Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 58

Thu, 03 Apr 2014

• 1. Re: Time for the Deceased (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: copying papers (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: copying papers (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: copying papers (Simon Montagu)
• 5. Re: Rav Elya Lopian: tefillin and radio (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: copying papers (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Why We Drink (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Etz hada'at (H Lampel)
• 9. May Orthodox Rabbis Permit Women to Don Tefillin? (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Why We Drink (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Why We Drink (Akiva Blum)
• 12. copying papers (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. korban pesach (Eli Turkel)
• 15. history and chazal (Eli Turkel)

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> If you have blueprints for a building, they describe the building.
> That description, the idea of the building, its tzurah, has no
> where or when, it could be accurately described anywhere at any
> level of detail one would choose to. In principle, we could
> describe the table in full detail years after the physical table
> exists. The tzurah of a specific table has no where or when. The
> tzurah the table has at a specific point in time, accumulated
> scratches and all, could in theory be recorded and recovered later.
> And if we had a way to predict it accurately, that would be the
> tzurah *before* the table assumed it! An idea of a table (which I
> believe the Rambam considered the same thing) has no where or
> when. Sikhliim nivdalim and tzuros beli chomer, whether
> not-yet-alive or dead souls or angels, would also not have a where
> or when.

You've really lost me.

On the one hand, you (or the Rambam) are putting mal'achim in the same
category as the tzurah-table. But it seems to me that the tzurah-table is
not capable of doing anything, not even something as passive as supporting
an object above the floor. But mal'achim *are* capable of doing things,
aren't they?

We can argue about their level of bechira, and other such questions, but
surely we agree that they can do things, right? By some sort of method,
they can affect stuff in the physical world and/or the metaphysical world.
If so, then anything you might say about the tzurah-table being "outside of
physics" or "outside of time" does not necessarily apply to mal'achim.

> The above argument is more Aristotilian than I think either of
> us are.

Which is a big part of why I don't have much reluctance about parting ways with Aristotle.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/533838846021138842538st01vuc

On 3/30/2014 1:31 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> It's not clear from the
> question that any breach of the university regulations is involved,
> especially if RAY didn't learn in a university himself.

I understood the question to be "We know that my doing the work for her 
is wrong, but everyone does it and the professors know that everyone 
does it".

Ben

On 3/30/2014 6:31 AM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:00:57PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> : Prominent haredi figure and Holon Chief Rabbi Avraham Yosef gave approval
>> ...
>> : see ...
>> <http://j.mp/1mhH7Cv>, shrunk from RET's original link to
>> http://www.jpost.com/...
>>
>> I wouldn't trust JPost to get a pesaq right.
> The original question and answer are here:
> http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=168705
>
> Notice the comments and RAY's rejoinders. The question he thought he
> was answering was "Can I help my friend with an assignment if she has
> trouble expressing herself in writing?" It's not clear from the
> question that any breach of the university regulations is involved,
> especially if RAY didn't learn in a university himself.

There's absolutely nothing in the question to suggest that it's a matter 
of having trouble expressing herself in writing.  She specifically says 
that it's rewording someone else's work because it's going to the same 
teacher, and they don't want him to realize it's being copied.  Followed 
by a lame excuse that since he gives the same assignment each year, he 
must be aware that they're recycling the answers.

The responses to the comments which purport to be from him are pathetic. 
  I'm quite sure my reply won't be published.

Lisa

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> On 3/30/2014 1:31 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
>>
>> It's not clear from the
>> question that any breach of the university regulations is involved,
>> especially if RAY didn't learn in a university himself.
>
>
> I understood the question to be "We know that my doing the work for her is
> wrong, but everyone does it and the professors know that everyone does it".

I agree that that is what the questioner intended, but I don't think
RAY understood it that way. See also
http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=159281 where a similiar
question about exams is much more explicit and the answer is "asur"

I have been presenting my idea that when we do a mitzvah or an aveirah, it
causes certain reactions, and that these result from a direct
cause-and-effect relationship, despite the fact that the mechanics happen
on a metaphysical level that we are unable to see or measure. Because this
touches on the very definition of what mal'achim are and how they function
- not to mention the entire concept of s'char v'onesh - some of these
thoughts might be dangerously close to heresy.

