Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 365

Tue, 28 Oct 2008

• 1. Re: Aleph to Sof (Micha Berger)
• 2. Noach Why Did Some Come On Their Own and Others Didn't? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 3. Re: rain on Succot (Saul Mashbaum)
• 4. Re: rain on Succot (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Is the term "He died before his time" correct? (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Re: Praying to angels (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: Is the term "He died before his time" correct? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Noach Why Did Some Come On Their Own and Others Didn't? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Praying to angels (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Noach Why Did Some Come On Their Own and Others Didn't? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Ne'ilah (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (Micha Berger)

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:47:49PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha asked:
:> According to Seifer haYetzirah, beri'ah involved 32 elements -- the 22
:> letters and the 10 sefiros. Isn't there a problem saying it's only about
:> 22 of the 32 elements?

: Not really. What about Eilu v'eilu, etc.?

Eilu va'eilu is a halchic concept, about how law works. This is
aggadita, where it does not apply -- but the rules for dispute are far
less limiting. Even so, if you want to debate a book written by either
Avraham avinu or at the very least Rabbi Aqiva, and accepted by both
the scholasticists and qabbalists since, you really should find some
supporting material.

: Also, the word "es" is an aleph and sof.  That would justify the
: alphabet explanation.  What else there would indicate an additional
: ten?

The 10 amiros?

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky notes that verse 9 of Chapter 7 states that the  
unclean animals came to Noah on their own ('Two by two they came to  
Noah into the Ark," etc., but verse 2, which states: "Of every clean  
animal TAKE UNTO you seven pairs," etc., implies that the clean  
animals did not come, for Noah had to personally get them. The unclean  
animals were in the Ark only to preserve their species, but the clean  
animals had the additional purpose of being offerings after the Flood  
was over. God wants offerings to come as a result of human effort.  
Therefore He commanded Noah to search them out and bring them. Ramban  
comments that one pair of every species, the clean ones included, came  
of its own accord, meaning that God caused them to come instinctively.  
As for the additional six pairs of the kosher animals that Noah would  
use later for offerings, he had to gather them himself. [For God to  
have sent these animals to Noah without any effort on his part would  
have diminished the significance of his offerings. It is his own  
desire and his own exertions that give value to the offering]. Stone  
Chumash.

This follows, of course, the fiasco of Cain's inferior offering.

I see a different reason for why the unclean animals came on their  
own, whereas, the clean animals, Noah had to get them.  The unclean  
animals were not going to be sacrificed, so they were safe and secure  
in the Ark.  The fate of the clean animals, on the other hand, was not  
anything they looked forward to, hence, they had to be found.  
(Obviously, this is metaphoric). Nobody wants to rush to his or her  
death, even as a sacrifice.

I'm reminded of the famous story in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 85a) which  
tells about the famed author of the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The  
rabbi was walking down the street one day, when a little calf ran up  
to him and hid under his cloak. Apparently, the calf had run away from  
the slaughterhouse.
The rabbi said to the calf, "Go back to be slaughtered, for this you  
have been created." At this point, a Divine decree was made against  
him because he had not shown pity on the creature. As a result he  
became sick and suffered for many years, until one day he showed pity  
on a family of young rats and was suddenly healed.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081025/0fe884c8/attachment-0001.htm>

RMBluke:
>>
Take a look at the Meiri and Ritva on Taanis 2b (where the Gemara
comments that rain on succos is a siman klala). They both say that it
refers to all of succos. Then they bring down the pshat of R'
Ephrayim(I believe) who says that it only refers to the first day.
>>
Indeed, the simple reading of the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayot in
Succa, which says that rain "b'tchilat Succot" is a siman klala
indicates that the siman klala is restricted to the first day.
However, the Rambam himself in Perush HaMishnayot at the beginning of
Taanit indicates that the siman klala applies to the entire chag,
which is in fact stated in the mishna.
This stira in the Rambam himself is so puzzling that I was sorely
tempted to consider the possibility that there is an error in the
printed editions of the Rambam,and we should read "mitchilat Succot"
rather than "b'tchilat Succot". However, I consulted the new
translation from the original Arabic by R. Yosef Kapach, who also
gives "b'tchilat", so this possibility (never too plausible) can
safely be eliminated. (In general, I would venture to say that RYK's
translation is the one to consult on any question about  Peirush
HaMishnayot of the Rambam; the printed version is the work of various
translators, and the translations themselves, as well as the printed
texts of these translations, are not watertight).
RMBerger's suggestion that "the beginning of Succot" means only to
exclude Shmini Atzeret is tempting, under the circumstances, although
obviously strained. OTOH, even if we accept this explanation of the
Rambam,we still are left with R. Ephrayim, cited by RMBluke, who also
says that the siman klala is the first day. I am unclear as to wheter
this applies only to the first night, or the entire first day (this is
also true of the Rambam in PhM Sucaa - what exactly is "t'chilat
Succot"?)

In any event, since this question has halachic impact (regarding
starting to say "Mashiv haruach umorid hagashem") which has definitely
been decided in favor of the position that rain on all of Succot is a
siman klala (as is explicitly stated by the Mishna Brura in the
beginning of SA OC 114), it seems fair to say that the statement "rain
on succot is a siman klala only until midnight of the the first night"
is at best that of a minority position not accepted by the halacha.
Both RMBluke and I have cited the Rama OC 639 who also indicates that
the siman klala of rain is all of Succot.


Saul Mashbaum

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:19:37AM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: RMBerger's suggestion that "the beginning of Succot" means only to
: exclude Shmini Atzeret is tempting, under the circumstances, although
: obviously strained...

I think you credited the wrong person. My only "contribution" to this
discussion was to note that the mishnah in question was discussing
mitzta'eir patur, and therefore doesn't seem to be specifically about
the first day.

I would find such a peshat in the Rambam so much a stretch as to be
implausible. He works from such a clean-slate idealized position; Yom
Tov sheini would be explicitly noted since it's an add-on. And would
he ever assume his reader so blur distinctions as call Shemini Atzeres
"the last days" that he would need to exclude it? For the Rambam in
particular, this suggestion would be far from norm. No?

But then, I find it surprising that the Rambam didn't need to give a
rationalist spin to the concept of "siman qelalah". Leshitaso, nevu'ah
(using the term broadly, including ru'ach haqodesh and siyata diShmaya)
requires a certain status on the part of the recipient. As does HP.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

RMB asked:

:On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:: Miriam, the women's hairdresser!31 He went and brought him Miriam, the
:: children's nurse. Said he to him:32 I told thee Miriam, the women's
:: hairdresser. He answered: If so, I will take her back....

: BTW, I thought this story was a veiled reference to Christianity.
: As in Mary Madgaddlela (Mary the hairdresser).

Correct. The last Tosafos ("Hava Shachiach") on that page (Chagiga 4b)
says: Miriam Megadla Neshaya - who lived in the time of the 2nd Bayis
- was the mother of Ploni.

This Tosafos is missing from older versions of Shas; recent editions
(including http://www.e-daf.com) all seem to have it.

She apparently was the wife of Papus ben Yehuda (of "Rabbi Akiva and
the fox" fame), as is recorded elsewhere in Shas, if I understood my
Magid Shiur correctly. Papus wasn't the "evil guy" he seems to be,
apparently.

- Danny

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:43:59 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 04:32:13PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : Actaulyl we debated this. There are those who say taht mal'achim do NOT lakc
> : behira but lack a yetzer horo
> 
> I phrased it as a machloqes between the Rambam and the OS on the Rambam,
> in his essay "Hakol Tzadfui" on Hil' Teshuvah.

The position you attribute to Rav Meir Simha is that of Ralbag
(Commentary to the Torah, Bereishis 3:24):

"But the upper intellects ("ba'alei sechel ha'elyonim") act
consistently, even though they have free will, since they always choose
good, ... but the person, since he is a combination of matter and form,
ineluctably has opposite choices ..."

You have stated here and previously that Rambam disagrees; I don't know
your source for this.  I don't see Rav Meir Simha claiming or
acknowledging this, and a cursory reading of the Moreh (2:7) seems to
indicate that his opinion is more or less that of Ralbag

...

> In the first iteration of the discussion, RYGB suggested that perhaps
> the Or Samei'ach would say that a mal'akh sent on a mission down here,
> such that he as existence in both realms, could have bechirah. Such a
> mal'ach could be fooled by the nature of this world, just like a person
> could.

Ralbag, like Rambam, of course does not believe that Malachim are ever
"sent on a mission down here", so for him the question is moot.

...

> And I also personally would side with those who understand "benei
> elohim" otherwise; such as RSRH's take that they were the rich sons of
> the powerful. But RYGB used this case an example to prove his point
> (above).

RSRH?  It's a Medrash Rabbah, cited by Rashi: "be'nei ha'sarim
ve'hashoftim".  This is also the interpretation of Ramban and Ibn Ezra.

> Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness

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

Danny Schoemann wrote:

> Correct. The last Tosafos ("Hava Shachiach") on that page (Chagiga 4b)
> says: Miriam Megadla Neshaya - who lived in the time of the 2nd Bayis
> - was the mother of Ploni.

That's odd, because Tosfos in Shabbos proves that her son, Ben Stada,
couldn't have been Jesus, because she was the wife of Papos ben Yehudah,
who shared a cell with R Akiva, and was therefore well after the churban.

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

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:19:41PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: I see a different reason for why the unclean animals came on their  
: own, whereas, the clean animals, Noah had to get them.  The unclean  
: animals were not going to be sacrificed, so they were safe and secure  
: in the Ark.  The fate of the clean animals, on the other hand, was not  
: anything they looked forward to, hence, they had to be found.  

But two each of the kosher species must have made out okay. So why
wouldn't this notion only apply to the other 5 or 12? (Depending upon
whether noach brought along 7 or 7 pair.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 01:04:31PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: > I phrased it as a machloqes between the Rambam and the OS on the Rambam,
: > in his essay "Hakol Tzadfui" on Hil' Teshuvah.

: The position you attribute to Rav Meir Simha is that of Ralbag
: (Commentary to the Torah, Bereishis 3:24):

In this and my citation of RSRH, I simply could only quote the sources I
actually knew existed. The MC is close to my maternal family, so I know
it better than the Ralbag.

: "But the upper intellects ("ba'alei sechel ha'elyonim") act
: consistently, even though they have free will, since they always choose
: good, ... but the person, since he is a combination of matter and form,
: ineluctably has opposite choices ..."
: 
: You have stated here and previously that Rambam disagrees; I don't know
: your source for this...

In the 5th ikkar the Rambam explicitly rules out any authority or control
by mal'akhim over their actions. (As well as the kochavim, galgalim,
yesodos and everything mixed from them.) They act according to their
natures (kulam mutba'im bif'ulaseihem), and they do Retzono Yis'aleh.

It also follows from the definition of mal'akh in the Moreh II:6.
"The natural forces and angels are identical". This comes from his
embracing of Aristo's physics. I discussed this idea in the following
posts (in order of what I found to be most to least clear):
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n082.shtml#12
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n057.shtml#15
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n205.shtml#03

I don't know, therefore, what to make of Moreh 2:7 in light of ikkar
#5. But you asked where I got the notion from, and that's it. Perhaps the
relevent line is the opening one, telling us that he left a discussion
of angels in particular, and is now addressing the fact that mal'akh
is a homonym. But all the homonyms seem to be things listed in Peirush
haMishnayos. I admit I'm befuddled.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:19:41PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> : I see a different reason for why the unclean animals came on their  
> : own, whereas, the clean animals, Noah had to get them.  The unclean  
> : animals were not going to be sacrificed, so they were safe and secure  
> : in the Ark.  The fate of the clean animals, on the other hand, was not  
> : anything they looked forward to, hence, they had to be found.  
> 
> But two each of the kosher species must have made out okay. So why
> wouldn't this notion only apply to the other 5 or 12? (Depending upon
> whether noach brought along 7 or 7 pair.)

Perhaps it depends whether "yesh breirah" :-)


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

Bim'hilatkhem, I am only now catching up with past Avodah digests.

On Monday, 13. October 2008 [meaning, aeons ago in internet eras] R'nTK wrote:
> In a message dated 10/12/2008, bass...@queensu.ca writes:
> >> btw-- why should we call it "neila"-- we asked for ?"psicha"-- pesach
> >> lanu shaar.

R'nTK:
> This answer may be a little too pat, but -- the gates are closing, that's ?
> why it's called neila! ?And we're like the customer who shows up at closing
> ? time and says, "Wait, wait, can't you stay open just a few more
> ?minutes?!"

Eh, the name Ne'ilah derives from the fact that it is the closing prayer 
service of the fast days (not only YK, but any real ta'anit tzibbur, such as 
during a drought). The text "pta'h lanu sha'ar be'eit ne'ilat sha'ar ki fanah 
yom" is more likely of younger origin and a play on the name of ne'ilah, 
rather than that the prayer is named after the piyut.

Kol tuv, good winter,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:58pm EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
: If we posit that "responsibility" ...                 isn't present ab
: initio -- such that when you try to go back to a person's time point
: "0," you really can only go back to when a person acquires that yeitzer,
: at which time a storehouse of past actions, experiences, etc. already
: exists -- isn't this discussion inexorably altered?

Our question is where it would come from. If the nature of the source
of responsibility is fully determined by how the person was made and
everything that happened to the person before they got it, then how
are we accountable? And if it's not, then what -- it had a random
component? Again, how are we accountable? (More on this below.)

As RAM <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote on Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:28am GMT
(GMT? might want to fix your time zone setting):
: How does this happen? How CAN it happen? If they had identical experiences
: in the past, won't they make identical decisions in the present? Clearly,
: they must have some sort of desire for this or for that which had not
: been pre-programmed, because if everything *was* pre-programmed, then
: what happens to responsibility? How can he be given praise or censure
: for decisions that were pre-programmed?

However, I'm unsatisfied with RAM's "tiny seeds of an answer" (which to
my eye looks complete):
: But HOW? Our logic has reached an impasse. Man must have free will, but
: our logic can't find room for free will to fit into the picture. The
: answer is Tzelem Elokim. We've long accepted the idea that there is
: something Godly about humans, and that this Godliness is connected to
: free will. Perhaps we've come full circle.
...
: We know that G-d is above nature. We know that man's free will is
: Godly. Do the math: Free will is above nature...

You were more accurate before, when you spoke of being above logic.
The implementation of bechirah, whether fully supernatural or the brain
(or nature in some other way) is involved, has nothing to do with the
question.

This answer simply boils down to dismissing the question as addressing
something beyond our ken.

A problem is that it's unclear that HQBH defies logic, never mind
that tzelem E-lokim does. The Rambam limits Omnipotence from doing
the illogical, eg (Rambam's example, Moreh 3:15) making a round square
or a square with a diagonal equal to the length. (Throw in that it's
a Euclidian square to modernize the example.) Logic is part of emes,
and thus of His Essence.

The Ramchal is one of many who take the other approach, calling logic a
beryah, and therefore H' is "above" logic.

My own feelings are mixed. As I closed
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/hashem-and-logic.shtml> (where I
discuss this topic in a little more detail):
> The other question is can G-d defy paradox in general. I'd have to
> agree with the Rambam at least to the extent that some system of logic
> must apply. Didn't Hashem intend us to use logic to come to
> understand what we can of Him. ... How can we the proceed with the
> rest of this discussion if we didn't already assume that logic works?

> Contemporary logic seems to bear out a position very close to the
> Ramchal's. ... [W]e are equipped to deal with things other than a
> black-and-white true vs. false. We can reason about things we can only
> know are probably true. And while happiness and sadness are opposites,
> ambivalence, where a person feels both because of different perspective
> on the same thing, is common. As are dialectics: People can believe
> "The world was created for me" and "I am dust and ashes" at the same
> time. Quantum level events conform to a Quantum Logic, which is also
> non-Boolean and non-Aristotelian....

> Aristotle's Law of Contradiction applies to neither our minds nor the
> constituents of our atoms. Why need it apply to G-d?

Basically, I think that some kind of logic people can understand must
apply to how Hashem relates to us, or else He couldn't expect us to
understand what it is we are to emulate. I doubt that logic is necessarily
Aristotle's or Boole's, but I would be surprised if it weren't intuitive.
(Notice that second claim is weaker than the bald assertion I make in
the first sentence.)

Now, back to free will... Perhaps the problem is simply a false dichotomy:
we're asserting that the ability to make that first decision is either
determined entirely by previous causes or part of it is random. Are they
really antonyms?

BTW, here's an interesting quote from Clarence Darrow (defense attorney),
in pleading the innocence of Leopold and Loeb (who murdered Bobby Franks,
age 14, in 1924):
    What has this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was
    not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this
    was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and
    wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.

To start another trend of thought... What if we assume the neshamah is
lemaalah min hazeman? Then there is no "first decision", at least as
seen from its perspective.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 365
***************************************

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..."