Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 078

Thursday, January 15 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:28:37 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Ramban/Shechinah


On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:00AM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: At 11:13 PM 1/10/2004, [RML] wrote:
:>It seems to me though that you understand kavod nivra as a concept; in 
:>fact, RSG seems to understand it as an actual created physical entity that 
:>serves to indicate Hashem's presence, such as a cloud that descended when 
:>Moshe spoke to Hashem....

: Kavod nivra I understand *not* as a concept but as, in fact, as often a
: physical reality (although not necessarily so). It is a broad term for
: the reflection of connection to Hashem, which can either by physically
: manifest or spiritually sensed.

FWIW, I understood RSG, and understood the Ramban's understanding of
RSG, the way RML did.

He gives the example of the amud ha'eish or anan being the shechinah.

As to whether the created entity needs to be physical... RSG also calls
the being Yechezqel saw to be the shechinah. Does this mean that he
believes Yechezqel had physical sight of the merkavah, that it was not
through prophetic vision?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:44:33 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ramban/Shechinah


ML:It seems to me though that you understand kavod nivra as a concept;
in fact, RSG seems to understand it as an actual created physical entity
that serves to indicate Hashem's presence, such as a cloud that descended
when Moshe spoke to Hashem....

RYGB:Kavod nivra I understand *not* as a concept but as, in fact, as
often a physical reality (although not necessarily so). It is a broad
term for the reflection of connection to Hashem, which can either by
physically manifest or spiritually sensed.

ML:I agree tha there are some places where RSG seems to lean to this
explanation but in the most explicit places he speaks of an actual
physical created being that can be per ceived by eyes or ears. I am
not sure that he saw physical and spiritual perceptions as distinct;
that is an Augustinian and Descartian concept. I think that a bias to
translating perception into visual terms is not a Jewish one; neither
is the sharp demarcation between physical and spiritual. It is also
probably antiquated in this age of cognitive neurosciences.

In other places (see Ibn Ezra Breishis 3,1), RSG tends to go for an
explanation of a real physical event that was physically perceived rather
than with "the windows of the soul".



ML:In terms of sefiros, there is in fact a machlokes whether they are real
or concepts. Some mekubbolim (I think R. Yisroel Sarug) did hold that they
have an actual existence. The prevailing view is that they are a concept
or way-station as presented in the beginning of Pardes. The etymology
of the word would be from cipher, a number +10. As numbers, sephiros are
not real but are concepts. However, if you derive the word from saphir,
it points to their transparency but they still have a true existence.

RGBS:To the extent that sefiros might be considered realities, I can only
understand that if we assume that the malachim associated with sefiros
(viz., Michoel with Chesed, Gavriel with Gevurah, etc.) or the individuals
associated with them (viz., Avrohom with Chesed, Yitzchok with Gevurah,
etc.) are those realities. Otherwise, I do not as of now understand how
the concepts can be "real."

ML: The reality of sephiros would same as reality of keilim which are
both filters/ screen to divine light and may be have a true independent
existence. That relates to the quantum leaps that occur somewhere along
the process of hishtalshelus and is presented as different kinds of
ohr striking each other etc and the change that occurs from sephiros
in circle to sephiros in a structure.(for those who are not into this,
please excuse my arcane references.)Again, the issue is how much of
Kabbala is moshol and how much is a reflection of reality that we do
not have the tools to fully grasp. I have posted on this here before.


Tsror Hachaim also refers to Malchus, with tiferes and bina illuminating
from inside it. The idea seems to be that tsadikim cause a deeper zivug
of zeir anpin and malchus through their actions. See Pardes Shaar 23,
Ch. 23

RYGB:This does not seem to be what the Ramban and R' Bechayei are saying
in Vayechi.

My contention is that the Ramban (I have to check R. Bchayi) is exactly
refering to this concept of Tsros Hachaim when he uses the apellation
Tsror Hachaim. Ths point is that stam tsadikkim cause a more superficial
zivug with their mitsvos but greater tsadikkim cause a much more profound
zivug in one step connecting malchus with tiferes and bina within it to
the zeir anpin resulting in a 4 part structure. That is called merkava
leshchina (shechina is a code word for malchus).


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:25 -0500
From: "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma


From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> I pointed to EH 76:3 in my previous post.  It says there that a talmid
> hacham may spend two or three years away from home studying without his
> wife's permission, and that a normal person may elect to become a talmid
> hacham without his wife's permission.  Now the avowed subject of that
> halacha is onah, but someone who is out of town generally can't take out the
> garbage or do any other normal husbandly practices....
> So that halacha clearly implies that not all husbands treat their wives in
> the same manner, i.e. that "hilchos guvrin yehudain" depends on profession.

This halokho just proves that the mitzva of limmud Torah overrides the
normal expectation that a husband must not leave his wife for 2-3 years.
It is just like the mitzva of limmud Torah overrides the issur of
leaving EY. It does not have any further implications to the nature of
the obligation a man takes on when he marries, just like it does not
have implications for the mitzva of 'onah when the man is at home.

Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:28:49 -0500
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Gam Zu LaTovah and Bchirah


[Micha, replying to RSBrizel:]
>: 1) HaShem lets us exercise good will to make the right or wrong choice
>: ( attributed to R Velvel ZTL)
...
>: 3) We have a complete choice to be in our own lives as good as Moshe
>: Rabbeinu or as bad as Yeravam ben Navat . Our sins impact on a macro and
>: micro level with respect to Klal Yisrael ( See SR and RYH on the Shoah)
>...
>: 5) HaShem constricts Himself in order to allow man to fully do right
>: or wrong ( Tzimtzum based on Rashi on Chet HaEgel and Moshe Rabbeinu's
>: request to be told how HaShem functions).

> Aren't these the same as #1 and eachother

they are similar approaches, albeit the latter approach is based on the
Kabbalistic theory of Tzimtzim. I would tend to doubt that R Velvel ZTL
used this type of logic.

[Email #2, jumps back a bit in RSB's orignal post:]
>: 2) There is evil in the world that is here, regardless of how the
>: cause. Our job is to try to eradicate it ( RYBS in Kol Dodi Dofek)

> This is a non-answer. RYBS says that man cannnot explain the cause. Attempts
> to do so will perforce be either intellectually dishonest or emotionally
> unsatisfying (or both). He points us to a more productive question, not
> an answer.

True, Remember, there is a machlokes haTannaim in Brachos 7a or 7b
whether Moshe Rabbeinu was given an answer to the issue of theodicy. See
the footnotes in Kol Dodi Dofek for an analysis of this machlokes.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:21:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Rema Methodology


What do we do when the Rema quotes a rishon as saying one thing but
the rishon actually says something slightly differently? Do we assume
that the Rema really meant to say whatever the rishon says or that he
intended to give his own position based mainly but not entirely on the
rishon? This is not an infrequent occurence.

I looked in Yad Malachi and could not find any guidance on this issue.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:22:10 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma


I thought this thread was finished, unresolved, but both sides adequately
explained, but I am going to respond to Rabbi Mandel's latest. Let me
resurrect some ancient history:

I summarized our disagreement as:

<<Rabbi Mandel seems to believe that standard behavior is normative, i.e.
that one rule of behavior fits all husbands ... I claim, on the other
hand, that if Mrs. Cohen knew when she was getting married that her
husband was a religious fanatic who had dedicated his life to restoring
kedushat kehuna, she and he would have read the kesuba in that light.>>

Rabbi Mandel confirmed my understanding of his position with:

<<I see no other possibility of reading "k'hilkhot guvrin y'hudain"
other than saying it refers to standard norms of behavior of Jewish men.
You cannot sign something like that and claim "but I meant that I can do
things in the way I expect to do them, regardless of what most men do.">>

RAM asked me to clarify my position with:

<<R' Riceman, can you please offer us your interpretation of the
phrase "k'hilchos guvrin Yehuda'in"? If this does not mean that there
is a normative standard for *all* Jewish husbands, then what *does*
it mean???>>

I responded by citing EH 76:3 [I should have said 76:2, and 5].
This lists periods of ona for various professions. Not only do people
with different professions have different onoth, people with different
professions may stay away from home different lengths of time. So that a
sailor, who stays away from home for six months cannot possibly treat his
wife (e.g. by taking out the garbage) the same way as does a day laborer,
who comes home every night.

Furthermore, a husband may change his profession to something bringing
him home more often, but may not change his profession to something
bringing him home less often without his wife's permission. To me that
seems like clear evidence that there is no uniform standard for all
husbands, and that husband and wife understand the kesuba in the light
of the husband's circumstances.

Rabbi Mandel and I also disagreed about whether a king has a different
kesuba than a normal person. I raised the problem of a married prince
or a married Mashiah, whose status changes after his marriage. To me,
Rabbi Mandel's position implied that such a person needed to give his
wife a new kesuba when he became king. As evidence that this is false
I cited the same halacha. The halacha, though normally it prohibits a
husband's change to a profession bringing him home less often, permits
someone to become a talmid hacham even if he travels for two or three
years at a time. I suggested that becoming a king, though it changes the
husband's status with respect to his kesuba, is analogous to becoming
a talmid hacham, and he should not need a new kesuba.

Here's what Rabbi Mandel wrote. I fear that due to the terseness of my
previous post he missed both my points:
> This halokho just proves that the mitzva of limmud Torah overrides the
> normal expectation that a husband must not leave his wife for 2-3 years.  It
> is just like the mitzva of limmud Torah overrides the issur of leaving EY.
> It does not have any further implications to the nature of the obligation a
> man takes on when he marries, just like it does not have implications for
> the mitzva of 'onah when the man is at home.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:01:28 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Psik Reisha


On 13 Jan 2004 at 8:30, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. wrote [Areivim]
regarding walking past a light with a motion sensor on Shabbos:
> It is most definitely a pesik reisha d'lo nicha lei. As the Aruch
> holds prdln"l is muttar lechatchila, and R' Chaim paskened azoi
> l'ma'aseh (because he held it was also shittas ho'Rambam), there is
> makom l'hakel b'makom ha'tzorech.

Why "d'lo nicha lei"? I would think that at most it would be "d'lo ichpas
lei" and maybe even "d'nicha lei" because it would show you where you
are going?

Also, what's considered b'makom ha'tzorech? If I can easily avoid it
by going out into the street for a minute (or by walking down the other
side of the street), is it stil b'makom ha'tzorech?

There's a house in Passaic that had one of these lights when we lived
there and I used to have to pass it on my way to shul every Shabbos.
IIRC R. Meir Stern said that we should walk out into the street to
avoid it.

-- Carl (who actually has one of these lights in Israel, but the electric
eye doesn't work properly from all the sand storms and we turn it off
on Shabbos in any event)

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:57:27 -0500
From: "Moshe & Ilana Sober" <sober@pathcom.com>
Subject:
10 Tevet


On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
: IIRC, the Jewish community of Alexandria relied on the Septuagint
: (LXX) and no longer understood Hebrew. For them, the translation of the
: Torah into Greek symbolized the translation of Judaism into Hellenistic
: terms.

[Micha:]
> However, the gemara's version of the story has them making the translation
> under compulsion by one of the Ptolmeys. Which is where I got the idea
> that the LXX was made to facilitate the accretion of Judaism into the
> Greek pantheon.

Yes - that's also more or less the Alexandrian Jews' version (recounted
in Aristeas), but once the translation was available they certainly took
advantage of it.

I concede that the basis of 10 Tevet has a lot more to do with Chazal's
perspective on events then mine. Also, I was probably too harsh regarding
the Alexandrians in my previous post. They weren't rebelling against
Jewish tradition but, AIUI, they represent a pretty extreme approach
to synthesizing Judaism with Hellenistic culture, both conceptually
and linguistically.

 - Ilana


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:05:20 +0200
From: Dov Bloom <dovb@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Some historical thoughts re Chanuka


 From Avoda 12 69: 
>RG Blidstein suggested that Chanuka ...was really a victory of
>Traditionalist Jews over Hellenist Jews... it was intentionally kept
> out of the Mishnah ... out of an embarrassment that Jews could become
> so Hellenistic ...

> RHS writes in the name of RYBS (free translation): "The war of the
> Chashmonaim was not against the Greek gentiles, but against Jewish
> Hellenists . . . The text of "Al HaNissim" and the text of the Gemara
> [dealing with the Chanuka episode] is euphemistic, as Chazal were very
> careful not to speak ill of Jews".

I would like to add to this discussion that I find support for RBlidstein
and the quote from [RYBS/RYDS]] (not that they need my support) in the
Aruch Hashulchan.

At the beginning of Hilchot Chanuka (Orach Hayim 670) the AH begins,
similar to the Rambam, with a short historical to the Chanukah story.

