Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 030

Sunday, November 5 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:30:29 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Tenth Man


Steve Katz:
>Agreed, but for how many do you wait after heicheh kedusha?

Two cases in the KSA

1) re: Kadssih (15:6) KSA says wait for 6 to with up to 3 still davening.
2) while RE: chazaras Hashatz in 20:2 he requires 9 listening and finished
davening

Bapshtus this is case #1

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:27:34 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Tenth Man


> To return to a topic that was discussed almost one year ago (waiting for ten 
> people to finish shemona esrei before beginning chazaras hashatz) I just came 
> across this issue in Halichos Shlomo. According to RSZA, "b'shas hadchak," you
> _can_ include those people that are still davening their shemona esrei.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 124:4) is very clear that the shaliach tzibbur
has to wait for nine people who can answer his berachos before starting
chazaras hashatz. However, many point out that in OC 56:6 the SA says
that someone sleeping can be counted for a minyan for kaddish even though
the man obviously cannot answer amen. There are different explanations
to this stirah - see that Taz, Pri Chadash, and Birkei Yosef to siman 56 -
but this is probably where RSZA found his heter for she'as hadchak.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:14:56 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Tinok Shenishbah


A while back, R. Chaim Brown and I discussed (perhaps offline) whether the 
halachic category of Tinok Shenishbah also applies to Bnei Noach.

The Maharatz Chayes in Toras Nevi'im (ch. 8) explains that the chiyuv misah of a
someone who violates mitzvos because he does not belive either in Hashem or the 
mitzvos is in the category of mored bemalchus, although here he is mored 
bemalchus shamayim.  The MHRTC further (ch. 11) states that a Ben Noach who 
violates one of the seven mitzvos because he does not believe is also considered
a mored bemalchus.

In other words, the MHRTC equates a Jewish kofer with a gentile kofer.  This 
equation is based on his expansion of the Rambam's idea that gentiles are 
obligated in the seven mitzvos only because Hashem gave it to them at Sinai (the
MHRTC even goes so far as to say that before mattan Torah the seven mitzvos were
optional).

If that is the case, if lack of knowledge is an excuse for a Jewish mored 
bemalchus shamayim, why shouldn't it also be an excuse for a gentile mored 
bemalchus shamayim?

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:39:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
RE: Kiddush intro


On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Al kein Beirach,
> Vayihi Erev
> Al Pi Hashem beyad Moshe 

> Are 3 examples of 3 Half-psukim incorporated into our liturgy despite
> the Principle of kol passuk dol pasak Moshe Rabbeinu... 

Correct. I have eliminated all from my liturgical recitations. Another
one: The break in "Yehalelu".

> Hypothesis:  The esnachto consititues enough of a hefsek to not violate
> the rule of Kol Passuk.

That is the Chasam Sofer's position. Baruch she'kivanta.
The TE says that derech tefilla everything is permitted.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:33:50 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Which animals were on the teiva?


C1A1Brown@aol.com
> There it was an agricultural korban - here Noach is told to bring
> davka animals for a korban, so it is a chiddush din of beheima tehorah....

Did Noach'sse Karbanos require Nisuch Yayin too?
Im kein he would have been chayav to plant a vineyard, no?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:51:19 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Which animals were on the teiva?


In a message dated 11/3/00 10:12:16am EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
>> Why couldn't we learn Baal Mum from the Korban of Kayin see Rashi 4:3
>> (Bifrat according to the the first Peirush).
 
> There it was an agricultural korban - here Noach is told to bring
> davka animals for a korban, so it is a chiddush din of beheima tehorah.
> (V'aderaba, I might have argued that Hevel b'davka had to bring the best
> sheep as oppsed to Kayin, because since he was bringing an animal there
> is a din of it not being a ba'al mum, kah mashma lan our parsha that
> this is not true...)

Not to rehash. but LFAN"D it makes no difference and if his agricultural 
Korban was not accepted because it was inferior (or according to the second 
Pshat he didn't bother to pick the best "Hakriveihu Na Lpechosecha") then 
Noach would have understood that any Korban should not be inferior, w/o a 
Tzivuy of Bheimah Hathorah = Tamim.

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:43:25 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
[none]


From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
> Agreed, but for how many do you wait after heicheh kedusha?

You only have to wait for six people.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n169.shtml#02

("It should be noted that this is not as much of a problem after shemonah
esrai of maariv (or mincha, if after a haicha kedusha), since one need only
wait for six people who have finished their silent shemonah esrai to say
kadish.  See OC 55 (and the MB there, who states that some acharonim are
machmir to wait for 9.")

I will, b"n, obtain the exact cite for the Halichos Shlomo later.

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:37:53 -0500
From: "Edward Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
Subject:
Tenth Man


Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:24:52 -0500 
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
>                   On the other hand, if there is a minyan of exactly ten
> people, and it is known that one of them davens _very_ long, I would say
> that this should qualify for shaas hadchak.
> One possible eitzah might be to have the person who is still davening to
> stop his shemona esrei for a few moments and listen to the chazan say the
> first brachah...

Wouldn't it be better for the long davener to be mekatzair when he knows
the minyan is waiting for him, like R. Akiva did when he davened betzibur.

KT and Gut Shabbos
Avrohom Weidberg


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:05:09 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Free will


MSB:
> This goes back to removing this all-or-nothing barrier. Every person
> faces progress and r"l regress no matter where they are currently. What
> differs is which battles are fought, not the process of battle.
...
> IOW, I would address distance from various bechirah points, not the
> yes-or-no of being at a single nekudah or beyond it. (A second retreat
> from black-vs-white in one email.)

Here is an all-or-nothing barrier with which I've wrestled for many years.

The Rambam makes a point of Kabbalah al he'osid and that a complete Teshuva
is facing the same situatoinn again and not being overcome by temptation...

Well, how about a reduction in bad beahvior instead of a total elmination?

Illustration: Let's say I used to talk in shul 10 minutes every Shabbos.
One year I do Teshuva and I am mekabeil to give it up. But now I talk let's
say 5 mintues every other Shabbos.  Certianly not a full Teshuva, but what
is it?

In a sense I cannot say eineni oso ho'ish - after all I am STILL subject to
the yetzer hara of talking.  OTOH, can you dismiss the times I succed in
resisting even though I am not consistently elimninating talking entirely?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:48:37 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Beri'ah and dinosaur bones


On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:34:42AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Several months ago we discussed how R. Aryeh Kaplan brought down a
: technique for reconciling the 15 billion year old universe with divrei
: Kabbalah (Zohar) perhaps.
...
: And there were in effect TWO creations (to wax Brisker <smile>):
: Perek 1  ex nihilo, yesh mei'ayin, or perhaps big bang
: Perek 2  Adam Harishon, Tzelem Elokim created beyom hashishi yesh mei'yesh

Yes, I do believe that R' Yitzchak mei'Akko's (who, aside from all that
was mentioned earlier, was also a Talmid of the Ramban) opinion, the
first creation was 15.6 billion years ago, not the second.

There are a number of variants of the two creation theory -- positing that
there was an earlier creation in Bereishis 1:1 which was not immediately
before the naarative begining in 1:2. In the attached email below, this is
#3, where I summarize the Tif'eres Yisrael's variant.

WRT taking Bereishis 1:1 literally, I posted elsewhere a survey of
approaches propounded by our Rabbanim. As you'll note, it is far from
true that unlike RIAZ's assertion:
> Now we know that the
> dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago as a result of the massive
> upheaval produced by the asteroid impact in the Yucatan...
Our mesorah isn't all that sure.

-mi

Reprint (apologies to those who read it elsewhere):

1- Rejection of scientific data. Since, as one opinion in the Gemara
   has it, Adam was created as a fully mature man of 20, trees were
   created fully grown, it is clear that this opinion would hold that
   the universe as a whole was formed with a history consistant with a
   natural, scientific, progression.

   This opinion bothers me for three reasons:
   a- It implies that Hashem created dinosaur bones and light from stars
      further away than 5758 light-years (for otherwise how could the
      light be reaching us yet) for no reason other than to provide
      evidence against creation.

[Actually, I since found another motivation. The effects of any event
carry through in time. For example, had H' not created light that was
as if it already left the stars, the earth's sky would be nearly
black. Perhaps there is no way to have teva today without the illusion
that the laws of teva always held.]

   b- What would stop a similar argument that the world is 5 minutes old,
      and all our memories, books, and so on have been faked to imply
      a history.

   c- How can one ascribe a time to creation? It can't be on the Creator's
      clock, since He Exists outside of time. Therefor, when we speak of
      "when" creation happened, we mean the begining of the universe's
      timeline. So then how could we talk about G-d creating the universe
      at some point in the middle of the line, allowing history to go
      in both directions -- past and future -- from that point?

2- Conflict resolution. Invoking relativity or whatnot to show that 15
   billion years can be 5758 years in another frame of reference. Perhaps
   relavitity justifies the differences between frames of reference). The
   "birds" of day 5 are actually dinosaurs, which are most similar
   bilogically to birds of any thing living today. Creation of the sun
   on day 4 is actually about the sky clearing to the point the sun
   could be seen on earth, etc...

   As can be seen from my treatment, I don't consider this opinion
   fair to either the Torah or the scientific data. Yet, many popular
   books have come out in the past two years promoting this kind of
   position. Perhaps someone else can do it justice.

3- Multiple creation times. This is the approach of the Tiferes
   Yisrael. He cites an opinion of the tannaim that Hashem created worlds
   and destroyed them before this one. Dinosaur bones and starlight are
   legacies of these earlier worlds.

   In Gen 1:1, G-d creates ex nihilo (matter from nothing). Then,
   before verse 2, these other worlds (in this opinion, epochs) rose
   and fell. Then, there was "chaos and emptiness" from which our world
   emerged. The universe as a whole, even the planet, can therefor be
   older than 5758 years.

   Since current theory is that the world started as a singularity --
   IOW, not within the purvey of science, it is all a matter of faith
   if the ex nihilo was with the intent of the Creator or not.

   Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quotes R' Yitzchak of Akko (a student of the Ramban,
   late medieval) who concludes from the Zohar that the first creation
   was 15.8 billion years ago -- the age astronomers and physicists seem
   to be converging on, given multiple ways of measuring the age.

[However, RCB was already kind enough to share with us the Netziv's
problem with the idea that these earlier olamos left behind scientific
evidence.]

4- Rejection of a literal read of the Torah. This is much easier,
   halachically, than it sounds, as there is a long tradition, including
   the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon, teaching that Genesis 1&2 actually
   convey deeper truths via metaphor. The gemara, after all, limits the
   number of students (to 2) that one may teach the secrets of the Act
   of Creation -- so clearly we can't just take the text at face value.

   Another commonly sited proof for non-literalness is that the word
   "day" precedes the creation of the sun. Therefor, it can't be used,
   at least in this naarative, to mean our 24 hour period.

4a-The Maharal (intro to Gevuros Hashem) teaches that creation is so
   alien to human experience that we don't have a comparison to
   it. Therefor prophecy, which is transmitted by visions, can not
   describe it. (The World to Come is similarly explained. This is why
   it only appears in Tanach as "your days will be prolonged". Continued
   existance we can understand. The rest of the details, no.)

   However, creation is also so alien that we can not understand it by
   extrapolation, either. In general, the Talmud teaches that "wisdom is

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:36:54 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Tinok Shenishbah


> A while back, R. Chaim Brown and I discussed whether the halachic
> category of Tinok Shenishbah also applies to Bnei Noach.

Don't recall, but why should it - tinok shenishba is a ptur from korban,
not a catch-all heter?

> The Maharatz Chayes in Toras Nevi'im (ch. 8) explains that the chiyuv
> misah of a someone who violates mitzvos because he does not belive
> either in Hashem or the mitzvos is in the category of mored bemalchus,
> although here he is mored bemalchus shamayim.

But mored b'malcus has specific dinim attached to his death sentence
(e.g. l'gabi yerusha) that do not apply to a B'N? Also, l'mai nafka
minah categorizing this as mored b'malchus as opposed to just saying it is
the act of gezel or aiver min hachai or whatever which is mechayev misa?
I don't understand...

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:53:36 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Kiddush intro


R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer:
>> Hypothesis:  The esnachto consititues enough of a hefsek to not violate
>> the rule of Kol Passuk.

> That is the Chasam Sofer's position. Baruch she'kivanta.
> The TE says that derech tefilla everything is permitted.

I could defend the break in Yehallelu on a shomei'a k'oneh bais making the
completion of the passuk a co-operative one.

It is loosely analagous to the chazzan saying Hodu Lashem ki tov and the
k'hal finishing ki l'olom chasdo.  This form is in disuse but I do believe
there is evidence tht this model was widely used earlie in our history.

Second of all the principle of kal dlo passak Moshe Rabbeinu is not quite
relavent to Nach.  If so you have mucho problemo all over the place.  There
are probably dozens of partial psukim throuhgout the litrugy.

E.G.
Rabbo Emunasecho
Oseh shalom bimromov
Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach,

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.


********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >