Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 11

Tue, 02 Feb 2016

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:02:56 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] free will


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:17pm EST, RnTK wrote:
: From my own experience I would say that it's true that every Jew, or almost 
: every Jew, really does have what you call an "inner neshama" that really 
: wants  to do good.

I think the discussion of whether or not non-conscious (subconsious,
preconscious, unconscious, what have you) even exist is one of those
proofs that sufficiently bright people can make a case for anything.
Even to deny that something we all do hundreds of times a day is possible.

That said, the discussion here needn't rest on aqccepting the reality
of a non-conscious. As I wrote before, that "inner neshamah" (pintele
yid) or that desire to belong to the community (which I agree with RET
is clearly what the Rambam is speaking of) could well be speaking loud
and consciously, but being drowned out.

And, as I said before, it saves us from having to take the inquisitional
stance that someoe who is agreeing while under duress is really doing
something willingly.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:15:10 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm


R' Akiva Miller asked:
"Does anyone know how the Gra would hold in the morning case, where one must
choose between saying Shma on time, but Shmoneh Esreh during the fourth
hour, vs. all of shacharis before the end of the third hour?"

I think you mean saying krias shema without the berachos because the minyan
will miss sof man krias shema as opposed to davening earlier beyechidus and
saying krs shema with its berachos on time. In that case the Gra also holds
you should say kris shema and its berachos on time and I know that RHS is
noheg like that and will daven shacharis beyechidus rather then miss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20160131/40029240/attachment.html>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:13:59 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Abraham Discover God? The Experiential


So, beqitzur, R/Dr Seth / Avi Kadish gives three explanations for the
medrash of the Illuminated or Burning fortress, the first two of which
highlight the debate between the Jewish Scholasticists (pro-Maimonidians)
and the allegedly less rationalist rishonim.

It's that chiluq I wanted to bring under discussion. Because in its
day Or Hashem was an anti-philosophical book. But by the way we use the
terms now, R' Chasdai Crescas's approach (shared by his rebbe, the Ran,
and his talmid, the Iqarim) would not even be considered philosophical,
we would consider it more rationalist than the Rambam's.

In the Rambam's Day, Greek Philosophy, a set of worldviews each of which
run from metaphysics through physics (and even medicine, c.f. the word
"physician" vs physicists, and the 4 humors vs the 4 elements) were
accepted as the only rational ways to see the world for the past 1,500
years when the Rambam was writing. So "rationalism" was associated
with this quite unscientific appal to authority. It was "rationalist"
to consider Aristo's viewpoint the baseline, rather than just another
appeal to authority.

And so it was until science supplanted Natural Philosophy, and a whole
new definition of what was rationalist emerged.

As RSK writes:
: I. Returning to a classical model of Judaism: The Bible and Chazal
: rarely if ever touch upon the question of whether God exists. God is
: there, and powerfully so. The real question is not whether or not God
: exists, but rather what is the state of our mutual relationship with
: God: Is it characterized by love or hatred? Respect or disgrace?
: Loyalty or betrayal? The God of biblical religion and halakhic Judaism
: is a personality, not a concept.
...
: II. Shifting from medieval to modern religion: Crescas dealt with a
: great deal of what we would now call "science" in the first treatise
: of Or Hashem. Perhaps the greatest difference between medieval science
: and modern science (although one with which Crescas himself didn't much
: engage) is that the latter insists on empirical verification. Logic on
: its own is insufficient. Theories need to be confirmed by conformity to
: hard facts, and those facts need to be objectively verifiable by anyone.

: Because of this, religion ceased to be a scientific issue in modern
: times. God cannot be tested for in a laboratory...
: It is thus no accident that Crescas' abandonment of the conceptual
: God of logic, in favor of returning to the personal God of life, is
: tightly connected to the historical shift from medieval science to
: modern science...

Or as I always put it, the chiluq between knowing ABOUT G-d, and knowing
G-d. And then I generally quote R/Prof Carmy from Avodah's earlier days
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n087.shtml#07>:
> People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take
> for granted things that I don't.

> The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about
> G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising
> these proofs is identical with knowing G-d.

> Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as a
> purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence.

But I enjoyed someone else explain that (by today's standards) this
is actually the more rational and scientific approach.

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



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:23:08 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Abraham Discover God? The Experiential


On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 04:13:59PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: So, beqitzur, R/Dr Seth / Avi Kadish gives three explanations for the
: medrash of the Illuminated or Burning fortress, the first two of which
: highlight the debate between the Jewish Scholasticists (pro-Maimonidians)
: and the allegedly less rationalist rishonim.
: 
: It's that chiluq I wanted to bring under discussion...

It is also interesting to look at the meta-issues behind the second
chiluq -- the machloqes between Or Hashem's approach to the medrash and
the Eitz Yoseif's. Both are about our relationship with the Creator
as a "Person", but...

The OH asks about experiencing G-d in the religious moment. His metaphor
is the moment of prophecy.

The EY brings the question into the here-and-now, the practical. How do
we relate to the G-d Who lets His Own palace burn?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:38:27 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Abraham Discover God? The Experiential


On 2/1/2016 11:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The EY brings the question into the here-and-now, the practical. How do
> we relate to the G-d Who lets His Own palace burn?

It's only a question if you understand dolek as burning in that sense.

Lisa




Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:54:55 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah


The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.

Learning for the sake of learning, just to occupy one's mind with the
intricacies of the Torah, even if the practical application of the law is
already known, is limited to men.

A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim
because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is not
the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher
or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way
Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us.

Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man,
can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his
yiras Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud
Torah, she cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of
connection to Hashem. If a man is a great talmid chacham, having
learned the entire Talmud, and has not become a greater yerei Shamayim
this learning has not achieved its purpose. If a woman were to learn and know
Gemara just as well as a man, it still would not make her one iota
better than she is. It would have no influence on her relationship 
with Hakadosh
Baruch Hu. Shehasani kirtzono - He has made me according to his will,
means that a woman does not need talmud Torah to come close to
Hakadosh Baruch Hu. A woman can even have prophecy - the closest
possible relationship to Hakadosh Baruch Hu - without learning Torah.

Rav Schwab on Prayer, page 33

Women are also obligated to say Birkas ha Torah. While patur (exempt) from
talmud Torah purely for the sake of learning, women are, nevertheless.
obligated to learn the halachos of the mitzvos so they can properly fulfill
them. With the exception of the few time-bound mitzvos, women have
the same obligation as men to know and keep the vast majority of the
mitzvos of the Torah. It is therefore incumbent upon women to learn
the details of these mitzvos in order to observe them properly. How
can women keep Shabbos or Yorn Tov properly without knowing the
applicable halachos?

How can a woman conduct a business if she is not familiar with the
dinim (laws) of ribbis (interest), ona'ah (misrepresentation or price fraud),
or gezel (outright theft).  The difference is only in the goal of the learning.
For a man, in addition to the need to know the practical halachos in
order to apply them, it is also a mitzvah to occupy himself with talmud Torah
as a form of avodas Hashem, serving Hashem. This is so even if
there is no immediate need for this knowledge in practice, either because he
already knows  the dinim, or because his immediate circumstances
do not require the  application of what he is learning. However, for a
woman, the purpose of the learning is to gain the knowledge in order to
put it into practice.

Rav Schwab on Prayer,  page 78


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160201/409204c5/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:27:10 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Abraham Discover God? The Experiential


On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:38:27AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: On 2/1/2016 11:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
: >The EY brings the question into the here-and-now, the practical. How do
: >we relate to the G-d Who lets His Own palace burn?
: 
: It's only a question if you understand dolek as burning in that sense.

Well, the Etz Yoseif does, yes.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14385&;pgnum=89
and I think that's his whole point.

But I didn't mean "question" in the sense you're taking it.

Rather:
The Rambam's position is that one knows about G-d theologically, and he
understands the medrash as describing Avraham's discovery accordingly.
The world "illuminated palace" that deslares its Owners existence.

The Or Hashem values knowing G-d personally through religious encounter,
and that's why his illuminated palace revelation is incomplete until
HQBH spoke to Avraham.

And the Eitz Yoseif places the emphasis on knowing G-d through how we
encounter Him in life and history. So that grappling with theodicy,
why does Hashem let His Palace burn, becomes part of the relationship
with G-d -- an emunah exercise, rather than a challenge.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:25:46 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

This column is dedicated in memory of Rav Chaim Yisroel Belsky, zt'l,
former Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant
Are eggs subject to the prohibition of bishul akum?

Yes. The Gemara (A.Z. 38b) says that an egg that was roasted by a
non-Jew is forbidden. This Halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D.
113:14) as well: "Although a raw egg can be swallowed raw,
nevertheless if it is cooked by a non-Jew it is forbidden". Although
generally, foods that are nechal chai (eaten raw) are not subject to
the prohibition of bishul akum, in this case they are forbidden,
since eating raw eggs is considered an abnormal manner of eating.

To sign up for this go to http://tinyurl.com/h34fvjs

OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

This column is dedicated in memory of Rav Chaim Yisroel Belsky, zt'l, 
former Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant
Are eggs subject to the prohibition of bishul akum?

Yes. The Gemara (A.Z. 38b) says that an egg that was roasted by a 
non-Jew is forbidden. This Halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 
113:14) as well: "Although a raw egg can be swallowed raw, 
nevertheless if it is cooked by a non-Jew it is forbidden". Although 
generally, foods that are nechal chai (eaten raw) are not subject to 
the prohibition of bishul akum, in this case they are forbidden, 
since eating raw eggs is considered an abnormal manner of eating.

To sign up for this go to http://tinyurl.com/h34fvjs


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160202/75262abe/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Seth \(Avi\) Kadish
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:07:56 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Abraham Discover God? The Experiential


Rav Micha, thank you so much for bringing new attention to this essay. I
hope people will benefit from it in their avodat Hashem.

Regarding Rav Carmy, I can only say baruch shekivanti. What he said in
so few words is exactly what I meant. I have to admit that in all my
years at YU I never remember being struck by an approach like this,
and it certainly wasn't stressed. Both I (and seemingly the people
around me including my teachers) seemed to stress other approaches much
more. God as a being with whom a Jew or Israel has a very personal and
experiential relationship is something that I hardly remember. Even if
we studied Kuzari I don't think we fully got the point back then. But
it could also be that I wasn't ready for it then, such that even if it
was actually there (perhaps from Rav Carmy) I simply don't remember it.

The sequel to the "Illuminated Fortress" essay took me a very long
time, during which I learned a tremendous amount. But it is now done,
and will be published IYH this Spring. Rather than the website where
the introduction appeared, it will be published in an academic journal
(something that I simply had no choice about doing for professional
reasons, otherwise I would be out of a job, but I am still quite sorry
it will not be immediately available to the public online).

In my opinion, this is a topic where academia and Torah coincide: The
sequel is about nothing less than how to best understand the single most
important machlokes rishonim in medieval Jewish thought, namely: Why did
the Rishonim after the Rambam write new books of ikarim, and what were
those books meant to convey? That is a real academic question in the
historical sense, but it is also a Torah question in the very best sense.

The official abstract follows (the title is "Jewish Dogma after
Maimonides: Semantics or Substance?"):

    The medieval Jewish discussion of dogma is generally understood as a
    debate about definitions and hierarchy: what exactly is an "obligatory
    belief" and what does that status entail, which specific ideas qualify
    as such, and how do various dogmas relate to each other in terms of
    their dependencies or inner groupings? Modern scholars and traditional
    students of the literature share this conception of the debate,
    and thus reduce the medieval argument about dogma to the level of
    semantics. It is not a substantive debate about the very nature of
    the Torah, but rather a discussion of secondary significance about
    how to best describe a shared conception of the Torah. In this view,
    systems of dogma are about nothing more than the taxonomy of belief.

    Such an attitude assumes that Maimonides' famous list of the "thirteen
    foundations of the Torah" reflects a conservative stance (regardless
    of his wider agenda). This paper argues, to the contrary, that his
    dogma is best read in context as a natural reflection of radical
    formulations found in his pre-Guide rabbinic writings. It further
    argues that the great Iberian critics of Maimonidean dogma understood
    it in exactly this way and rejected it as such, offering meaningful
    alternatives in its place. They designed their alternative systems
    to reflect their views about the nature and substance of the Torah,
    not just to address the semantics of dogma.

Kol tuv,
Seth (Avi) Kadish



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Sholom Simon
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:54:34 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Mishpatim: shalem y'shalem


There seems to be a lot of apparent "doubling" in Mishpatim -- in 
particular, I'm struck that there are many instances of shalem 
y'shalem, but also instances of just shalem.

I'm nowhere near fluent enough to see any patterns of when shalem 
y'shalem is used rather than the just shalem.

Is there a pattern?  Do mefarshim discuss this?

Thoughts?

-- Sholom




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:22:32 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah


What is this based on? The Rambam makes no differentiation between male 
and female prophets in Yesodei Hatorah, Chapter 7.

Ben

On 2/1/2016 11:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> A woman can even have prophecy - the closest
> possible relationship to /Hakadosh Baruch /Hu - without learning Torah.



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



_______________________________________________
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 >