Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 108

Thu, 27 Dec 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:25:58 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ashkenazim and Sephardim


On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:09:54AM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I read somewhere (I forget where) that the Sepharadim got their practice
: from the Geonim - just look at the Rif and the Rambam. Whereas the
: Ashkenazim got their practice from Israel through Italy....

The notion that Sepharadim come almost entirely from Bavel whereas
Ashkenazim are primarily from EY, but a mix of both, is from Prof Agus.
Search Avodah's archives for the name "Agus", this has been discussed
repeatedly in the past.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:31 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dvar tora


 On Dec 27, 2007 11:20 PM, <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org> wrote:

>
> http://www.yctorah.org/content/view/345/10/  r avi weiss=    myaldot
> -jewish or not?  are rashi and sforno looking thru the lens of the goyim of
> THEIR day, as to whether to expect the noble gentile?
>

Perhaps. It's a distinct possibility that Rashi and Sforno have biases. But
it could simply be a textual disagreement. After all, the text could go
either of two ways even without an ideological basis.

And if one lives in a time of evil Christians, one could say Shifra and Puah
were gentiles, and say, "See look! Gentiles CAN be good!" This is clearly
the lesson in juxtaposing Amalek with Yitro - the Torah wants to say, yes
gentiles can be evil like Amalek, but they can be good - look at Yitro! I
believe Rabbi Telushkin in Biblical Literacy may say this, but I'm not sure.


And besides, Rashi did live through the Crusades, but he was also very
friendly with his Christian neighbors. I read that he was so friendly with
them that one brought him a cake as a gift, the gentile not knowing that
kashrut would preclude Rashi's eating it. It also happened to be Pesach at
the time.

Nechama Leibowitz in Studies on the Weekly Sidra suggests that Chazal
assumed that these two women were ones already known to us, and so they
asked, who do we already know about? Yocheved and Miriam. This fits well
with R' Chayot's guide to the Talmud, where he says that Chazal would equate
obscure characters with well-known ones, as Chazal couldn't imagine a
character being in the Torah if he didn't have significance; so the
character was named without having done anything significant or noteworthy,
they'd equate him with someone more well-known.
In any case, I don't think there's much of a question on Rashi himself.
After all, he mostly just quotes Chazal. The better question is, why did
Chazal think it was Yocheved and Miram, and why did Sforno disagree? (But
the question is the same; I'm just quibbling.)

Apposite all this is Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in Biblical Literacy. He says
that Pharaoh never would have asked Jews to kill Jews, and if he had, he
wouldn't have been surprised when they didn't - the reason would have been
eminently obvious. But we know that Pharaoh is honestly perplexed by their
refusal to honor his request. This suggests they are not Jews. All the same,
we can assume they weren't Egyptian, as the master race never serves as
midwives to the slave - a white woman never would have been midwife to a
black slave. And we know that Shifra and Puah are Semitic names, so Rabbi
Telushkin suggests they are non-Jewish Semites, in a position similar to the
Jews in Egypt.

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071228/1af13bb5/attachment-0001.html 


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:34:34 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Lashon Hara about non-Jews


**>From: "Doron Beckerman" <beck072@gmail.com>
>Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:03:22 -0800

>I understand that there is no prohibition involved in telling Lashon Hara
>about non-Jews, but someone asked me a question today. Assuming Lashon Hara
>causes a Hashchasas HaMiddos, (or, alternatively, stems from a Hashchasah
of
>needing to feel superior to Ploni by putting him down), why would the Torah

>allow us to spread Lashon Hara about non-Jews?

My rabbi said that though it's permitted, it doesn't mean you want to do it.

I would personally say that it seems like the kind of loophole in a d'oraita
that is often plugged by a d'rabanan. For example, if you shecht a cow and
then it gives birth, the baby is halachically dead, and you can stab it to
death. Or you can let the "dead" calf grow up and breed a herd of "dead"
cows, all of which can be killed without shechting. Obviously we don't want
this, so Chazal forbade it.

Here too, I'd say that here, it seems to me that for some technical reason,
lashon hara is allowed about non-Jews.

Perhaps because in a normal situation, we're a nation living in our own
land, and the only non-Jews around are gerei toshav, which I'm not sure, but
going to assume, about whom it is forbidden to speak lashon hara (I do know
that it is a command to love them - Mesechet Gerim chapter 3 says "love the
ger" includes the ger toshav). Any other non-Jew is either going to be a
rasha in Israel (about whom you can speak lashon hara) or a gentile in chutz
la'aretz - and without TV and newspapers, what lashon hara can you possibly
have to say about some gentile living 1000 miles away?

Similarly, we find no commandment to love the gentile in chutz la'aretz,
unless one follows the opinion that a ben Noach can be a ger toshav even
without an appearance before the beit din. But we know that gentiles have
tzelem elokim, and that Sanhedrin says one who saves a life says the whole
world (nefesh achat m'bnei adam - m'bnei Israel is an error, and in any
case, the Yerushalmi and standard edition of the Mishna both say adam), etc.
I'm sure if one goes through Rav Hirsch's Chumash, 19 Letters, and Horeb,
he'll find only 1,000,000,000 instances of Rav Hirsch telling us to love
humanity. So why no command to love the stam gentile? I'd say technicality.

And perhaps a Jew who speaks lashon hara of a gentile, we can say the same
thing about a Jew who takes advantage of a loophole in a monetary matter -
G-d knows how to settle the score. You didn't break the law per se, but so
what? It's like the guy who went psak-shopping for the heter, and so when he
got to Olam haBa, he was given a derelict shack - "according to some
opinions, this IS olam haba".

I am reminded of Rabbi Yehuda heChassid saying that gentiles will be called
to task for every violation of "love your neighbor". But where is "love your
neighbor" in the Noachide laws? I suppose it's a sevara.
Mikha'el
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071228/53cdcba1/attachment-0001.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:53:59 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Abiogenesis


>What I find most interesting is that the Gemara believed in
>spontaneous generation which has been scientifically disproven as the
>world was proven not to be flat. What I find to be ironic and
>paradoxical is that only God can create something from nothing. You
>would think this would have occurred to the great minds of the Talmud.
>True, their argument could conceivably have been that God put that law
>into motion, but it still could have raised a red flag.

I disagree. Yes, we say that only God can create ex nihilo. But if you
believe in spontaneous generation, you'll just say that God is creating
maggots and mice every moment. Or you'll say that God set the law in motion
and let it operate - you say it should set off a red flag, but I don't see
why. After all, God created the law, not man. Man cannot create ex nihilo,
but why can't God create an ongoing ex nihilo in nature?

>The following came from a link given in a previous discussion by Reb
>Micha: http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf

>My Rebbe, R. Dovid Lifshitz zt"l, used a similar idea to explain
a different
>problem. The Gemara explains that maggots found within a piece of meat
>are kosher. The reason given is that they were born from the meat, an idea
known
>in the history of science as "spontaneous generation". Therefore, halachah
treats the
>maggots identically to the meat.
>Spontaneous generation has since been disproven. Maggots come from
>microscopic eggs, not abiogenetically from the meat. Now that we know
>that the underlying science is wrong, need we conclude that the halachic
ruling
>is also wrong?
>Rav Dovid taught that the halachic ruling is still applicable, because
>the microscopic eggs and maggot larvae are not visible, and therefore
>(like the insects in our first example), lack mamashus. The only cause for
the current presence
>of maggots that we can see is the meat. Viewing the question in terms of
human experience, the meat is the
>only source of the maggots. Bugs or eggs that are too small to be seen,
while we
>might cerebrally know they are there, can?t have the existential impact as
those I could,
>and ought to have, noticed unaided
.
I've never seen this argument as viable. It makes sense to say that if the
creature cannot be seen, it is mutar - thus bacteria are kosher.

But since when should the creature be mutar because its reproduction cannot
be seen? I see absolutely no logic in saying that since we cannot see it
reproduce (but we davka can see the adult), we pretend it spontaneously
generates. By that logic, we could say that whales spontaneously generate,
because I'm going to assume that no one in Chazal's time saw a whale give
birth - ditto for sharks. Therefore, whales and sharks ought to be
considered spontaneously generating and thus kosher. And come to think of
it, I'm sure that there are many other insects and arthropods whose
reproduction we cannot see - why shouldn't they be mutar too?

Besides, if Chazal knew the eggs were there, but just didn't see them, we
have a logical contradiction - how did they know they were there if they
couldn't see them? They'd say they WEREN'T there! And we arrive right back
at spontaneous generation.

Besides, if all the scientists of the day believed in spontaneous
generation, how much sense does it make to say that Chazal say almost the
same exact thing but mean something totally different? That's just
pilpulistic. The simplest explanation is that when Chazal and the Greek
scientists say the same thing, they mean the same thing. And there are SO
many examples of science in the Gemara that matches up completely with Greek
science, it cannot be coincidental. The simplest and most logical
explanation is that the rabbi went to the local scientist to ask a she'elah,
just like they do today.

I'll strengthen this: Rabbi Slifkin asks, what sense does it make to have an
expression "eggs of lice" if they aren't really eggs of lice? Answer:
according to Greek science (Aristotle I think), lice DID lay eggs, but they
believed no lice hatched from them! They believed these eggs were just
little white stupid useless thingies, and actual lice were born from sweat
or whatever. Therefore, we have "eggs of lice" but lice spontaneously
generate nonetheless. It also answers the question asked by every mother,
"What do you mean you can't see lice eggs?"; answer: you davka CAN see them,
but lice don't really hatch from them, so who cares whether you can see them
or not; they're just called "eggs" because they look like little lice eggs,
but not because lice actually hatch from them.

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071228/efaf7738/attachment-0001.html 


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:02:29 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Abiogenesis


On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:53:59AM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I disagree. Yes, we say that only God can create ex nihilo. But if you
: believe in spontaneous generation...

Spontaneous generation is yeish miyeish. Life is generated, but
non-living yeish is converted into living yeish.

In response to a quote of my understanding of RDLifshitz's shitaL
:> Rav Dovid taught that the halachic ruling is still applicable, because
:> the microscopic eggs and maggot larvae are not visible, and therefore
:> ... lack mamashus. The only cause for the current presence
:> of maggots that we can see is the meat. Viewing the question in terms of
:> human experience, the meat is the only source of the maggots....

: I've never seen this argument as viable. It makes sense to say that if the
: creature cannot be seen, it is mutar - thus bacteria are kosher.

: But since when should the creature be mutar because its reproduction cannot
: be seen? I see absolutely no logic in saying that since we cannot see it
: reproduce (but we davka can see the adult), we pretend it spontaneously
: generates....

You're thinking ontologically, determining wht actually exists, and
deciding halakhah accordingly.

I argued that halakhah's notion of metzi'us is not ontological but
existential. Halakhah deals with how we experience reality, regardless
of what actually exists. The microscopic mite in your water is kosher
because it is outside the realm of experience. Not because halakhah said
such things are okay, but because halakhah doesn't bother addressing
them altogether.

In earlier incarnations of this discussion, I pointed out that the very
words used to describe the realia about which we pasqen hint at that
existential bias. Looking very literally, "mamashus" means tangible,
and "metzi'us" is that which could be found. Neither word refers to the
world beyond direct human experience.

And so, if halakhah doesn't address the world outside our ability to
experience, then it doesn't address the louse eggs.

To put it another way: Aristotle's notion of abiogenesis was bad biology,
but an accurate description of how things look to the unaided human. And
it's only the latter that matters. Halakhah is more about psychology
and how to improve the self than a scientific determination of the
outside world.

: because I'm going to assume that no one in Chazal's time saw a whale give
: birth - ditto for sharks...

That's a difference between that which was experienced, and that which
could be experienced. That which could be experienced but wasn't falls
to the laws of birur -- which I would also argue show signs of having
existential, not ontological, basis. Eg the kashrus of meat whose
origin is in doubt has to do with how we relate to that doubt, not the
ontological reality of the meat. But that enlarges the conversation
beyond all maintainability.

...
: Besides, if all the scientists of the day believed in spontaneous
: generation, how much sense does it make to say that Chazal say almost the
: same exact thing but mean something totally different? ...

Rather, Chazal weren't discussing the biological question altogether.
They were speaking of the experience, which happened to match the
then-contemporary biological theory.

: I'll strengthen this: Rabbi Slifkin asks, what sense does it make to have an
: expression "eggs of lice" if they aren't really eggs of lice? Answer:
: according to Greek science (Aristotle I think), lice DID lay eggs, but they
: believed no lice hatched from them! ...

Simpler answer: Different bugs are born different ways. Even if they are
similar enough to share a name. (Which I don't think is true here,
anyway beitzei kinim vs tola'im).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:27:32 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ashkenazim and Sephardim


Michael Makovi wrote:

> I read somewhere (I forget where) that the Sepharadim got their practice
> from the Geonim - just look at the Rif and the Rambam. Whereas the
> Ashkenazim got their practice from Israel through Italy. Where did you see
> this claim? Because I forgot where I saw it (but it's a nice thing to say to
> Sepharadim in Israel when they claim to be minhag Eretz Yisrael :)
> 
> Of course, if this were the case, the Ashkenazim would follow the Talmud
> Yerushalmi, I would think. 

The theory is that they did, until RGMH went to learn in Bavel and came
back with the derech that he learned there, giving primacy to Talmud
Bavli.

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



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:54 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dvar tora


>
>
> >
>   r avi weiss=    myaldot
> > > -jewish or not?  are rashi and sforno looking thru the lens of the
> > goyim
> > > of THEIR day, as to whether to expect the noble gentile?
> >
>

>
> > I don't think so.  I think Rashi was more likely influenced by the
> > conclusion, "vaya'as lahen batim", which he understands as the midwives'
> >
> > reward for disobeying the order - "batei kehuna uvatei malchut".
> >
> > Malbim, OTOH, understands that *Par'oh* made houses for the midwives,
> > not as a reward but in order to frustrate their defiance.  By having
> > official midwife stations from which all midwives must be dispatched
> > Par'oh would know when they were dispatched, and could make sure that
> > they obeyed his orders.
> >
> > --
> > Zev Sero
> > zev@sero.name
> >
>
>

 I think that Rashi understanding batim as batei kehuna, is part of the fact
that Rashi is simply quoting Chazal, which includes both Shifra and Puah =
Yocheved and Miriam, and batim = batei kehuna. As I said in my reply a
minute ago, the question isn't how Rashi understood Shifra and Puah, but
rather how Chazal quoted by Rashi understood Shifra and Puah.

I personally would simply say batim = stam families. I believe it is Rabbi
Joseph Telushkin who says midwives often were childless, making this reward
very simple to understand.

As for Malbim, I haven't read him, but I don't understand this
interpretation. It clearly says that the batim was a reward, no? Why would
God reward Shifra and Puah, whoever they are, by making it more difficult to
save children in the future?

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071228/00c8b50a/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:02:39 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] upcoming C 'psaks'


> On Areivim, Daniel Israel wrote:
>
>  And may someone adopted by Jews and converted to
> Judaism as a child be able to be called by the adopted parents? names,
> or must he or she always be called to the Torah as a descendant of
> Abraham and Sarah?
>
> Actually, having despaired of finding this in the SA, and not having a
> t'shuvah collection, I took a quick look in some popular English works
> that I thought might be likely to address it. Sure enough, R' Donin
> says that it is mutar, but doesn't give a source. Does anyone know of a
> source one way or the other? I can't imagine the shaila hasn't been
> asked already.
>
> I haven't seen anything written, but the practise as I have seen it,
> both for adopted children and for gerim with Jewish bio-fathers, is
> to call them up by their father's name, because of kavod habriot.

> I know of no halacha that requires a person to be called to the Torah
>by name at all, let alone specifying the form. AFAIK one may call
>someone in any way that will identify him and let him know to come up,
>all the way from using the surname to &quot;you in the back Indeed there
>are shuls where people are *not* called by name but as yaamod shelishi,
>yaamod revi'i etc., the relevant people having been privately
> notified in advance. (There are also shuls where the names are all
> publicly announced before kohen, and then before each aliya they are
> called without names, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)
>
> Since this is so, I see no reason not to call people by whatever name
> they want to be called, whether by their biological father's name,
> their adoptive mother's name, or anything else.
>
> I also understand, though I have not actually seen this, that in the
> ketuba of a ger with a Jewish biological father his name would be
> *written* as &quot;ben Avraham Avinu&quot;, but would be *read* as ben ploni,
> because of kavod habriot.
>
> Zev Sero

And thank God. It'd be a bit awkward if I had to be ben Avraham Avinu, given
that my father is Jewish and my mother taught me all my primary Jewish
knowledge (it is a remarkable thing for a woman to do a Reform-Conservative
conversion with a Reform-Conservative Jewish education course, and yet come
out with hashkafot straight out of Rav Hertz (chumash), Rav Hirsch, Rabbi
Berkovits (i.e. God Man and History), etc. It's already a bit awkard knowing
that the woman who taught me everything that makes me a Jew, isn't
technically a Jew -  do I have to remind her??!! Thank God I don't.
(Although when I finished my conversion, I didn't tell her, and when she
found out from my rabbi, she asked me why I didn't tell her - I thought it'd
embarass her for crying out loud! Instead she reprimands me? Crazy Jewish
mothers.)

It also creates a bit of a problem when your non-religious (= doesn't want a
conversion) brother of the same mother tells you that he wants to make
aliyah - I'd love for him to live near me, but what of the very real
possibility he'll meet a Jewish woman and get a civil marriage in Cyprus?
Gevalt. My rabbi said let him come to Israel - maybe he'll become religious
- my rabbi hasn't met my brothe. If only we accepted Rabbi Berkovits on
accepting non-Orthodox converts as true converts for the sake of the unity
of Am Yisrael. The Israeli rabbinut is WAY too strict - I know too many guys
(at my dati tzioni yeshiva in Jerusalem) who have had to get Charedi
conversions in Meah Shearim because the Israeli rabbinut wouldn't accept
them.

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 108
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >