Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 142

Mon, 09 Nov 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Yonatan Kaganoff
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] JP What is life


Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions:

If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them?

Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the
number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single
white women and married African American women)?

Yonatan Kaganoff 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151108/682c344a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our


M Cohen asked:

: why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm?
...
: the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH
: then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm

R' Micha Berger suggested:

> Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using
> your stronger arm, rather than on it.

which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with
the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point
is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and
wrapping.

This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time:
Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after
defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim
3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm
for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't
it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the
duration of shacharis or longer?

RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too:

> The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem
> and therefore should be the strong hand

And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and
therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151108/07ba0780/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] tefillah


<<I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential.
Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it
creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>>

I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151108/99dcdc3d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Restricting a broadcast


Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah 
class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want 
to get involved in that particular episode.

My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two 
public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? 
Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is 
speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may 
have towards ownership are lost?

Ben



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


R' Eli Turkel asked:
"Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical
arguments?"


What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God?
He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others
explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to
Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151109/f4f93082/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


>
> "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make
> logical arguments?"
>
>
> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and
> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer
> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that?
>

Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet
ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ?



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151109/000c987f/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Allan Engel
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"


On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
> God?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151109/11cf6aab/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
>> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
>> an omniscient perfect god?

> Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing.  So clearly this is a proper mode
> of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.

So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience
and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash
on the other hand?

[Email #2]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
...
> When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
> give a one line summary of its problems?

WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these
incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change
his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his
relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a
preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just
reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way.
Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your
explanation.

[Email #3]

Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to
focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end.

1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha"
means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c.
tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3
(war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct
from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's
decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially
when tefilla is mentioned separately?

2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since
the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say,
the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between
Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence
attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to
convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly
seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision
not simply airing his grievances.

[Email #4]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"

> On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote:

>> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
>> God?

How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like
God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing
Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However,
the underlying question of tefilla still remains.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make
>> logical arguments?"

>> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
>> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and
>> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer
>> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that?

> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet
> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ?

I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then
what is it for?



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


>> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet
>> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ?

> I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God
> then what is it for?

The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something
done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the
Jewish people.

Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku
to live longer which G-d answered.
I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they
appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy

Eli

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something
> done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the
> Jewish people.

> Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku
> to live longer which G-d answered.
> I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they
> appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy

Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying
philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise
fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla
could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly.



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
: a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
: better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
: not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach...

It doesn't?

Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By
contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence?

The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's
G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'"
Moshe alone achieved.

As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST:
> I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those
> descriubing the function.

When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical
objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it
on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance.

However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham
atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the
Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern
Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others.

The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different
part of the dialectic.

R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST:
:> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential.
:> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it
:> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>>

: I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree

RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to
compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with
G-d even us the sun set on prophecy.

He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch.

So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say.

But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to
see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need
to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting
one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works,
and the other is an experience of what it's like.

R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT:
: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"

At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed
a huge distinction.

"Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in
evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine
Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the
world is different in kind than our participation in the development
of halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Michael Feldstein
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Women and communal leadership


A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151109/0d256049/attachment-0001.bin>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership


In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed
me over the last 48 hours to

R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro)
http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,
1393

RHS "Women Rabbis?"
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf

I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued
in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using
the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other
that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah
substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of
politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of
digging up counterxamples.

There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one
of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual
dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to
confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before
letting his name appear on it.)

Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up
(down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach.
From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Allan Engel
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"

> At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed
> a huge distinction.

>                            .... Our participation in the events of the
> world is different in kind than our participation in the development
> of halakhah.

In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said
'Do what you think best'.

The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being
bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe
were trying to do.




Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate


On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
: >                            .... Our participation in the events of the
: > world is different in kind than our participation in the development
: > of halakhah.
: 
: In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said
: 'Do what you think best'.
: 
: The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being
: bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe
: were trying to do.

Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin
wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because
they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument"
was won.

Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach",
eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and
RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to
the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid
G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter
through the millennia.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning


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



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


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


***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >