Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 82

Sat, 21 Dec 2024

• 1. Ya'akov refused to be comforted? (Joseph Kaplan)
• 2. Re: Ya'akov refused to be comforted? (Micha Berger)
• 3. fixed shaliach tzibur (Joel Rich)
• 4. wife?s responsibilities to her husband (Joel Rich)
• 5. Re: Zmirot (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Deceit by omission (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: schchita/death (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: pikuach nefesh (Micha Berger)

Akiva Miller has a lovely interpretation of Ya?akov refusing to be comforted upon being told of Yosef?s alleged death:

"After Yosef's brothers went to Yaakov, and presented him with the
fabricated evidence of Yosef's death, pasuk 37:35 tells us (according to
most translations) that Yaakov "refused to be comforted". That be accurate
IF the Torah's text was "l'hinachem", in the Nifal form, "to be comforted".

But that's not what the Torah says. The word in the Torah is
"l'his'nachem", with the letter tav, in the Hitpael form. He did not merely
refuse to accept the comfort that others were offering to him. The Hitpael
concerns what a person does to *himself*. There is something that Yaakov
might have done to himself, but the Torah tells us here that he refused to
do it. My copy of ArtScroll's one-volume Hebrew-English Tanach reads more
accurately: "but he refused to comfort himself."

I suspect that this letter tav may be the source for the idea that  Yaakov
knew, deep down, that Yosef was still alive. He did not merely refuse the
consolation that others were offering, he even refused to accept the
situation as it appeared to everyone else. [This is not to suggest, of
course, that because he knew Yosef to be alive, he was therefore able to
carry on as usual. Whatever he knew or didn't know, he missed his son
terribly, and that's enough to upset any loving father terribly, and "he
refused to comfort himself" with the fact that Yosef was still alive.]?

Using Akiva?s grammatical understanding, I?d like to suggest another
possible understanding of the verse. It wasn?t related to Ya'akov?s
knowledge of whether Yosef was alive. Rather, it was related to Ya?akov?s
realization that he had failed Yosef and, indeed, his other children by
treating Yosef in a special manner and causing enmity between them. He
realized that had he not done so, the entire tragic incident might never
have happened. And thus he not only blamed himself for Yosef?s
disappearance and/or death but he couldn?t forgive himself for his failure
as a parent. Or, in the Torah?s language, he refused to comfort himself.

Joseph

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:55:45PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote:
> Akiva Miller has a lovely interpretation of Ya??'akov refusing to be
> comforted upon being told of Yosef's alleged death:
...
>                                     The word in the Torah is
> "l'his'nachem", with the letter tav, in the Hitpael form. He did not merely
> refuse to accept the comfort that others were offering to him...

But that is hitpa'el. If everyone offers but he won't take it, he is
preenting himself from getting nechmah.

Also, one would think it bears *some* connection to the previous phrase,
"VaYaqumu kol banav uvenosav lenachamo, vayima'ein..." It really sounds
like Yaaqov made himself unable to accept their nechamchah.

Also, hitpa'el isn't always reflexive. For some shorashim, it's passive.
See
https://jewishlink.news/the-meaning-of-the-hitpael-and-our-relations-with-christians
for more explanation.

...
> Using Akiva??'s grammatical understanding, I??'d like to suggest
> another possible understanding of the verse.... [I]t was related
> to Ya??'akov's realization that he had failed Yosef and, indeed, his
> other children by treating Yosef in a special manner and causing enmity
> between them...

That would make the loss over which Yaaqov refused to accept nechamah
to be have been reflexive -- something he messed up for himself. Which
doesn't make the nechamah itself any more reflexive. Nor any less.

But whether it's explicit in the pasuq or not, Chizquni (ad loc) says
that Yaaqov's words "va'eireid al beni aveil She'olah" is an expression
of feeling guilty for sending Yoseif to check on his brothers.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   In that space is our power to choose our
Author: Widen Your Tent      response. In our response lies our growth
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

A fixed shaliach tzibur historically was to be (at least aspirationally)
?most fit, greatest in learning and good deeds? (see S?A OC 581:1).
Nowadays when the shatz is no longer motzi anyone (me-with the exception of
the whole tzibur in R? YBS?s conception of tfilat hatzibbur), we?re not so
picky (see AH?S 53:21 and MB 53:53). So what exactly is the role of the
shatz today
bsorot tovot
joel rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20241218/2b2293ee/attachment-0001.htm>

An interesting question came up in our Rambam Chabura (see hilchot mamrim
6:6) concerning a wife?s responsibilities to her husband and her parents.
I?ve done some research on the issue, but I?m curious as to what people
think the source of a wife?s responsibility to her husband is (as expressed
by the statement ??????? ???????? ??????? . Once the source is identified,
how far do you think it goes?
bsorot tovot
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20241218/8c5994a5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 07:42:06PM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Anyone know of any sources which discuss why certain zmirot are associated
> friday night while others are associated with shabbat day?

Some of them may simply be because of the word "yom". While "Yom Zeh
Mechubad" may refer to the whole 24 or 25 hour day that is Shabbos,
it is unsurprising that the hamon am are saying it in the day time.

There is also much in the Zohar about the different kinds of Shabbos
between night and day. Related to the Amidah and "veyanuchu vah / vo /
vam kol Yisrael". I assume there is a deeper reason that makes some of
them more appropriate to the themes of each part of Shabbos.

Like Kah Ribon Olam is more about Maaseh Bereishis than Sinai (Yismach
Moshe) or Me'ein Olam haBa (Atah Echad). And it is indeed usually billed
as a dinner song.

Then there are all the Sepharadi data points, Pizmonim I know little to
nothing about...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You are where your thoughts are.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp           - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 07:28:24PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Sometimes, a person will defend himself by saying, "No, I didn't lie; I
> just left out some things."

> Bereshis 31:20 seems to disagree: Because Yaakov failed to tell Lavan that
> he was leaving, it *does* count as Geneivas Daas.

I think there are two issurim. Leaving out elements of the truth,
or presenting the truth in a manner you know will be misunderstood is
still geneivas da'as. But they would not violate midevar sheqer tirchaq,
since you knew what you meant and it was true.

Therefore, if you need to lie mipenei darkei shalom, it is better to say
"Anokhi. Eisav bekhorekha" knowing Yitzchaq would assume Yaaqov was saying
"Anoki Eisav bererekha". (As per Rashi.) Or "Kalah na'ah vechasudah"
because in the Chasan's eyes, she certainly is no matter who she is
objectively.

Or partial truths, like Hashem repeating to Avraham what Sarah said about
her own old age, but not that she said Avraham too was too old to sire
a son.

So, not allowed, but comparatively better to have "just left out some
things".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The greatest discovery of all time is that
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   a person can change their future
Author: Widen Your Tent      by merely changing their attitude.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Oprah Winfrey

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 06:37:41AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> 2 According to chizkia a shuddering animal after shechita is no longer
> living but not yet dead. Does this indeterminate status have any
> implications for the human definition of death? Schrodinger's cat?

Martin Gardner are two kinds of three valued logics that are often
discussed in the field. (I guess "wee often discussed", the book I
am remembering was likely published in the 70s or early 80s.)

There are those that defy the Law of Contradiction. A proposition could
be true, false, or both.

And there are those that defy the Law of Excluded Middle. A proposition
could be true, false, or something in between.

Quantum Logic is a more elaborate version of the first class, because
it's not three valued -- its "both" is a state whose value is any
complex numbers whose magnitude is 1. (That is, a+bi, where
    sqrt(a^2+b^2) = 1
This is why a qubit in a Quantum Computer is described by a point on the
surface of a Block Sphere -- that's the same set of numbers.)

But here I think we are in the second class. The animal who is still
quivering after shechitah is "something in between". And since it's not
dead, a Ben Noach may not eat it. But since it is rendered not alive
via shechitah, a Jew may.

But here, 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   And the Torah, its light.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - based on Mishlei 6:2
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 06:35:06AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> R H Schacter and R A Weiss speak of pikuach nefesh as including
> non-immediate threats to life. Is there a materiality standard or does any
> decrease in life expectancy qualify?

When it comes to smoking and "shomer pesa'im Hashem" it is people
who follow the norms even when the can or should know better on an
intellectual level.

That's not about amount of life risked or probability of loss, but about
doing things that shorten life that most people in his society would
or wouldn't.

While that's about causing a risk, not mitigating one, it is 4 weeks
later and no one offered something closer to on topic.

So, maybe someone can argue why the same standard wouldn't apply or
why it would.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 People were created to be loved.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Things were created to be used.
Author: Widen Your Tent      The reason why the world is in chaos is that
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    things are being loved, people are being used.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)