Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 2

Sun, 05 Jan 2025

• 1. Re: levels of effort needed above pure din (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Mesora? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Kalah NaAh VeChasudah - Midvar Sheker (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Tense Berachos (Micha Berger)
• 5. eulogy (Joel Rich)

On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 04:38:09AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> An example of various levels of what chazal may have thought of levels of
> effort needed above pure din. I'd love to better understand the threshold
> calculations and what they mean in shamayim...

BTW, RJR's quote, for those who only saw "??? ???..." was from
AhS CM 222:8
<https://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan%2C_Choshen_Mishpat.222.8>.


If we are unable to assess the sekhar of the mitzvos themselves, or what
is qalah or chamurah (Avos 2:1), how can we hope to assess the value of
effort when it is non-obligatory?

Chodesh tov,
un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 04:35:09AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
>> >From R' A Zivotofsky:
>> Claim: There is a mesorah on turkey. Ask almost anyone from the older
>> generation and they will confirm that they and their family and their
>> community ate turkey without hesitation.
...
> Can you reject this claim but still accept the Kuzari argument for
> Judaism's truth?

A big piece of the mis-named Kuzari Argument is that there is no way to
pull over a hoax that big about the history of an entire community.

The turkey isn't a big issue like the origin story. No one would be
surprised that grandpa didn't say anything about his grandpa's grandpa
saying they didn't have such a mesorah.

But more importantly, they did say as much! We know how the mesorah
came about, and we know it's a mistake. The debunking didn't come from
nowhere -- dates back at least to the Tosafos Yom Tov. As soon as we
learned that the turkey and the guineafowl were different birds, there
were people questioning the mesorah.

---



I said the Kuzari Argument is mis-named to remind people of an issue
I raised here in the past: R Yehudah HaLavi's section 1 is actually an
argument against the value of philosophical proofs. There is an irony that
Rihal's statement that mesorah is a more sure source than philosophical
proof was itself turned into a philosophical proof.

Really tangentical -- as in not being Avodah-eque: Guineafowl are
sub-Saharan African birds that reached Europe via Turkish traders, and the
Middle East via Indian ones. This is why when the New World bird arrived,
and people thought they were all one species, they shared the nickname of
the local guineafowl importers -- Turkey or Tarnigol Hodu, respectively.

Have a Great Month,
and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger                 Take time,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   be exact,
Author: Widen Your Tent      unclutter the mind.
-- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF -- Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

In Avodah V43n1, R' Micha noted:
> At the end of Bereishis, the brothers tell Yoseif an outright
fabrication. (Given
Chazal's assumption that Yaaqov didn't actually say such a thing in an
incident that isn't in the chumash.) <
We seemingly had a[nother] fabrication in last week's *sedra*: compare what
the brothers say in 44:8 <https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0144.htm#> (???
??????, ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????????????) with what the Torah relates
as happening in 42 <https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0142.htm>
(specifically, verses 27 and 35); and note that Yosef's directive that time
did not include placing each's money  ?????? ?????????????   (i.e. contrast
42:25 with what happened later, 44:1).  Why didn't they just say
"b'amt'choseinu"?!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250101/da0fe3a0/attachment-0001.htm>

(Sorry for the misleading title. It was just too fun for me to pass up.)

In his column this week (see below), R Daniel Mann addresses the question
as to whether the berakhah should be "shehakol nihyeh" or "nihyah".

The reason this is a machloqes acharonim has to do with Chazal's
non-simple position about the correct tense for a berakhah. It is

To quote RDM:
    What do we do with the Gemara's contention that Hamotzi uses past
    tense? Don't we know from "Dikduk 101" that "hotzi" is past, "motzi"
    is present and "yotzi" is future?! The answer is that "Hamotzi," and
    "Borei," ... in various brachot are not verbs but nouns. We are giving
    Hashem the title of "the extractor" of bread, "the creator" of foods...
    In Hebrew, the noun/title is formed by using a present verb form. Now,
    one can earn a title by what he did in the past, is doing in the present
    or will do in the future (or any combination of them). The Gemara posits
    that the title must be compatible with the past tense. In contrast,
    in Shehakol, "nehiya" is not a title but a real verb. Therefore, if
    one uses the present tense, he is stressing the present (much more than
    borei does), which the Gemara seems to object to.

I think that distinguishing between title and present tense verb is itself
imposing a foreign worldview onto Hebrew. Rather, the whole reason they
are the same structure is because the language is based on the worlview
that you are what you do. Pre-modern Hebrew never said "is building", only
"is being a builder" -- or better, never split those into two distinct
ideas.

(Just as "HaKel haGadol haGibbor vehaNorah could be read as four titles
for Hashem, or one title and 3 adjectives.)

And so, the gemara is saying that the proper aspect for a berakhah is
imperfect, meaning, past tense is only okay if you are saying "and is
still doing so today." Whereas "nihyah" doesn't make it explicit that
things are still only existing bidvaro.

Which is how the AhS (OC 167:7
<https://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan%2C_Orach_Chaim.167.7>) describes
it. The language must be "lashon hakolel es hakol". Birkhos hanehenin
must be in lashon avar (opening words of the se'if) , and yet we should
follow the lashon of Tanakh, and the pasuq language that implies that
HQBH didn't stop.

The Be'er Heiteiv (204 "shehakol") quotes and dismisses the MA because
most berakhos are in present tense. Which really only fits the gemara
if you take him to mean "present and past".

Which is kind of why I prefer my perspective to RDM's -- he has it as a
title that looks like a present tense verb, but the real verb is past.
I am saying it's an imperfect aspect verb, and therefore although
present tense (by the time you get to Chazal and Hebrew with tenses),
doesn't rule out the past too.

But here's a new question:

There is also one other difference with shehakol -- the verb is
passive. We aren't saying "... Who causes the existence of eveything,
with His Word", but "everything exists, through His Word."

Second, "HaMotzi" refers to how the loaf in front of me came to
be. Or "Borei" -- the cake, fruit, vegetable. "Shehakol" refers to
how it exists right now. Rashi argues "hamotzi lekhem" has to refer to
something that happened in the past because the bread in front of me
is no longer potential in the ground. But the drink in front of me *is*
currently existing!

The verb in this berakhah is used in an entirely different way,
why are we assuming the same rules apply for tense?


An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

Right Pronunciation of Shehakol
By Rabbi Daniel Mann
January 1, 2025

Question: I pronounce the second-to-last word of Shehakol as "nehiya"
(with a kamatz at the end). Someone told me it must be "nehiyeh" (with
a segol), which is in the present tense, because we want to say that
Hashem provides everything for us today, not only in the past. My dikduk
is not good enough to have an opinion. Is he right? If he is right,
have I not been yotzei ((fulfilling the mitzvah)) all these years?

Answer: We will try to keep the dikduk as simple as we can. Indeed,
in third person singular (he/him), "nehiya" is past (all came to be by
His word) (see Devarim 4:32), and "nehiyeh" is present (all comes to be
...). (In first person plural (we), "nehiyeh" is future (we will be).
The question is whether we want to use the language of past or present.

We can seek precedent from other brachot. The Gemarot regarding Hamotzi
(Berachot 38a) and Borei Meorei Haesh (ibid. 52b) assume that we want
these brachot to focus on the past. Rashi explains -- the bread we are
about to eat was already extracted from the soil. One can say the same
thing about Shehakol -- the chicken or candy I am eating was produced in
the past. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'ktzia, Orach Chayim 167) goes a step
further, claiming that the "all" that Shehakol refers to is broad, and
that, generally, things came into existence at creation -- even if the
specific food we will eat is relatively recent. Indeed, a majority of
poskim (see Shaarei Teshuva 204:20) and of practice (survey of sources,
siddurim and people) is as you have done -- "nehiya."

However, significant logic and a sizable minority of sources support
"nehiyeh." The Chochmat Manoach (Brachot 38a; cited by the Magen Avraham
167:8) points out that most brachot employ a present tense verb (see
below) at the end of almost all brachot (even those that focus mainly
on the past). Take birkat haTorah as one of many examples. We speak of
bachar banu ... v'natan lanu (past tense references to matan Torah) but
end off "... noten hatorah ("noten" is present tense -- gives/is giving).

Therefore, he and the Meil Tzedaka (42) advocate saying "nehiyeh." The
Meil Tzedaka's and Magen Avraham's final positions are not clear. One can
also take issue with Rav Yaakov Emden's chiddush that Shehakol focuses
on creation. Why should all other birchot hanehenin focus on the specific
food and this one focus on creation?

It is more likely that we use general terminology for specific foods that
do not fit into a specific category. Regarding Talmudic precedent, the
Magen Avraham also cites a Yerushalmi (Brachot 8:5) that one should not
learn from Borei Meorei Haesh because the language should be appropriate
for commemorating the original creation of fire. Regarding Hamotzi, the
Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 167) knew a version of the Gemara that Hamotzi
is in the present, and the Meil Tzedaka explains our text as just wanting
to avoid future tense, but these positions are of a small minority.

What do we do with the Gemara's contention that Hamotzi uses past
tense? Don't we know from "Dikduk 101" that "hotzi" is past, "motzi"
is present and "yotzi" is future?! The answer is that "Hamotzi," and
"Borei," ... in various brachot are not verbs but nouns. We are giving
Hashem the title of "the extractor" of bread, "the creator" of foods...
In Hebrew, the noun/title is formed by using a present verb form. Now,
one can earn a title by what he did in the past, is doing in the present
or will do in the future (or any combination of them). The Gemara posits
that the title must be compatible with the past tense. In contrast,
in Shehakol, "nehiya" is not a title but a real verb. Therefore, if
one uses the present tense, he is stressing the present (much more than
borei does), which the Gemara seems to object to.

One is yotzei the bracha with either form he uses. In kriat haTorah,
subtle meaning changes are problematic, but regarding brachot, the
deciding factor is the basic idea. While the Gemara (Brachot 40b) cites
an opinion that changing a bracha's formulation disqualifies it, that
is for major changes. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 167:10 shows how far
one can be off and be yotzei.

The Gemara uses the following as a proof that  eulogizing is for the
benefit of the dead.

????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?
?? ???, ??? ??? ????: ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????. ?? ??? ???? ???
????, ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ??? ???? ??? ???

 Come and hear! R. Nathan said: It is of good omen for the dead when he is
punished [in this world] after death. E.g., if one dies and is not mourned,
or [properly] buried, or if a wild beast drags him along, or if rain drips
down on his bier, it is a good omen for him


We are also told that eulogizing is an important mitzvah.

*????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?*



 (?') ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????




 and that  if the eulogy is inappropriate both the eulogizer and the
eulogizee will suffer

*????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?*



 ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???, ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??,
???? ??? ????? (?') ????.


 If you were driving it for the benefit of the dead and it?s a good omen
for the dead, not to be your eyes, why don?t we see more people asking not
to be apologizing, especially since the full condition is that they will be
We also know that the eulogizee can request that there be no eulogy and he
will be obeyed, but we are given no guidance on whether he should make such
a request





*????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?*



 (??') ?? ???? ??? ???????, (?) ?????? ??



Given the above, why don't we see more requests for no eulogy given the
benefit to the dead?


bsorot tovot

Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250104/c91ea0e4/attachment-0001.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)