Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 71

Thu, 14 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Zev Sero)
• 2. Clever collector (M Cohen)
• 3. Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 4. Re: biur (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Cave or desert island (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (Gershon Seif)
• 10. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (FKM Voice From The Wilderness)

Michael Makovi wrote:
>> And yet another one puts "lechem" before "yayin tov"
> 
> Ahh! He practices like Beit Shammai, and deserves to die like the
> Mishna in Berachot! Ahh! (Or maybe he was a Yekke.)

Huh?  Yekkes don't say hamotzi before kiddush, any more than anyone
else does.

OTOH maybe the paytan was referring to those who make kiddush on cheap
sweet wine, and the "yayin tov" only comes out after hamotzi :-)


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

why isn't this plain geneivah?

if it is true that the exasperated gvir wrote a check that he never intended
would be cashed, how can you use it a kuntz to extract money from his acnt?

mordechai cohen

That's not the reason that I teach.

A boy is one week and the reason for 2 weeks for a girl baby is because of
the potential life that girl will eventually give birth to. Hence, the
extra week is added for the girl.
ri

On Wed, February 13, 2008 12:17 pm, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: are there any bnai tora [as oppossed to amcha or amaratzim] who are
: holding by hetter mechira?

Umm... Much of the dati leumi world. Including most of the yeshivot
hesder. (I should also point out that in the past otzarei BD have run
out around this time of year, suppliers switched sources, and many
people who didn't realize it were relying on heter mechirah. This is
because RSZA allows HM beshe'as hadechaq.)

The OU does not use HM. That doesn't necessarily mean its poseqim have
a problem with it; the OU often goes lechumrah to maximize the base of
people who will use it.

Rabbi Jachter writes on the subject in
<http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/hetermechira1.htm> and
<http://www.koltorah.org/RAVJ/Heter_Mechirah_2.html> from the previous
cycle, and in <http://www.koltorah.org/RAVJ/Shemittah_5768_1.html> and
<http://www.koltorah.org/RAVJ/Shemittah_5768_2.html> from this one.

R' Dr Josh B sent me some material on the relevant machloqesin
privately, you can ask him for a copy.

Last, we had the thread "heter mechira produce" last Elul. You can
check that
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=H#HETER%20MECHIRA&g
t;.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, February 11, 2008 1:08 pm, Michael Makovi wrote:
:> We are not only a holy nation, but each individual alone can be a
:> kohein to the world.

: To some extent, yes. But to me, this seems to be secondary, a davar
: she'eino mitkaven or psik reisha.

So you say, but you do not address the wealth of baalei mesorah who
explain mitzvos primarily in personal impact (deveiqus, sheleimus,
TIDE's ennoblement, Ramchal's preparation for olam haba, Rambam's
yedi'as haBorei, etc, etc, etc...)

This is aggadita, there is no requirement that one must conform to
precedent. But to convince someone, you have to at least provide
motivation for looking at things a new way.

:>> Rather, the brit is of the nation as a collection of
:>> individuals. This is to say, the purpose of the Torah is not > >
:>> to perfect the individual, but rather to create a society of > >
:>> perfected individuals.

:> I would still consider this a beris with the nation.

: But surely you must hold that there is a difference between what I am
: holding, and a notion of ONLY the corporate nation having importance,
: and the individual being but a faceless replaceable cog in the machine
: - this is Nimrod and the Tower.

As per RSRH, although his take on the maamar Chazal about fallen
bricks vs fallen people isn't the only one. But of course I agree. I
never thought you would say that the beris Sinai is totalitarian, and
wasn't arguing about that.

The example of the person in a cave or desert island is one where a
Jew has opportunities to perform most of the mitzvos. Let's even say
he is in contact with other people -- but they are all non-Jews. This
gives him access to numerous more mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro.
However, he isn't operating as part of the Jewish people.

:> You also did not address my lemaaseh questions: about
:> how a practice qidushin or practice get have any chalos
:> usable in Israel, or why they would permit violations of
:> non-practice observance of beris Noach?
:
: Because he's still a Jew. Because the Torah is still applicable.

You're begging the question. Given that the Torah is a beris with a
nation, that fact that he is a Jew isn't what obligates him, it's his
participation in that nation. And thus, the cave dweller in question
isn't doing anything of meaning. Not even as a "davar shelo misqavein"
-- not that I know what DSM would mean when speaking of HQBH.

I gave cases where the mitzvah in question was  in contradiction to
the beris he inherited from Noach, which still has full meaning. So,
you state the conclusion, being Jewish trumps. You do not explain what
I asked -- for what possible reason?

However, if one follows the more common tack of explaining mitzvos in
terms of the individual, you have no question to address.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, February 11, 2008 12:52 pm, Michael Makovi wrote:
: First, if He is not really merciful, but only acts as-if merciful,
: then what kind of example is this? ...

If someone shows me how to type, but does does in a way that no
letters are produced, do I still not learn how to type?

:                                    I have a similar objection to the
: Ramban who says that we aren't supposed to be merciful to the mother
: bird because she merits such mercy, but only to train us to be
: merciful.

Or cover challah not because we're weird and think the challah is
actually embarassed, but to practice hakaras hatov and bestowing
kavod. (Unless it's to imitate the frost atop the mon.) Or Moshe not
being able to initiate the first three makos because He owed his
survival to the Ye'or and the sand.

:            I forget where, but somewhere, I read the objection (with
: which I concur) that if this were so, could not have Hashem commanded
: us to be merciful to chairs and lightbulbs? If a bird does not merit
: mercy, how can we learn from practicing mercy towards it?...

Hashem, I suppose, could have -- although our ancestors would need to
understand the concept of lightbulb in order to receive such a
mitzvah. However, one could ask in the reverse: if it were about
actual mercy, why is it limited to birds and *not* include higher
mammals?

The act is a practice of mercy. The reason why the cheftzah is beitzim
or efrochim needs separate explanation.

However it's the gemara that says it's not an act of mercy itself, in
explaining the problem with the tefillah "al kan tzippur yagiu
Rachmekha".

: Regarding a trait merely describing His action, I fail to see how this
: does not make Hashem into an irrational capricious deity. If He is not
: angry, but acts as if He is angry, then is He not behaving
: unjustifiably capricious and cruel? ...

No, it's justified. Hashem has a plan which gives Him a sevara for
doing everything. At time that plan appears generous, other times
just, other times in correcting response to some way we wronged Him --
and looks just as human anger would to the outsider.

:                                  For He apparently is behaving
: without any reason for this behavior. And if one defends Him, saying
: that the man (at whom Hashem is behaving as-if angry) sinned and
: deserved this reaction from Hashem (even though Hashem is not actually
: angry), and thus Hashem most certainly had justification and reason, I
: would ask, if the man did something deserving of anger, and Hashem
: acted as-if angry, then is it not reasonable to say that Hashem
: actually was angry?...

Because the concept makes no sense AND implies a divisible deity. Both
points I already made twice now. That's why RSB and the Rambam speak
in terms of negative attributes. Not because of Asristotilian,
neoPlatonic, Metekalamunic or Scholastic thinking, even if they spoke
in the language of the zeitgeist. But because the conclusions seem
inescapable simply within looking at the Torah and using reason. A G-d
who is at times angry is experiencing time. A G-d whose relationship
with the universe appears to be the same as a person who is angry
isn't necessarily experiencing time. Time is a creation. Thus, which
is more possible.

AND, a G-d who is at times angry is two things when He is angry - a
G-d, and His Anger. Divisibility. Now, if you can explain how a
divisible G-d is within the realm of mutar beliefs... Also, please
explain how a divinity at times assembled from essence and anger could
escape the question: But then who created G-d? One needn't use
Aristo's terminology to repeat the Rambam's proof for extreme
indivisibility. Something that is two elements that come together
needs a creator no less than the universe does.

...
: Just because (of the disputed assertion that) He actually does have
: mercy, doesn't mean He is subject to it. You seem to regard this mercy
: as something outside Him to which He is subservient or influenced by.

: Would we say that I am subject to my own personality? No! My
: personality IS me! If I am subject to myself, yofi. I should hope that
: Hashem is subject to Hashem.

You are subject to the concept of anger (to return to the same
middah). How and when you express that anger is you, but the very
concept of anger precedes you. The concept of anger cannot precede the
Creator of anger.

: Now, Hashem says He feels for the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc. He
: says His wrath will burn at their oppressor. Scriptural quotations
: could be multiplied. I don't see why I shouldn't take these at face
: value.


Jumping back to skipped text to address the meta-issue:
:> You do realize that you're citing RIE or REB isn't going to
:> make much impression if you do not address how their
:> positions address the concerns of primary sources like Rav > Saadia,
:> the Rambam, the Kuzari, the Ikarim, etc...

: REB explained himself, so I feel no need to do anything more (it
: should be obvious that most of my arguments are simply reworded
: versions of his)....

REB, was far less immersed in the Torah weltenschaung than the people
he was disputing. This is the whole nisqatnu hadoros. REB might have
nice theories, but his threshold of proof is quite high. And his
invocation of a Torah theology over that of Chazal or the rishonim
smacks of R's call of a return to prophetic Judaism -- with the huge
distinction of the claim being mutar WRT aggadita.

Mutar, but equally flawed in principle. There is a mesorah and a
continuity between Tanakh, Chazal, the savoraim, geonim and rishonim.
Chazal lived and breathed Torah in a way we can't. Even if we who
stand on their shoulders see further, we are still "like chamorim, and
not Pinchas ben Yair's". Don't be lead astray by their addressing the
questions that were popular in their day, or using the terminology of
their day. When the RSG accepted an Aristotilian argument it was with
the basis of a deep feel for how the Torah works. And thus, RSG might
use a kankan chadash, but his wine is the same as Yehoshua's.

Second-guessing one of the geonim requires very solid reasoning and
proof. One must demonstrate that while they had more wine, they poured
it into flawed bottles. I haven't seen that burden carried.

We must start with the assumption otherwise, or the entire process --
including the development of halakhah -- is suspect. It's a reducio at
absurdum: if you can believe that baalei mesorah regularly erred in
aggadic matters, wouldn't the same argument apply to the transmission
of halakhah? And for an O Jew, a lack of emunas chakhamim in the realm
of pesaq is absurd. I reject that epistemology because it defies my
first-hand experience of the rightness of a halachic lifestyle, as
halakhah reached us today. And by denying the means by which one would
believe aggadita is trivially changeable, I have no reason to embrace
the conclusion.

Remember, REB is no less trying to package the Torah in post-Kantian
terms as they did against the philosophies of their day. The
difference is that Rihal's gestalt was more Torahdik than anyone of
our day. The chance they fit a square peg to a round hole far less.

...
: Let's deconflate what Jewish thought is. Jewish thought can either be
: something originating with Jews (and presumably true) or something
: held by Jews (and not necessarily true)....

Or: An idea that is supportive of living according to the Torah.

Given that my instinctive definition is off your dichotomy, I have
little to say in reply to your next comments. See above, my
distinction between the wine, the cultural bottling, and the bottle
that leaks vs one that successfully holds its contents.

...
: B'kitzur, if it is not Sinaitic, I can question it. If Chazal didn't
: see a problem with attributes (AFAIK, IMHO), then I am going to decide
: against what seems to me in Ramban and RSG to be philosophical and not
: natively Jewish....

But you're assuming that any idea not explicated at Sinai, and "only"
implied to be found through later exploration is arguable. (I presume
only aggadita.) And if ideas implied in the Torah and helpful for AYH
and shemiras hamitzvos are Jewish thoughts, then I must question
whether their notion of what qualifies might reflect something I
simply didn't catch.

: REB, as far as I know, did not rely on any non-Jewish philosophy in
: this area....

Of course he did. Everyone does. Since Kant, the questions we ask
shifted. Even in the index page, you can see the hand of non-Jewish
philosophy, never mind its answers. REB, like RJBS, RSRH, REED, etc...
draw heavily from Kant in their answers as well. The exploration of
the Torah from the perspective of what it's like to live it rather
than trying to identify what's "out there" is very modern.

To ask a final question: If REB's argument is valid WRT Hashem's
emotions, why isn't it valid WRT His features? How can one say "charon
apo" is an idiom for anger, not a reference to the flairing of the
Divine Nostril, and yet insist one must stop there because the anger
couldn't possibly be anthropomorphic idiom?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, February 14, 2008 2:31 pm, cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:
: That's not the reason that I teach.
: A boy is one week and the reason for 2 weeks for a girl baby is
: because of the potential life that girl will eventually give birth to.
: Hence, the extra week is added for the girl.

A coomon theme in Tazria (Ki Sazria?) issues of parashah sheets. I
heard it attributed to the Meshekh Chokhmah, the Rogotchover and the
Tanya (ch 6), but never actually found the source. If anyone saw a
primary source, I would appreciate the mar'eh maqom.

RSRH defines tum'ah as that which creates the illusion that we are
merely animals and victim to our physical drives. This has the
advantage of explaining tum'as sheratzim -- they live amongst us,
inhabit our homes, share much of our structure, but we are medaberim
and they aren't. (RSRH does a much better job, see parashas Chuqas.)
But it doesn't address this question. Birthing is a hard physical
process regardless of the baby's gender. Why would giving birth to a
girl create the "pernicious misconception ... that Man must --
willy-nilly -- submit to the power of physical forces" more than to a
boy?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
 
From: Gershon Seif _gershonseif@yahoo.com_ (mailto:gershonseif@yahoo.com) 

>>Anyone  ever see what the Sefer HaChinuch writes about why women who give 
birth to a boy  are in Nidah for a week but for a girl it's 2 weeks?....

....The problem  is that he then quotes a Ramban and says that this is 
exactly what the Ramban is  saying too..... Are we left saying the Ramban got it 
wrong? Or he meant  something else and we don't understand? Or the chinuch had a 
different approach  to learning Ramban? <<


 
 
>>>>>
I just don't understand this whole tzimmes.   What's the big deal about 
saying Ramban might have been wrong about  something?  There are plenty of times 
that other meforshim disagree with  Ramban about this and that.
 
This particular question is moot anyway because no modern woman bleeds  for 
only a week after the birth of a baby.  The norm is several  weeks.
 
Some people think that if you say Chazal or Ramban or the Sefer Hachinuch  
were wrong about some scientific fact, then you are being disrespectful to  
them.  I was raised with a completely different understanding and a  different 
attitude.  I would add that if they did refer to the highest  standards of 
scientific knowledge of their own time, that is a siman that we,  too, should follow 
their example and apply the highest standards of scientific  knowledge of our 
time.  Who was it who said, "Chachma bagoyim  ta'amin"?  Not some modern 
maskil or Reform rabbi.



--Toby  Katz
=============





**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080214/e446e23d/attachment-0001.html 

RTK wrote: I just don't understand this whole tzimmes.	 What's the big
deal about saying Ramban might have been wrong about  something?  There are
plenty of times that other meforshim disagree with  Ramban about this and
that.

Me: The "tzimmes" is well known, especially in the lst few years. I'm just
wondering, before I quote this Ramban as a source in the whole tzimmes
discussion, whether there is a viable way out of the tzimmes for this
particular source.

(We have Rishonim saying that other Rishonim are wrong. No chidush. We have
Achronim saying that a Rishon is wrong if it's to come to defend and
explain the intent of a different Rishon. No chidush there either. But
saying a Rishon is wrong is a big deal. Those are the rules of the game as
I was taught. At least when it comes to a pshat in learning. When it
involves areas that aren't Torah but are quoted in the Gemara, well here
comes the tzimmes. And when it involves a Rishon using science to explain a
posuk, well the tzimmes just got thicker! And when it comes to halochos in
the Gemara based on information we can't relate to, well the tzimmes is
getting so thick it's amazing)

RTK: Some people think that if you say Chazal or Ramban or the Sefer
Hachinuch  were wrong about some scientific fact, then you are being
disrespectful to  them.  I was raised with a completely different
understanding and a  different attitude...

Me: I'm not surprised by that. Just wondering, did your father zt"l ever
discuss this subject with any Rebbes from Ger? I doubt it, but please
correct me if I'm wrong. Did he ever discuss with you how he made peace
with being a chossid in some matters and a Hirschian in others - especially
in areas where they conflict in a big way - such as the current
Torah/Science tzimmes?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080214/cb7fbd2d/attachment-0001.htm 

*>>Some people think that if you say Chazal or Ramban or the Sefer Hachinuch
were wrong about some scientific fact, then you are being disrespectful to
them.  I was raised with a completely different understanding and a
different attitude.  I would add that if they did refer to the highest
standards of scientific knowledge of their own time, that is a siman that
we, too, should follow their example and apply the highest standards of
scientific knowledge of our time.  Who was it who said, "Chachma bagoyim
ta'amin"?  Not some modern maskil or Reform rabbi.*

* *

*--Toby Katz<<
*
*I believe "Chachma bagoyim ta'amin" *Is immediately followed by the
contrasting phrase "*Torah bagoyim al ta'amin". *It implies that the norm is
one of *conflict* and lack of equation. Secular wisdom does NOT easily
translate into Torah wisdom.
Incorporating an extraneous methodology for discovering truth outside the
Torah is fraught with dangers and pitfalls. One should never confuse "the
highest standards of scientific knowledge" (chochma) with *Torah* as the
author above seems to have done.
When Chazal or rishonim do incorporate secular wisdom into their
interpretations of Torah, it goes without saying that they were quite
selective in what they were accepting. (It follows that they only accepted
ideas that, although may not be empirically verifiable to us, were at least
guaranteed to be compatible with what the Torah says on the subject. This is
more important -and more educational to us- than getting the science right.)

 The Moreh Nevuchim is a clear illustration of how the Rambam went through a
pain-staking careful process in screening out non-Jewish ideas
were compatible with true Torah hashkafa of Chazal and which must be
rejected.
 It cannot conceivably be used as a blank check to be open to everything
that is considered well established by modern science.

Dovid Kornreich


On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: Gershon Seif gershonseif@yahoo.com
>
> >>Anyone ever see what the Sefer HaChinuch writes about why women who give
> birth to a boy are in Nidah for a week but for a girl it's 2 weeks?....
>
> ....The problem is that he then quotes a Ramban and says that this is
> exactly what the Ramban is saying too..... Are we left saying the Ramban got
> it wrong? Or he meant something else and we don't understand? Or the chinuch
> had a different approach to learning Ramban? <<
>
>
> >>>>>
> I just don't understand this whole tzimmes.  What's the big deal about
> saying Ramban might have been wrong about something?  There are plenty of
> times that other meforshim disagree with Ramban about this and that.
>
> This particular question is moot anyway because no modern woman bleeds for
> only a week after the birth of a baby.  The norm is several weeks.
>
> *=============
> *
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL
> Music takes you there.<http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080214/6c6c3b17/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 71
**************************************

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..."