Volume 26: Number 76
Sat, 02 May 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Jay F Shachter" <j...@m5.chicago.il.us>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:15:09 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Plurals
In an article that was dated Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:33 PM, and
which appeared in the Avodah Digest, Volume 26, Issue 49,
db...@zahav.net.il (D&E-H Bannett) made the following remark:
>
> While in y'kum purkan we still say a prayer for the reish galuta in
> Bavel, the sefaradim don't.
>
In fact, we do not say a prayer for the Reish Galutha; we say a prayer
for the Reishei Galvatha.
Unless your mouth is not connected to your brain when you pray in
synagog, you cannot possibly recite the first Y'qum Purqan on Saturday
morning without being puzzled by this term. If the plural in Hebrew
of "beith sefer" is "battei sefer", and not "battei sfarim", then why,
in Aramaic (which inflects like Hebrew in this regard), do we say
"reishei galvatha" and not "reishei galutha"? What are the plural
Exiles over which the Exilarchs presided? We do not say that one
Reish Galutha presided over, e.g., Galuth Mitzrayyim, while another
Reish Galutha presided over, e.g., Galuth Bavel -- so why do we say
"Reishei Galvatha"?
The only other example I can think of, of a phrase inflecting
similarly -- and it is a poor example -- is "talmid xakham", which
pluralizes as "talmidei xakhamim" rather than "talmidei xakham". This
is a poor example, though, and there are two possible reasons why.
One of the reasons why it is a poor example is that the plural is
semantically correct. One scholar may be a student of a single sage,
exclusively, but if you have a whole bunch of scholars, they are
likely students of a whole bunch of different sages, not all students
of the same sage (for the same reason, "reishei mthivatha" is
semantically correct: one head of an academy, but many heads of many
academies). In contrast, "reishei galvatha" is not semantically
correct: there were many Exilarchs, but there was only one Exile over
which they were arching.
Another possible reason, and a far more interesting one, for the
abnormal plural "talmidei xakhamim", is that the singular form "talmid
xakham" was originally meant to be a noun followed by an adjective,
and the plural form, two nouns in smikhut, is an example of suppletion.
Suppletion occurs when the declension, or conjugation, or inflection
of a word involves the fusion of two or more inflected forms, like a
chimeric twin. You find it, e.g., in Russian, in polite speech, when
one says, "ya yem", but "vi kushayetye". Another example is found in
the Israeli language, in which the future tense of "amar" is
disappearing, and is being replaced by the future tense of "higgid",
while the past tense of "higgid" is disappearing, and is being
replaced by the past tense of "amar".
English has separate and unrelated masculine and feminine forms of
certain adjectives: men are handsome, and women are beautiful; men are
assertive, and women are obnoxious. In some linguistic communities,
the standard word for a male convert to Judaism is the Hebrew word
"ger", while the standard word for a female convert to Judaism is the
Aramaic word "giyyoreth"; the Hebrew "gerah" and the Aramaic "gyor"
are not used.
If the pluralization of "talmid xakham" is an example of suppletion,
the one should be able to find other examples, in Hebrew, of
suppletion in the pluralization of nouns. One example which occurs in
dialectical Hebrew is the word "shaliax", which means an agent, or
emissary. The word has a standard plural, "shlixim", which inflects
according to the standard rules of Hebrew grammar, and a Lubavitcher
plural, "shluxim". The Lubavitcher plural "shluxim", however, does
not derive from the noun "shaliax" at all, but, rather, from
"shaluax", the passive participle, although a Lubavitcher never uses
the word "shaluax" in the singular.
Suppletion is not complete until the speakers of the language cease to
be aware of any differences in meaning between the fused forms, and
this probably cannot happen in a language until the excluded forms are
completely lost. Thus, Russians are still able to say "vi yeditye" on
the rare occasions when that is what they want to say. A better
example of suppletion is the conjugation of the English word "to be",
which includes the forms "I am", "you are", and "he was". The words
"be", "am", "are", and "was" are derived from four different
Indo-European roots, but speakers of English are not aware of any
difference in meaning among those four words.
