Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 014

Wednesday, October 20 2004

• Rashi on HaPalit
• [Noach/Giving/]MLLN[-IndianSheitlachPart1]
• R. Chaim Kanevsky
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: linguistic norm
• "Lekaleis" - shevach or genai?
• Re: Fingernails and Toenails
• RE: Fingernail/Toenails
• Re: Words and their opposites
• Re: fingernails
• Re: Fingernails and Toenails
• Re: Fingernails and Toenails
• Re: Ayzehu M'komon and Machlokess
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: Words and their opposites
• Re: Words and their opposites
• Fwd: ParshatLechLecha/MLLN-IndianWigsPart2
• Chashmal or (electricity)
• Re: Ikkarim (again??)
• Re: Chashmal or (electricity)
• Re: =?ISO-8859-1?B?oCBXb3JkcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgb3Bwb3NpdGVzIA==?=
• Re: Ikkarim (again??)
• Re: Ikkarim (again??)

Does anyone explain why Rashi only brings Og as a candidate for HaPalit
and not at least also Malach Michoel who is brought in Baal HaTurim, Pirke
D'Rebbe Eliezer etc or both answers like Rabbenu Bachaye or Chizkuni?

HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com

micha@aishdas.org Posted on: Oct 18, 2004, 1:36 PM
>> Rashi explains that an individual who fulfills a mitzvah is essentially
>> a servant ministering to his master. The individual does not receive
>> benefit from such an act. 

> How does Rashi's explanation of MLLN fit either side of the hashkafic
> fork? Both the quest for sheleimus and the quest for deveiqus are about
> impacting the self, either internally, or in one's relationship to the
> Borei, and therefore not simply "ministering to his Master". Yes, that
> impact is not necessarily hana'ah, but once you rely on that, Rashi's
> words didn't add anything to the explanation.

Perhaps we can be medayyik from Rashi on Rosh HaShonna 28a s.v. b'yomos
ga-geshamim, "sheh-ayn kahn ella ha'na'ass kium ha-mitzvah, umitzvos lo
nitnu li-hannos"), which contrasts one who was modir han'ah from another,
from sprinkling water upon him (ha-za-ah) in the cold season with doing
so in the hot season:

Although a Rashi above this one (s.v. lahv li-hannnos nitnu)
stated,"-l'yisroel, li'hiyos kiyumom lahhem ha-na'ah, ella l'ol ahl
tzavareihem nitnu," here he seems to clarify the concept to mean that
although one DOES get the ha-na'ah of the kiyyum ha-mitzvah ([the good
feeling of knowing that one is gaining?] the shleimus and deveykus
obtained through ministering to his Master and accepting His yoke),
this kiyyum-hamitzvah-ha-na'ah [is not a physical one, and] is not the
kind of ha-na'ah Hashem refers to as ha-na-ah, and is therefore not the
kind prohibited by one who is modir ha-na-ah.

At any rate, it is clear that Rashi acknoweldges that there IS a "ha-na-as
mitzvah" in doing the mitzvos.

R' Eli Turkel <<< saw a recently published sefer with piskei halachot
from R. Chaim Kanevsky, "She-elat Rav". About 400 pages long it consists
of short questions and answers usually 1-3 words long. So the reasons
are not always clear. >>>

I know that there are a number of poskim who have that paskening style. I
wonder if they're aware of how much frustation this causes to the people
who learn their seforim. Or maybe I'm in the small minority on this?

Here's some of the examples which he posted:

<<< (in name of CI) it is preferable if a woman does not travel in a car
during the first 3 months of pregnancy >>> I'd love to know if this is
for health/safety reasons or for other reasons, and whether travel in
a bus is okay.

<<< A pregnant woman should step on finger/toe nails >>> Is this a typo?
We carefully discard our nails so as to prevent this, no?

<<< It is not necessary for a man to help a woman with a heavy stroller
because of azo-taazov >>> Suppose it's a man who is pushing hte stroller.
Does azov taazov apply in that case?

<<< Better not to look in a mirror to see if the tefillin are on right. >>>
Is this because mirrors are beged isha, or because it's motzi laaz on
those who put tefillin on without mirrors?

Akiva Miller

In  Avodah V14 #13 dated 10/19/2004 Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
writes:
> ...if I am understanding RPM correctly, he feels that it is important to
> use a particular dialect/version/whatever of Lashon HaKodesh for laining,
> but it is not so important to use it for davening. Could someone explain
> the difference?

