Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 26

Sat, 10 Mar 2018

• 1. Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash (Sholom Simon)
• 2. Re: Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 5. Chilul Hashem (Ben Bradley)
• 6. Re: Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 7. Understanding Melacha on Shabbos (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. The Great Cholent Challenge (Professor L. Levine)
• 9. taamei halacha? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. hagba (Rich, Joel)

> We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites
> the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was
> a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this."
...
> Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision?
>
> Thanks!
> Akiva Miller

From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned
anything by being shown the coin.

However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was
the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism.
What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk,
was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal,
flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal,
hewed from the depths of the earth.

The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony
forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds:
"on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings
who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic
instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as
represented by the complete selflessness of fire."

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote:
: From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned
: anything by being shown the coin.
: 
: However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was
: the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism.
...

Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about
his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius
synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity.

And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get.

My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the
"peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson...

There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do
machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of
what a pure enough silver coin looks like.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe 
had never seen one.  *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of 
silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe 
would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an 
example to explain it to the people.  (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, 
but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.)  Perhaps this was 
the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or 
so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual 
object might have secular applications.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore
: Moshe had never seen one.  *If* there is a requirement that the ten
: gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the
: mishkan...

Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline
in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein
uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem.

The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts
positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta
es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely
someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without
transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this
gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'.

Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be
mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and
public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who
behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to
complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's
drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this.

Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to
assume that any behaviour  by an identifiably frum Jew which would be
considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the
gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by
a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably
Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known
scholars.

The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that
assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by
identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as
far as I can discern.

So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably
frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham
meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive
Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for
the categorisation as chillul Hashem?





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180306/2f18693d/attachment-0001.html>

On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore
> : Moshe had never seen one.  *If* there is a requirement that the ten
> : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the
> : mishkan...
> 
> Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline
> in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein
> uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b)

One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's 
invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it.  Perhaps even that Avraham 
thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because 
he learned it from the Torah.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos.  YL


35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the
objects which God commanded that they be made.


2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a
Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on
it shall be put to death.


If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we
find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the
physical world.  hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The
most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of
the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what
the individual does for the community, and what the community does
for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social
sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in

hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim  and from

r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim.

Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to
God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah
apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position
in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the
latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places
man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places
man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of
our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's
sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature
and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up
by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates
himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life.
Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons
for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim  - complement
each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world
attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on
Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the
Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on

Shabbos by the isur hotzaah.

The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's
activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on
behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the
state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180308/a117aafe/attachment-0001.html>

It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent!


Please see the article at

https://goo.gl/vE37Rs


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180308/26998457/attachment-0001.html>

In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used
(but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it
was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but
otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators
then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between
hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh
how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he
was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was
forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting
logic (this is what's always done).
And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he
would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic
and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180309/3dbde7e8/attachment-0001.html>

when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8)
 he discusses how many columns to open the torah.  kach mkublani mbeit avi
abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah
(it's not a contest and it's not about you!  Others argue that it is a
hiddur.  My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around
you think as well as what are your motivations?

On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180309/2d02a0c6/attachment-0001.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)