Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 204

Sat, 31 May 2008

• 1. Re: D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: omer - Rihal (Arie Folger)
• 3. Any problem with reporting as part of a shiur summary (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Any problem with reporting as part of a shiur summary (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Any problem with reporting as part of a shiur summary (Zev Sero)
• 6. Assorted quotes from RSRH (Gershon Seif)
• 7. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Michael Makovi) (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Michael Makovi) (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Richard Wolpoe)

I said:

> I don't really like the model of mitzvot having intrinsic effects on
> the universe. For example, when I eat treif, or when I put on
> tefillin, I don't really think anything spiritual is happening in the
> universe. Rather, it's that
> 1) It affects yourself - it is educational, whether in your knowledge
> and intellect, or in affecting your behavior (practicing tzedaka will
> make you charitable, etc., as per Sefer haChinuch).
> 2) It shows loyalty to G-d. As Rav Hirsch near the beginning of Sefer
> Bereshit says, our deeds affect the heavens (so to speak) because G-d
> sees what we are doing, and His attitude towards us changes
> accordingly.

However, I realized, I left out a third category:

I should have included:
3) It is stam what G-d wants - For example, G-d wants you to help the
poor, be nice to others, honor the elderly, clean up the environment,
etc. He just stam wants them. Not because they pull any spiritual
strings in the upper worlds to reunify any broken disunity, but
rather, simple because He wants a world where the poor have what to
eat and where all His children get along. He intrinsically just wants
these things in the world.

Now then...

Horeb gives six categories of mitzvot:
1) Toroth - These are totally educational (my first category). They
really don't require any deed, but are rather almost pure hashkafa
and/mussar, such as fearing G-d and being loving and compassionate and
not being greedy.
2) Mishpatim - Justice towards other humans. These fit into my third
(stam He wants) category, and my second (loyalty)
3) Chukim - See mishpatim - chukim are justice to subordinates to
yourself, such as creatures and nature.
4) Mitzvot - See mishpatim - mitzvot are love (not justice), because
G-d has commanded and because it is stam what we ought to do. (Rav
Hirsch says in 19 Letters, "...simply because of the bidding of G-d
and in consideration of our duty as men and Israelites.")
5) Edot - First (education) and second (loyalty) categories. A most
notable eid is Shabbat and Yom Tov, as well as tzitzit and tefillin.
6) Avodah - this is a twist on the second (loyalty), in that it
establishes a direct relationship to Him via prayer; it isn't quite
loyalty, but it is similar. It is also educational for ourselves
(first).

So while Rav Hirsch divides the mitzvot into six groups, I have
divided the reasons BEHIND these six categories, into three different
motivations or rationales.

So to categorize Rav Hirsch six categories according to my three:
1) First
2) Second and Third
3) Second and Third
4) Second and Third
5) First and Second
6) First and Second

It should obvious, however, why we don't have three (stam He wants)
without two (loyalty) - you can do a stam command of His just because
He said so (two - loyalty), without it being something He is
intrinsically pleased with (three - stam He wants), but it is
impossible to have three - stam He wants without two - loyalty.

The only question is, why don't we have a mitzvah with all three categories?

Mikha'el Makovi

RZL wrote:
> Evidently, Erev-Pesach did fall out on Shabbos several times in Hillel's
> near past, yet Hashem somehow caused the practice regarding the korbon to
> be forgotten.--Unless one is willing to accept that Rebbi Avoon was unaware
> of the historical reality suggested above.

... or that Rebbi Avoon asked "ought it not to be impossible for such a long 
time to pass without the 14th falling out of Shabbat? And yet, how come this 
hadn't happened in such a while?"

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

that the maggid shiur (a well respected talmid chacham) in discussing
whether there is an issue of hasagat gvul singing a song someone else
wrote and copyrighted, said he doesn't believe people would "write songs
that voices never shared" ? In particular is there an issue of LH if I
think  his knowledge of S&G isn't insulting but he would, or he wouldn't
but his normal crowd (including the one this shiur was given to) would.
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080530/be48a6b6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:15:41PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: that the maggid shiur (a well respected talmid chacham) in discussing
: whether there is an issue of hasagat gvul singing a song someone else
: wrote and copyrighted, said he doesn't believe people would "write songs
: that voices never shared" ? In particular is there an issue of LH if I
: think  his knowledge of S&G isn't insulting but he would, or he wouldn't
: but his normal crowd (including the one this shiur was given to) would.

