Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 34

Thu, 04 May 2023

• 1. Lying to Paro and the Egyptians (Brent Kaufman)
• 2. Re: Lying to Paro and the Egyptians (Micha Berger)
• 3. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Micha Berger)
• 5. nusach hatfila (Joel Rich)
• 6. your brother? (Joel Rich)
• 7. Segulos (Prof. L. Levine)
• 8. More on Segulos (Prof. L. Levine)

>
> From: "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalo...@gmail.com>
>
>Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch distinguishes between sho?el me?eis, requesting,
> >and sho?el me?im, borrowing.  In this context, it?s the first term used.
>

That's interesting but unexplained. It appears to be a distinction without
a difference. Regardless of wordplay it seems to be a less than ideal way
in which to obtain something that belongs to someone else; especially since
that had to go in their homes during makkos choshech. Why was it necessary
for HKBH to bring it about in such an underhanded kind of way?

Which, btw, wasn't makkos choshech, actually a makkah of blindness? Since
an Egyptian and a Jew that were standing in the Egyptians home, the Jew
could see and the Egyptian couldn't. That seems more like blindness than
actual lack of light.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230430/d5493aac/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 09:41:58PM -0500, Brent Kaufman via Avodah wrote:
> From: "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalo...@gmail.com>
>> Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch distinguishes between sho'el me'eis, requesting,
>> and sho'el me'im, borrowing.  In this context, it's the first term used.

> That's interesting but unexplained. It appears to be a distinction without
> a difference...

I don't understand. You asked about why BY were told to lie and even steal,
to say they wanted to borrow things when there was no plan to return them.
RSRH is saying that "asked for" the riches, not borrowed them. That
(in LhQ, Leshon Chazal aside) the root /sh-a-l/ only refers to borrowing
as part of an idiom that ends "me'im". So, no lying about borrowing,
and I would have thought your question was answered.

>               Regardless of wordplay it seems to be a less than ideal way
> in which to obtain something that belongs to someone else; especially since
> that had to go in their homes during makkos choshech...

RSRH says they are asking for gifts (or arguably backpay although we would
have to establish there ecer was expectation of payment for that to work), and 
therefore it woud no longer "belong to someone else".

Going to their homes during choshekh wasn't part of the acquisition, anyway.
It was to know what was available to ask for.

> Which, btw, wasn't makkos choshech, actually a makkah of blindness? Since
> an Egyptian and a Jew that were standing in the Egyptians home, the Jew
> could see and the Egyptian couldn't. That seems more like blindness than
> actual lack of light.

The Torah Temimah says it was a plague of cataracts. Barukh sheKivanta.

Except that it appears to be his chiddush. There is indication from the
pesuqim Choshekh wasn't what science today identifies as darkness, i.e.
the absence of light (a dirth of photons of the visible range of frequencies).

In Shemos 15:21, Hashem tells Moshe to raise his hand to heaven "vayameish
hachoshekh"; vayameish ususally refers to something being felt. Pasuq
22 calls it "choshekh afeilah". And while the depiction of "velo qamu ish
mitakhtav" could just mean the Mitzrim were too scared to move since they
couldn't see where they were going, many rishonim don't take it that way.
Especially given the previous words. Rather, the choshekh was a "thing",
not the absence of light, and it was thick enough to prevent the Egyptians'
motion.

As for the subjectivity:

According to the Maharal (haqdamah #2 to Gevuros Hashem
https://www.sefaria.org/Gevurot_Hashem%2C_Second_Introduction_to_Gevurot_Hashem
), all nissim happen this way -- reality is only changed for those who
need to experience a different reality. By makkas dam, it wasn't that
the water turned into blood when acquired by a Mitzri (without payment
to a Jew), it was that the liquid was simultaneously blood and water,
depending on whose experience we were talking about.

The Maharal starts with rejecting the Ralbag on the sun standing still
for Yehoshua. And he says "shemesh beGiv'on dam" is quite literal --
it only stood still in the experience of the warrring parties in Giv'on.

This kind of split between an unknowable objective what's really out
there and how we experience it would be very Kantian, and would speak
to Mach's explanation of why science works, if it wasn't for the Maharal
preceding either. So, if anything *they* were *his* zeh le'umas zeh.

For more, see what I wrote for Mesukim miDevash, Beshalakh pp 1-2
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf
And a blog post on R Dessler's development of the Maharal's idea
https://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2006/02/14/rav-dessler-on-reality-and-perception

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 25th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                        taking control too extreme?

I watched a debate between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United
Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from  1991 to 2013 and biologist
Richard Dawkins. Dawkins asked Rabbi Sacks if he believed there was an Adam
and Eve and Rabbi Sacks without hesitation said ?Of course, not. That is
just allegorical.? He continued to say that there is a principle in Judaism
that reading the Bible literally is heretical. He said Christianity reads
it literally but not Judaism.

I would be interested in reactions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230503/0e37e096/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:51:11AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
> I watched a debate between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks...                and
> biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins asked Rabbi Sacks if he believed there
> was an Adam and Eve and Rabbi Sacks without hesitation said "Of course,
> not. That is just allegorical." He continued to say that there is a
> principle in Judaism that reading the Bible literally is heretical. He
> said Christianity reads it literally but not Judaism.

