Volume 32: Number 101
Thu, 03 Jul 2014
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Achdut18
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:14:02 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat in Alaska
We are looking at travel/tour options for Alaska and may stay in Anchorage over one shabbat, and we may be on a cruise ship a second shabbat.
Chabad of Anchorage publishes a list of zemanim for the summer that shows
for Aug 1 hadlakat nerot at 10:22 PM and shows havdalah for that shabbat as
being on Aug. 3 at 12:24 AM!! Even allowing that Chabad follows the
ruling of Rabbeinu Tam that shabbat ends 72 minutes after shkiya, rather
than the 42 minute rule we observe (or its 50-minute Rav Feinstein variant)
that would still be 32 minutes after an end time of 11:52 PM, based on an
assumed shkiya of 10:40 PM.
So, what is the reason for an additional 32 minutes? If it is due to latitude differential, how and why is the calculation made?
Avi
Avram Sacks
Skokie, IL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140701/ddea643e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:24:13 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Achdus
Recently blogged.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
My dear brothers and sisters,
One thing that struck me is how heavily Hashem pointed out to us the
concept of achdus, of unity, in how this tragedy unfolded.
First, note the communities each of the boys come from: Eyal Yifrach
Hy"d spoke his Hebrew with a Yemenite accent, Gil-ad Shaar Hy"d was a
Sepharadi whose family was from Morocco, Naftali Fraenkel Hy"d was an
Ashkenazi, the child of Anglos. Three boys, each returned from different
centers of the diaspora.
Second, what were these three young men doing? Would anyone here in
the US advise their teens to hitchhike? But no, Israel is in general
different. After all, you could always count on your sisters and brothers
to share an empty seat to help you get to where you're going. The fact
that "taking a tremp" is part of Israeli life is beautiful evidence of
our underlying unity.
As was our common hope. And our common mourning. In how many communities,
aside from the Jews, do people across the globe stop their lives because
three young men they never met lost theirs?
I have no problem with our heated disagreements over ideas. And
among legitimate ideologies I consider such debate healthy. For
individuals, we need a variety of approaches to Torah to aid a variety
of personalities. On the national level,
a healthy body needs a variety of organs. And if we are going to be
passionate about our beliefs, argument is going to ensue. Even if
unproductive, the debate is a sign of health compared to dispassionate
silence.
And of course it is nearly impossible to run a country or a community
without disagreements over priorities in how we spend our resources,
over proper tactics for reaching our aims, and sometimes even over those
goals themselves.
But when we make these disagreements personal, it's frightening.
After all, Hashem wants our unity. And since we do unite in times of
trouble, He has a quick way of getting that unity if we're not going
to do it ourselves. I am not saying this is the reason for the current
tragedy, or even a reason for the current tragedy. But it is something
glaring that can be learned from it, a lesson we cannot afford to ignore.
Now that we are united, we cannot risk letting it go.
HaMaqom yenchaim osanu, aveilei Tzion viYrushalaim,
velo sosifu leda'avah od!
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:41:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
:> To my mind the distinction is significant, since pretending to be
:> an oveid AZ is not yeihareig ve'al yaavor.
: I had long thought that pretending to be an oveid Avodah Zara *IS*
: yehareg v'al yaavor...
I'm not sure what RAM is referring to, but Zev's reply implies I was
not sufficiently clear.
We were discussing the tradition in Toledos Yeishu that either Peter,
Paul, a composite figure constructed from them or a single historical
figure from whom the Xians made two mythical people from was actually
a Perushi who pretended it all in order to save the Jewish People from
Notzrut by separating it from Yahadus.
We were not discussing an oveid AZ.
Nor were we necessarily talking about someone who did the acts of worship
just for pretend, a maaseh belo kavanah.
We are talking about someone who pretended to believe in something
he didn't. Pretending he was doing those acts of worship when you
weren't around. Lying for the greater good. I'm not sure he performed
any acts of worship that weren't Jewish. (I'm not sure Xianity had any
yet. After all, even Paul well predates trinitarianism. But the quoted
statement was written assuming that Xianity was AZ even back in the
time in question.) Part of that tradition in Toledos Yeishu is that this
explains Paul's insistance on only being served fish, never fleishigs.
The greater point we were debating was whethwer the ends justify the
means. I was saying that while in general they do, I am not sure of Zev's
assertion that "even AZ can be justified by a sufficiently important
end." I then dismissed the story in Toledos Yeishu as a data point as
I'm not sure actual AZ was involved. Again, my argument was that the
three yeihareig ve'al va'avor might be exactly those cases where no ends
could outweigh the means.
E.g. The aggadita that states that Esther was Mordechai's wife only
allowed her to "visit" Achashveirosh because qarqa olam haysa. Even
saving the entire Jewish people was insufficient ends to justify arayos.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:53:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Shabbat in Alaska
On 1/07/2014 1:14 AM, Achdut18 via Avodah wrote:
>
> Chabad of Anchorage publishes a list of zemanim for the summer that
> shows for Aug 1 hadlakat nerot at 10:22 PM and shows havdalah for
> that shabbat as being on Aug. 3 at 12:24 AM!! Even allowing that
> Chabad follows the ruling of Rabbeinu Tam that shabbat ends 72
> minutes after shkiya, rather than the 42 minute rule we observe (or
> its 50-minute Rav Feinstein variant) that would still be 32 minutes
> after an end time of 11:52 PM, based on an assumed shkiya of 10:40
> PM.
Chabad certainly doesn't follow RT, but neither RT nor anybody else ever
held that the length of bein hashmoshos is ever a fixed number of minutes.
That would a ridiculous position to hold; it's obvious that the length of
twilight varies by the time of year and the latitude. The various shitos
are expressed in terms of how many milin one can walk, but those are all
set *in EY at the equinox*; since they did not have the language to speak
of how many degrees below the horizon the sun should be, that is the
convention they adopted, but it's obvious that these must then be adjusted.
So when RT says the real shkia is 3.25 mil (78 minutes, leshitas R Yehuda)
after shkia, and tzeis hakochavim is 0.75 mil (18 minutes) after that, one
must calculate how far below the horizon the sun is, in EY at the equinox,
78 min and 96 min after sunset, and apply that everywhere. Similarly,
when the GRA says shkia is when the sun disappears, and tzeis is 0.75 mil
after that, one must calculate how far below the horizon the sun in, in
EY at the equinox, 18 minutes after the sun disappears, and apply that
everywhere.
As RMF writes, the European minhag of adding a flat 72 minutes to shkia is
*not* RT, was never intended to be RT, and those who call it RT do so out of
ignorance. Rather, it was meant to represent the longest bein hashmoshos of
the year, *leshitas hage'onim*, in those latitudes. RMF says that in the
NE USA, with its lower latitude, the maximum bein hashmoshos (leshitas hageonim)
is not 72 min but closer to 50, so that should be used. If one really wants to
keep RT's tzh"k, then one must calculate it for that location, either for every
week, or just for the longest one (which would be the summer solstice) and use
that.
> So, what is the reason for an additional 32 minutes? If it is due
> to latitude differential, how and why is the calculation made?
The USNO tells me that on 1-Aug sunset in Anchorage is at 10:37pm, which
would mean that if you light candles 18 min earlier that would be 10:19pm.
It also tells me that on the following night, the sun will be 6 deg; below
the horizon at 11:39pm. Chabad.org uses 8.5 deg; for motzoei shabbos.
"A stricter calculation of Tzeit Hakochavim is used. Known as the appearance
of "three *small* stars," it coincides with the sun?s descent to 8.5 degrees
below the horizon. This stringency also ensures that we do not accidentally
violate the sanctity of the day, and that we fulfill the obligation to add
time from weekday onto the Shabbat or holiday."
As you can see, if 5.5 deg; takes about an hour, it makes sense that the extra
3 deg; will take another 40 min or so. (Bear in mind that at sunset the sun
is already more than half a degree below the horizon.)
--
Zev Sero Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name from malice.
- Eric Raymond
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:59:43 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Demythologising the Rabbinic Aggadah: Menahem Meiri
From http://tinyurl.com/puklpz7
Without stating it explicitly, Meiri usually allows his readers to
see for themselves that his interpretations are intended to avoid
attributing to the Talmudic Sages perverse, superstitious or
ridiculous notions even though a surface reading of the tests might
seem to imply that such notions are acceptable.
<Snip>
Meiri belongs firmly in both the Halakhic and the philosophical
traditions, with the emphasis on the former. Or rather he explains
both the Halakhah and the Aggadah of the Talmud in such a way as to
satisfy both the Halakhic and the philosophical mind. Yet every
student of this master's works knows that his style is all his own, a
skillful and harmonious blend of the various trends of thought in his
age which has a not inconsiderable attractiveness to modernists as
well. This explains why, though the majority of his works have only
seen the light of publication in comparatively recent times, they
have been republished many times and have won such popularity that
they now take their place beside Rashi and the Tosafists as essential
guides to the Talmud.
Please see the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140701/298a7d44/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:00:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:41:52PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: E.g. The aggadita that states that Esther was Mordechai's wife only
: allowed her to "visit" Achashveirosh because qarqa olam haysa. Even
: saving the entire Jewish people was insufficient ends to justify arayos.
"Only" was according to Abayei. RAM pushed me to look it up -- Sanhedrin
74b.
Rava's alternative answer is that mesiras nefesh when the nachri's motive
is personal hana'ah. Rava cites as proof an earlier pesaq that allows
accomodating a damand to supply heaters for their holiday celebration. Rava
also holds a person may obey a command to harvest food for the nachri's
animal, but not to harvest the same grain to be thrown into the river. The
former is motivated by the nachri wanting something for himself, the latter
is simply antisemitism.
Neither hold that the ends of saving the Jewish People was sufficient
to justify the means where the latter is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. More
accuracy, same conclusion.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:13:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> E.g. The aggadita that states that Esther was Mordechai's wife
> only allowed her to "visit" Achashveirosh because qarqa olam
> haysa. Even saving the entire Jewish people was insufficient
> ends to justify arayos.
He later added:
> "Only" was according to Abayei. ... Sanhedrin 74b. Rava's
> alternative answer is that mesiras nefesh when the nachri's
> motive is personal hana'ah. Rava cites as proof ...
My recollection is that Hora'as Shaah works even for arayos and killing, and that the only exception is avodah zara.
I found that to be similar to what the Rambam says in Yesodei Hatorah 9:3
and 9:5. I will concede that that the Rambam does not say "even arayos and
killing", but he *does* says that avoda zara is the *only* exception.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Carb-Hormone Trick
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53b36b059e78c6b051079st03vuc
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:53:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 02:00:33PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:41:52PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
:: E.g. The aggadita that states that Esther was Mordechai's wife only
:: allowed her to "visit" Achashveirosh because qarqa olam haysa. Even
:: saving the entire Jewish people was insufficient ends to justify arayos.
: "Only" was according to Abayei...
: Rava's alternative answer is that mesiras nefesh when the nachri's motive
: is personal hana'ah...
I meant to say MN is only required when...
And according to the Rambam, it's prohibited when not required, so that
it would be assur to choose dying to avoid an act of AZ that a nachri
only required of him to satisfy some personal desire/whim.
RMSSvarc pointed me to the Noda biYhudah (Tinyana YD 161) in a private
email. The central bit isn't about the permissability of Esther's act,
but about the permissability of her returning to Mordechai. And even
that is part of the greater context about whether one learns halakhah
from aggadita, where the gemara doesn't contradict it. But the NbY does
speak on my subject.
The NbY limits qarqa olam only in the case of rape, but here the element
of oneis wasn't on the guf habi'ah. "And aderabah, she is actively trying
for this in order to save lives. That's not called 'qara olam', and a
man and a woman would [therefore] be equal, so teihareig ve'al ta'avor.
But Esther is different because she was saving Kelal Yisrael from Hodu
to Kush. We do not learn the saving of individuals from the saving of
Kelal Yisrael... There was with Mordechai and his BD's hora'ah, perhaps
with ruach haqodesh. I have several peratei dinim, some leheter, some
le'issur, and this isn't the place to discuss this at length."
I don't know what to do with this NbY. He's clearly contradicting Abayei,
and unless Rava's sevara is one of the peratim the NbY didn't want to
bother discussing, he is disagreeing with Rava as well.
But the NbY does appear to say that the ends of saving all of Kelal
Yisrael might justify a hora'as sha'ah (or might require other senifim
lehaqeil in addition) to overide GA, SD or AZ. They are not, in the
NbY's opinion, too evil of a means to overwhelm *any* ends. So my
theory fails.
Still, the list of ends that would justify violating a yeihareig ve'al
ya'avor is quite short. The lemaaseh of my theory failing is not likely
to ever include anyone but Esther in all of human history.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: saul newman
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:03:10 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] said no...
rabbi billett---We have prayed every day for those boys. HASHEM in his
mysterious and incomprehensible ways, has said' "no"
>>> couldn't we say that, given that the boys were murdered moments after
their abduction , and since tefillot didnt commence until later, that for
the RBSO to have fully listened to the tefillot would have required
techiyat hameitim, and since we are not yet even zoche to mashiach , His
hands were effectively tied?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140702/ae39041a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:14:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] said no...
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:03:10PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: rabbi billett
:> We have prayed every day for those boys. HASHEM in his
:> mysterious and incomprehensible ways, has said' "no"
: couldn't we say that, given that the boys were murdered moments after
: their abduction, and since tefillot didnt commence until later, that for
: the RBSO to have fully listened to the tefillot would have required
: techiyat hameitim, and since we are not yet even zoche to mashiach, His
: hands were effectively tied?
The mishnah on Berakhos 54a talks abut not davenig for a baby of a
particular gender, which the gemara says is after the fetus already
formed one way or the other. And the mishnah similarly says that if you
hear tell of a fire burning in the city, you shouldn't daven that it
not be in your own house.
So yes.
But I am bothered by the level of discourse. We shouldn't be davening
in order to get our requests met. Hashem will do what is best for our
souls and His world. Not what we beg Him to do. Sometimes, the fact of
davening changes what that "best" is. Often not. But even so, the main
point of davening isn't to get what you want.
When I had a bad day at work and I call my father to talk about it, it's
not that I think my father can change anything at work. It's simply part
of being in a relationship to know "imo Anokhi betzara".
That's "im kevanim", as for "im ka'avadim"...
I think the nearest metaphor that might work for those of up growing
up in democraciesis to picture davening as a meeting of BMBW LLC --
a paternership aimed at producing a Better Me and Better World. One
approache the Senior Partner, way above us on the org chart with a bit
of trepidation. But the point of the meeting isn't to get my needs met,
but to make sure the partnership succeeds at meeting our mutual goals.
And for all that trepidation, we know He is even more committed to our
mutual success than we are. (No distractions.)
But regardless of whether you share either of my perspectives on
tefillah, we do agree that prayer isn't about getting G-d to cave in
to His child's request. No?
So why focus on "sometimes the answer is 'no'", and remind people
what the question means?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:27:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Demythologising the Rabbinic Aggadah: Menahem
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:59:43AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/puklpz7
I read Louis Jacob's article, and I'm a little surprised Sefarim Blog
thought it was O enough for them.
The general stance is that the Me'iri, like other philosophical geonim and
rishonim, transvalued maamarei chazal. That they thought chazal really
meant there were sheidim or that mal'akhim don't understand aggadita,
and they were force-fitting a different worldview into their words by
mapping them to parallel concepts in Aristo philosophy. There is nothing
inherently heretical in saying there is a discontuinity between Chazal's
hashkafos and the rishonim's. But to my mind there is an attempt here
to justify the C and Masorti's attempts to graft themselves onto the
mesorah's trunk by parallel methodology.
Do any of us doubt that the Rambam really believed that Chazal presented
aggadita in metaphor and riddle, and that in reality the consensus
view among them was Aristotilian? Or that the Me'iri's position was
essentially similar? Whether or not you agree that that's what these
rishonim were really doing -- the whole Maimonidian Controversy -- do
we question that they were *trying* to do anything but understand what
the gemara actually meant?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:27:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Demythologising the Rabbinic Aggadah: Menahem
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:59:43AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/puklpz7
I read Louis Jacob's article, and I'm a little surprised Sefarim Blog
thought it was O enough for them.
The general stance is that the Me'iri, like other philosophical geonim and
rishonim, transvalued maamarei chazal. That they thought chazal really
meant there were sheidim or that mal'akhim don't understand aggadita,
and they were force-fitting a different worldview into their words by
mapping them to parallel concepts in Aristo philosophy. There is nothing
inherently heretical in saying there is a discontuinity between Chazal's
hashkafos and the rishonim's. But to my mind there is an attempt here
to justify the C and Masorti's attempts to graft themselves onto the
mesorah's trunk by parallel methodology.
Do any of us doubt that the Rambam really believed that Chazal presented
aggadita in metaphor and riddle, and that in reality the consensus
view among them was Aristotilian? Or that the Me'iri's position was
essentially similar? Whether or not you agree that that's what these
rishonim were really doing -- the whole Maimonidian Controversy -- do
we question that they were *trying* to do anything but understand what
the gemara actually meant?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:59:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] said no...
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> We shouldn't be davening in order to get our requests met. Hashem
> will do what is best for our souls and His world. Not what we beg
> Him to do. Sometimes, the fact of davening changes what that "best"
> is. Often not. But even so, the main point of davening isn't to
> get what you want.
I agree, but only partially. One must strive for the middle of the road, to neither extreme.
"Y'maleh mish'alos libeinu l'tova" -- You are correct that we must keep the "l'tova" in mind, but there's nothing wrong with asking for mish'alos libeinu.
Actually, I'd go even further and suggest that asking for mish'alos libeinu
is an important factor which must mot be discarded. A tefilah which
consists of "I know that You'll do what is best for us, so please do it" is
not a bakasha, I think. It is an excellent statement of emunah, and that's
important too. But Chazal see real requests as an important part of
tefilla.
I think this is true not only for the ordinary folk, but even for the
gedolim. Even they should ask for the things that they want. Of course,
their wants will certainly be loftier than mine, but they should not deny
themselves the freedom to make specific requests of their Father
Even Moshe Rabainu davened for personal desires. HaShem actually did answer
with a "no". And even there, He was not upset at Moshe's lack of trust that
He would do the best thing.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Carb-Hormone Trick
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53b48f2934715f28086dst02vuc
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 05:57:19 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] [Shabbat B'Shabbato] "Emunot V'Dei'ot"
----- Forwarded message from zo...@emailcampaign.co.il -----
Shabbat B'Shabbato
Translated by Moshe Goldberg
Machon Zomet
...
Something about books
"Emunot V'Dei'ot"
Rabbi Yosef Leichter, The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem
(In memory of my father-in-law, Rabbi Yitzchak Dov Heller, who passed
away on the twentieth of Sivan 5774.)
In our last few articles, we have described Rav Saadia Gaon as an
innovator in such matters as study of the Hebrew language, commentary on
the Tanach, and writing halachic books on various subjects. Rav Saadia was
also the first one who wrote a comprehensive book on Jewish philosophy
in Arabic -- "Emunot V'Dei'ot," or as Rabbi Yosef Kapach translated the
title, "Hanivchar B'Emunot V'Dei'ot" -- important elements of faith and
philosophy. The book is based on a study of the Torah, the Prophets, and
the Writings, and a study of the words of the sages in the Talmud and in
the Midrash. He demonstrated a deep knowledge of foreign philosophies,
as in the saying, "He found a pomegranate, ate the inside, and threw
away the rind" [Chagiga 15b]. Many articles and research papers have been
written about this book. I have chosen to quote what appears in the book
by Rabbi Prof. Simcha Bunim Auerbach. The author served as the rabbi of
Sedei Yaacov and later in the city of Tivon. He was also a specialist
in Jewish philosophy, and he was a Professor of Jewish Philosophy in
Bar Ilan University. He wrote as follows:
"In the era of the Gaon a strong need arose for Judaism to justify itself
in philosophic terms because of the spiritual clash with foreign cultures
and various other religions. Judaism was attacked from inside and from
outside. Internal sects such as the Karaites and the apostates attacked
Judaism for its anthropomorphism and for the physical descriptions of
G-d in the Judeo-Talmudic literature. And religions which were based on
Judaism claimed that it was 'outdated' and that they had come to take
its place. It was no longer possible to base the existence on prior
customs and discipline. It became necessary to convince the others and
to demonstrate internal truth.
