names down must have written some of the names 
down incorrectly. Therefore, this person came up with the idea that it 
would be safer to write the names down and send them in. That way there 
would be more of a chance of them davening for the right name, and the 
segula would then work.

I had no response. The reason the segula did not work is because they 
must have taken the names down wrong?

Is there any basis for such a style of thought in Judaism?

kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

**********
Goldmeier
goldmeier.fam...@gmail.com

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:18:16PM +0300, Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier wrote:
> Someone presented me this morning with what I thought was a crazy  
> presumption.
>
> This person asked me to help write out the names of their children in  
> Hebrew for a tzedaka organization that was promising to daven the  
> tefillas haShlah on their behalf at the grave of the Shlah.

This is a logical progression.

1- Daven for help with raising my children. (Or perhaps, given that I and
   they have bechirah: help tailoring the influences they have opportunity
   to bump into and the choices they face.)

2- Erev RC Sivan is an auspcious day for this, so doubly make sure to do
   so then. (Perhaps because it's the Yom Kippur Qatan when qabbalas
   haTorah is in people's minds. In which case, is this true for people
   who aren't otherwise observing YKQ?)

3- I never know what to say when asking my Father for things, so
   thankfully the Shelah gives me a text to start with.

4- Say the Shelah's tefillah erev RC Sivan, it's a segulah for your kids
   turning out okay.

5- Have someone holier than me say it, and/or in a holier location,
   since that is bound to be a better segulah.

> Is there any basis for such a style of thought in Judaism?

Step 4 is a major step in the progression, since everything until there
was about avodas Hashem, and now we have people thinking about how to
get Hashem to provide something for me. It takes things from tefilah and
techinah (tzelos-hon uva'us-hon) to "avaq" lechishah if not lechishah
itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:18:16PM +0300, Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier wrote:
: This person asked me to help write out the names of their children in  
: Hebrew for a tzedaka organization that was promising to daven the  
: tefillas haShlah on their behalf at the grave of the Shlah.

In the context of tefillah, taking the effort to get the tefillah right
makes a difference.

Here, though, where the point is to off-load a personal request to
someone who doesn't even know the children in question, their parents,
who the names go to, etc... The people doing the davening are just going
down a litany. The notion of a daily meeting of the partnership (the
penitent and their Creator) on the topic of the mutual goal of making
sure the children turn out okay is entirely lost. Everything else about
the procedure is to make it *less* personally involved. So I'm not sure
how much worrying about their getting the names right will matter.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org



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


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 86
**************************************

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