I think this is *A* position, but not the only one.

(Perhaps R Sacks stated things more firmly than otherwise because the
context was debating heresy.)

I would have rather he said that there is a principle in Judaism that
insisting the Torah *MUST* be reas literally is heretical.

While we have TSBP and derashah, there is the idea that ein davar yotzei
miydei peshuto -- simple peshat is concurrently valid. Everything in
Torah is said for its message about how we should live our lives. the
question is whether the message is ever wrapped an ahistorical myth,
rather than being learned from history or law.

Aside from Moshe's special kind of nevu'ah, prophecy is wrapped in
metaphor. But that wouldn't make the text metaphoric, it would be
the literal description of what the navi saw in a vision -- but that
vision was a metaphor. And then there are the special-form books: Shir
haShirim and Tehillim use poetic imagery, Mishlei's title tells you it's
a collection of Parables, Iyov may or may not be historical, etc...

On to the esoteric subjects, as per the Mishnah in Chagiga 2:1 ("Ein
Dorshin"). Maaseh haMerkavah (and the related vision of the Man in the
Throne at the end of Mishpatim) are prophetic visions, so they could well
be relayed as literal description of what the navi experienced. Which
leaves us with Maaseh Bereishis. Could it be taken literally even though
Chazal tell us it eludes popular understanding?

Because of that, most days I personally subscribe to an idea I got
from the Maharal (Gevuros Hashem intro #1) and R Dessler (MmE vol II,
pp 150-154, see my summary at
<https://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2005/01/28/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation>).
In short, they say that everything that happened in the world before
Chava and Adam ate from the eitz hadaas is totally incomprehensible to
us. REED says that in particular because the arrow of time is a human
perception which we only picked up with the eitz hadaas.

So, I would say that Geneis 1 & 2 are indeed literal descriptions.
But what they literally describe is incomprehensible to me. All I
can study is what Hashem taught us through those events and through
His Choice of how to describe those events.

But as I opened, I don't think there is only one The Jewish Answer
to this.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 27th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             taking control result in relationship?

Have you ever been in an ashkenazi synagogue where a sfardi insisted on
saying sfardi kaddish on an ongoing basis? If so, what was the rabbi's /
gabbai's response, if any (and why)?

kt
joel rich

Devarim 25:3 says:
    Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he
    should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy
    brother should be dishonoured before thine eyes.

Rambam Sanhedrin 17:7 says:
    Whenever a person sins and is lashed, he returns to his original
    state of acceptability, as implied by the verse: "And your brother
    will be degraded before your eyes." Once he is lashed, he is "your
    brother." Similarly, all those obligated for *kerait* who received
    lashes are absolved for *kerait*.


Question-
Does this mean that in shamayim (as well as here), it's as if he never
did the original sin? If not, how do we/HKBH view the individual pre
and post lashes?

The following is from The Institute for Dayanim

https://dinonline.org/category/articles/

Today, every Jewish bookstore sports a
new genre of Jewish literature ? segula
collections. While some garner their
segulos from reputable sources, others mix
in charms and witchcraft. It is important
to discern which is authentic and which is
not.

Segulos, or auspicious actions, can be
divided into two classes. One includes
mitzvos which are known to be helpful
for specific things: the mitzva of shiluach
hakein (sending off a mother bird); saying
Amein Yehei Shmei Raba aloud; giving
tzedakah; forgiving wrongdoings; concentrating
on Birkas Hamazon, and others.
These mitzvos certainly carry eternal
reward. Furthermore, Chazal teach us that
they carry additional merit here in This
World.

The second class is those segulos that
make no sense, nor have any scientific
basis. Segulos such as such as wearing a
red string, placing salt in shoes, saying Na
Nach, not hanging a newborn?s clothing
out to dry at night, ensuring a bride has
something old, something new, something
borrowed, some-thing blue etc. do
nothing to bring one closer to Hashem.
Following these rules may be classified
as chukot hagoyim or darkei haEmori.
While they may be offered on occasion by
a Talmid Chacham for his own reasons,
dispensing them to the public in book
form is improper.

Professor Yitzchok Levine




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230503/8e2082cb/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see the Hamodia article on this topic that appeared on June 12, 2008. You can download it at

https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/segulos.pdf

Note that the Mezhbuzher Rav (page 34) said

"[Segulos] are nothing more than bubbe maasos, eitzas yetzer hara that give
people a license to spend money way beyond their means and then ask for a
yeshuah. All these formulae - saying Shir Hashirim forty times, Tehillim
HaChida, etc. - are methods used by the yetzer hara to take from us the
little [spirituality] we have left.

"Prayer on the other hand, is not a segulah; prayer is a way of
communicating with the Ribbono shel Olam. When we use segulos to get what
we want, it's as if we are stealing something from Him, something that is
not rightfully ours."

Professor Yitzchok Levine




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230504/dd335ca7/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)