Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 353

Tue, 07 Oct 2008

• 1. Re: Praying to angels (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: Additional Tefilos for Parnoso etc (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Pat palter (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Gentiles in Torah (Yaakov Weiner)
• 5. Double hey hayedi'ah (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Double hey hayedi'ah (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: What does hamelech hakadosh mean? (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Double hey hayedi'ah (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Re: Praying to angels (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Pat palter (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: Pat palter (Zev Sero)
• 12. Gentiles in the Torah (Cantor Wolberg)

R' Yitzhak Grossman wrote:

> The one beginning "hashem, hashem ... ezkerah elokim
> ve'e'hemayah" [0] contains the line "midas ha'rahamim aleinu
> hisgalgeli",
>
> [0] said on the second Monday of a Bahab cycle

Also said in the Selichos on the day before Erev Yom Kippour.

(Our Minyan always switches this "day" to be said on a Thursday or
Monday (like this year) to coincide with the 13 Middos being said
before Krias HaTorah.)

- Danny

RSBA wrote:
> In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
> the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
> Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
> said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?

It stands to reason that we do stay standing, and in fact, we did. But by the 
way, Qedushah is always interspersed with comments, such as "Kevodo 
male 'olam, mesharetav shoalim zeh lazeh a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-yeh..." When 
saying those piyutim, we are essentially expanding upon those comments, 
preparing ourselves more for the actual most central statements of the 
entire 'hazarat hashatz: "qadosh, qadosh, qadosh haShem..." and "barukh kevod 
haShem mimqomo."

-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

 

        
         

                And actually, this applies not only to pas palter/akum,
but also to *bishul* akum. I've asked this before, but I'll repeat it
now: If certain foods were prohibited by the legislation of bishul akum,
those foods must have been mutar prior to that enactment. But how
*could* they have been allowed? With absolutely zero Jewish involvement
in the cooking, how confident could they be that a vegetable soup had
only kosher ingredients? (I specify "vegetable", on the possibility that
Basar Shenisalem Min Ha'ayin was already forbidden when Bishul Akum
became forbidden.)
                


        Well, it's the same affluence issue. In a society where most of
the population probably had meat once a week, why would anyone put meat,
fish, dairy or eggs into a plain soup if he didn't have to?
        
        -- Kayza 
        ========================================
        So back to my original point - fiats of this nature imply an
underlying  data set which were not included as part of the  fiat - how
does this impact current applications when the data set changes? (it
sometimes seems we're more concerned with the mirroring of the action
rather than chazal's concerns - an argument can be made for this
approach.)
         
        GCT
        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/20081006/628d3058/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm sorry that I do not have the scholarship or insight to answer your
questions or comment with profound intelligence on your essay and its
sources at this time, but I wanted to thank you for addressing this issue.
I have personally struggled with it for years, coming across the Meiri
almost by accident (well, its quoted in the Kehati Mishnayot on Bava Kamma,
but I don't learn Mishnayot regularly unfortunately).  Jewish-Gentile
relations and definitions are not dealt with academically very often because
of their sensitive nature, like so many other worthy topics, and this is an
obvious shame.  This lack of clarity serves as a powerful tool in the hands
of the detractors of Torah, because they cite it as an example of "the
culturally developmental origin" of Jewish belief and practice, following
the historical "trend" of societies becoming more universal and more
pluralistic as they come into contact with and become dependent on foreign
societies.  Every nation on earth began with the idea of their moral or
religious or physical or otherwise superior status over everyone else.

BTW, philosophically speaking, its hard to dismiss a the notion of a
recognized sense of greater worth or at least a greater sense of affection
by G-d and humanity for the Jews, based on a moral superiority (which of
course is the clear attitude in Jewish thought, regardless of dismissal of
other notions of superiority).  The equality of man may refer to basic
rights, to aspirations of equal reward, and the equality of core value, but
cannot refer to equal judgment or equality of approval, unless standards of
instrumental value and righteousness and goodness are lowered to the point
of disintegration.  This makes the dilemma more complicated.  Does this mean
that the Jews are better or more special, or does it not?  Can we make the
sophisticated distinction between various meanings of equality and
evaluation of the rights and dignity of man, without collapsing into one
absurd extreme or the other?  Are "all equal, but some are more equal than
others"?  Very interesting, emotionally charged, and difficult subject.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/068709b3/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB posted about the question of interpreting haMelekh haMishpat, pointing out 
that according to Rashi, that isn't proper usage, which would be Melekh 
haMishpat.

Interestingly enough, Arutz7 just publish a photo of a fragment of a 
sarcofagus or of an ossuary of the son of a kohen gadol, and clearly visible 
are the words hakohen hagadol.

KT,
GCT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Lishna deKra;  vehakohen hagadol me'echave.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

-- Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org> wrote:
RMB posted about the question of interpreting haMelekh haMishpat, pointing out 
that according to Rashi, that isn't proper usage, which would be Melekh 
haMishpat.

Interestingly enough, Arutz7 just publish a photo of a fragment of a 
sarcofagus or of an ossuary of the son of a kohen gadol, and clearly visible 
are the words hakohen hagadol.

KT,
GCT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


____________________________________________________________
Shop now for huge discounts on quality surveillance cameras. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mYPvXIT9CPRCf5ulmvBWrh2IghVIJ4o8ew4Zj28OMfD83d4/

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Jay F Shachter <j...@m5.chicago.il.us> wrote:
>
> My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
> appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
> article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
> one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh.  This account for both
> heh's.
>

I have never hear of a vocative he. Can you give examples?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/b2325bee/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> RMB posted about the question of interpreting haMelekh haMishpat, pointing
> out
> that according to Rashi, that isn't proper usage, which would be Melekh
> haMishpat.
>
> Interestingly enough, Arutz7 just publish a photo of a fragment of a
> sarcofagus or of an ossuary of the son of a kohen gadol, and clearly
> visible
> are the words hakohen hagadol.
>

"Hakkohen haggadol" is parallel to "hammelech hakkadosh", not to "hammelech
hammishpat".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/0bda388e/attachment-0001.htm>

R'nTK wrote:
> An analogy to this would be the trees in Bereishis that were supposed to
> ?be "etz pri oseh pri" -- the wood and bark was supposed to be edible fruit
> ?but the trees "didn't listen" and instead produced inedible trunks. ?
> Obviously the trees had no free will and both what they were "supposed" to
> do ?and what they actually did do came straight from Hashem with no
> mediating ?thoughts on the part of the trees.

The Maharal believes that this command was to show that the trees were 
incapable, as an inherent feature of material beriah, of being both created 
and creator; only humans can.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:38:27 -0400
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

...

> that comes along.   RMF wrote from the beginning that a baal nefesh
> should not rely on his heter, and he is reported to have put a shiur
> on this hiddur of $100 a year.

In dollars of what year?

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>> that comes along.   RMF wrote from the beginning that a baal nefesh
>> should not rely on his heter, and he is reported to have put a shiur
>> on this hiddur of $100 a year.

> In dollars of what year?

That's a very good question.  I didn't hear it with a year.  I heard
this from some high mucky-muck in the OU, I *think* R Avrohom Gordimer
but I might be misremembering, and someone asked when this was said.
His answer, which I did not understand at all, was that it was $100
regardless of the year.

BTW the same source also said that with regard to cheese RMF said that
one need not spend any extra money or even effort to get CY, since in
addition to all the other considerations one can add RT's opinion that
cheese doesn't have to be CY.  So one need only be mehader on CY cheese
if it's exactly the same price, and on the same shelf in the supermarket.

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

Regarding all of the negative things we've heard about goyim in the  
gemara, the following which is part of Micha's beautiful article  
entitled "Universalism" in the Aspaqlaria dated
April 20, 2007 and updated Oct. 12, 2007, should be what we see more  
of and hopefully will counteract the negative and unkind opinions  
regarding non Jews.

Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, zt?l, wrote in his book Logic of the Heart,  
Logic of the Mind, the concept of kavod habriyos, the dignity of Man,  
is a halachic imperative that constitutes the basis of human rights,  
and the basis of all civilized jurisprudence.

As the Rambam says in Hilchos Sanhedrin (24:8-10), these rights apply  
even to pagans. ?Tzedek tzedek tirdof.? Why should the Torah repeat  
the word tzedek? Rabbenu Bachaye interprets it to mean that the same  
standard of righteousness should be applied toward all non-Jews.

As an example of this attitude, Rabbi Soloveichik related the  
following story from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia):

Shimon Ben Shetach worked in the flax business. His students advised  
him to give up that business and buy a donkey which would provide a  
better income. Shimon Ben Shetach agreed. So his students went to a  
pagan Arab and bought a donkey for him. After the purchase they  
discovered a large diamond tied to it. They brought the animal and the  
jewel to their rebbe who thereupon asked them, ?Did the Arab know that  
there was a diamond tied to the donkey?? They answered, ?No.? Shimon  
Ben Shetach told his students to immediately go back and return the  
diamond. But the students knew the laws regarding returning lost  
objects to idolaters. They knew that they were not required by halacha  
to do so. Why, they asked their rebbe, did he ask them to return it?  
He answered, Do you think that I am a barbarian? I am more interested  
in hearing the exclamation, ?Blessed be the God of the Jews? from  
pagans than I am in earning a living.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081006/89861612/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 353
***************************************

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..."