Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 204

Wed, 24 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] RE;changing tune in lecha dodi (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Daas Books)
• 11. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Micha Berger)

 
From: "Harry Weiss" _hjweiss@panix.com_ (mailto:hjwe...@panix.com) 


>> I remember a shiur of Kosher tidbits on OU Radio  a  while back that
addressed the Turkey issue (among others) and mentioned that  besides the
simanim and the fact that it has been eaten for hundreds of years  there is
one other factor.  There  was an Amora brought that  claimed to be familiar
with all of the prohibited species of fowl.   Since he obviously could not
have been familiar with Turkey, that would  indicate that it was not a
prohibited species. <<


>>>>>
 
Does that mean that all New World birds are kosher?
 



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



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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101123/f09f92cf/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

>> Yom  literally means era, as in "lifnei ba yom Hashem hagadol vehanora". 
 [--RMB]

> Huh?  How do you know that isn't a literal  day?   [--RZS]

Because I am pretty sure that Hashem's explicit  reign at the end of history
will last for more than 24  hours......
 
 

Micha  Berger            






>>>>>
In the context of the great day that is coming (lifnei ba yom Hashem), the  
"day" is clearly the day Hashem's reign begins, the day Mashiach comes, the 
 day of the Ge'ulah.  It doesn't refer to the entirety of His reign.
 
I tend to think the seven days of Bereishis are probably non-literal (no  
sun till Wed, what's a day?), but this pasuk is a pretty weak "proof" that  
Yom Hashem is a non-literal day.  
 
 

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

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101123/2aaa486d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:30:22PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: In the context of the great day that is coming (lifnei ba yom Hashem), the  
: "day" is clearly the day Hashem's reign begins, the day Mashiach comes, the 
:  day of the Ge'ulah.  It doesn't refer to the entirety of His reign.

Again: and is "Yom shekulo Shabbos", which I think is synonymous with
"Yom Hashem", only 24 hours?

What about the "yamim achadim" that Yaaqov would have to wait for Esav's
anger to cool off. Is 22 years "a few days" See IE ad loc (Ber' 27:44)
and his comparison to the "yamim" of yovel. Explicitly makes yom a period
other than 24 hours.

Finally, see also the Sefer haShorashim, entry "yom" of both the Radaq
and R' Yonah ibn Janach about cases where "yom" refers to a year.
(In the Radaq, see <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/radak/radak03.pdf>
pg 136, middle of amudah 272, starting with "Aval qasheh".)

So I'm still going with "alternative translation", not metaphor.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 23/11/2010 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:30:22PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> : In the context of the great day that is coming (lifnei ba yom Hashem), the
> : "day" is clearly the day Hashem's reign begins, the day Mashiach comes, the
> :  day of the Ge'ulah.  It doesn't refer to the entirety of His reign.

> Again: and is "Yom shekulo Shabbos", which I think is synonymous with
> "Yom Hashem", only 24 hours?

"Yom shekulo shabbos" doesn't appear in Tanach.  It appears only once in
mishnayos, in the last mishneh of Tamid, and that mishneh is quoted twice
in Shas.  It's a drosho on "mizmor shir leyom hashabbos", where the pshat
clearly is a 24-hour day.  I don't see how you can use that as a precedent
for learning pshat in an instance of "yom" in Tanach.


> What about the "yamim achadim" that Yaaqov would have to wait for
> Esav's anger to cool off. Is 22 years "a few days"

Rivkah never expected it to last even close to that long.  We've already
seen that "yamim" (but not "yom") can mean a year, as in "chodesh o yamim"
so I'd translate "yamim achadim" as "a few years", which was Rivkah's
optimistic guess for how long it would take till it would be safe for
Yaacov to return.


> See IE ad loc (Ber' 27:44)
> and his comparison to the "yamim" of yovel. Explicitly makes yom a period
> other than 24 hours.

No, he doesn't.  He translates exactly as I just suggested above.
"Yamim" means a year, and "achadim" means any number less than ten.

  
> Finally, see also the Sefer haShorashim, entry "yom" of both the Radaq
> and R' Yonah ibn Janach about cases where "yom" refers to a year.
> (In the Radaq, see<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/radak/radak03.pdf>
> pg 136, middle of amudah 272, starting with "Aval qasheh".)

Again, that is explicitly about "yamim", not "yom".


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

RGD wrote regarding the common custom to switch tune from lo tevoshi on:
> I asked Rav Dovid Cohen about the origins of this
> "custom" and he had no idea if there was any.