LH includes harmful speech, so if it would lower his target audience's
estimation of the maggid shiur, I would think the CC prohibits.

What if the rav himself would be embarassed, but you AND the general
audience consider it neutral?
And if you and they consider it positive?

I thought I saw this case in the CC, but searching the seifer
electronically didn't turn anything up.

And, if in the previous question, you consider it prohibited to
repeat something you and the listener (and his potential listeners)
would consider a compliment but the person would be embarassed because
it's not how he wants to be thought of -- what if he would be embarassed
because it's a compliment?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 40th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?

Rich, Joel wrote:
> that the maggid shiur (a well respected talmid chacham) in discussing 
> whether there is an issue of hasagat gvul singing a song someone else 
> wrote and copyrighted, said he doesn't believe people would "write songs 
> that voices never shared" ? In particular is there an issue of LH if I 
> think  his knowledge of S&G isn't insulting but he would, or he wouldn't 
> but his normal crowd (including the one this shiur was given to) would.

Those who would think it insulting wouldn't recognise the phrase in the
first place, and so wouldn't learn anything "derogatory" from your
summary.

I had to Clusty the phrase in order to work out what on earth you were
talking about.  But those who would think less of the maggid shiur for
knowing that source wouldn't be using the 'net either; and in any case
it wouldn't occur to them that he was quoting anything, so they'd have
no occasion to find out where it came from.  I only did so because your
question made it obvious that this was a quote from some "tamei" source.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

I was recently sent these and thought many Avodah members would appreciate
this as much as I did. I wish the locations of these quotes were provided
along with the quotes.

"We should not wonder at why the Torah does not conform to the times, but rather why the times do not conform to the Torah"

"Never must we think that the Jewish element in us could exist without the human element or vice versa."

"There is one particular danger which is to be feared by a Jewish minority.
It is what we would like to call a certain intellectual narrow-mindedness .
. . it may easily come to regard all other knowledge in 'outside' domains
as unnecessary, or even as utterly worthless. It may reject all
intellectual activity in any field outside its own as an offense against
its own cause . . . Rather, it has cause to regard all truth, wherever it
may be found on the outside, as a firm ally of its own cause, since ALL
TRUTH STEMS FROM THE SAME MASTER OF TRUTH."

"But it would be a mistake if . . . we were to educate our children only
for isolation and keep them from all contact with the nations. We must
teach them to understand and appreciate the genuine values of the nations
and not only to fear them. no matter what we do, our children will
certainly be thrust upon a life among the nations. We have to prepare them
for this test."

"Why should others respect Jews and Judaism if the Jew himself bears his
Judaism unwillingly, if the Jew himself does not serve his God with a
joyful heart, if the Jew himself is always eager to make comparisons
between his own Judaism and non-Jewish values and consistently seeks to
infuse his own Judaism with non-Jewish admixtures?"

"I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
"I am thought about, therefore I am - my existence depends upon the thought of a Supreme Being Who thinks me." - Rabbi S.R. Hirsch

"I know my own limitations . . . But I believe that, in a time of such
profound significance, and for a cause which is to us the most sacred, it
is every man's duty openly and honestly to express what he sees as the
truth."

"man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness which is seldom fully achieved
and can easily be lost again. Its fullfilment lies not in the final goal,
but in an eternal striving for perfection."

"the Torah is not a mere credo to be satisfied with a few philosophical
concepts and declarations of faith . . . Torah is the law for all life; it
seeks to embrace man in his entirety. It lays claim to all his
inclinations, needs, sensations, and emotions, to all his thoughts and
words, his pleasures and his actions at every moment of his life."