If "talmid xakham" was originally meant to be a noun followed by an
adjective, than pluralizing it as "talmidei xakhamim", a noun followed
by a noun, does not provide a model for the Aramaic plural "reishei
galvatha", since "reish galutha", the singular, is clearly a noun
followed by a noun, not a noun followed by an adjective. And if there
is any semantic reason why "reish galutha" should be pluralized as
"reishei galvatha", the reason escapes me.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
j...@m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Saul Mashbaum <saul.mashb...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:04:54 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] dayenu (from areivim)
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag of Yeshivat Har Etzion has a beautiful shiur on
dayenu on his website
http://www.tanach.org/special/dayenu.htm
I'm taking the liberty to quote part of it; of course, seeing the
whole shiur on the website is most worthwhile
Saul Mashbaum
A PREP FOR HALLEL
In the Haggadah, "dayenu" does not 'stand alone'. Rather, we recite
(or sing) "dayenu" towards the conclusion of Maggid; after we tell the
story of the Exodus, but before we sing the Hallel.
Following the guidelines of the Mishna (in the tenth chapter of
Mesechet Pesachim), in Maggid - we tell the story of the Exodus by
quoting (and then elaborating upon) the psukim of "arami oved avi"
(see Devarim 26:5-8). But that very same Mishna also instructs us to
begin the story with a derogatory comment, and conclude it with praise
["matchilin b'gnut - u'msaaymim v'shevach"/ see Pesachim 10:4).
Taking this Mishna into consideration, we find that "dayenu" is
recited in Maggid - precisely when we finish telling the story of the
Exodus (with the discussion of the Plagues) - and right at the spot
where we are supposed to begin our "shevach" [praise].
Therefore, "dayenu" should be understood as a poem that was written as
a form of praise, to conform with the guidelines set by the Mishna.
This consideration will allow us to explain its full meaning - in a
very simple manner:
Within this context, the refrain of "dayenu" has an implicit suffix.
In other words, - "dayenu" should not be translated simply as 'it
would have been enough'; rather, "dayenu" means 'it would have been
enough - to PRAISE God, i.e. to say Hallel - even if God had only
taken us out of Egypt, or only if He had split the Sea, etc.
In this manner, the poem poetically summarizes each significant stage
of redemption, from the time of the Exodus until Am Yisrael's conquest
of the Land - stating that each single act of God's kindness in that
process obligates us to praise Him: e.g.
- Had He only taken us out of Egypt and not punished the Egyptians, it
would have been reason enough to say Hallel
- Had He split the sea,but not given us the 'manna', that alone would
have been reason enough to say Hallel...
... And so on.
With this background, the next paragraph of that poem makes perfect sense:
"`al achat kama vekhama," - How much more so is it proper to thank God
for performing ALL these acts of kindness, as He took us out of Egypt,
and punished them, and split the sea, and gave us the manna etc.
"Dayenu" relates a total of fifteen acts of divine kindness, each act
alone worthy of praise - even more so we must praise God, for He had
performed all of them!
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Shlomo Pick <pic...@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:52:03 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] minhag ashkenaz
Check a set of authentic heidenheim machorim and you will still see these
differences. Accordingly, those who use the machzorim will practice it.
Shabbat shalom
Shlomo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090501/caf86d20/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:10:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Knowledge Conundrum
On Wed, Apr 29 at 7:50pm EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
:> It certainly seems true of effective kiruv techniques; a Shabbos or a
:> chavrusah in gemara have done more kiruv than all the philosophical
:> discussions combined.
: Yes, but perhaps that "Shabbos or a chavrusah in gemara" is also
: influential because the person you are being m'qareiv looks to you and your
: m'sorah (referring back to what RRW wrote) as a guiding light. I know such
: is true in re to my longtime Aish haTorah chavrusas (officially, "students"
: to my "tutor"/"mentor"ing).