Another mysterious thing is that, if anything, the proper place for
switching tunes would be from hitoreri on, where the thematic switch
actually happens.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

RZS wrote:

>> For that matter, on which yom were shamayim va'aretz created? IOW,
>> does yom echad begin with "bereishis bara E-lokim", or with "veha'aretz
>> haysah"? Is 1:1 an introduction, telling you that shamayim va'aretz,
>> whose creation is described in full from 1:2-1:3 (including the creation
>> of Shabbos), was in the beginnning of?
>
> Rashi already handled that one.  The main pshat is that this pasuk is
> about the *purpose* of the whole creation, not its timing; and if that
> doesn't sit well then the secondary pshat is that it means that the
> next pasuk ("vehaaretz haysa tohu vavohu") happened at the beginning of
> the creation of shamayim va'aretz.  Rashi absolutely rejects the idea
> that 1:1 tells us when shamayim va'aretz were created.

I actually believe that Rashi "disagrees" with himself when comparing
his comment on beyom and on 1:1. On 1:1, he argues that we cannot take
it literally that in the beginning G"d created heaven and earth, since
heaven was only created on the second day. And yet, on beyom 'asot
haShem E-lohim erets veshamayim, he says they *weree* created on the
first day.

Of course, you may wonder how I can posit that Rashi would "disagree"
with himself. Well, Rashi often comments on a single place in function
of its immediate pessuqim, without citing other places. That would be
the case here, and would potentially make Rashi into a precursor of,
for example, the Rov's appoach with Adam I and Adam II. Rashi, too,
sees value in interpreting the two parshiyot independently, and only
afterwards linking them (by saying that one parsha explains the
details missing in the other).

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 24/11/2010 5:36 AM, Arie Folger wrote:

> I actually believe that Rashi "disagrees" with himself when comparing
> his comment on beyom and on 1:1. On 1:1, he argues that we cannot take
> it literally that in the beginning G"d created heaven and earth, since
> heaven was only created on the second day.

No he doesn't.  Look it up again.  The reason he gives for rejecting
the possibility that 1:1 tells us that the sky and the earth were
created before anything else, is that water must have been created
before the earth, and both fire and water must have been created before
the sky.  And on 1:6 he explicitly says that the sky was created on
the first day.  He repeats the same point, that everything was really
created on the first day, on 1:14 and 1:24.  By the time we get to 2:4
we already know well that this is what he holds, and now we finally get
to see his proof.

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

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:10:05AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 23/11/2010 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:30:22PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>> : In the context of the great day that is coming (lifnei ba yom Hashem), the
>> : "day" is clearly the day Hashem's reign begins, the day Mashiach comes, the
>> :  day of the Ge'ulah.  It doesn't refer to the entirety of His reign.
>
>> Again: and is "Yom shekulo Shabbos", which I think is synonymous with
>> "Yom Hashem", only 24 hours?
>
> "Yom shekulo shabbos" doesn't appear in Tanach.  It appears only once in
> mishnayos, in the last mishneh of Tamid, and that mishneh is quoted twice
> in Shas.  It's a drosho on "mizmor shir leyom hashabbos", where the pshat
> clearly is a 24-hour day.  I don't see how you can use that as a precedent
> for learning pshat in an instance of "yom" in Tanach.

"Alei asor" (pasuq 4) is a messianic reference, as the asor wasn't played
in bayis rishon or sheini. As is "lehishamdam adei ad", "VeAtah marom
le'olam Hashem. Ki hinei oyvekha yoveidu..." etc... so I am not sure I
agree with your peshat. It could very well be that the first pasuq says
al pi peshat, "A musical outpouring (mizmor) with poetry (shir) about
the era of complete Shabbos" or "Conductor: This is a song about..."
Just suggesting...

Not really sure why you raise that pasuq, though, I didn't.

But in any case, you and Toby both identified the Yom Hashem with the
first moment of the final stage of history, and I pointed out that the
final stage of history is called by chazal (at least once) a "yom".
This is in particular a response to your "what else could it mean"?

So why are you mapping Yom Hashem to a start, when Hashem is reigning
the entire period? What makes the first moment more Yom Hashem than the
entire duration of the state it inaugurates? And is "bayom hahu yiyheh
Hashem echad ushemo echad" but not the next day"?

I think the burden of proof rests on you to show that yamim can mean
year, but yom itself never has connotations other than 24 hours. You're
introducing an artificial inconsistency.


Second, you asked about the meaning of a day of Shabbos if maaseh
bereishis wasn't 7 days. But here you speak of the natural mapping between
Shabbos day and the yom shekul Shabbos era. If days naturally map to
eras, then that's enough to answer your own question. (Which was already
answered, I'm just pointing out that you yourself agree with the givens.)

...
>> See IE ad loc (Ber' 27:44)
>> and his comparison to the "yamim" of yovel. Explicitly makes yom a period
>> other than 24 hours.

> No, he doesn't.  He translates exactly as I just suggested above.
> "Yamim" means a year, and "achadim" means any number less than ten.

You hadn't yet conceded that yom (in any conjugation) can mean more
than 24 hours when I posted that. Now you make that concession, but
put up an artificial wall between yamim which is ambiguously "days"
or "years" and "yom" which is always "day". The way I understand it,
they mean "periods of time" or "period", respectively, no homonymity,
no difference in translation between the singular and plural forms.

Tangent, since this can't be taken as a ra'ayah?
When is Yom Yerushalayim? It appears to run from churban bayis sheini
(see Gitin 57b) through Hadrian. Aru, aru -- two events. "Al hayesod
bah" would not be the churban, as there was still rubble left standing.
It would be Hadrian's plowing over har habayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 23/11/2010 5:24 PM, eli neuberger wrote:

> I have seen shuls that run the gamut be it Mizrachi,Yeshiva
> style,Chasidish,that have the Minhag to change the tune.

So have I.  But I've also seen minyanim that run a wider gamut, who
don't change the tune, or who don't have a tune in the first place.

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

> I have davened with a Yeminite minyan quite a few times and they ALL of
> Kabbalot Shabbat. But it is the same same for all the Tehillim and for all
> of Lecha Dodi. Nice tune, I really like it.

Between you and me, I never understood why any shul would not sing part or
all of K. Shabbat. For the committed few, the stoic davvening works, but
consider this email I received 2 weeks ago:

"My friend and I are baalot teshuva who were searching for a meaningful book
on prayer. The book .... opened our eyes to the spiritual potential of our
Judaism - the very spirituality that had pulled us into the fold, but gotten
lost on ritual and rote."

In other words, what works for old-timers is not always working for
new-timers. Many kids can be kept "in the fold" if they are given the
"feeling" of simchas tefila, simchas Shabbos, etc. Music (and dancing) can
do this like nothing else.

Alexander Seinfeld

RMB, explaining the Maharal's approach to miracles, wrote:
> Most of us live within a world in which the laws we call "teva"
> apply. R' Chanina ben Dosa, however, lived in a world where the
> laws of neis applied. In this world, oil and vinegar are equally
> flammable.... Rav Eliyahu Dessler elaborates on this principle [MmE I
> pp 304-312]. Mekubalim speak of four olamos, each of a higher level
> than the previous: asiyah (action), yetzirah (formation), beri'ah
> (creation) and atzilus (emanation)....

The only issue I have with the above is that the four kabbalistic worlds
are not actual places where one can live a physical life in. They are
higher planes, that are beyond the reaches of the material world, housing,
in a simplistic way, respectively, our experience of the spiritual,
the angels, the human soul, to culminate in atsilut (we'll ignore for a
moment any possible fifth world), where we encounter the united sefiros,
where G"d's unity is apparent.

So, while the Maharal may be talking about several planes of existence,
which is just fine, I cannot square that with the doctrine of the
four realms. If you want a better paradigm, you'll have to reach for
multidimentional geometry, quantum mechanics and astrophysics (I am not
sure why I added the last one, since I know too little about it to make
meaningful statements of this sort, but our esteemed list owner can
amply compensate for my ignorance).


[Email #2. -micha]

Of course, it is possible that the Maharal introduces the four realms
paradigm to explain his understanding of nissim. If so, could someone
explain to me how the Maharal squares the two notions?

Another two difficult points with the Maharal's approach - which I admit
finding very attractive - are:

* Did only people who live in the realm of the miraculous nature, die
in the Flood? If not, how did the others die, from the Flood, or they
just died? How did they experience the Flood, if they weren't on such
a high spiritual level?

* Should we be allowed to expect some, rare but extant, first person
accounts of people who have experienced the realm of nes, and who can
give us scientific accounts of those worlds?


I haven't studied the Maharal's theory in any meaningful depth, and
would appreciate some pointers to his actual writings.

Would it not be a better explanation to say that the realm of miracle
is a different realm of consciousness, but that realms of consciousness
are real, no less real than the physical world?

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle fr G"tt?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:36:44PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: The only issue I have with the above is that the four kabbalistic worlds
: are not actual places where one can live a physical life in...
: Of course, it is possible that the Maharal introduces the four realms
: paradigm to explain his understanding of nissim. If so, could someone
: explain to me how the Maharal squares the two notions?

The Maharal doesn't map this concept to the olamos, R' Dessler does.

My only follow up comment is to see the 2nd haqdamah to Gevuros
Hashem yourself, as well as MmE I pp 304-312. (As I suggested in my
prior post.) We're talking about
a self-contradictory reality -- I wouldn't trust my own attempts to
reason about such things. And certainly wouldn't try to ascribe those
conclusions to the Maharal or to REED.

...
: * Did only people who live in the realm of the miraculous nature, die
: in the Flood? If not, how did the others die, from the Flood, or they
: just died? How did they experience the Flood, if they weren't on such
: a high spiritual level?

This is also a problem with maqas dam -- it's the lowly who experienced
the change in nature, not the lofty. Again, I ask you to see inside for
yourself. My best guess, just sharing since I've been thinking about the
topic longer than you have, is that it's possible for someone to be so
sinful that their perceptions still perceive reality on the moral rather
than physical plane -- but from the evil side.

: * Should we be allowed to expect some, rare but extant, first person
: accounts of people who have experienced the realm of nes, and who can
: give us scientific accounts of those worlds?

Nissim are very rare. And I don't think anyone lived within the realm of
neis long enough to do a study. As for scientific accounts -- we know
the laws in this realm, they are the moral laws inherent in the Torah.
Again, see REED -- the olam of nissim is olam hayetzirah which is a
world where justice and freedom are the absolute laws rather than the
laws of nature being absolute.

...
: Would it not be a better explanation to say that the realm of miracle
: is a different realm of consciousness, but that realms of consciousness
: are real, no less real than the physical world?

That pretty much is exactly REED's position. With the added caveat that
olamos are realms of consciousness.

It's very Kantian -- the olamos are phenomenological worlds, and
therefore are constructs of the human condition. As I find REED
to be in general. Such as "Zeman vehHishtalshlus" in MmE IV pp
113, where he writes about the nature of time, and how much of
it doesn't apply to the pre-Adam universe. IN fact, since we're
discussing yom, here is RSCoffer's translation (minus his bracketed
inserts, which I feel are not in line with the REED's intent) from
<http://www.toriah.org/people/R-Dessler/Vol4-pages-p113.pdf>:

    Time -- its existence is only within our perception. Creation is
    far more profound than our ability to grasp and far greater than
    that which is represented in our physical universe. Consequently,
    "creation" transcends any limitations of time. The concept of
    something being "beyond the limitations of time" cannot be fully
    grasped by the human intellect. Thus when considering "beyond the
    limitations of time", it is projected into our minds as endless
    periods of time. And thus it seems to scientists as if the world
    evolved over millions of years.Question: If so, why then does the
    Torah establish the description of creation in terms of six days? The
    Torah wanted to teach us that the existence of all things is only
    in proportion to the spiritual content it possesses. Something that
    contains much materialism and little spirituality -- its value
    and true existence is small because the existence of everything
    [is determined solely] according to the measure of its spiritual
    content. (And this is the meaning of the verse "[for] a thousand
    years in your eyes are as yesterday which passed..." The smallest
    component of time to us would be the "passing", in our memories,
    of the experiences of one day in the past, and thus the terminology
    "which passed".)

    And according to what we have mentioned, the fact that the universe
    appears to scientists to be millions of years old, the reason is that
    every object which is empirically observable to us on a superficial
    level, actually alludes, on a more profound level, to a deeper more
    qualitative aspect, that is, an aspect relating to the fundamental
    nature of creation and its spiritual purpose. Thus, what appears as
    differentiated stages in the chain of superficial cause and effect
    processes, is essentially nothing but spiritual aspects and levels
    in the fundamental nature of creation, except that it seems like
    this to one with a materialistic perspective, the entire cause and
    effect experience is simply a superficial shell which encompasses
    these fundamental and essential aspects of creation.

BTW, REED's understanding is much like that of Ernst Mach, the physicist
philosopher after whom the speed of sound is named. Einstein also
subscribed to his friend Mach's explanation, at least for some period in
his life. (I find Einstein's quotes inconsistent). From "The Economical
Nature of Physical Inquiry", exerpted by J. Kockelmans. Philosophy of
science: the historical background. New York: The Free Press, 1968:

    The goal which [science] has set itself is the simplest and most
    economical abstract expression of facts.

    When the human mind, with its limited powers, attempts to mirror
    in itself the rich life of the world, of which it itself is only
    a small part, and which it can never hope to exhaust, it has every
    reason for proceeding economically.

    In reality, the law always contains less than the fact itself,
    because it does not reproduce the fact as a whole but only in that
    aspect of it which is important for us, the rest being intentionally
    or from necessity omitted.

    In mentally separating a body from the changeable environment in which
    it moves, what we really do is to extricate a group of sensations on
    which our thoughts are fastened and which is of relatively greater
    stability than the others, from the stream of all our sensations.

    Suppose we were to attribute to nature the property of producing
    like effects in like circumstances; just these like circumstances we
    should not know how to find. Nature exists once only. Our schematic
    mental imitation alone produces like events.

Einstein famously said in a number of variations that the most
incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility. At
least, to people who can follow the math. But the fact that the universe,
in scales we don't need to survive, can be described in languages we
invent is itself pretty amazing. An answer he suggests once is that this
is because the same mind we bring to our perceptions is the one we use
to explain those perceptions.

While veering off into the subject of Kant and phenomena
(the world as peceived)... R' Kook has an interesting shitah
about the sefirah of Malkhus. See
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/igrot/10igrot.htm>. (Malkhus is
created by the perceiver. That's how one world's Malkhus is the next
world down's Keser. It is thus compared to the moon, which has nothing
of itself, only reflected light. And thus the Shechinah, man's perception
of HQBH, is Malkhus.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:57:49AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 24/11/2010 5:36 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
>> I actually believe that Rashi "disagrees" with himself when comparing
>> his comment on beyom and on 1:1. On 1:1, he argues that we cannot take
>> it literally that in the beginning G"d created heaven and earth, since
>> heaven was only created on the second day.
>
> No he doesn't.  Look it up again.  The reason he gives for rejecting
> the possibility that 1:1 tells us that the sky and the earth were
> created before anything else, is that water must have been created
> before the earth, and both fire and water must have been created before
> the sky.  And on 1:6 he explicitly says that the sky was created on
> the first day.  He repeats the same point, that everything was really
> created on the first day, on 1:14 and 1:24.  By the time we get to 2:4
> we already know well that this is what he holds, and now we finally get
> to see his proof.

We see his proof in 1:1 vs 1:2, using the reasoning you yourself lay out
early in this paragraph.

When we get to 2:4 he is saying something new -- that the same yom
spans from that "barosh" through the cheit of the eitz hadaas. WADR,
I don't think this is a contradiction, but rather the word "yom" being
applied to a broader concept of era -- the entire Maaseh Bereishis Era,
rather than each Era of Placement.

Arguing over what Rashi means here misses to my mind the main point --
the yom of creation of heaven and earth is the context given in which
the story of the creation of Adam and Chava, the naming of the animals
and the cheit is placed. If yom alway means 24 hours, then it's the
Torah that would be in setirah, regardless of Rashi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Someone corrected me in private.

His resource was a work by "Kimmelman" (no other names or titles
provided), which he described as very little personal commentary, and
mostly quotes from R' Shelomo Alqabetz, his students, teachersm and
related works of qabbalah.

He explained the reason for "Lekha Dodi" as both first verse and refrain.
Malkhus can float up and become a crown to Keser, so Malkhus is therefore
handled differently than the other sefiros.

However, I added:
>          I am not an authority on qabbalah, but I would be surprised to
> learn that there is no motivation based on the Eitz Chayim for changing
> tunes after 6 stanzas, the sefiros related to the work-weak.

He replied that the stanzas do NOT strictly follow the order the sefiros
appear in the Eitz Chayim (the structure of revelation, not the book).
And if anything, "Shamor" would be Binah, meaning if there were an order
it would be a descending order, and the break would be before the final 6,
not after the initial 6.

I do not know if that's from the sources or his own statement. Personally,
I would have thought that Yamin uSemol tifrotzi had a second reference
to the right-left relationship introduced by adding Binah to Chokhmah.
And before that is "kimesos chasan al kallah", referring to the synthesis
of the middle column of middos. And thus, I was reading Lekha Dodi as
ascending the Eitz Chayim up to "Bo'i Kalah, Bo'i Kalah".

Of course, if the Kalah is the Shechinah, then that's blatantly Malkhus --
which we already placed at the chorus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 204
***************************************

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..."