"Every transition or change entails pain. For in every change for the
better, old ties must be broken so that new ties may be formed. Everything
to which we are accustomed is pleasant, but everything new is alien."

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:05:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>When does a haaramah turn into an asmachta? It's kind of hard to believe
:>that someone who does such a sale of his chameitz year after year really
:>thinks he sold anything. Why is the qinyan valid?
: 
: How about Devarim Shebelev Einam Devarim.  When you make a kinyan with
: sudar, kesef, shtar, and tekiat kaf (the sale I observed this year used
: all four), it's hard to say "I didn't mean it"; if you appoint a shliach,
: and he does all that, and then you say "I didn't mean to appoint him,
: I didn't think he would really sell it", perhaps you'd have a taanah,
: except what is the poor customer to do?  He bought it in good faith, and
: at the very least takanat hashuk should cut in his favour.

But isn't that true of any asmachta?

E.g. the Lieberman clause was deemed an asmachta, and would invalidate
the kesubah. (The Lieberman clause was [R] Saul Lieberman's attempt to
prevent agunos, currently used by many C wedding officiators.) This,
despite bothering to have a shetar and have it read in public to a couple
of hundred of your closest frients.

Is an asmachta limited to places where the person actively shows that
he didn't mean the deal? And if so, can someone give an example and
show how it is distinguished from selling the chameitz on Pesach? IOW,
what act forces dismissing the qinyan rather than dismissing the plain
meaning of the act itself?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 40th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:05:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

> : How about Devarim Shebelev Einam Devarim.  When you make a kinyan with
> : sudar, kesef, shtar, and tekiat kaf (the sale I observed this year used
> : all four), it's hard to say "I didn't mean it"

> But isn't that true of any asmachta?

AIUI asmachta is entirely different.  An asmachta is when the commitment
you made is conditioned on some event that you are sure will not happen.

Any couple that gets married is surely confident that they will make it
work, and will stay together for life.  However realistically they
ponder the odds, if they're not sure in their hearts that their marriage
will be permanent they probably shouldn't be getting married at all.

Similarly someone who bets on a horse is sure in his heart that his
horse will win, or his hand is sure to beat anything the other players
might have, or his stock will become more valuable, and thus when he
promises to pay money if that doesn't happen he means it, there's no
devarim shebelev, but he doesn't mean it.  To him it's like saying
"I'll give you a million dollars if you can prove that 2+2=5, or if
the sun rises in the west tomorrow".

So I don't see how it's relevant to mechirat chametz.  One can't even
say that he's secretly conditioning the sale on the buyer not taking
possession of the chametz, because in fact he'd be quite happy for
that to happen.  If the buyer were to show up at the supermarket's
loading dock with a truck and start hauling away the entire stock,
the seller would be delighted, because he's just moved a whole lot of
inventory that he thought he was going to have to buy back and sell
the hard way.  So where's the asmachta?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Which has nothing to do with our discussion, which as I wrote (three
> times now) our disagreement is limited to the problem of ta'am hamitzvah.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> --


One of my yekke friends inthe heights used to go ballistic ANY time I gave a
ta'am hamitzva at the Shabbos table, EVEN when I protested I was only
quoting sefer Hachinuch.  It is as if the Ta'amei Hamitzvot are on the
slippery slope of  obviating observance once the ta'am goes away

Totafos bein einekha will have common meaning because
> people have their eyes before their brains, so that tefillin shel rosh
> naturally gets associated with sight and thought.


And the same Ta'am works for Tzadukkim too- eyes and brains jsut lower down
the "totem pole"

But the os is a straw man anyway. Who ever said people EVER understood
ta'amim the way WE do.

Bottom line, the Hiinuch favors Ramban over Rambam re: the Ta'am of the
isur  Bassar Echalav [with apologies to R. Akiva] but archaeology seems to
support Rambam. To me that is HILGHLY informative and REAL Torah.

and the Hinush is completely puzzled about se'or and devash until he FINDS a
meaning. But as we know in the course of  "*Man's Seach for Meaning *" [with
apologies to Viktro Frank] such  rationalziations MIGHT nob be l' amito shel
davar.  And if archaeology explains the ta'am as part of of HKBH's OWN
edeclaration IN SEFEAR VAIKRAH  of kma'aseh eretz Mitrayyim lo sa'su, why do
I need to whip a dead horse [Eight Belles?] and stick to a reason that USED
to have significance way back when?

Obviously some people feel a need to re-introduce Te'cheiles even thought
dozens of generations had an OS without it.  Nu?!



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080530/bbcf5faa/attachment.htm>

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> And let's face it, the ENTIRE Torah has a backdrop of ancient Semitic
> culture which we today are not familiar with. Every single instance in
> the Torah of some minhag, whether ours or another nation's (who is
> this "molech"?), presumes that the audience knows about this minhag.
> Also Rav Hirsch points out that parallel to the Torah, we'd have an
> oral tradition of stories of our ancestors. (I can't remember where
> this is, however.)


this is why I find the study of much of Nach confusing. The meforshim were
clearly guessing on the symbolism of certain metaphors.   for me personally
- it is probably better to admit that the original backdrop has been lost to
the sands of time...

And it is no wonder that the SA haRav hilchos Talmud Torah essentially
substitutes  the study of Humash and Rashi for that of all of Tanach.  Nach
has grown obscure to us on many levels.


>
>
> I've also quoted Rav Hirsch from the introduction to Trumath Tzvi
> (Judaica Press's abridged Hirsch Chumash) where he says we must study
> Egyptian, Canaanite, Greek, and Roman history, in order to understand
> Torah **morality** (as opposed to "ritual" mitzvot). Obviously, the
> Torah couldn't give us Greco-Roman history, but why didn't the Torah
> give us Egyptian and Canaanite history? It presumes we know it
> already! And yet we don't know it today from our parents, and we must
> instead turn to secular history books, according to Rav Hirsch! And
> Rav Hirsch is the champion of symbolic meanings of our mitzvot, so if
> he admits this (that we must study their history to understand our
> mitzvot), kol vachomer we all must, at least to the same extent (viz.
> in morality mizvot) that Rav Hirsch does (dayyo). (I am well aware
> that Rav Hirsch was opposed to many taamei hamitzvot of Rambam,
> relating our mitzvot to pagan practices. But Rav Hirsch apparently is
> not opposed to relating our mitzvot to the **immoral** practices of
> the Egyptians and Canaanites, even if he is opposed to relating our
> mitzvot to the **ritual** practices.)
>
> Why G-d spelled some things out, and left others for us to just stam
> know or forget, is definitely a question. A very good one, I'll agree,
> but it is a question that I do not believe negates the fact (IMHO)
> that the Torah's mitzvot do often relate to ancient realities with
> which we are today unfamiliar with.
>
> But as I said, we must remember that ordinarily, the prodigious
> Oriental memory and talent for oral transmission would have protected
> all these details, but for our sins. So really, the question isn't on
> G-d, but rather, it is on us.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
> _______________
>

Let's face it. All the osos I mentioned so far would have problem been known
by the observant class throughout bayyis Rishon.  It is obvious to me that
the intstitutional memory faded during the Babylonian Exile [and for good
reason] and so things morphed. And if R. Akiva failed to see the ancient
symbolism does not mean that Yirmeyahu or Yoshiyahu missed it. Which means
the original Torah was probably  BETTER self-understood for  the first 800+
years.  Micha  seems to be  complaining that HKBH would not have given us a
Torah that would have  been obscure for the next 2500  years. I say -
umipnei chat'a'einu galinu mei'artzeinu and how can  you tie HKBH's hands
to  ensure that the symbolism would last for ever in a changing climate?

Why stick to highly kvetchy rationalizations when simple explanations will
do?  I do not wish to invoke Occum's razor, but...

HKBH gave us tools that others did not have. Why SHOULDN'T we use them?  If
the Greek Hydra is use dby Shas t oexplain pri eitz Hadar, why shouldn't we
use are contemporary knowledge-based to understand the meaning of osos?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080530/82a02a53/attachment.htm>

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 204
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."