Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 154

Thu, 03 Dec 2015

• 1. Re: A Parable on Redemption (Ben Waxman)
• 2. submission to an authority (saul newman)
• 3. Re: submission to an authority (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Ahab (Ilana Elzufon)
• 5. Re: Ahab (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Ahab (Micha Berger)
• 7. Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Joel Schnur)
• 8. octal arithmetic (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: submission to an authority (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Chizkiyahu's Seal (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Chizkiyahu's Seal (Saul Guberman)
• 12. Re: Chizkiyahu's Seal (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Ahab (Daniel M. Israel)
• 14. Re: Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Daniel M. Israel)
• 15. Re: Ahab (Micha Berger)

What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of 
a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a 
possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally.

OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out 
"Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements.

Ben

On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would
> initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of
> bloodshed. I

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-o
rthodoxy.html#comment-form


is it or is it not a tenet of  Orthodoxy  that to be defined as O  one must
submit to some defined human authority?    clearly,  we must deny the
preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to
either the entity called  'moetzets gedolei hatorah'  of the USA or Israel
---  since amongst the groups that do NOT  are Satmar ,  and they are
considered O  .

nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly  HAVE
submitted to someone.  eg Chabad  submitted to their Rebbes  while they had
them .  MO  submitted to  RYBS  while they had him -----  but in both cases
, one can claim they  essentially need submit to no one , since there is no
universally recognized Leader of either stream,  even though SOME  of those
latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS  in some of MO , and certain
crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad].

the controversy is  whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them ,
 are in violation of the proposed tenet or not .

so, is there a tenet of O  that submission to a defined panel of leadership
 is mandatory?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151201/cbc5cd70/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: is it or is it not a tenet of  Orthodoxy  that to be defined as O  one must
: submit to some defined human authority? ...

In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds
for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can
only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find.
You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more
objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer,
even if in ways that elude you.

That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions
where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better
involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it
easier to grow in qedushah.

And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode
of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer.

But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and
Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out.  So my original
point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal
descent.

The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian,
and Moshe a Midianite.

The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't
Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists).
There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have
muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their
descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim
on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence
of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk
of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their
values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able
to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This
would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.)

By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat
more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151201/203b0b42/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
>> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To
>> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe

I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved,
since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father.   Membership of
the tribe would be automatic with marriage.


> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and
> Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out.  So my
> original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't
> simply patriarchal descent.

No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan,
and neither did Yosef or Moshe.   But this had nothing to do with
halacha.  Halachically they were all Bnei Noach.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq
: and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out...

Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness.

See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras
ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden"
others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ".

Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq
got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost
it yet.

And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the
reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav
twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur
hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included
non-Jews.

We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad
Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish".

The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish.

And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean
the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community
of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah.
No Malkhus Yehudah yet.

Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai
or Arvos Moav.

And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited.

I don't see any possible referant.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat 
turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She 
also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy 
his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his 
grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for 
Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American 
holidays aren't celebrated. :)

___________________________
Joel Schnur, Senior VP
Government Affairs/Public Relations
Schnur Associates, Inc.
25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405
New York, NY 10036

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204
Fax. 212-489-0203
j...@schnurassociates.com
www.schnurassociates.com
http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/

The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that 
seven is "sof hacheshbon".  What does he mean?

David Riceman

: is it or is it not a tenet of  Orthodoxy  that to be defined as O  one must
: submit to some defined human authority? ...

In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds
for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can
only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find.
You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more
objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer,
even if in ways that elude you.
====================================
This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2
times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the
"requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater
than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your
conclusion.  Interesting to me is how do you define doubt.  When looks at
halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha
that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a
clear algorithm of how we got there.  Recently I was discussing a
particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an
area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts.  I said that it
seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be
told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh
for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms  we
wouldn't be.  We seem to view a poseik as someon
 e who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik"

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they
found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched
by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone
so prominent.

See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294
The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality
it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found
in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA .

Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav).

Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his
seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh
is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian
deities including pharoahs.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his
> seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh
> is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian
> deities including pharoahs.

The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-
found-in-jerusalem

    "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all
    over the region" and no longer bore their original significance,
    Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote
    the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression
    that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said.

    "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said.

On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they
> found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched
> by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept,

Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including
that of Baruch ben Neriyah.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?
> 
> There was no switch.  It's de'oraisa.
> 
> Please site a source.  All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. 

I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a
switch.  It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not
believe in Torah min hashamayim.

It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. 
(And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not
obvious.)  However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker
about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the
?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking
about this very halacha.  The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies
on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would,
IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. 
It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the
time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal,
based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on
an different drash.

Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others.
 But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone
outside of ?Orthodoxy??

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151203/f0988097/attachment-0001.htm>

On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> http://attemptsatjewisht
> hought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-o
> rthodox-clergy
> 
> But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that
> isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but
> what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and
> that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher.
> 
> Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of
> Orthodox Jews eat turkey.	How? Because Rabbinic leadership is
> entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and
> innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the
> newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and
> found a way to resolve the two.
> 
> The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA
> controversy over Mesorah.	Not because they offer one-sided support
> for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos
> remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not
> a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos.

I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical
difference.  How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach
Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and
entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of
a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all
these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda
which was primarily driven by some outside value system.  This makes all
the difference.

Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. 
But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from
advancing an agenda.  And the possibility that the former may occur does
not validate the latter.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote:
: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
:> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the
:> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews.

: I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was
: a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not
: believe in Torah min hashamayim.

I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree
that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by
Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD
set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a
non-heretical possibility.

I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different
mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age
of the pasuq.

But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change
of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period
before Matan Torah than after.

So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have
been an applicable issur.

Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah
before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah
literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the
historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that
works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be
teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't
actually done that way...)

So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris
bein habesrim.

Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one
cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited
at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson


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



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


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


***************************************

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.)