Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 119

Thu, 18 Jun 2009

• 1. Ein lo dmus hagguf... (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Ein lo dmus hagguf... (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Ein lo dmus hagguf... (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Ein lo dmus hagguf... (Micha Berger)
• 5. bribes (Simon Krysl)
• 6. M'raglim (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Shelach (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. Re: tannur shel achnai (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: tannur shel achnai (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: bribes (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Shelach (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: bribes (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: what must O believe? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: bribes (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: bribes (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 16. Re: bribes (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 17. Re: Ein lo dmus hagguf... (David Riceman)
• 18. Re: Shelach (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 19. Re: bribes (Zev Sero)
• 20. Re: what must O believe? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Given:
A mal'ach is a spiritual entity lacking a body
YET
On occassion it can assume material form

And Given:  HKBK is a spiritual body without form.

Question: why can't a "Cheleq" of HKBH (but not HIS entirety) assume
a physical form?

To put this another way:

Is the Rambam saying HKBH can never be metzateim any part of HIMSELF
into matter
OR
Is the Rambam being polemical contra certain Non-Jewish heresies?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:38:46PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: And Given:  HKBK is a spiritual body without form.

This given is false.

Mal'akhim are tzurah beli chomer, HQBH isn't even a tzurah. He is One.

: Question: why can't a "Cheleq" of HKBH (but not HIS entirety) assume
: a physical form?

For the same reason you had to put the word "cheileq" in quotes to say
it.

The nearest to this notion is that of the Kavod Nivra or the Shechinah.
But the amud ha'eish (eg) was not G-d. Also related is the difference
between the Or Ein Sof and the Ein Sof Himself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> Mal'akhim are tzurah beli chomer, HQBH isn't even a tzurah. He is One.

>:: Question: why can't a "Cheleq" of HKBH (but not HIS entirety) assume
>:: a physical form?

> For the same reason you had to put the word "cheileq" in quotes to say
> it.
> -Micha


If I understand you correctly 
Then HKBH could never assume material form

However,
could HKBH Create a briyah in material form and put words in its mouth -
something like an android or a robot?

(FWIW I'm doing hil yesodei hatorah so I am in this inyan!)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:07:10PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: However,
: could HKBH Create a briyah in material form and put words in its mouth -
: something like an android or a robot?

What would be the reason to posit no? IOW, I can't think of a clear
case, but I can't think of a philosophical objection to saying it could
have.

From the mal'akh who spoke within the fire in the seneh (none of the 3
have bechirah and the fire and bush are both material) to Hashem speaking
mitokh gerono shel Mosheh, there are numerous near examples. For that
matter, if the sounds of Moshe's nevu'ah or nevu'ah at Har Sinai started
in the air, then that suddnely vibrating air would qualify as an automaton
that He made speak.

The only limitations one can place on Omnipotence (that I can think of)
are of two varieties:

1- The Machloqes between the Rambam and the Ramchal's sources as to
whether a Omnipotence includes being able to do a paradox. The Rambam
says that paradoxes, (his eg: a round square) are a bunches of nonsense
sounds, and therefore ruling them out does not reduce Omnipotence.

2- The "Can G-d catch a cold?" variety -- Hashem violating his own
essence.

And the two varieties aren't necessarily distinct. The Rambam also says
that Emes is His Essence, and logic is thus of his Essense, not a
beri'ah. (I have problems with this, but now is not the time to go into
the existence of multiple systems of logic.)

Analyzing the rock so heavy even He can't lift it -- the Rambam would
say that the phrase is a meaningless bunch of words, and since the
Ramchal tells me I can't rely on logic, I can't figure out how I could
conclude /what/ he would say. But it is a "catch a cold" problem.

Hashem assuming a body is easier to see as a "catch a cold" thing;
you're asking can G-d limit himself. Or divide Himself into aspects and
limit an aspect. All of which violates His Essence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

Dear all,
this is something I was asked a while ago - and keep wondering since:
is there (and what is) an explicit halakhic basis to prohibit one from
giving bribes, to public officials or else? The question of accepting
bribes is clear (Shemot 23.8): but what about bribing? It is clear -
of course - that a bribe to save live(s) is unproblematic: but I am
thinking of less radical situations. All I can think of is Vayikra
19.14 (stumbling block before the blind) and, at most, dina demalkhuta
dina. But can you think of anything else (more direct) or is the point
that there is no such prohibition (for the above reason) at all?
The situation would probably be different in Israel and in galut
countries - as well as, perhaps, on the degree the person in question
is a public official (the difference between bribing a judge, an
academic official or member of a prize-giving committee, or an
employee at a local grocery to put some avocados aside for me- in some
countries). If anyone had any thoughts, I'd be most thankful.

With warm greetings
Simon Krysl

R' Liron wrote:  "In reality the sending of the spies on their fact- 
finding mission wasn't a
lack of bitachon, but rather was proper planning for entering the  
land. It
is important to know, for example, if all the cities are fortified and  
you
need to bring seige weponary etc."

The following comes to mind:  If what you are saying is true, then  
their report stated that the cities were fortified and that they were  
much stronger
than b'nai Yisroel.
The point I was making is that if they had more bitachon, they would  
have realized Where the real strength came from.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:11:55 -0400
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

...

> people forgot what their job was.  Malbim points out that the name
> we give these people, "meraglim", is a misnomer.  Nowhere in the Torah
> are they called that.  And it's not as if this was a word that didn't
> exist at the time; Yosef accused his brothers of being "meraglim",
> Moshe sent people "leragel et Ya`azer", and Yehoshua sent "meraglei
> cheresh".  It's not an accident these people are called "tarim" and
> not "meraglim", because they were *not* spies, they were tourists.

You and Malbim may feel that "meraglim" is a misnomer in this context,
but Hazal don't seem to have agreed; at least in the Bavli, they refer
to them numerous times as "meraglim", and never as "tarim".

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Micha Berger wrote:
> The principle of indifference says that if the die has 6 sides of
> equal weight, the probability of any particular side is 1/6.

No, it's a principle of psychology: it says that if you have no reason
to treat species differently then assign them the same probability.
Kavua simply says you have two species, permitted and forbidden, so
they're equally likely. Not good probability theory, but it was a long
time ago.

David Riceman

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:45:05AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: No, it's a principle of psychology: it says that if you have no reason
: to treat species differently then assign them the same probability.

Actually, if you have no reason to treat them differently, it IS good
probability theory. That's what I was saying -- if there is no reason
for heads to come up more often or tail to come up more often, the odds
of either is 1/n. As is true for honest dice.

Occam's Razor is based on not having a notion of which factors are more
likely, and therefore the most likely theory is the one that requires
positing the fewest elements. But this is after that level of
sophistication. Bayes already produced his theorem, and the math of how
to compute conditional probabilities already existed. They knew of more
complex notions than the odds of each outcome is always equal.

Philosophers debate what probability means. Both Bayes and Laplace
held of the epistomic theory, which is now usually called Bayesian
statistics. So I don't think you can draw a firm line between statistical
and psychological principles when discussing their "shitos".

: Kavua simply says you have two species, permitted and forbidden, so
: they're equally likely. Not good probability theory, but it was a long
: time ago.

But you have reasons to treat the species differently. One has a larger
population than the other. The only difference from kol deparish is that
there was some bar chiyuvah who once knew what the state of cheftzah was.


I think that the whole issue is epistemic, because I believe that all of
halakhah can be explained in terms of how the actions impact people. I'm
not sure our mental models of uncertainty are as precise as statistics,
and I'm not sure the rules of safeiq use statistics either. (Although
one could model safeiq, rov, mi'ut and sefeiq sefeiqa with a 5 valued
logic that matches statistics of variables in the domain { 0, .25, .5,
.75, 1 }, or vadai assur through mi'ut delo shechichah, mi'ut, safeiq,
rov, vadai mutar.)

My explanation of qavu'ah, though, is based on R' Aqiva Eiger's notion
that qavu'ah is a safeiq in the din, as opposed to parish which is a
safeiq in the metzi'us. Once the mtzi'us was once known, there is a
din assigned to that known state. Doubt about the din will always be
lechumrah or lequlah depending upon whether the din is deOraisa --
you don't play russian roulette with an issur once it exists.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Simon Krysl wrote:
> Dear all,
> this is something I was asked a while ago - and keep wondering since:
> is there (and what is) an explicit halakhic basis to prohibit one from
> giving bribes, to public officials or else? The question of accepting
> bribes is clear (Shemot 23.8): but what about bribing?

No, there isn't.  The only problem is lifnei iver, and mesayea` yedei
ovrei avera.  Both are of limited application, depending on the
circumstances.   It seems to me pure wickedness to prosecute someone
for paying a bribe, as the civil law does, since the payer often has
no choice in the matter.  It's one thing when someone offers a bribe
to an innocent official, who never dreamed of receiving it.  But
generally when a bribe happens it's the recipient who solicited it,
either explicitly (very rare) or implicitly, or it's simply understood
by both parties that it's the done thing, and the recipient's salary
reflects this.   The payer understands, or comes quickly to understand,
that without grease the wheels won't turn, and legitimately writes it
off as the cost of doing business.  Then one day someone suddenly
decides it's convenient to portray himself as a crusader against
corruption, declares himself "shocked, shocked to find that bribery
is going on in here", and a whole lot of innocent people who were
just trying to go about their business end up in prison.

An important distinction to draw, in general, is whether the bribe
induces the official to do something he shouldn't, or something
that he should have done without being paid.   And, in the former
case, whether the reason he shouldn't do it is because it's wrong,
or because there's some arbitrary rule against it, quite possibly
drawn up with the object of inducing people to bribe their way
around it.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:11:55 -0400
> Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>> people forgot what their job was.  Malbim points out that the name
>> we give these people, "meraglim", is a misnomer.  Nowhere in the Torah
>> are they called that.  And it's not as if this was a word that didn't
>> exist at the time; Yosef accused his brothers of being "meraglim",
>> Moshe sent people "leragel et Ya`azer", and Yehoshua sent "meraglei
>> cheresh".  It's not an accident these people are called "tarim" and
>> not "meraglim", because they were *not* spies, they were tourists.
> 
> You and Malbim may feel that "meraglim" is a misnomer in this context,
> but Hazal don't seem to have agreed; at least in the Bavli, they refer
> to them numerous times as "meraglim", and never as "tarim".

I've wondered about that, but one reason could be that they imagined
themselves to be meraglim, and acted as if they were, so Chazal call
them that.   But if they really were meraglim then their report would
not have been wrong.   At any rate it's remarkable that the Torah
never once calls them meraglim.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:14:34PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, there isn't.  The only problem is lifnei iver, and mesayea` yedei
: ovrei avera.  Both are of limited application, depending on the
: circumstances.   It seems to me pure wickedness to prosecute someone
: for paying a bribe, as the civil law does, since the payer often has
: no choice in the matter...

About as "pure wickedness" as charging a starving man for stealing
bread. Still, theft is both immoral and a crime.

...
: An important distinction to draw, in general, is whether the bribe
: induces the official to do something he shouldn't, or something
: that he should have done without being paid...

I'm not sure why you say that mesayei'a is of limited application.
Pursuit of din is one of the 7 mitzvos; without there being an
overriding chiyuv making it dechuyah, how can it ever be mutar to
entice someone to subvert his legal or penal system? I therefore
think your entire first category is included. (Given that the
law in question is moral al pi haTorah.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@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

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:07:53AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://www.beyondbt.com/?p=1242  on questions  of  'uncomfortable' 
: traditions,  medrash, etc  and whether   one must  believe in these to be 
: considered frum..

Well, there's the sociological question, but I don't see how that's for
Avodah, and there is the halachic requirement.

We've argued the halachic requirement before. Various definitions
different members of the chevrah proposed:
1- The 13 ikkarim in some loose form, so as to include everyone from
Darda'im to Chassidim -- as per Yigdal and Ani Maamin.
2- The beliefs attested to by shemiras Shabbos.
3- The beliefs necessary to justify shemiras hamitzvos in general.
Etc...

