Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 072

Monday, June 19 2006

• Re: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• RE: Marcus Aurelius and Rebbe
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• RE: Marcus Aurelius and Rebbe
• RE: Marcus Aurelius and Rebbe
• RE: Marcus Aurelius and Rebbe
• RE: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:14:57PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: OTOH, there is nothing wrong with you, or the Rambam affirming a doctrine
: that is incomprehensible as long as it does not fly in the face of common
: sense. Personally, I believe that the Rambam does not count this doctrine
: as part of the ikkrei haEmunah precisely because it is incomprehensible
: and thus unprovable....

"Thus"? Can't I prove the truth of something I can't understand? For
example, what if I disprove comprehensibility? Hashem exists, and yet
I can't understand Him...

:                      That's why he didn't bring a pasuk to support his
: contention regarding "He is the Knower etc." He believes this doctrine
: probably because he received it b'kabbala. I might be wrong about this
: but I'll wait to see if anyone can disprove my hypothesis.

I believe the reverse. He didn't bring a pasuq because it's misevara.
He holds that there is no way one can assert "Hashem Echad" with an
achdus that allows for a separation between the Knower and His Knowledge
and still end up with a consistent position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

> On 14 Jun, 2006, at 15:06:42 -0400GMT, R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> Chabad adds that the Ari captured this 13th nusach, that the Baal
>> haTanya correctly reproduced it, and therefore their "Nusach Ari"
>> (a title which can just as fairly be given to any chassidish
>> "Nusach Sfard") is the safest choice of nusach, usable by all. I do
>> not know enough Chabad Torah to give a primary source for this.

> See the introduction to their Hebrew-English siddur.
> I don't have a copy to check, but it may include a footnote or other
> reference to where that preference comes from specifically.
> If i remember correctly, they attribute it to the Maggid of Mezhritch
> (for Pseudo-Sfard in general as replacement nusahh).

Sefer Yalkut Yosef[1] says that the nusach of the Sepharadim is the most
correct nusach al pi kabbalah. He cites the Chida[2] who wrote in the
name of the Ari about the 12 gates corresponding to the 12 shevatim, and
says that the nusach of the Sepharadim can ascend through all 12 gates.

One who compares the siddur of the RaShaSh with the current Sepharadi
nusach, can see that they are very close.

The introduction to Chabad's siddur says that the Ari's manuscripts of
his nusach didn't follow halacha in all places, and that this motivated
the Ba'al HaTanya to clean up the nusach, but I don't know what the Ba'al
HaTanya's halachic concerns were with the Sephardi nusach that he felt
the need to create a more Ashkenazi-like nusach.

 -Ken Bloom

[1] siman kuf alef - sh'yachol l'hitpallel b'chol lashon - halacha vav
[2] sorry I can't give a specific cite for the Chida right now -- I
only own the two volumes of "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" from Yalkut Yosef,
so I don't have any of the footnotes. If I remember, I'll look it up
when I go back to shul for Mincha today.

RSCoffer wrote
>>Rebbi never bowed down to Antoninus.

I responded
> A more careful formulation would be "the gemara does not say that
> Rebbe bowed down to Antoninus."

To which RSC in turn responded
>>The above formulation can only characterized as 'more careful' for
>>one who doubts the veracity of the Gemara's narrative

This is a utterly baseless statement. "The gemara does not say that Rebbe
bowed down to Antoninus." is perfectly accurate. "Rebbi never bowed down
to Antoninus" is divrei neviut; the gemara does not say this, AFAIK,
and thus I don't understand why RSC thinks he knows it. Exactly how does
my correct formulation indicate in any way that I doubt the veracity of
the Gemara's narrative?

RSC
>AFAIC, the Gemara is clear about the relationship between Rebbi and
>Antoninus. The latter was machniya himself to the former, not the
>opposite. The account related in the Gemara supports this position.

Correct.. I regret that RSC seems to think I disagree on this point.

RSC
>Anyone who wishes to introduce doubt into the episode of Rebbi and
>Antoninus, alav (or in our case ale'ha) ha'ra'aya.

In my case, it's alav. Of course, since I at no point doubt the gemara's
account in any way, I don't have to bring the raaya RSC for some reason
thinks I do.

