Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 15

Thu, 10 Jan 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:26:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] charging ribis to a Jew / non-Jew


On Mon, December 31, 2007 10:41 am, Kelmar, Michael J. wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote: "WRT ribis, the pasuq implies what the
: difference is when taking ribis from a Jew vs taking it from a non-Jew.
: It uses the word "achikha". It's not that ribis is inherently immoral,
: it's that brothers don't charge brothers interest."

: Fahr vos nisht?  Do brothers not charge brothers 5 cents for a gum
: ball?
...
: Also, I do not know what the phrase "inherently immoral" means.
: Please provide some hesbir.

I don't need to, as RDB captured my intent. On Fri, Dec 28, '07
8:28am, R' Doron Beckerman wrote:
: Perhaps the answer is that the Middos issue is not really what the
: Torah is concerned with here. It is more about the Pirud Levavos which
: is caused by it.

Charging interest isn't really wrong ("inherently immoral"), and thus
not a middos issue. However, brothers should have an achdus haleiv,
and ribis causes pirud.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:37:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Lashon Hara about non-Jews


The question of why there is no issur of LH against a nachri given
that LH is destructive to one's middos is a general one. There are
many things that it pays to avoid for which there is no issur. As I
recently quoted besheim the Ramchal, there are three tiers: issur,
gezeirah and perishus.

Midos in general do not get addressed by specific dinim; they tend to
be left to the more amorphous "judge the situation using this
priority" type chiyuvim, the QTYD mitzvos -- "*Q*edoshim tihyu",
"ve'asisa ha*T*ov veha*Y*ashar", "vehalakhta bi*D*rakhav".

The areivim zeh bazeh issue would be why LH rises above assessment of
the situation to the level of a formal din, whereas LH against
nachriim does not. It would seem to me that the nafqa mina is that LH
against nachriim could be overriden situationally by something less
than a conflicting chiyuv.

(The question of being overridden in the case of need of the
information is irrelevant; as LH is only assur in any case where there
is no to'eles.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dvar tora


On Mon, December 31, 2007 1:27 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Speaking of which, how did she get the name Bisyah (or as some say,
: Basyah)? That for sure is a Hebrew name.  It's not very likely that
:  that was the name her parents gave her.

I (uncharacteristically) was hoping someone had a real answer before I
shared what crossed my mind.

She is called in the Torah simply "bas Par'oh". "Par'oh" is a title
for a deified king, the son of Ra. It is therefore logical for her,
once she became an observant Noachide, to switch what she is called
from using the false deity to using sheim Hashem.

As for Moshe's name, R' Shlomo Katz (31-Dec-07) points us to
<http://parsha.blogspot.com/2004/01/derivation-of-moshes-name.html> by
R' Josh Waxman. The author of that blog explicitly admits that the
name could be derived in two languages, thus mitigating his problems
with the Egyptian etymology by saying it was stretched in order to
make it work in both.

So, common scholarship is that Moshe is Egyptian, and RJW, who wrote a
rebuttal agrees that a two-language etymology is possible. I stand by
my assertion.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:53:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy"


On Tue, January 1, 2008 10:08 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: One thinks of the medrash about Hashem Himself laughing and saying
: "Nitzchuni banai" about -- I don't remember what.  But He wasn't angry
: when  His
: children "bested" Him in an argument, He was pleased.  There is
: unacceptable and
: acceptable chutzpa.  You really do have to look at the  whole picture.

Not a medrash, a gemara. Tanur shel achnai. I quote the gemara at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.shtml>,
first paragraph.

It's not clearly about chutzpah, though. It's about listening to HQBH
when He gave us a halachic process and acharei rabim lehatos, about lo
bashamayim hi meaning that nissim don't override that process.

And even that's not necessarily so -- many rishonim do not take HQBH's
defense of RE to be a statement about the tum'ah of the tanur! (See
the blog entry.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:21:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in


Another crossover from the original Areivim discussion of this topic.
I wrote about my problems believing in such things because of a strict
rationalist bent, but problems simply dismissing them because of
personal experience.

Either way, I believe intentionally seeking advice through
metaphysical channels would be considered against halakhah according
to Litvisher understandings of "tamim tihyeh". But a discussion of the
machloqes about permissability is distinct from one about
effectiveness.

Anyway, to my claim about having a "strict rationalist bent", RDWells
wrote on Areivim:
: But is Torah itself in all its many facets completely rational?
: If it was, then homo sapiens would have managed quite well without it!

Many things are rational in the sense of 20/20 hindsight that we never
could have figured out on our own. And then there are things that are
transrational -- eg chuqim.

However, my problem with metaphysical causality is that I see no
reason for yet another thing that gets in the way of the balance of
din vechessed. HQBH gives you what you need. Gam zu letovah. Nu, you
need the ability to predict consequences of your actions. You need
some uncertainty about Him. So, there's teva.

Why do I need "metaphysical mechanics"?

I continued in my Areivim post repeating something the chevrah here
failed to convince me out of in the past:
:> Remember, I'm the same person who argued that a mezuzah doesn't
:> protect, mitzvas mezuzah does;

To which he replied:
: mitzvas mezuzah is not billed AFAIK as a panacea for protection
: otherwise all the goyim would also follow suit.

And yet Rav gave one as a gift to a Roman prince and told him it would
guard his home. Eino metzuvah ve'oseh seems to also work.

Calling is a "panacea" rolls in other issues, like the reliability of
the protection.

Me, Areivim:
:> and therefore I saw no reason why a mezuzah that was checked as
:> required by din but it so happens kelapei
:> Shemaya galya that it's pasul would provide any less shemirah.

RDW, Areivim, reply:
: You are mixing two concepts. A person who hired a reliable sofer and
: had the mezuza checked by a qualified expert is not liable klapei
: shamayim for an undiscovered error.

: But the fact that it is posul is a pegiah beshamayim which can effect
: the security of the place to which it is attached.

I am not confusing the two. I am questioning the whole "pegi'ah
bashamayim" concept. NhC is quite clear that the only thing that ties
together the forces of this world and those of higher ones is the
human soul.

It lead me to the conclusion that all these seeming metaphysical
mechanical statements are in fact psychospiritual onces. And thus,
every such statement does tie back to the changes made on the gavra by
the pe'ulah in olam ha'asiyah, which then, though the unified soul,
can pull in kochos in higher olamos. All of which we usually call
"sechar va'onesh".

This allows me to justify my bias against other things that get in the
way of sechar va'onesh by simply pretending they don't exist.

As RZS already noted, though, it is hard then to make heads or tails
of pereq Bameh Ishah. The discussion on Shabbos 61 is about medical
kemei'os. This gets into the whole question of what is wrong with
"whispering". As well as the question recently asked on another thread
about placebo effect.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:24:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this?


I just sent out:
: As RZS already noted, though, it is hard then to make heads or tails
: of pereq Bameh Ishah. The discussion on Shabbos 61 is about medical
: kemei'os. This gets into the whole question of what is wrong with
: "whispering". As well as the question recently asked on another thread
: about placebo effect.

But I didn't say my own take... I would guess they're extra-halachic
mnemonic devices, aids to kavanah, that cite a pasuq or keta that
inspires the wearer. Thus, reducing kemei'os to sechar va'onesh. (As
I'm trying to do to all these references.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Gershon Seif <gershonseif@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] kinetic healing and halacha


thanks for all your quick responses already. It's going to be of help and I hope that the conversation continues. Has anyone on this list seen what Rabbi Blumenkrantz wrote?

Rabbi Gershon Seif
Director of Development, Midwest NCSY
Phone: (847) 677-6279
Fax: (847) 675-0745

click here to hear my original music
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080109/e765ead9/attachment.html 


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:24:33 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat


On Jan 9, 2008 5:01 PM, Michael Elzufon <Michael@arnon.co.il> wrote:
> R'DB wrote:
> [re: HHY
> There is a whole extensive "pulmus" about the Hemdat HaYamim, written by
> Natan of Azza - is it Shabtai Zvi oriented of not. The Sheelat Yaavetz
> questions its reliability, but he looked for Sabateans everywhere.
>
> [[MJE]] In this case, it is not hard to find a Sabatean; Natan of Aza
> was SZ's leading disciple and continued to maintain that he was moshiach
> even after his apostasy. The status of Hemdath Yamim may be a different
> matter, but the author's is not in dispute.

HY was published anonymously. Whether Natan of Gaza was the author is
part of the dispute.



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Joshua Meisner" <jmeisner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:32:35 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Burning of the Golden Calf


On Jan 7, 2008 3:52 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Pasuk (Shemos 32:20) recounts that Moshe burned, then ground the Eigel.
> Ibn Ezra explains that 'burned' doesn't mean 'melted' as one might have
> thought (given that the Eigel was Zahav), but that there is a substance that
> when inserted into a fire with gold makes it irreversibly black. Does anyone
> know what this substance is?

IANAMetallurgist, but it sounds like it could be sulfur (or some
natural compound containing such).  Although gold is inert to the
majority of chemical attacks, most gold jewelry contains a significant
fraction of other metals such as silver and copper, as pure gold is
too soft and malleable to be very useful.  These alloys were also
known in the ancient world.  Metal sulfides have inferior mechanical
properties compared to the metals themselves, so that once the surface
of a piece of metal is sulfidized, it would crack and flake off,
especially at high temperatures (and if agitation is used), revealing
a new clean layer of metal to be attacked, until eventually one would
get a blackish powder.  I'm not sure how long this "eventually" would
take, but if the metal was concurrently mechanically ground to
maximize its surface area (as per "vayitchan ad asher dak"), the rate
of the reaction would be accelerated.

I would not have thought that this process could cause a color change
in gold of a relatively high purity, but I found a report by the World
Gold Council[1]  which reported a phenomenon of the blackening of gold
in the Middle East and India at purities considerably higher (up to
22K) than that which tarnishes elsewhere in the world, and suggested
that the cause may be significant exposure to foods and spices that
are high in sulfur compounds.  At high temperatures and using large
amounts of the sulfidizing reagent (i.e., an amount of mass equal to
that of a significant fraction of the non-gold components), the
reaction may well proceed at a much faster rate.

[1] http://www.gold.org/jewellery/technology/caratage/tarnishing.html

Joshua Meisner



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:54:08 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] charging ribis to a Jew / non-Jew


On Jan 1, 2008 8:38 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, see what I posted in the lashon hara thread, with the quote
> from Rav Epstein's book, that Chazal looked down on charging interest
> to a gentile, and in fact Rabbinically prohibited it, and Tosafot's
> justification for why we no longer follow that prohibition (viz. high
> taxes paid to gentile authorities precluded not charging interest).
>

Look at the Gemara (BM 70a-b) and Tosafos (70a d"h Tashich).  It is clear
that the issur d'rabbanan is not because Chazal looked down upon charging
interest, but because they discouraged any business interaction with
non-Jews, because of shema yilmod mimaasav.  For this reason, the Gemara
says that a talmid chacham may lend to a non-Jew with interest.  The other
hetter given by the gemara is k'dei chayav.  I submit (based loosely on
Rashi) that the reason for this hetter is that a limitation of k'dei chayav
will prevent the excessive contact with its destructive opportunities.
Tosafos says that since the tax burden in their time was so heavy, all
business was k'dei chayav.


> It would be interesting then, to do a heter iska with a gentile. The
> Gemara offers that it is permissible to pay interest to a gentile,
> just not charge, so perhaps no heter iska would be needed if he wanted
> to charge you interest. That's fortunate, because it would certainly
> be an interesting thing: go to a bank to take out a loan, and ask the
> bank employee to sign an Aramaic document permitting you to pay him
> interest.
>


Hetter iska has never been used with non-Jews, and in fact makes no sense to
use.  It is a loophole to avoid technical ribbis, and for the
investor/lender to still earn money.  With non-Jews the issue is not
technical ribbis, it's the social interaction involved.  A technical
loophole accomplishes nothing. And the fact that we are noheg to do business
with non-Jews is a clear proof that the hetter of Tosafos (et al) has been
accepted.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080109/4e5f73f2/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Michael Elzufon" <Michael@arnon.co.il>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:46:23 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Accent on the Right Syllable in Krias Shema


R'MB wrote:

What makes an element of havarah authoritative vs being an error?
Sepharad lumps tav and sav, folds together many of the tenu'os,
Ashkenaz has problems with ayin and ches (although I would argue that
the lack of ayin has to post-date the nickname "Yankl"), etc... Is it
possible that Ashkenazi norm not to be careful on mile'eil vs milera
is similar? That baAH vs BAah is as validly/invalidly ambiguous as
"ach" vs "akh"?

[[MJE]] Perhaps, but I would argue that it is nothing more than a
Yiddish-speaking corruption.  Over here (in Eretz Israel), even
Ashkenazi baalei kriah are very careful about placement of accents.
This includes native Yiddish-speakers.



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:51:10 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Burning of the Golden Calf


R' Joshua Meisner:
> IANAMetallurgist, 

You could have fooled me! :-)

> but it sounds like it could be sulfur (or some
> natural compound containing such).  Although gold is inert to the
> majority of chemical attacks, most gold jewelry contains a significant
> fraction of other metals such as silver and copper, as pure gold is
> too soft and malleable to be very useful.  These alloys were also
> known in the ancient world.  Metal sulfides have inferior mechanical
> properties compared to the metals themselves, so that once the surface
> of a piece of metal is sulfidized, it would crack and flake off,
> especially at high temperatures (and if agitation is used), revealing
> a new clean layer of metal to be attacked, until eventually one would
> get a blackish powder.  I'm not sure how long this "eventually" would
> take, but if the metal was concurrently mechanically ground to
> maximize its surface area (as per "vayitchan ad asher dak"), the rate
> of the reaction would be accelerated.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting here (and in the next -
snipped for brevity - paragraph) that the gold for the Eigel HaZahav wasn't
pure, although it may have been close, and that by putting some sulfur-like
substance in the flame what would essentially be a souped-up tarnishing
process could occur. You also suggest that perhaps the Eigel was
concurrently ground (in the fire?) thus speeding the process up. 
If you are correct about the last sentence, then Pshat in the Pasuk is that
the Vayitchan Ad Asher Dak was not the direct enabler of Vayizer Al P'nei
Hamayim, but rather it was the catalyst for the tarnishing and subsequent
flaking of the metal, after which the remaining flakes were able to be
spread over the water. 
If you are not correct (but still correct about the tarnishing part) it
would seem strange that Moshe would have them cause the Eigel to become
black on the surface only, and subsequently grind it, revealing its golden
interior again. What would be the point?
That said, I'm not sure that the Ibn Ezra's words work with this. Quote (Ibn
Ezra Ha'aruch, from MHK's Toras Chaim Chumash): Ki Yeish Davar She'yusam
B'eish Im HaZahav U'm'yad Y'sareif V'yi'yeh Shachor Ul'olam Lo Yashuv Zahav.
The first part sounds like it is something that happens either
instantaneously or close to it, and the last phrase makes it sound that this
causes some reaction in the whole piece - if it were just tarnish then why
would he say that it never becomes gold again? It also seems that the Ibn
Ezra had some knowledge of the process because he finishes off by saying
"V'zeh Davar M'nusah U'barur Hu."
I am very unschooled in these matters, but I was thinking that maybe a
strong acid could bore its way through the gold, causing a chemical change
as it went along??

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:56:00 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] kinetic healing and halacha


On Jan 9, 2008 4:33 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> "as above, so below" -- that everything down here manipulates
> a corresponding thing up there, and so I can make things happen in
> heaven. Given this claim, the Torah point stands; if I'm wrong, take
> alchemy off the list.
>
>
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>

Tangentially
I have spoken to anti-Kabblists. They claim that kabbalha- or at least
Luraianic Kabbalh - is all about Teurgy which is hte manipulatoin of G-d of
the heavens based upon waht we do here.

Press a button down her and we maniuplate the godhead to take care of us [
e.g. red threads]
According to them ithis is the purest form of Avodah Zara and stems from
Babylonains influences etc.

thyey claim that true Jewish Mysticism is associated with nevi'us and how
the Rambam describes reaching higher levels.  So these people are NOT
against mysticism or even ma'sseh Breishis, Merkava etc. But they
specifically question the AriZal and  probably the Zohar, too as being
highly problematic. I would guess that the Ya'avetz and his Dad may have
felt the same way

KI is life energy. As the Talmud notes a rat will not touch a live baby but
will eat a dea adult. The absence of hte life force is the KE to his idea of
Ki [or chi or prana] etc. the fact taht the Buddhists articualted it shold
not make it any more unkosher than astrology whcih was artciualted by ovdei
AZ but is integral to ibn Ezra's poetery and  Geshem/Tal etc.



Point: if you believe in mazalos than Reiki is no more unkosher. If you are
agaisnt maazlos, too than Reiki might also be treif and so would be saying
mazal Tov for that matter. Which makes the nusach of kiddush levana
problematic.

It's interesting how modern Buddhist stuff is a turn of but with ancient
Sumerian AZ we have grown quite accustomed to their terminaology and
principles

And how is it that saying *Tammuz *is not being over shem elohim acheirim
los sazkiru anyway?


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080109/434d0a7c/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 15
**************************************

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 >