I think emunah is built on a feedback cycle. Shemiras hamitzvos leads to
emunah, and emunah leads to more shemiras hamitzvos. The point of having
chlidren perform mitzvos alst chinukh is to get that cycle started.
In the case of RMP's example, the Aish haTorah (or Partners-in-Torah)
chavrusah is already within that cycle. Where did the idea that mesurah
and your knowledge of it could guide him?
On Thu, Apr 30 at 12:19am GMT, RRW <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> (who the
Maqom should grant nechamah) commented on RMP's words based on their
common connection to KAJ:
: One KAJ member (who is almost like an uncle to me) has been very
: persistent about the role of Mesorah in our system of Both belief
: and action.
: In Yekkishe kehillos the Maharil, Rema, etc. are as alive as Mishna
: Brura is in the Yeshivisher velt.
This has much to do with the vehement counter-push, that eventually
failed. Had the AhS won out, Litvaks would have a greater sense of the
rightness of our pre-lomdus pesaqim.
(BTW, the Rama, Maharil or AhS are books. They aren't mimeticism, rather
are texts that pay homage to the value of mimicry. One doesn't have the
motive to write a code when the copy-the-norm methodology is working.)
I guess I could rephrase my position about pesaq is with an eye to
maximize that feedback cycle. Push halakhah in the direction that for
the sho'eil would maximize his experience of "rightness". However,
balancing that with the fact that the other side must be preserved;
one can't got to the point of unanchoring it from mesorah. Without the
anchor, there is no a priori naaseh to cause that nishmah.
Gesher tzar me'od indeed.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others?
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:39:48 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic Decision-Making -
A few months ago
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n389.shtml#05), I cited
Professor Zvi Zohar's review of Rabbi Angel's book on Rabbi Uziel, as
saying that in general, the Sephardi rabbis were more open-minded,
more universalistic, and more lenient and compassionate in their
halakhic rulings.
I don't think the assertions of being more open-minded and
universalistic, i.e. in hashkafa (as opposed to in halakhah) will be
hard to justify. Similarly, I think most would concede the same of Rav
Hirsch, even if he was strict in his halakhic rulings (so I hear; I
haven't seen Shemesh Marpeh myself yet). In any case, I have seen
further basis for this view in Rabbi Angel's book Foundations of
Sephardic Spirituality: The Inner Life of Jews of the Ottoman Empire.
Rather, people took offense at the assertion that Sephardi rabbis were
more lenient **in halakha**; this was said to be the sort of assertion
that Conservative scholars would make. Similarly, people take far more
umbrage at Dr. Berkovits's Not in Heaven, than they do at his God,
Man, and History; people are more offended by leniency and
independent-mindedness in halakha than in hashkafa.
A few remarks, then. Now, I don't presume to actually convince anyone
that these views are correct. But I wish to demonstrate at least, they
these views have solid basis in the thought of Rabbi Benzion Uziel
(Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv/Jaffo at the time of Rav Kook,
Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel at the time of Ravs Kook and Herzog)
and Rabbi Haim David Halevi (Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Rishon Letzion
and Tel Aviv, author of the standard Israeli Kitzur Shulhan Arukh used
today).
Rabbi Angel, in Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality, and also in his
The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Approach, in both books, he
cites the Hida as saying that Sephardic poskim are guided by hesed,
whereas Ashkenazim, says the Hida, rule by gevura.
I just read Rabbi Angel's book about Rabbi Uziel (Loving Truth and
Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel), and one
is struck by the degree to which Rabbi Uziel wished to make halakha
and Torah bearable for all, and the tremendous respect and love he had
for everyone, and how he actually used this in his halakhic
decision-making. The same conclusion is apparent from Rabbi Angel's
book about Rabbi Haim David Halevy, in the chapter about Rabbi Uziel.
A few examples, then:
--- Rabbi Uziel, confronted with the question of whether grafted
etrogim were kosher or not, decided that although the arguments for
stringency were stronger, nevertheless, he permitted the etrogim,
provided they were grown in Israel, for the sake of strengthening
yishuv ha'aretz.
--- A certain medical treatment for cows involved piercing their
stomachs, possibly rendering them treif. Rabbi Uziel however, for
economic reasons, declared the cows not to be treif.
--- There was the issue of women's suffrage. Rabbi Uziel had a variety
of reasons to permit. Someone argued, however, that in Biblical times,
women did not have political powers, and that we should follow suit.
Rabbi Uziel, in a remarkably non-sequitur response, answered that
since women are created in G-d's image, we are not concerned with the
fact that in Biblical times, they had no political status. (We might
note that Rabbi Uziel also had some qualified permissions for women to
be dayanim and eidim. I wonder, if so, what is the basis for women not
being rabbis? I am being rhetorical, for I know not all agree with
Rabbi Uziel here, but my own beliefs are clear. It is notable that in
making this ruling, Rabbi Uziel has apparently fulfilled the wish, nay
demand, of Dr. Eliezer Berkovits.)
--- Regarding non-Jews voting in Israel, Rabbi Uziel said, "It is
impossible to answer this question negatively, because it would not be
civil justice to disqualify as witnesses those who live among us and
deal with us honestly and fairly. Weren't we ourselves embittered when
the lands of our exile invalidated us as witnesses? If in the entire
enlightened world the law has been accepted to receive the testimony
of every person without consideration of religion or race, how then
may we make such a separation?" (I'll note two things: (1) Rabbi
Eliezer Samson Rosenthal makes the same basic argument in support of
saving nicht judes on Shabbat. (2) Rabbi Kook explicitly says that we
must accept all new novel moral/ethical notions from the world, and
let the Torah explicate them; see
http://seforim.tradition
online.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Su
ndry-Matters-Part-)
In all this, we see Rabbi Uziel being guided by decidedly
non-technical motives and aims. Indeed, his student, Rabbi Haim David
Halevy, explicitly noted this, and endorsed it. According to Rabbi
Angel's translation of Rabbi Halevy's statements, in "The Love of
israel as a Factor in Halakhic Decision-making in the works of Rabbi
Benzion Uziel", Tradition 24:3, Spring 1989, pp. 1-20, quoted in Rabbi
Angel's book on Rabbi Halevy, (quote follows):
"...Anyone who knew at first-hand our teacher, Rabbi Uziel of blessed
memory, knows that his personality was stamped with the love of
kindness and mercy to all people, and certainly to Jews, who are
called children of God. It is not plausible that the heart that beat
with pure love did not wield its influence on his general and halakhic
thinking. I am witness that all his public service was deeply
influenced by that love of Israel which infused him....How would it be
possible that his halakhic thinking not be influenced in this
direction?"
And note Rabbi Halevy's explanation of why Beit Hillel prevailed over
Beit Shammai:
"The law came down on the side of the school of Hillel because its
followers were sympathetic human beings, recognizing human frailty and
the difficult challenges of life. They were sensitive to the human
predicament and tended to be lenient in their rulings."
Now, in both books, the one on Rabbi Uziel and the one on Rabbi
Halevy, the point is made that love by itself cannot produce leniency,
without technical basis in the text. In fact, Rabbi Uziel himself is
quoted to this effect. All the same, Rabbi Uziel himself is again
quoted, that as long as some technical basis is found, love and mercy
will be used by him to make a lenient ruling, even if the technical
basis for stringency might be stronger.
Again, I don't presume to actually convince anyone that these views
are correct. But I wish to demonstrate at least, they these views have
solid basis in Orthodox thought, and are not the sole possession of
Conservative.
We might close with words that Rabbi Uziel said regarding giyur, but
which, as far as I can tell, are representative of his halakhic
thought in general:
?It is incumbent upon us to open the door of repentance; our sages of
blessed memory did much for the benefit of those who would repent?.I
admit without embarrassment that my heart is filled with trembling for
every Jewish soul that is assimilated among the non-Jews. I feel in
myself a duty and mitzvah to open a door to repentance and to save
[Jews] from assimilation by invoking arguments for leniency [in
giyur]. This is the way of Torah, in my humble opinion, and this is
what I saw and received from my parents and teachers.? (Me might note
in passing: here too, there is technical justification, and the ruling
is not based wholly on love and mercy. Rabbi Angel has sought to show
that based on Yevamot 24b, that conversion for marriage is valid, and
based on the interpretation of "kabbalat mitzvot" held by those before
Rabbi Yitzhak Shmelkes, giyur does not require the candidate to pledge
to be observant.)
Michael Makovi
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: D&E-H Bannett <db...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 16:30:58 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Subject: Ashkenazi Minhag
Re: <<Are there any recommended sources on this topic>>,
the topic being the different starting points of the chazan
shacharit on yom-tov.
The best sources that verify the different starting points
are the old machzorim, the Roedelheim machzorim of R' Wolf
Heidenheim especially. The me'iti machzorim (published
during Heidenheim's lifetime) are obviously the best. I
have a me'et machzor (after his death) for Sukkot published
in 1859 which also starts shacharit with Hagadol. So the
custom was still alive then.
Sorry, I have never looked for background material on this
subject so I must limit myself to verifying the existence of
the custom./
David
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:40:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Panhandlers In Pizxa Shops, And Elsewhere
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:01:14PM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: Rambam rules, in a passage that is often poorly understood, in Sefer
: Zra`im, Hilkhot Mattnoth `Aniyyim 7:7, that you must give the
: panhandler something. In 10:19 Rambam makes it clear that God will
: deal with the panhandlers who are not genuinely needy. God does not
: need us to assist Him in this detection process.
1- In any case, I don't think the Rambam means nachri panhandlers in 7:7.
2- I could also easily distinguish between checking whether
someone needs the money and whether he is likely to use the money
self-destructively. The latter isn't necessarily doing the person
a chessed. Whereas a liar who will spend the money on needs or
less destructive luxury is still happier for the money. Even by the
"yenemz gashmiyus iz bai mir ruchnius -- his physical 'needs' are for
me spiritual" standard, helping someone get harmful drugs isn't helping
his gashmiyus. Helping him buy a better car than I could buy myself is.
Also, the din of dei machsero feeds into this halakhah of 10:19. Yes,
Hashem will judge someone for misrepresenting his need. When it comes to
tzedaqah triage, it meant I gave him more than I would have otherwise.
But if the guy feels such a lack (chisaron) that he's begging for the
money, I would think it's machsero.
...
: I'll tell you whom I do refuse to give money to, and it isn't the
: panhandler in the pizza shop, or on the street. It's the man with ten
: children who learns in Kollel full time, and who says exactly that
: when he comes into synagog asking for money to support his family.
: He, and not the goyishe addict, is the man who deserves nothing.
3- These two are soseir each other. (And I received many more heated
submissions making the same point. They were rejected; and in fact I
would have preempted this issue by rejecting your first email had I
bothered reading it to the bottom.)
You prejudged the kollel guy. Never mind the fact that you're condemning
someone for holding of a different pesaq than you, one sufficiently
supported to qualify for eilu va'eilu --- or if you want to be really
judgmental, for an honest mistake. Even if the kollelnik thought what
he was doing was wrong, is his "escape" into Torah really worse than
someone who needs to escape life challenges with drugs? Seems to me
this isn't really a dispassionate assessment of "who deserves nothing",
even within your postulates of the halakhos of making spades of Torah.
But as you opened, there is no one who "deservers nothing" (Hil MA 7:7).
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others?
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 12:45:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Plurals
Jay F Shachter wrote:
> Unless your mouth is not connected to your brain when you pray in
> synagog, you cannot possibly recite the first Y'qum Purqan on Saturday
> morning without being puzzled by this term. If the plural in Hebrew
> of "beith sefer" is "battei sefer", and not "battei sfarim", then why,
> in Aramaic (which inflects like Hebrew in this regard), do we say
> "reishei galvatha" and not "reishei galutha"? What are the plural
> Exiles over which the Exilarchs presided?
Is the singular "Resh Galutha" attested anywhere with that pronunciation?
Or is it just a Yeshivish guess, like "kiven" or "bedieved"?
What was this "Galutha" of which the RG is the head? Was he the tyrant
who drove us out of our Land, or who kept us from returning there?
Did he have some sort of ownership over this 2000-year-long abstract
state of Exile in which we exist? Or was he Resh Galvata, the Head of
the Exiles, i.e. of the Jews who happened to find themselves in Bavel?
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:28:29 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ashkenazi Minhag
RGField wrote:
> Apparently the earlier Ashkenazi Minhag was to start a different
> point for each yom tov, as follows:
>
> shavuos - hakayl b'samuos uzecha
> sukkos/shmini atzeres - hagadol b'chevod shemecha
> pesach - hagibor lanetzach
> rosh hashana/y.k - hamelech
>
> I assume nobody continues this minhag today
Why would you assume so? In fact, you are wrong, this minhag is alive
and well among adherents of unadulterated, original Minhag Ashkenaz,
which includes Yeckes. It would be interesting to hear whether we
should inform all Ashkenazim, including "Sfard" of this fact, and
encourage them to revert to the original minhag, or whetehr they have
a bona fide reason to ignore it.
> - please let me know if I am wrong.
I just did.
> What I would like to know, if someone has done any research into
> Ashkenazi Minhagim, is why some minhagim are no longer practiced (in
> general, but also this one specifically).
Please keep me updated. You may also want to contact Mekhon Moreshet
Ashkenaz - Rav Binyomin Hamburger in Benei Beraq. You may send him my
regards.
--
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:02:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Panhandlers In Pizxa Shops, And Elsewhere
You prejudged the kollel guy. Never mind the fact that you're condemning
someone for holding of a different pesaq than you, one sufficiently
supported to qualify for eilu va'eilu -Micha
Rav Hershel Schachter - Halachic Issues of the Tuition Crisis
http://www.torahweb.org/cgi-bin/download.pl?name=2009/tuition/rsch_03220
9.mp3
Some interesting thoughts on the above captioned topic
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.
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic
On Fri, 1 May 2009 18:39:48 +0300
Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Rather, people took offense at the assertion that Sephardi rabbis were
> more lenient **in halakha**; this was said to be the sort of assertion
> that Conservative scholars would make. Similarly, people take far more
> umbrage at Dr. Berkovits's Not in Heaven, than they do at his God,
> Man, and History; people are more offended by leniency and
> independent-mindedness in halakha than in hashkafa.
>
> A few remarks, then. Now, I don't presume to actually convince anyone
> that these views are correct. But I wish to demonstrate at least, they
> these views have solid basis in the thought of Rabbi Benzion Uziel
> (Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv/Jaffo at the time of Rav Kook,
> Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel at the time of Ravs Kook and Herzog)
> and Rabbi Haim David Halevi (Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Rishon Letzion
> and Tel Aviv, author of the standard Israeli Kitzur Shulhan Arukh used
> today).
>
> Rabbi Angel, in Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality, and also in his
> The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Approach, in both books, he
> cites the Hida as saying that Sephardic poskim are guided by hesed,
> whereas Ashkenazim, says the Hida, rule by gevura.
>
> I just read Rabbi Angel's book about Rabbi Uziel (Loving Truth and
> Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel), and one
> is struck by the degree to which Rabbi Uziel wished to make halakha
> and Torah bearable for all, and the tremendous respect and love he had
> for everyone, and how he actually used this in his halakhic
> decision-making. The same conclusion is apparent from Rabbi Angel's
> book about Rabbi Haim David Halevy, in the chapter about Rabbi Uziel.
> A few examples, then:
I discuss some of these issues here:
http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/11/06/two-chief-rabbi
s-on-rabbinic-wills-and-halachic-ways/
My piece revolves around a responsum of Rav Uziel in which he takes the
*exact opposite* position to the one you ascribe to him here; it
contains a lengthy and eloquent diatribe insisting that it is utterly
illegitimate to base rulings on considerations of compassion.
[At the end of the post, I link to some Avodah controversy about my
analysis.]
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:22:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic
On Fri, 1 May 2009 18:39:48 +0300
Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> --- A certain medical treatment for cows involved piercing their
> stomachs, possibly rendering them treif. Rabbi Uziel however, for
> economic reasons, declared the cows not to be treif.
Hefsed merubah, sha'as ha'dehak and similar considerations are standard
considerations in Halachah. Can you elaborate on the significance of
this ruling?
...
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:07:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Plurals
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:15:09 -0500
"Jay F Shachter" <j...@m5.chicago.il.us> wrote:
...
> morning without being puzzled by this term. If the plural in Hebrew
> of "beith sefer" is "battei sefer", and not "battei sfarim", then why,
> in Aramaic (which inflects like Hebrew in this regard), do we say
> "reishei galvatha" and not "reishei galutha"? What are the plural
...
> The only other example I can think of, of a phrase inflecting
> similarly -- and it is a poor example -- is "talmid xakham", which
> pluralizes as "talmidei xakhamim" rather than "talmidei xakham". This
> is a poor example, though, and there are two possible reasons why.
> One of the reasons why it is a poor example is that the plural is
> semantically correct. One scholar may be a student of a single sage,
> exclusively, but if you have a whole bunch of scholars, they are
> likely students of a whole bunch of different sages, not all students
> of the same sage (for the same reason, "reishei mthivatha" is
> semantically correct: one head of an academy, but many heads of many
> academies). In contrast, "reishei galvatha" is not semantically
> correct: there were many Exilarchs, but there was only one Exile over
> which they were arching.
What about batei kenesiyos and batei medrashos? I suppose that they
are also semantically correct, since there are multiple kenesiyos and
medrashos.
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:23:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Plurals
Here's food for thought. "Resh Galutha" is Aramaic for "Rosh Hagolah".
"Reshei Galutha" would be "Rashei Hagolah". "Reshei Galvatha" would
be "Rashei Hagaliyoth" or "Rashei Hagolim". In my previous message
I suggested the latter, that the original pronunciation of the title
was "Resh Galvatha", or "Rosh Hagolim", and therefore the plural would
be "Reshei Galvatha", or "Rashei Hagolim".
Now I'd like to propose something else. Let's suppose that "Resh
Galutha" is the correct and original pronunciation of the singular
of this title. That is, in Hebrew, "Rosh Hagolah". Now, what does
that mean? What does the word "golah" mean? R Jay's post seems to
assume that "golah" means the same as "galut", that the entire 2000-
year-long state of Exile in which we find ourselves is the "golah"
and the various RGs were its head for the time that they were in
office.
But that is not so. "Golah" does not mean an abstract state of exile;
it is the collective term for all the people who are exiled. Each
person is a "goleh", many of them are "golim", but collectively they
are a "golah". "Asher hoglah miyrushalayim im hagolah asher hogletha
im Yechonyah Melech Yehudah." The people who went with Yechonyah were
a golah. The people who went 11 years later with Tzidkiyahu were
another golah. And, I suggest, each new generation that is born,
lives, and dies in exile is a golah too. Each golah in Bavel had its
own head. Collectively, those heads were the Rashei Hagaliyoth, or
Reshei Galvatha.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:47:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] sephira question
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:23:32PM -0400, hankman wrote:
: This has bothered me for a while. The mitzva of sephira is to count
: two time periods, both the days and the weeks of the omer. We count the
: days in advance but the weeks in arrears, why?
RJJB asks this and a more general question on his
blog in an entry titled "The Omer: Cardinal or Ordinal"
<http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2009/04/omer-cardinal-or-ordinal.html>.
Cardinal: The number 7 as in shiv'ah neqi'im. The size of a set
Ordinal: The n-th, such as the 8th in "beyom hashemini yimol besar
arlaso".
In <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n009.shtml#13>, R' Elozor
Reich also discusses the question. He suggests that we are actually
counting the days "in arrears". "Mimacharas haShabbos" because we're
counting days since the Shabbos.
I rephrase his point in terms of the cardinal vs ordinal question in
that discussion <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n013.shtml#06>.
There I also note that this fits the Maadanei Yom Tov defining "tisperu
chamishim yom" as requiring 50 whole days, including day 0 (the 15th
of Nissan). On the first Pesach, it wasn't tamim, and the year of
yetzi'as Mitzrayim was counted from Nissan 16. This explains why Shavuos
was a day later than usual.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others?
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: "Mottel Gutnick" <1...@mottel.gutnick.net>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 23:44:53 +1000
Subject: [Avodah] Rosh Hashanah and Easter
I have a theory about dechiyat ADU (the calendar rule that Rosh
Hashanah may not occur on a Sunday, Wednesday or Friday). The reason
for DU (Wed and Fri) is that Yom Kippur should not occur
consecutively with shabbat, either because of food spoilage or
because of unburied corpses having to wait for two days - both great
health risks. The reason usually given for A (Sunday) is so that
Hoshana Rabba should not fall on Shabbat, which would have interfered
with the custom of "beating Hoshanot" (the willow twigs). This reason
has always struck me as somewhat strange, and even somewhat feeble.
Until Constantine's Council of Nicaea in 352, when the Church broke
this nexus, the date of Easter was dependent on Pesach. Even after
that council created its own rules for dating Easter, they are, to
this day, both early early spring festivals.
The ADU rule was a late development in medieval times, precisely the
period in which Seder night was often a dangerous time for Jews
living amongst Christians, who accused us of celebrating the death of
their god, symbolically drinking his blood, and a good deal else
besides, which was often the excuse for bloody pogroms. I believe
that it was in response to this danger that the ideas associated with
seder night being called leil shimurim came to the fore. It was
certainly the cause of the opening of the door being postponed from
early in the evening (at "Kol dichfin yetei veyeichol" in "Ha Lachma
Anya") to much later at "Shfoch Chamatcha", and perhaps even for the
"Shfoch Chamatcha" itself.
Perhaps the dechiya A of ADU was to prevent Pesach falling on Good
Friday which would have greatly increased that danger. If that was
the real reason, it would have been politic to conceal the real
motive for it from becoming known to Christians, and hence the
"excuse" about Hoshana Rabba.
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <r...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:00:07 GMT
Subject: [Avodah] (no subject)
R. Micha Berger asked:
<Say someone lost a family member, and qevurah had to be delayed more
than 24 hours. Does he not count omeir that day, and thereby lose the
entire year's count (if it is one chiyuv)?>
See Aruch Hashulchan YD 341:17, quoting the Noda Bihuda 27, that
"yachol l'haggid has'fira b'lo b'racha uk'sippur d'varim bal'ma" so as
not to lose the b'racha for the rest of the days.
EMT
____________________________________________________________
Prices, software, charts & analysis. Click here to open your online FX trading account.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTIyVi2pguGblsnxzEpGmISCloS8iEE04Oz9GW7QJFlNl1HlEdQwoA/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090501/15aede03/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 76
**************************************
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..."