RSC
>>The ideal relationship between Yaakov and Eisav was this...

RSM
> This is RSC's leap (although it may well be a defensible position),
> not something the gemara which describes this action of Antoninus says.

RSC
>I don't remember (know) where Chazal discuss it but I am confident
>that the general idea is discussed by Chazal (perhaps a Medrash or
>Zohar) although I cannot produce a reference at this time.

I'm willing to wait patiently for RSC to provide the so far unknown
reference. Until he does, my statement stands unrefuted. In any event,
I am referring specifically to the gemara in AZ, not "some maamar chazal
somewhere"

In response to my statement that "Rebbi considered Antoninus his
intellectual equal", based on the gemara Sanhedrin 91a, RSC wrote

>>It is not manifest that Rebbi considered Antoninus his 'intellectual
>>equal' (i.e. equally aware and proficient in the verities of life)
>>merely because he learned two things from him

I stand by my statement, and think that this is a reasonable conclusion
 from a fair reading of the gemara in Sanhedrin.

RSC wrote
>>The Gemara in Avodah Zara presents a quite different view of the relationship
>>between Rebbi and Antoninus [from the one in Sanhedrin]

Here's something we can completely agree on. This was my point exactly.

RSM:
> Scholars differ as to whether the Antoninus referred to in the gemara
> is indeed Marcus Aurelius or some other prominent Roman.

RSC:
>>Agreed. I am following the opinion of the Doros Rishonim (R' Yitzchak
>>Isaac haLevi) and Rav Avigdor Miller, both reputable historians

Although many would regard this statement in its entirety with a
considerable degree of skepticism, I do not think it fruitful to
debate it.

Saul Mashbaum

I wrote earlier regarding the gates of prayer in shamayim:
> [1] [Yalkut Yosef] siman kuf alef - sh'yachol l'hitpallel b'chol lashon
> - halacha vav

(This can be found with full footnotes in Yalkut Yosef: Shearit Yosef
Chleck Bet.)

> [2] sorry I can't give a specific cite for the Chida right now -- 
> I only own the two volumes of "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" from Yalkut
> Yosef, so I don't have any of the footnotes. If I remember, I'll look
> it up when I go back to shul for Mincha today.

Sha'ar HaKavanot Dav Nun -- Samech Ayin Dalet: brings the discussion
about the 12 gates.
Kesher Gadol Siman Yud-bet Ot Tet: discusses that the nusach of the
sepharadim can ascend through all twelve gates.

>> See the introduction to their Hebrew-English siddur.
>> I don't have a copy to check, but it may include a footnote or
>> other reference to where that preference comes from specifically.
>> If i remember correctly, they attribute it to the Maggid of
>> Mezhritch (for Pseudo-Sfard in general as replacement nusahh).

I also checked out a copy of Siddur Tehillat Hashem (every shul seems to
have one somewhere), and the source in the Maggid of Metzrich's writings
for the 13th gate is Maggid Devarav LeYa'akov (Likkutei Amarim) sec 133.

It's worth noting that the Maggid says there were 13 gates, and that the
Ari Z"L's nusach enters through the 13th gate. The Hida says there were
12, and that the nusach of the Sepharadim can enter through all of them.

What I gather from the Hida's opinion is that your tefillot will
ascend through the gate belonging to your shevet. When your tefillot
get there, they can only get through if they're the right "shape". A
specific shevet's tefillot are the right "shape" for that gate only,
but the nusach of the Sepharadim is the right "shape" to fit through
whatever gate the tefillot try to ascend through. (I don't know where
the tefillot of gerim go.)

The Maggid's opinion seems like a more complicated arrangement, and I
won't even try to guess what that is.

(Of course, I haven't read primary sources on this. These are my guesses
based on reading Yalkut Yosef and the introduction to siddur Tehillat
Hashem.)

> The introduction to Chabad's siddur says that the Ari's manuscripts
> of his nusach didn't follow halacha in all places, and that this
> motivated the Ba'al HaTanya to clean up the nusach, but I don't know
> what the Ba'al HaTanya's halachic concerns were with the Sephardi
> nusach that he felt the need to create a more Ashkenazi-like nusach.

I misrepresented this, because I had not seen it in a while. The
introduction to Tehillat Hashem (at least the current edition) does not
mention conflicts with halacha. Rather, the reason the Ba'al HaTanya
compiled an edition of the siddur was because the Ari Z"L hadn't written
his own authoritiative version -- he had simply passed on teachings to his
students. By the time a nusach was compiled from these teachings, there
were several variations of the nusach, they contained a lot of kavvanot,
and they were printed without nikudot (because they were intended for
kabbalists). The Ba'al HaTanya compiled the nusach so laymen could use it.

 -Ken Bloom

On June 18, 2006, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> RSCoffer wrote
> >>Rebbi never bowed down to Antoninus.

> I responded
> > A more careful formulation would be "the gemara does not say that
> > Rebbe bowed down to Antoninus."

> To which RSC in turn responded
> >>The above formulation can only characterized as 'more careful' for
> >>one who doubts the veracity of the Gemara's narrative

> This is a utterly baseless statement. "The gemara does not say that Rebbe
> bowed down to Antoninus." is perfectly accurate. "Rebbi never bowed down
> to Antoninus" is divrei neviut; the gemara does not say this, AFAIK,
> and thus I don't understand why RSC thinks he knows it. 

Would you say that, for instance, Yeshaya haNavi bowed down to AZ
chs'v? And if not, why not? Are you a navi? After all, the Gemara never
says that he didn't bow down to an idol so how do you know?

You know because of the context that the entire Yeshaya is written and
how he denigrates AZ that he surely did not prostrate himself to foreign
gods chs'v. No nevius necessary. If Chazal never say that Rebbi bowed to
Antoninus and the one place in Chazal where the relationship is described
indicates a diametrically opposed dynamic to one of Rebbi bowing before
Antoninus, than it is no different than the Gemara openly stating that
Rebbi was not machniya himself to Antoninus. This seems so simple to me
I can't understand what we are arguing about.

>    Exactly how does
> my correct formulation indicate in any way that I doubt the veracity of
> the Gemara's narrative?

I'm sorry, my allegation was not a personal affront. I just meant to be
me'orer you that entertaining the idea that Rebbi was machniya himself
to Antoninus was tantamount to doubting the Gemara's description. IIRC,
you were not the one who introduced this idea originally. It was
another poster. You were merely attempting to defend her. And I am
merely trying to demonstrate the fallacy of your defence. I'm sure you
don't doubt the Gemara. Once again, I apologize.

> RSC
> >>The ideal relationship between Yaakov and Eisav was this...

> RSM
> > This is RSC's leap (although it may well be a defensible position),
> > not something the gemara which describes this action of Antoninus says.

> RSC
> >I don't remember (know) where Chazal discuss it but I am confident
> >that the general idea is discussed by Chazal (perhaps a Medrash or
> >Zohar) although I cannot produce a reference at this time.

> I'm willing to wait patiently for RSC to provide the so far unknown
> reference. Until he does, my statement stands unrefuted. In any event,
> I am referring specifically to the gemara in AZ, not "some maamar chazal
> somewhere"

I'm off to New York for a wedding shortly. No time for research. Bl'n in
a week or two...hopefully. Meanwhile, perhaps some other kindly souls on
Avodah can come up with a ma'amar Chazal indicating that "v'ess achicha
ta'avod" was fulfilled with R and A.

Simcha Coffer

RSCoffer wrote
> If Chazal never say that Rebbi bowed to Antoninus and the one place in
> Chazal where the relationship is described indicates a diametrically
> opposed dynamic to one of Rebbi bowing before Antoninus, then it is no
> different than the Gemara openly stating that Rebbi was not machniya
> himself to Antoninus. This seems so simple to me I can't understand what
> we are arguing about.

This proof that the gemara states that Rebbe never bowed down to
Antoninus, and the analogy (not quoted here) to histachavayah l'AZ, are
so fallacious that I strongly suspect further debate on the subject is
an exercize in futility. I just wonder if I'm the only one who thinks
RSC's argument here reminds one of the proof that Yaakov wore a yarmulka.

Let's move on.