Still sitting in my "to reply" pile is RSN's post about rationalists who
ignore or actively reject nistar and qabbalah. That is a very related
questio.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:14:34PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

> : No, there isn't.  The only problem is lifnei iver, and mesayea` yedei
> : ovrei avera.  Both are of limited application, depending on the
> : circumstances.   It seems to me pure wickedness to prosecute someone
> : for paying a bribe, as the civil law does, since the payer often has
> : no choice in the matter...

> About as "pure wickedness" as charging a starving man for stealing
> bread. Still, theft is both immoral and a crime.

Theft is indeed immoral.  What's immoral about paying a bribe?  What
duty does the payer have to the recipient's employer, or to uphold
the integrity of the system in question?


> : An important distinction to draw, in general, is whether the bribe
> : induces the official to do something he shouldn't, or something
> : that he should have done without being paid...
> 
> I'm not sure why you say that mesayei'a is of limited application.

It's of limited application both because there may not be an
underlying avera, and because it's not clear to me how far one must
go to avoid being mesayea`, to ones own detriment.


> Pursuit of din is one of the 7 mitzvos; without there being an
> overriding chiyuv making it dechuyah, how can it ever be mutar to
> entice someone to subvert his legal or penal system? I therefore
> think your entire first category is included. (Given that the
> law in question is moral al pi haTorah.)

The question was not just about judges but about all officials.
Most bribes are not paid to judges.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Simon Krysl <skr...@gmail.com> wrote:



>  The question of accepting
> bribes is clear (Shemot 23.8): but what about bribing?


WRT Dayonim see Rambam Hil. Sanhedrin 23:2 (Lifnei Iver).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090618/7141ad08/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>
> An important distinction to draw, in general, is whether the bribe
> induces the official to do something he shouldn't, or something
> that he should have done without being paid.


WRT Dayonim even "Lizkos Es haZakai uLchayeiv Es haChayov" it is Ossur, see
Rambam Hil. Sanhedrin 23:1.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090618/e7a5eb59/attachment-0001.htm>

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given:
> A mal'ach is a spiritual entity lacking a body
> YET
> On occassion it can assume material form
>   
This is not the Rambam's opinion.  He holds that angels are visible only 
in dreams or prophetic visions.
> And Given:  HKBK is a spiritual body without form.
>
> Question: why can't a "Cheleq" of HKBH (but not HIS entirety) assume
> a physical form?
>   
This is also not the Rambam's position, since he holds that God is 
simple (which includes having no parts).

(from a second email)
<<However, could HKBH Create a briyah in material form and put words in 
its mouth -

something like an android or a robot?>>

This is something the Rambam concedes as a possibility (though my
impression is that he does it somewhat disdainfully), when he offers the
option of "kavod nivra" to people who reject his primary interpretations of
certain Biblical passages.

You can't understand H. Yesodei HaTorah without the MN!

David Riceman

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>    At any rate it's remarkable that the Torah
> never once calls them meraglim.
>
See Dvorim 1:24.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090618/17a3ebf8/attachment-0001.htm>

Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> 
>> An important distinction to draw, in general, is whether the bribe
>> induces the official to do something he shouldn't, or something
>> that he should have done without being paid.
> 
> 
> WRT Dayonim even "Lizkos Es haZakai uLchayeiv Es haChayov" it is Ossur, see
> Rambam Hil. Sanhedrin 23:1.

That refers to the issur of shochad, which is on the recipient, *not*
on the giver.   The only issur on the giver is lifnei iver or mesayea`,
which depends on the circumstances.   What is one to do if the dayan
requires a bribe in order to pasken correctly?  Not pay it and accept
that one will lose the case?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha:
> Still sitting in my "to reply" pile is RSN's post about rationalists who
> ignore or actively reject nistar and qabbalah. That is a very related
> questio.

I'll make a simple but useful dichotomy

It is OK by me to say:
"As a rationalist I have no shaychus to qabbalah". IOW an agnostic stance

OTOH
It is not ok to categorically dismiss, denigrate, belittle, all nistar
simply because it is not one's "cup of tea".


Gray area:
It might be OK to be eclectic and say that just as there is such a thing
as a minhag ta'us there can be a particular Qabbalistic point that is
also a "ta'us" but it must be supported by sources etc.

KT 
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 119
***************************************

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..."