The AH then diverts from the Rambam and states the victory of the
Chashmonaim over Antiochus was "lo bederech ha Teva" because the
Chashmonaim with the groups of Hasidim were few ( meatim meod) and
Antiochus came upon them with a great force and many elephants and
chariots and cavalry. But Hashem "hachafetz be-amo yisrael" ( now
he quotes from Al Hanissim) "masar gibborim beyad halashim veRabim
beyadmeatim u-temaiim beyad tehorim ureshaim beyad tzadikim" .

The continuation is now the interesting part.

Instead of just continuing to quote the Al Hanissim and write , parallel
to the other 4 phrases, "veZeidim beyad oskei toratecha" ( and the
arrogant in the hands of those who diligently deal with your Torah)
the AH writes "veHazidim me-yisrael shenistapkhu leAntiochus gam kein
nehergu venimseru beyad oskei Toratecha" - and the arrogant Jews who
allied themselves with Antiochus also were killed and were delivered
into the hands of those who diligently deal with your Torah !

The AH clearly perceives the struggle as also being against Jewish
Hellenists, and interprets one of the five phrases in Al Hanissim as
refering specifically to these Hellenistic Jews.

The AH was probably familiar with Hebrew or Russian translations of the
Book of Maccabees 1 & 2, or other works based on them which describe
the Hellenistic Jews' activities in Jerusalem.

Maybe RYDS was influenced by the AH, who wrote at the beginning of the
(20 th last) century, maybe RYBS read the Sefer HaMaccabim "inside"
or other works based on it.

See for instance Macabbem 2, chapter 4 verses 8-17, which describe how
the pretender to the Kehuna Gedola Jason bribed Antiochus and built
a gymnasiom and Greek school in Jerusalem, and tried to Hellenize the
populace, and change the local (Jerusalem) city regulations to be not
according to the Tora. He even suceeded in swaying Kohanim who (v 14)
left the korbanot and hurried to the wrestling square .

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:25:53 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Psik Reisha


At 06:01 PM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2004 at 8:30, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. wrote [Areivim]
>regarding walking past a light with a motion sensor on Shabbos:
>> It is most definitely a pesik reisha d'lo nicha lei. As the Aruch
>> holds prdln"l is muttar lechatchila, and R' Chaim paskened azoi
>> l'ma'aseh (because he held it was also shittas ho'Rambam), there is
>> makom l'hakel b'makom ha'tzorech.

>Why "d'lo nicha lei"? I would think that at most it would be "d'lo ichpas
>lei" and maybe even "d'nicha lei" because it would show you where you
>are going?

Security lights are usually made for the Ba'al haBayis' security. I have 
street lights to guide my way. It is lo nicha lei, in my opinion, because 
it is unpleasant to be illuminated every time you walk there.

 From our last go around:

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:54:23 +0300
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject: Re: electric eye?

> An important heter based on the fact that you count each action
> separately is in regard to electric eyes. ...

R' Gil S comments:
> I think that the heter used is that this is a pesik reisha delo
> nicha leih bederabbanan which does not work for incandescent lights.
> Rav Chaim Soloveitchik held like the Aruch that pesik reisha delo nicha
> leih is permissible and that would include incandescent lights.

As R' mi- has pointed out indirectly, the subject is not electric eyes
but infrared detection that turns on yard lights.

I don't think that RGS is suggesting that the incandescent lamp is
derabbanan. The infrared detector itself might be considered derabbanan.

Rabbi Halperin of the Institute for Science and Halakha has written on
this. On one hand, the addition of light to the sidewalk where you are
walking could be considered nicha lei, an aid to walking. On the other
hand, it is usually not needed to enable safe walking. Also, as the
range of the detectors is limited, only in few cases is walking on the
street close enough to make it a pesik reishei. And it is lo mitkaven.
Of course, if one knows where these "danger points" are, one should avoid
them, at least to the far edge of the sidewalk or a sufficient distance
that it as not a pesik reisha.

biv'rakha,
David


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:27:12 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Re: final redemption requires a suffering tzadik


Just found a contemporary discussion of this issue
<http://otzar770.com/>
Likutei Sichos Vol #37 Tazriah


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:05:27 +0200
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Subject:
Re: nihyeh vs. niyhah


I am usually late in replying, so somebody might have already answered
the question. I receive digest mode which adds the additional delay in
reply. In case nobody did reply, here it is, with an addition to apply
it understanding chumash.

nihyeh in addition to its meaning "we will be" in binyan kal (pa'al) It is
also the present tense of the nif'al. The past tense in nif'al is nihya.

Present:  zakhar, nihyeh,    n'keiva, nihyet (nihyeis)
Past:  nihya,   nihy'ta (nihy'so)

This is of interest in chumash to differentiate in various visions between
nir'eh 'eilai and nir'ah eilai. Hashem appearing now or last night.

In shehakol, are we talking about hakol being created now (or recreated
continuously) or about hakol having been created.

An when tired of thinking about this, one can start on the question
of whether b'rakhot are in past or present, e. g., hanoten lasekhvi or
asher natan, hameikhin or asher heikhin mitzadei.., etc.

And upon completing the birkhot hashachar, one then considers with hagomel
or gomel chasadim. Which brings up the entire subject of the hei hahy'di'a
in b'rakhot. Review reasons for borei pri but hamotzi lechem and then,
next Rosh Hodesh, check on the correction started some two hundred years
ago in siddurim from likro et hallel to et hahallel. Those who do not
make a b'rakha on that hallel are excused from this last exercise.

all b'rakhot, or is it all hab'rakhot, to Avodah posters,
David


[Email #2. -mi]

I should have added that in Hebrew "as she is spoke" today in Israel,
one finds more and more people saying "nir'a li" for "it seems to me"
and the same for the past "it seemed to me".

I've even caught some of my kids doing it. I did not excuse them until
receiving a promise to do t'shuva and return to the proper, correct,
unambiguous forms.

k"t (or perhaps kHa"t)
David


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:32:13 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
Mored bemalchut, Uriah Hachiti


On 12 Jan 2004 at 18:03, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>Cf the archetype of mored bemalchut, Uriah Hachiti, who received a
>>>completely unreasonable order from the king, disobeyed it, and the
>>>gemara tells us that the king therefore had the right to have him
>>>executed, but went about it in the wrong way.

Yakov Meidan has a very ineresting small book on the chet of Dovid and
Batsheva. He suggests a perspective which has a number of resonances in
the phrasings of the story.

Uriah was essentially a coarse Hittite warrior whose focus and life lay
in fighting, army, and manly activites and action. He had no relationship
with Batsheva and part of the mix of emotions that went into Dovid's
reaction to this episode was his empathy and pity for her isolation and
neglect. Uriah's refusal to go visit her even despite the King's command
in moral terms earned him a death sentence for his insensitivity.

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:25:29 -0800
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
Subject:
2 tfillin questions


1- I heard in a drasha that [RYBS] held that wearing ones coat
half-on as many people do with their tfillin on is not derech kavod.
Does any one else hold that way?

2- Someone said they heard Rav Moshe did like the mechaber on putting
on tfillin-- made the knot shel yad , then the shel rosh, then wrapped
down the arm. Fact or fiction?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:52:21 -0600 (CST)
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: 2 tfillin questions


Saul Newman wrote:
>1- I heard in a drasha that [RYBS] held that wearing
>ones coat half-on as many people do with their tfillin
>on is not derech kavod. Does any one else hold that way?

I heard the same in the name of R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:14:50 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Some historical thoughts re Chanuka


In a message dated 01/14/2004 5:44:13 PM EST, dovb@netvision.net.il writes:
> RHS writes in the name of RYBS (free translation): "The war of the
> Chashmonaim was not against the Greek gentiles, but against Jewish
> Hellenists . . . The text of "Al HaNissim" and the text of the Gemara
> [dealing with the Chanuka episode] is euphemistic, as Chazal were very
> careful not to speak ill of Jews".

IIRC R" Y Sacks quoted R'YBS that the only reason the rededication was
needed was that the Jewish Hellenists had worshipped since you can't
asser someone else's property by worshipping it.

KT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:59:49 -0500
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject:
King David's dilemma - was Mrs. Cohen's dilemma


Some comments on Avodah concerning Uriah the Hittite's rejection of a
command by his king suggest that the actual story in Nach has not been
looked at carefully. If you read the story it becomes clear that Dovid
called Uriah back from the military campaign in Ammon after Bat Sheva
sent word that she had become pregnant by the king. Regardless of how one
goes about rationalizing away the adultery aspect of the king's behavior
(it is clear from Tehillim that even after teshuva, Dovid does not
acknowledge that he committed adultery), this summoning of Uriah smacks
of an attempted cover-up. Uriah would go home to his wife as ordered
and when the baby is born some 6 months later people would assume that
Uriah was the father (at least that was Dovid's hope). However, Uriah,
who had likely heard the rumor of Bat Sheva being summoned to the king's
quarters, refuses to play along with this scheme.

His refusal is both categorical and even down-putting. Even getting him
drunk does no good. Dovid's apparent anger with himself on getting into
such a situation is transferred to the irate husband, and he sends him
back to battle with a sealed letter to the commander to bring Uriah
to the front line and then abandon him to his fate. The only saving
grace to this seemingly sordid tale is the way that Dovid accepts the
subsequent tongue lashing by the prophet and his subsequent punishments
(the death of the baby and the rebellion of his son, Avshalom). That
and the fact that Shlomo is subsequently born of the continuing union
of Dovid and Bat Sheva.

Yitzchok Zlochower


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:46:16 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
Subject:
Re: Mored bemalchut, Uriah Hachiti


On 14 Jan 2004 at 10:32, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> Uriah was essentially a coarse Hittite warrior whose focus and life
> lay in fighting, army, and manly activites and action. He had no
> relationship with Batsheva and part of the mix of emotions that went
> into Dovid's reaction to this episode was his empathy and pity for her
> isolation and neglect. Uriah's refusal to go visit her even despite
> the King's command in moral terms earned him a death sentence for his
> insensitivity.

That would fit in well with the Zohar that R. Nebenzahl brings and 
that I mentioned in an earlier post. 

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:32:17 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Re: 10 Tevet


From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> However, the gemara's version of the story has them making the translation
> under compulsion by one of the Ptolmeys. Which is where I got the idea
> that the LXX was made to facilitate the accretion of Judaism into the
> Greek pantheon.

Although it gets a mention in the selichos of 10 Teves, it actually took
place on the 8th.

For those interested in understanding why this translation was considered
as bad as the making of the eigel with the world being dark for 3 days,
[according to the Yosifun, the translation created a KH !],- there is
[at least one - maybe more] piece in Droshos CS for Ches Teves ayim shom.

Some of this is also quoted and elaborated upon in
 nice drush in Divrei Yoel Parshas Devorim (p. 11), where
the SR uses this to show that Torah should not be studied in foreign
languages. [If interested, and can't get your hand on it, I could probably
scan it.]

BTW, an interesting comment from the sefer Be'er Basodeh on Rashi on
why MR translated the Torah in 70 loshon only at the end of the 40 years
in Midbar.

He says that many non-Jews having heard of the nissim veniflo'os of the
defeat of Sichon and Og, came to be megayer. As they didn'y know LHK,
MR had to translate.

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:24:56 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: 2 tfillin questions


On 14 Jan 2004 at 16:52, Gil Student wrote:
> Saul Newman wrote:
>>1- I heard in a drasha that [RYBS] held that wearing
>>ones coat half-on as many people do with their tfillin
>>on is not derech kavod. Does any one else hold that way?

> I heard the same in the name of R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky.

What do they suggest doing? Putting the arm with the tefillin back in
the sleeve? What if it won't fit? Is it better to button the jacket with
the arm with the tefillin out of the jacket, or is it better (according
to them) not to wear the jacket altogether?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject:
Wording in Avos


So, a question from another list: she notes that sometimes Pirkei Avot
says "X omeir", and sometimes "X hayah omeir" or "X amar".  Is there
any system to this, as to why Rebbi chose to phrase it this way for this
one and that way for that one?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:10:37 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Wording in Avos


On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:23:12PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: So, a question from another list: she notes that sometimes Pirkei Avot
: says "X omeir", and sometimes "X hayah omeir" or "X amar".  Is there
: any system to this, as to why Rebbi chose to phrase it this way for this
: one and that way for that one?

In English, "he would say" implies that it was something X was known for
saying on many occasions.

I therefore assumed (without even noticing that I made an assumption)
that "X hayah omeir" was an aphorism the tanna used frequently, and
is therefore more sentral to tanna X's worldview than a simple "amar".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"


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 >