Saul Mashbaum

On June 19, 2006, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> This proof that the gemara states that Rebbe never bowed down to
> Antoninus, and the analogy (not quoted here) to histachavayah l'AZ, are
> so fallacious that I strongly suspect further debate on the subject is
> an exercize in futility.

Agreed

> I just wonder if I'm the only one who thinks RSC's argument here reminds
> one of the proof that Yaakov wore a yarmulka.

I'm not sure what proof you're referring to (I hope not the joke of
"v'yatzei Yaakov") but Yaakov Avinu surely did wear a Yarmulke (i.e. some
form of head covering). I suppose this comment seals our impasse.

Simcha Coffer

On June 16, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
>:                                                      How can one say that
>: they are not really his opinions? He claims that people who don't believe
>: in his stated Yesodos lose their chelek l'olam habba. That's pretty
>: harsh for something that wasn't even really his belief, don't you think?

> But that's not what RDR said. What RDR said was that the Rambam argued
> from a weaker position than his own (ie without his asserting yeish
> mei'ayin) so that people wouldn't question the conclusion. 

So IOW, you are claiming the RDR subscribes to all of the approaches
forwarded by the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei haTorah. Personally, I
agree with you but "ein lanu ela ma she'eineinu ro'os". Let's trot out
the quote.

On June 13, 2006, RDR wrote:
> From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>> RDR claims that I improperly argue that the Rambam accepts Aristotle's 
>> position that necessity (#1) is independent of simplicity (#2) but 
>> this is not due to my personal reading of the Rambam. AFAIC, it's 
>> obvious. In 1:1-4 the Rambam says nothing about simplicity. He speaks 
>> only about independence and concludes with the pasuk Hashem Elokim 
>> Emes. Many halachos later, he delineates the idea of simplicity 
>> (2:9-10) and concludes with his famous "He is the knower, He is the known
>> and He is the Knowledge".

<RDR>
> See MN 1:&1 "Therefore, you will always find in my halachic works that
> when I mention the principles of religion and speak about proving the
> existence of God I write in a manner that can be harmonized with belief in
> the eternity of the world ("notim l'tzad hakadmut") - not that I believe
> that the world is eternal, but that I want to prove God's existence in
> an irrefutable way."

> RSC's diyyuk was intended by the Rambam, not to describe his own opinions,
> but to simplify his proof of God's existence.

My "diyyuk" was in reference to the doctrines of 'simplicity' and
'independence' and as such, I assumed RDR was referring to them and other
descriptions of Hashem with his noun "opinions" (plural). Any further
comments were based on this assumption. (R' David, you've attained the
status of a Rishon. Two acharonim are debating your meaning...)

[Email #2. -mi]

On June 18, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:14:57PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: OTOH, there is nothing wrong with you, or the Rambam affirming a doctrine
>: that is incomprehensible as long as it does not fly in the face of common
>: sense. Personally, I believe that the Rambam does not count this doctrine
>: as part of the ikkrei haEmunah precisely because it is incomprehensible
>: and thus unprovable....

> "Thus"? Can't I prove the truth of something I can't understand? For
> example, what if I disprove comprehensibility? Hashem exists, and yet
> I can't understand Him...

"Hashem exists" is only a statement vis-a-vis the qualities we can relate
to such as the fact that our existence must have emanated from somewhere
thus leading to the statement 'Hashem is the Boreh'. The qualities of
"proof" necessarily relate to phenomena/ideas that are within our frame
of reference (I can prove that 2+2=4 by taking two apples and putting
them side by side with another two apples). You cannot prove the presence
of a quality which exists outside of the parameters of your (mankind's)
experience. It's illogical.

Incomprehensible=unknowable. Anything that cannot be known cannot be
proved in human terms. Otherwise, it would be known. Thus, none of
Hashem's intrinsic positive attributes can be proven. This is why I
believe that Hashem's simplicity is a matter of accepted truth rather than
philosophical postulation (not to mention that the Rambam states openly
that it is impossible to understand which would seem to eliminate the
ability to reach this doctrine via philosophical enterprise). According
to the Maharal, even the idea of Hashem's simplicity is not an intrinsic
quality of His essence. His illustrious descendent, the Baal haTanya,
claims that the Rambam was not discussing Hashem's essence and as such,
it is possible to relate to this doctrine on the level of post Tzimtzum
Creation vi'ein kan makom l'ha'arich.

Simcha Coffer

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 03:57:23AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:>:                                                      How can one say that
:>: they are not really his opinions? He claims that people who don't believe
:>: in his stated Yesodos lose their chelek l'olam habba. That's pretty
:>: harsh for something that wasn't even really his belief, don't you think?

:> But that's not what RDR said. What RDR said was that the Rambam argued
:> from a weaker position than his own (ie without his asserting yeish
:> mei'ayin) so that people wouldn't question the conclusion. 

: So IOW, you are claiming the RDR subscribes to all of the approaches
: forwarded by the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei haTorah. Personally, I
: agree with you but "ein lanu ela ma she'eineinu ro'os". Let's trot out
: the quote.

No, I'm saying that when RDR explains the Rambam's shitah, he gives an
understanding that includes all of the Rambam's approaches. To do so,
he points out how the Rambam here explicitly takes an "even if you were
to believe" approach.

I saw no claim (in the quote under discussion, I approved posts since
that one that I only skimmed) that RDR necessarily holds like the Rambam.
He made a textual statement about understanding a particular paragraph
about the Moreh.

-mi

On Jun 9, 2006, at 18:23:07 EDT, RTK wrote:
>>> Segue to related subject, what language did Avraham speak before coming
>>> to Canaan? Did he speak the same language Lavan and the rest of the
>>> mishpacha spoke? Was that language Hebrew? If not, then in what
>>> language did Hashem address him when He said, "Lech lecha"? And how
>>> and when did Avraham switch languages? No but Avram must have spoken
>>> Hebrew or a closely-related language because his name and Sarai's
>>> name are clearly Semitic. Hnm, Lavan, Rachel and Leah are also all
>>> Semitic names -- but what about Lot? What language is that, and what
>>> does the name mean? Terach, Bilhah, Zilpah -- are these Hebrew words?

R' Stephen (Steg) Belsky wrote:
> It depends which _Ur_ you believe is Ur Kasdim -- Southern [Sumerian]
> Ur, or Northern Ur, or "Urfa" as it's known today, near the
> Syrian/Turkish/Iraqi border.
...
> In Northern Ur they may have spoken Aramaic (like in Hharan), or Hurrian
> (a non-Semitic language), or both. Their names would seem to indicate
> a Semitic-speaking environment.
...
> The Avot probably started speaking Hebrew/Canaanite upon settling in
> The Land.

Sefer haKuzari [ma'amar 2:68] mentions that Avraham spoke two languages,
Aramaic , which was the language of Ur Kasdim, and Ivris, which was the
language of Eiver, his family's language. He used Ivris as his lashon
haQodesh, and Aramaic for mundane speech.

According to Kuzari, Ivris [interchangeable with Lashon haQodesh],
Arabic, and Aramaic are all from the same family, with Ivris/LhQ being
the family language rather than the language of Canaan.

Qol Yehuda, a commentary on Sefer haKuzari, contrasts this position with
that of the Ramban al HaTorah [B'reishis 45:12]. Rashi in Vayigash
[B'reishis 45:12] explains that when Yoseif said Ki Pi haM'dabeir
aleikhem, he meant that he was fluent in lashon haQodesh. Ramban claims
that LhQ was the language of Canaan, and fluency in LhQ was no big deal,
as Egypt was a neighboring country.

[Mahloqes is whether Ivri is from Ever haYarden or whether it means from
the family of Eiver]

Of further interest is the discussion the Kuzari has WRT N'vuah and
lashon haQodesh. When mentioning the significance of lashon haQodesh and
what makes it "Qodesh," the Kuzari says that it so because of clear and
concise nature, and N'vuah needs to be unambiguous and was thus said in
LhQ. I am unsure whether this suggests that the Kuzari understood that
the words were said to the Navi specifically in LhQ (if any words were
used at all?), or that the Navi said his N'vuah to a population whose
primarily language may have been something other than LhQ but the N'vuah
was told to B'nei Yisrael unambiguously in LhQ.

Jacob Farkas

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


[ 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         ]