"This encounter with vigorous beliefs brought up new problems for Judaism
which had to be addressed. First of all, it became necessary to determine,
for Judaism more than for the others, the main contents of the religion
and the foundations on which it stood, to analyze its concepts while
defining them, and to systematically explain its beliefs. The Divine and
eternal Torah had to be explained in a logical and systematic fashion in
order to show all the nations of the earth that its source was in great
wisdom and Divine understanding. It was therefore necessary to develop new
ways of thinking, using scientific-philosophical methods that are shared
by all. And the Gaon was wise enough to combine all of these tasks in a
wonderful way, thereby rescuing the souls of his generation and those who
followed close by from surrendering to foreign approaches and -- even more
important -- from blurring the concepts and from confused approaches."
["Amudei Hamachshava HaYisraelit" (Jerusalem 5731-1971), Volume 1,
page 56.]
Rav Saadia Gaon was a methodological man, and he organized the main
beliefs of Judaism in a systematic way. He wrote a chapter on each main
subject, including the principles and their ramifications. Below is a
brief summary of the ten chapters of his book. (Page numbers correspond
to the translation by Rabbi Kapach.)
Chapter 1: Everything that exists is a product of creation. The world
was created and did not come to exist by itself, it was made by the
Creator and not by others. In this chapter Rav Saadia rejects twelve
other opinions which present alternative approaches.
Chapter 2: There is only one who created everything. That is, "There
is no Creator other than the One, as is written, 'You have been shown
in order to know that G-d is Elohim, there is no other aside from Him'
[Devarim 4:35]." [Page 86].
Chapter 3: Commands and prohibitions. Rav Saadia differentiates between
mitzvot "sichliot," reasonable commands which could be reached by logical
thinking, and mitzvot "shemiot" -- that are not necessarily reasonable
on their own but were added by the Holy One, Blessed be He, in order to
add to our reward, for which we should be happy (Page 119). Rav Saadia
proves the eternal nature of the Torah. "Bnei Yisrael received affirmation
that the prophets have told them that the mitzvot will never cease to
exist... For many mitzvot are explicitly called 'an eternal covenant,'
and it is often written that they are 'for all your generations.' In
addition, it is written, 'Moshe commanded us the Torah as a heritage'
[Devarim 33:4]. Our nation is not a nation without its Torot (the written
Torah and the oral Torah), and the Almighty has said that the nation
will last as long as the heaven and the earth..."
Chapter 4: Discipline, rebellion, necessity, and righteousness. This
also includes a discussion of free choice.
Chapter 5: Privileges and obligations, including reward and punishment.
Why do righteous people have bad things happen to them while evil people
have good lives?
Chapter 6: The soul, death, and the ramifications of these concepts.
Chapter 7: Resurrection in this world.
Chapter 8: Salvation, including the belief in the coming of the Mashiach.
Chapter 9: Reward and punishment in the world to come.
Chapter 10: The best way for a person to act in this world. "It is most
important that a person control his traits and rule over his love and
his hatred, in that each one has its proper place... And all this in
the proper measure and by maintaining the ability to stop whenever he
wants to, as is written, 'One with patience is to be preferred to a
warrior, and one who controls his anger to one who conquers a city'
[Mishlei 16:32]." [Page 290].
E-mail: Yoseph...@gmail.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
***************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)