I therefore admitted that my sources are rather sparse, and I have
committed myself to trying to find more sources which will either support
my ideas or convince me that I'm wrong. And so I now present some more
arguments to the chevrah, and I invite your comments.

Offlist, someone offered me the following:

> However you might also need to consider Chazal saying that it
> makes no difference to Gd if we Shecht from the front of the
> neck or chop from the back but these are imposed upon us for
> our benefit, LeTzaRef Ess HaBeRiYos.

I was intrigued. As I've written before, I would prefer not to beleive that
Hashem is so arbitrary, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, so I asked for his
source. He responded:

> In Chapter 26 of the Moreh Rambam discusses Shehita as an
> illustration of "Litzareif Bahem Habriyos"- That Hashem Himself
> has no interest in how we slaughter an animal, but we need to do
> it that way as a purification of our imperfect selves.
>
> If Hashem was so concerned about cruelty to animals He would not
> have made nature so cruel or He would not have permitted us to
> eat animals. By making it necessary for us to participate in this
> cruel food chain, but in the most humane way possible, we are
> purified.

He followed that up with these notes, and some others:

> What difference does it make to God whether one slaughters from
> the front of the neck or the back of the neck? Rather the mitzvot
> were given in order to refine the creatures. (Bereishis Rabbah,
> 44:1)
>
> Once the evil Tinneius Rufus asked R. Akiva ... ... R. Akiva
> responded, "As for your argument, ... the answer is that the Holy
> One, blessed be He, gave commandments to the Jews for no other
> reason than to refine them by means of their observance."
> (Midrash Tanchuma, Tazria, 5)

I have heard these quotes before, but with a different explanation. 

Unfortunately, there have always been fools who think that Hashem gets some
sort of pleasure from our mitzvos. The neviim repeatedly told us the He
does not want the korban, but He wants our teshuva and our devotion. But
even these, He does not want them because He personally enjoys them -
rather, they are for OUR benefit.

My friend seems to agree with this point. The sources he brought are full
of references to the idea that mitzvos are NOT arbitrary, but serve to
refine us. In fact, one of his sources mentions the mechanism by which this
refinement occurs:

> By making it necessary for us to participate in this cruel food
> chain, but in the most humane way possible, we are purified.

That shechita teaches about tzaar baalei chayim is an unusually blatant
example of how this purification can work. Tzedaka and chesed likewise. 
But we have been warned about the dangers of studying taamei hamitzvos,
lest one think that he has found THE reason for a mitzvah. Rather, there
are MANY reasons for them.

MANY reasons. Not just one, and certainly not zero. They aren't arbitrary,
intended simply to teach us obedience. There are many additional reasons
for shechita and tzedaka, only some of which we've discovered.

Let me give an example from the physical world: It is easy to understand
how exercise improves one's muscles. But there are other benefits too:
exercise can improve one's mood as well. To our generation, this is not
magic, but it a clear cause-and-effect relationship in which the exercise
releases certain chemicals into the body. (See more at https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Runner%27s_high)

"Talmidei chachamim marbin shalom ba'olam." I used to think that this
increased shalom is a simple result of the peaceful nature of talmidei
chachamim. But I notice the word "olam", and wonder if our learning might
release metaphysical hormones into the world, which make it more peaceful
even at a distance.

We lost the battle at Ai because Achan took some booty (Yehoshua 7). Was
this a miracle? Did G-d intervene and cause us to lose as a punishment for
Achan's actions? Or did we lose because - as a result of his sin - we
didn't have enough zechus?

What does it mean when one "has enough zechus" or "doesn't have enough
zechus"? If everything is hashgacha pratis, then it means that the zechus
is (or isn't) enough to influence God's decision. But in hashgacha klalis,
my thesis is that one does (or doesn't) have enough metaphysical vitamins
to ward off the disease, or to gain the advantage, as the case may be.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast-Growing Industry
A New Player In The Booming Bottled Water Market.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5338a5a98b9a725a937aast01vuc

A small, but good example of why it is problematic for rabbanim to 
answer questions when they don't have the proper cultural background for 
that question.

Ben

On 3/30/2014 9:12 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On 3/30/2014 1:31 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
>> >>
>> >>It's not clear from the
>> >>question that any breach of the university regulations is involved,
>> >>especially if RAY didn't learn in a university himself.
> >

 

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>

>>It's  inconceivable that yeast became *less* hardy over the past 2000 
years.
If the  yeasts common before modern breeding projects used to die at around
12-13%  alcohol, theirs can't have lasted any longer.  So we know their  
wine
can't have been any stronger than that.  That their wines were  undrinkable
without dilution was mostly because even their "good" wines were  half 
vinegar.

But part of it was simply that they regarded an 12-13%  alcohol as too 
strong,
something only a barbarian would drink, even if it  tasted good; they 
*preferred*
to drink their wine at beer strength.   Spirits would have been beyond their
comprehension  altogether.<<

-- 
Zev  Sero                





>>>>>
 
Kohanim were not allowed to drink "yayin" or "sheichar" -- wine or  
intoxicating liquor -- when doing the avodah.  It could be that yayin is  only 
grape wine while sheichar is beer and/or wine made from other fruits or  honey, 
but it could also be that sheichar would include spirits.
 
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140330/a53e4844/attachment-0001.htm>

> RZL: <<The Hebrew (Ibn Tibbon's) reads "kol makom sheh-nizkar bo 
> /re'eeyas/ malach o' diburo," "Every place that mentions within it /the 
> seeing/ of an angel or its speaking..." Friedlander's translation 
> "appearance of" is meant in that sense, not in the sense of "account of 
> the existence of an angel.">>

> Thanks, that's very helpful. Schwartz's translation also confirms that 
> Friedlander is misleading.
> As well as Kapach's and Pines'.
> But look at the Abarbanel on Breishis (near the end of perek gimel, p.
> 116 in the Jerusalem 5724 reprint, beginning of column 1)...
> David Riceman

My point was narrowly focused on the idea that //this particular// thesis
of the Rambam would be grounds for saying the eitz ha-daas was solely
a mashal. The Abarbanel's understanding of the Rambam on this point,
based on other grounds that I find incomprehensible, is another issue.

I have more to say about this issue, but for now, just in counter balance
to the Abrabael's understanding, I would point out that we have R. Hasdai
Creskas (who shortly preceded Abarbanel), who writes,

    It is clear, according to the opinion of the Rambam, that in the
    account of Adam and Chava, the matter of the serpent, the tree of
    life and the tree of knowledge all are possible as literally stated
    (kemashma'o), since nature was not yet established. New formations
    not previously in existence came into existence on each of six days
    of the creation week. So too, the matters mentioned such as Adam,
    Chava and the other events all happened literally (kepeshutam)
    because they occurred on day six.

    Nobody [of import--ZL] questions the historical truth of the creation
    of Adam and Chava, the account of Cain, Abel, Seth, the tree of life,
    and the tree of knowledge. However, the Sages, by way of hint (remez)
    have enlightened us with [additional] precious insights. The Rambam,
    who is the Teacher of Righteousness, was drawn after the Sages to
    expound their meaning [in their comment that the first couple was
    created a single entity].


[Email #2. -micha]

From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org Fri, 28 Mar 2014 **
> ...The Abarbanel understands the Rambam as saying that nevu'ah is a vision,
> but of something actually occurring. ... The Abarbanel,
> in his commentary on the Moreh Nevuchim, writes that according to
> the Rambam, things seen in prophecy really occur. They are visions
> of events happening in higher planes of reality. The prophet's mind
> and pen may make sense of the vision by interpreting its contents
> as things familiar from normal sensory experience, but the event
> seen is real.

> Whether the vision is necessarily a metaphor, as RZL assumes...

I only used the word mashal in recounting what my correspondent 
stated. In the very next chapter (2:43), the Moreh states that the way 
the navi experiences his prophecy is sometimes as a mashal and sometimes 
not. (And in the past, you have brought up the apparent contradiction in 
Mishneh Torah where the Rambam says all prophecies, besides Moshe 
Rabbeynu's, were experienced as mashalim.)

RMB:
> Well, the perceived metaphysical entity, in our case the angel, is cast
> by the mind into terms it's used to from normal vision and hearing.
> That's a kind of metaphor.

Agreed.

RMB:
> And then, many physical events occur because we can learn from them
> through metaphor.... The same could be true of metaphysical events seen 
> by a navi.

Agreed.

RMB:
> "Mal'akh" means messenger, which to the Rambam could be the intellects
> of Aristo's metaphysics or physical objects doing G-d's will. It's just
> two different usages of the same word, neither is an allegory.

Agreed.

RMB:
> ... The Rambam might consider the calling of the intellects "mal'akhim"
> the idiomatic use. Or maybe neither is a more primary meaning -- a
> messenger is a messenger no matter what it consists of.

> And while he discusses this homonymity explicitly in 2:6, I don't
> see him categorizing the mal'akh in this particular story one way or
> the other.

But it would seem that we can use Rambam's treatment of "Elohim" 
as a parallel, to see he goes from the earthly to the metaphysical. He 
says there that the primary meaning is "judges," and from that the 
meaning extends to angels, and from there to G-d.


: ZL: Only when, at the end of the narrative, it, in Rambam's words, "becomes
: clear that this being was an angel" (I suppose the Rambam is referring
: to the report that it was previously invisible to Bilaam, and only now
: Hashem "opened his eyes" for him to perceive it) must we conclude that
: (since angels are non-physical and unperceivable through physical means)
: this was a matter of a vision.

RMB:
> I don't get your meaning here. Are you saying that the mal'akh who
> blocked the ason was a physical thing doing Hashem's will, but the one
> who speaks to him at the end of the maaseh was non-physical and seen in
> prophetic vision? Or that he had a chat with something that physically
> talked and relayed Hashem's message?

Neither. Rambam holds the malach in the Bilaam episode was part of a
vision. It was an angel, not a physical thing. But he says that until one
gets to the pesukim at the end of the episode, one would correctly say
otherwise. Until one gets to the pesukim at the end of the episode, one
would properly understand the mal'akh brandishing a sword and blocking
the donkey to be a reference to an earthly entity, such as a prophet,
physical barrier, or an instinctual urge in the animal. It is only at the
end of the episode that it becomes clear that the thing called mal'akh
was a non-physical entity, an angel, and the Rambam's chiddush is that
we should conclude that that is what the reference to mal'akh was all
along, from the beginning of the episode. And thus, all the passages
in which that mal'akh was described as subject to physicalities were
descriptions not of earthly beings or the donkey's urges, but of a vision.

(I am unclear however, if the Rambam holds that Bilaam's vision about
the donkey began before or after he awoke from the previous vision,
and whether the report of him harnessing his donkey and starting on the
way was a report of his vision or of what happened after he actually
awoke from the previou vision. In either case, what throws a monkey
wrench into this is Rambam's remark in 2:6 that the mal'akh causing the
donkey's movement was indeed a reference to the beast's natural urges.
Would this be an example of Rambam's 5^th kind of contradictory remarks?
Or does the Rambam hold that an animal seeing an angel is too outrageous
even to be seen as a vision?)

Zvi Lampel

Please see http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2014/rtwe_tefillin.html

On 30/03/2014 7:03 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> Kohanim were not allowed to drink "yayin" or "sheichar" -- wine or
> intoxicating liquor -- when doing the avodah.  It could be that yayin
> is only grape wine while sheichar is beer and/or wine made from other
> fruits or honey, but it could also be that sheichar would include
> spirits.

Spirits did not exist in Chazal's day, let alone at matan torah.  There was
only wine and beer.  Distillation was discovered by the Arabs in about the
ninth century.

-- 
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Zev Sero
> Sent: Friday, 28 March, 2014 7:12 PM
> To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why We Drink


> But part of it was simply that they regarded an 12-13% alcohol as too
> strong,
> something only a barbarian would drink, even if it tasted good; they
> *preferred*
> to drink their wine at beer strength.  Spirits would have been beyond
their
> comprehension altogether.
> 

Which would also explain how chazal gave 10 kosos to availim, someone which
would easily knock out most of us long before.

Akiva

<<The original question and answer are here:
http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=168705

Notice the comments and RAY's rejoinders. The question he thought he
was answering was "Can I help my friend with an assignment if she has
trouble expressing herself in writing?" It's not clear from the
question that any breach of the university regulations is involved,
especially if RAY didn't learn in a university himself.>>

I have no idea where you got this from. The question states explicitly that
someone
got the answers from someone else and wanted this person to change the essay
since they have the same teacher who would notice two identical responses.