It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between davening and
leining, although I can't cite a source. If you are allowed to daven in
any language (bedieved), kal vechomer you could daven in Hebrew but with
some slightly different accent. The words of tefillah are all d'rabbanan
anyway, even if you do say them in Hebrew. Reading from the Torah is
different because we are so makpid to transmit the wording of the Torah
exactly as Hashem gave it to Moshe--which surely includes transmitting
the exact pronunciation as accurately as possible.

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

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:01:11PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
:                                            Reading from the Torah is
: different because we are so makpid to transmit the wording of the Torah
: exactly as Hashem gave it to Moshe--which surely includes transmitting
: the exact pronunciation as accurately as possible.

Why do you believe there was only one pronunciation even back then?

Still, it would seem from MB 53 s"q 37 that Ephrayim's pronunciation of
"siboles" is inferior. The MB seems to lump it together with the Ashkenazi
ches and ayin as "if everyone pronounces thus, then one can be the Sha"tz"
even if he does too.

-mi

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< ... there is certainly room for improvement  
> WITHIN these systems for more attention to mil'eil and mil'ra etc. EG  
> Even, a Litvak COULD be trained to say tayRO instead of TAYro! >>>

> R' Phillip Minden disagreed: <<< When he's laining same, yes. In  
> tefilles and when learning, no - this is an anachronistic  
> hypercorrection. Would you propose introducing spoken Old French, or  
> even Modern French, in British schools for the same purpose? >>>

(The two sentences are combined here. Actually, the first one commented
to tayrO vs. tAYro, and the second referred to the idea of students
being introduced to Teimani pronunciation in order for them to evolve
a better orthography in general.)

> Was the word "British" supposed to be "French"? If you really did mean  
> "British", then I'm missing something critical, and please ignore the  
> rest of this post.

I really did mean British, alluding to the 40 or 50 percent of the
English vocabulary with an Old French etymology.

> Otherwise, if I am understanding RPM correctly, he feels that it is  
> important to use a particular dialect/version/whatever of Lashon  
> HaKodesh for laining, but it is not so important to use it for davening.  
> Could someone explain the difference? I can understand an insistence on  
> both, or not caring about either, but why would a distinction be made  
> between them?

I'm sorry to have made this impression. As I wrote to somebody else:
"Please get me right: I'm in no way of the opinion that a slurred or
an arbitrary pronunciation is acceptable in tefilles. I like plays with
words, but I'm horror-stricken when I hear the sha"tz start the kedushe
"Naritzcho" (we will chase you chv"sh) or the like, and it does happen
all too often. I also feel I can't answer omein after a broche directed
to Eddie Neu. Only, concerning the tefilles, correct language isn't
necessarily identical to loshen mikro."

And as in many eidous (in different degrees all of Ashkenez-Poulin, but
also Iraq, North Africa, Yemen), words in loshen chachomem are stressed
mil-eil, the question is what is the language of the tefilles. Further,
is it uniform from the anshei keneses hagedoule via the paytonem to
modern-day authors? If not, should it be? What about tenach passages
outside of laining? Quotes of expressions from the tenach? Changed
quotes, expressions and allusions? (In Shakespeare's play, lehavdil!,
Rosencrantz says to Hamlet: "How can that be, when you have the voice
of the king himself for your succession in Denmark?" [III, 2]. In an
indirect quote, would you say: "Well, Rosencrantz questions Hamlet's lack
of advancement, because he HATH the voice of the king himself"? And then
again - lehavdil...)

In periods before more was understood about how a language works,
there were attempts to biblicise everything, sometimes leshem shomayem,
sometimes motivated by dubious reasons, but as a rule against the minneg
of many centuries. So, la"d it is indeed important to be makpid on one's
pronunciation, but the issue is complex.

Lipman Phillip Minden
[ 8~)>

> "Akeres habayis" can refer to a woman with no children, or a
> woman with many children.

Example, please? The only (non-modern) usage of the phrase AFAIK is in
the first paragraph of Hallel, where it means a woman with no children.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The source for not discarding nails, lest they cause miscarriage, is a
g'mara in Mo'ed Katan 18a.

The same g'mara states that since women are not normally found in a beis
medrash, they may be discarded there with impunity, and indeed R. Yochanan
did just that. Furthermore, there is no concern that the nails might be
swept outside and stepped over by a pregnant woman, since once they have
been moved (it's a question whether moving entails removing it from the
room in which they were cut, or just moving it even within the room)
they have no detrimental effect.

I believe this suffices to indicate that the belief that the failure to
account for one's nails can somehow affect one's entry into Gan Eden is
unfounded nonsense.

"If anyone knows more about this, I would be interested in hearing about
it. --Toby Katz"

I speak without authority, but my sense of it is that nails carry tumah.
We wash 'negel vasser' b/c that part of the hand carries tumah of being
1/60th in state of death overnight; Adam and Chava had a fingernail-like
skin which was lost when they sinned, hence that part of us is a reminder
of what we should have been; Yosef HaTzaddik, according to Gemoro Ta'anis,
emitted some form of ejaculate through his fingernails while resisting
the temptations of Aishes Potiphar. I would add that any depiction of
witches always includes long fingernails.

BTW, one ramification of all of this is that the idea of painting
fingernails is obviously a 180 degree distortion of chazal's
understanding.

I'd appreciate hearing from others on this, especially if there are
concrete sources to be cited.

Gedalia

In Avodah V14 #13 dated 10/19/2004 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> The  problem of words that have the same shoresh but different meanings
> is a  broader one - it includes the many examples of words that sound
> the same  but mean different things. An example would be Ram to raise and
> ram to  throw, shv to sit and shv to capture. This is the bigest problem
> with three  letter root theory. ...  Your example of Eigel
> adn agalah is a  good example why the three letter root theory is not
> sufficient. There are  many otehr such words.
[snip]
> We desperately need a better  explanation. Of course, we can always return
> to the two-root theroy of  Menachem. It does not suffer from this problem.

When you say "two-root theory" do you mean to say "two-letter root
theory"?

I don't know how a biliteral instead of triliteral root theory would help
your example of "sit" and "captive," above. If they are both shin-beis
rather than both shin-beis-hei, what have you gained in understanding
how the same root can mean such different things?

Your statement that eigel and agalah show the deficiency of the
triliteral root theory makes no sense to me at all. They both clearly
have a triliteral shoresh, and the same one at that: ayin-gimel-lamed.
If you want to say that in fact they are examples of biliteral roots,
what is the two-letter root of each word and what is the added-on third
letter--and what purpose does the added letter serve? Say that "circle's"
root is really ayin-gimel, while "wagon's" root is gimel-lamed (for the
sake of argument). How did the circle then acquire a lamed, or the wagon
acquire an ayin?

In the case of your "ram-raise" and "ram-throw" example, I once again
don't see where there is a biliteral shoresh or how that would help.
"Sus verochvo ramah vayam." That is a three-letter root there,
reish-mem-hei. And as for "raise" and "throw" being opposites--well it
seems to me that the "throw" meaning derives directly from the "raise"
meaning. "Ramah" is a particular k ind of throwing--where you raise
something up high and then throw it down from a height (rather than
throwing something horizontally in a plane, as in a game of catch).

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

it is a gemara found in moed katan as well as elsewhere. (not kabbalistic)

y.l.

In light of REMT's post I'm confused about the following, but this was
what I was taught besheim my greatgrandfather, both by my grandfather
(his son), and lbchlch my mother (his granddaughter).

R' YAA Krieger required some form of kevurah for fingernails. There is no
issue of kavod hameis, so any means of getting them underground was okay.
That would include most sewers and septic tanks. My mother does not
(AFAIK) throw nail clippings in the trash, as landfills are covered
with dirt only sporadically; they are always flushed. And certainly not
letting them fly where they may.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In light of REMT's post I'm confused about the following, but this was
what I was taught besheim my greatgrandfather, both by my grandfather
(his son), and lbchlch my mother (his granddaughter).

R' YAA Krieger required some form of kevurah for fingernails. There is no
issue of kavod hameis, so any means of getting them underground was okay.
That would include most sewers and septic tanks. My mother does not
(AFAIK) throw nail clippings in the trash, as landfills are covered
with dirt only sporadically; they are always flushed. And certainly not
letting them fly where they may.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:19:22PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: This can be found in the Mishnah Berurah, Biur Haytave, Biur HaGra and
: Beis Yosef on Orach Chaim (50), citing the Ra'ah, that this perek was
: chosen in the morning prayers as representative of mishnayos because
: "sheh-perek zeh ayn bo machlokess, v'hi mishnah berurah l'Mosheh
: mi'Sinai,"--"this perek is not disputed against (or, "there is no dispute
: recorded in it"), and it is a clear mishnah [given] to Mosheh mi-Sinai."

Is this "merely" leshevakh this particular pereq, or is this implying
something about machloqes? Can we deduce from this that the Ra'ah et
al would not consider the "wrong" side of a machloqes to be T"T, and
therefore wouldn't serve the role within tefillah?

: He doesn't quite say that the way we know it's a "mishnah berurah
: l'Mosheh mi'Sinai" is through the fact that it contains no machlokess,
: although the inference is reasonable.

If the Ra'ah holds like the Rambam, a lack of possibility of machloqes
and HlMmS are identical sets of dinim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

In a message dated 10/18/2004 2:36:31pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The evolution of pronounciation is rarely conscious,
> it flows as the people do. Therefore, this one data point is arguably
> of greater significance than any general rules about pesaq.

FWIW: many scholars claim that the Ashkenazic Aw for Kamatz was a
concsious decision to change from an ah sound

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In Avodah V14 #13 dated 10/19/2004 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
>The problem of words that have the same shoresh but different meanings
>is a broader one - it includes the many examples of words that sound
>the same but mean different things. An example would be Ram to raise and
>ram to throw, shv to sit and shv to capture.

Here the roots are not identical, are they?

Resh vav mem vs resh mem heh.  Yod shin vav vs shin vav heh.

This would seem to justify the triliteral-root theory and disprove the
biliteral-root theory. As if that needed to be justified.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org
Fax: ++1-619-639-8172

In a message dated 10/20/2004 1:19:11am EDT,  laser@ieee.org writes:
>> An example would be Ram to raise and
>> ram to throw, shv to sit and shv to capture. [--RML]

> Here the roots are not identical, are they?
> Resh vav mem vs resh mem heh. Yod shin vav vs shin vav heh. [RIJ]

You are right, actually, and I made a mistake, I see, in thinking that
to raise and to throw are both the same shoresh. You are also right in
saying that they are not two-letter, but three-letter, roots.

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

>From: "Reuven Ungar" <reuvenu@hotmail.com>
>To: reuvenu@hotmail.com
>Subject: ParshatLechLecha/MesirutNefesh/MLLN-IndianWigsPart2

>BSD

>Weekly Sha'alvim Alumni Torahletter

>III Shiur

>MLLN and Indian Sheitlach- Part 2

>A shiur from Rav Yechezkel Yakobson, Rosh Yeshivat Sha'alvim.

>Summary of Part 1: Upon discovery that a significant amount of wigs (that 
>originated in India) were previously utilized for idolatrous purposes 
>their usage was placed under doubt, for it is forbidden to derive benefit- 
>hana'ah- from such items. Perhaps there is not a problem. The performance 
>of a mitzvah is not considered a benefit (mitzvoth lav lehenot nitnu- 
>MLLN). Is the following a halachically viable claim- "The only reason that 
>I cover my hair is to fulfill the halacha- thus it is not considered 
>hana'ah due to MLLN" ?

>The Ritva challenges the logic of MLLN; a person who performs a mitzvah is 
>rewarded in this world and in the next. Is this not considered a benefit?!

>The Ritva responds that the performance of the mitzvah itself is not 
>considered a benefit. Beneficial ramifications of the act do not revoke 
>the status of MLLN. He marshals a proof from an individual who took a vow 
>(neder) forbidding himself from deriving benefit from a spring (ma'ayan) 
>of water. The halacha permits this person to bathe in a spring of water in 
>the winter. This act purifies the individual to eat certain holy foods 
>(Kodashim) and Terumah (if he is a Kohen), nevertheless it is permitted. 
>The benefits are ramifications of the immersion; the act itself is not 
>considered "hana'ah".

>One may not slaughter an endangered animal on Yom Tov with a knife that it 
>is forbidden to benefit from. The Avnei Miluim raises the following 
>objection to the line of reasoning of the Ritva: It is a mitzvah to eat 
>meat that has been slaughtered in a halachically consistent manner. Thus 
>the slaughtering does not qualify as hana'ah; according to the Ritva the 
>beneficial ramifications of this action should not remove the status of 
>MLLN. Why may one not slaughter with a knife that is asur behana'ah?

>Let us ponder: May one build the halachically mandatory fence (ma'akeh) on 
>a rooftop from items that we are forbidden to benefit from?

>A distinction exists between mitzvoth A. that a Jew must pursue, B. those 
>that one fulfills when the need arises. One is not required to build a 
>house with a roof. If an individual desires to erect such a dwelling he is 
>required to construct a fence. Because this mitzvah is in the latter 
>category, the concept of MLLN does not apply.

>This analysis resolves the question posed by the Avnei Miluim. One is not 
>required to consume meat subsequent to having fulfilled the festive meals 
>of Yom Tov. One who desires to eat meat must slaughter the animal in a 
>halachically approved fashion. Due to the fact that the additional 
>consumption of meat is not from the former category, MLLN is inapplicable. 
>Therefore, one may not use the knife that is asur bahana'ah (forbidden to 
>benefit from).

>Purification, however, is a state that Hashem desires that we attain. 
>Therefore the immersion is governed by the principle of MLLN.

>The obligation of a married woman to cover her hair in the public domain 
>is similar to the mitzvah of ma'akeh. It arises when a women decides to 
>enter the public domain. Thus, the principle of MLLN will not remove the 
>prohibition of benefiting from the forbidden item.

>It bears relating the following story of the Gra (Vilna Gaon). An emissary 
>of the Gra searched far and low for an acceptable etrog to utilize on 
>Sukkot. A kosher etrog was found; alas the individual who possessed it was 
>willing to bequeath it to the Gra on one condition: the reward for the 
>performance of the mitzvah would belong to him, not to the Gra.

>It is told that the Gra performed this mitzvah with excessive joy. He was 
>ecstatic that he was fulfilling the mitzvah 100% because of Hashem's 
>command; without any thoughts of doing so for reward.

R' Eli wrote:
> BTW another psak from RCK was that it is better not to use the Hebrew
> word Chashmal (electricity) since it is an angel in sefer Yechezkel.

I have noticed that Rav Volbe shlita also never says Chashmal. He uses
the English (Yiddish?) word instead.

 - Danny

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:52:45AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: The Rambam (SHM Aseh #172) says this mitzvah applies only to horaoth
: shaah. As far as I know no prophetic horaoth shaah were still operative
: in the middle ages.

After 6 weeks, I gave up on finding a source.

The Rambam uses the notion of needing to listen to a navi to establish
the significance of "umeihem kamah nevi'im" in describing the Anshei
Kenesses haGdolah, and it plays in the discussion of divrei soferim.

: In any case, the philosopher of the Kuzari did mitzvos, he just didn't
: believe they came from God (kind of like the Hachmai Umoth HaOlam
: in R. Zalman Volozhiner's reading of the Rambam in H. Melachim).
: So presumptively he would have obeyed prophetic decrees as well.

AIUI, the Kuzari's philosopher was acting morally, doing what he thought
was right. He wasn't doing anything remotely like shemiras hamitzvos.

:> Someone who doesn't believe nevu'ah is possible can't believe in Torah
:> miSinai. Another one of the 613.

: Really? Where's that? AFAIK the only mitzvoth concerning belief the
: Rambam lists are existence and unity of God.

The Rambam requires even Noachides believe in 7 mitzvos miSinai.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Schoemann, R' Danny wrote:
: R' Eli wrote:
:> BTW another psak from RCK was that it is better not to use the Hebrew
:> word Chashmal (electricity) since it is an angel in sefer Yechezkel.

: I have noticed that Rav Volbe shlita also never says Chashmal. He uses
: the English (Yiddish?) word instead.

I understand an irritation with the people who chose a qodesh word
describing something pretty mystical to label a far more prosaic
phenomenon. But now that the word has been accepted for decades (over
a century?)...

How is it significantly different than seraphim, chayos, ofanim, ish,
all of which also carry mundane meanings?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Peter Marshall

I apologise for not being clearer. There were two points:

1. Three letter root theory embroils itself in all kinds of complications
to explain similar sounding words that mean different things. It is
forced to postulate letters that drop out or are exchanged for other
letters in various complicated and surprising ways. I believe, plese
correct me if wrong, somebody, that Arabic which was the template for
the 3 letter theory in Hebrew does not have all these exceptions.

2. There are many words that have the same root but mean different
things. That does not fit with the 3 theory that purports to explain
how every shoresh is unique and unlike another. The 2 letter root theory
does not attempt to make this claim.

M. Levin

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> The Rambam uses the notion of needing to listen to a navi to establish
> the significance of "umeihem kamah nevi'im" in describing the Anshei
> Kenesses haGdolah, and it plays in the discussion of divrei soferim.

If I understand you correctly (and I'm merely guessing) you are alluding,
not to what the Rambam says, but to contemporary explanations of why the
Rambam adds the phrase "umeihem kamah nevi'im".  Perhaps you can explain
what you're saying in more detail.

> AIUI, the Kuzari's philosopher was acting morally, doing what he thought
> was right. He wasn't doing anything remotely like shemiras hamitzvos.

Kuzari I:1 (Hirschfeld translation, Schocken edition, p. 38): "Thou mayest
even choose a religion in the way of humility, worship, and benediction, for
the management of thy temprerament, thy house, and thy country, if they
agree to it."  In other words, he commends adopting a religion for its
practical advantages.  If he were Jewish he would do mitzvos for their
practical benefit, not because he believes God told him to do them.

> The Rambam requires even Noachides believe in 7 mitzvos miSinai.

No.  I thought I'd quoted this before, but here it is again: "If someone
fulfills the 7 Mitzvoth because they seem reasonable (mipnei hechrea daato)
he is not a resident alien (ger toshav) and is not a pious gentile.  Instead
he is a wise gentile (H. Melachim ed. Frankel 8:11)."  The Vilna edition has
a different text but RZV emended it as in Frankel's text.  There's no
requirement there to beleive that God told him to do them: he's fulfilled
the 7 Mitzvos, which is all that's asked of him.  His only disadvantage is
that he can't become a ger toshav, and thus suffers certain debilities.

David Riceman

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:47PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: If I understand you correctly (and I'm merely guessing) you are alluding,
: not to what the Rambam says, but to contemporary explanations of why the
: Rambam adds the phrase "umeihem kamah nevi'im".  Perhaps you can explain
: what you're saying in more detail.

Actually, Chazal point out the inclusion of nevi'im in AKhG. The Rambam
repeats their words, and seems to connect it to an increase in their
authority. The acharonim provide lomdus to try to explain what "divrei
soferim" means, but IIRC, it's the Rambam himself who connects it to
nevu'ah.

:> AIUI, the Kuzari's philosopher was acting morally, doing what he thought
:> was right. He wasn't doing anything remotely like shemiras hamitzvos.

: Kuzari I:1 (Hirschfeld translation, Schocken edition, p. 38): "Thou mayest
: even choose a religion in the way of humility, worship, and benediction, for
: the management of thy temprerament, thy house, and thy country, if they
: agree to it."  In other words, he commends adopting a religion for its
: practical advantages.  If he were Jewish he would do mitzvos for their
: practical benefit, not because he believes God told him to do them.

This is a shift from the Kuzari's philosopher to a hypothetical Jewish
version of that philosopher. However, R' Yehudah haLevi didn't make the
man a Jew, and gave the philosopher an ethic based on intuition. Nor does
he say he commends adopting a religion, but says that one can be utilitary
and adopt one as useful. Can, not should.

:> The Rambam requires even Noachides believe in 7 mitzvos miSinai.

: No.  I thought I'd quoted this before, but here it is again: "If someone
: fulfills the 7 Mitzvoth because they seem reasonable (mipnei hechrea daato)
: he is not a resident alien (ger toshav) and is not a pious gentile.  Instead
: he is a wise gentile (H. Melachim ed. Frankel 8:11)."  The Vilna edition has
: a different text but RZV emended it as in Frankel's text.  There's no
: requirement there to beleive that God told him to do them: he's fulfilled
: the 7 Mitzvos, which is all that's asked of him.  His only disadvantage is
: that he can't become a ger toshav, and thus suffers certain debilities.

No big difference; shift my statement to be about geirei toshav, and the
question stands.

IIUC:
Your question really revolves around the Rambam's notion of din, in which
one is judged for the knowledge the mitzvos he performed gave him, not
the mitzvos themselves. Which raises the question of what happens when
one gets this chalos without the pe'ulas hamitzvos, or -- nidon didan --
when someone does the pe'ulos but never gets the yedi'ah. Such a person
could keep kol haTorah kulah and leshitaso not go to olam haba.

Frankly, given Aristotle's ideas about psychology, I doubt the Rambam
thought it was possible.

The question of how many of the 13 ikarim are amongst his count of the
613 is a distraction. Although I still believe they're all hiding there.
The question is this disjoin between observance and sechar. Whether
it's over someone who didn't even violate anything, or someone who did,
but isn't getting sechar for what they did do, it's pretty much the
same question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]