The student just adds that since the teacher gives the same assignment
every year he/she probably
knows that the answers are recycled. (this is a guess on the students part
and certainly not clear).
RAY certainly doesnt answer that this point should be investigated,

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140331/dccaa7a4/attachment-0001.htm>

Almost a month ago, Rabbi Arie Folger wrote:

> However, the keen reader will have noticed that nowhere in
> the Chumash is it stated that Adam only began lehavdil bein
> tov lara' by eating from the fruit. Instead, the operative
> phrase is lada'at, which rather than conveying the ability
> to distinguish, conveys intimate knowledge. In fact, lada'at
> as a verb conveys such intimate knowledge that it is Tanakh's
> choice euphemism for sexual relations. 

I could not help but be reminded of the above when I was learning the
hagada this evening. Rabbi Menachem Genack's "An Exalted Evening", based on
the teachings of Rav Soloveitchik, page 75, says:

<<< VA-YEDA ELOKIM means that He experienced their travail, their
pain, their suffering, their humiliation. It is complete sympathy,
compassion, and involvement. Similarly, "Ki yadati their sorrows" (Ex. 3:7)
means "I felt their pain." "Adam yada his wife" (Gen. 4:1) means that he
loved her and they were intimate. >>>

Based on the above ideas, I suggest a new translation for "vayeda Elokim": G-d empathized.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/533a4add3ac3b4add6efest01vuc

Some laws of the parah adumah (red cow) and korban Pesach
<http://halakhah.com/rst/redcow.pdf>
<http://halakhah.com/rst/pesach.pdf>

-- 
Eli Turkel

(much of this is based on an article and shiurim of R. Michael Avraham)

After our debates about the history of Purim the central question is
whether one needs to accept the historical comments of Chazal as literal.
To stress some of this comments are purely historical interest while others
have halachic implications.
In spite of the arguments of Lisa most rabbis and religious academics from
Bar Ilan university, Machon Herzog in the Gush and similar places accept
the "Greek" version of Persian history as being the simple pshat in Ezra
and Nechemia against Seder Olam (eg second Temple was finsihed in 516/517
BCE)

One example Rav Avraham talked about in his last shiur in Raanana was on a
story in Nach where King David in a fight against the Phililstines asks the
soldiers to get water. The gemara interprets water as Torah and says that
King David sent a question to the Sanhedrin whether he could burn the
fields that the Philistines were hiding in. The gemara answers that in
general it is forbidden but he is a king. Rashi interperts the gemara that
a normal person cant save his life by destrying someone else's property
while Tosafot learns the question is only whether one needs to pay for the
destroyed field.

R Avraham takes for granted that in the middle of the battle King David did
not start sending messengers to the Sanhedri especially according to
Tosafot that the question is only whether he would have to pay damages.
Nevertheless the halacha is very important in many applications of saving
one's life at some else's monetary expense. The applications include taking
organs from a corpse to save a life.

Other cases include
The length of the Persian empire in EY (dont think it has halachic
ramifications)
Were Mordechai and Esther really 100 and 75 years old at the begiining of
the story
Were Mordechai and Esther really married (has halachic implications)
Did the avot really keep all mitzvot including rabbinic laws

In gneral when there is a machloket in the gemara are they arguing about
(historical) facts?

The sefer Bibu shnot dor vedor brings a letter from Rav Yitzchak Hutner
(Pachad Yitzchak letters p52) that clains that "Elu Velu" includes
historical arguments. The historical background of the argument is only
incidental to the basic argument. The history is "past" and not of any
interest. It is only what chazal learn from history that is important and
not the historical facts. Therefore what counts is what chazal learned from
the pesukim and not what really happened.

The same would apply to halachot based on facts that contradict modern
science. While some argue for "nishtane hateva" this is hard to take
seriously in many cases (though it is reasonable in some cases). No
reasonable scientist would accept that the anatomy of the human has changed
ober 2000 years. R. Avraham argues simply along the lines of R. Hutner that
the objective facts are meaningless but what counts is how chazal derived
laws from them (he then analyzes this according to Kant)

The rest of the article deals with the connection between myth and truth
and a letter from the Rashba attacking Yedida HaPenini from replacing the
avot by philosophical ideals and the relationship to post-modernism. We are
out of space for further discussion,

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140403/88f0771c/attachment.htm>

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


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 32, Issue 58
**************************************

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.)