Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 022

Friday, October 19 2001

• Two questions on the Daf Yomi
• Bais HaLevi's objection
• neiros Shabbos
• Re: neiros Shabbos
• Re: varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family mem...
• varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family member
• Re: varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family member
• Re: varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family member, et
• Number of shabbos candles
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Re: Birchas habonim
• varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family member, et
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Re: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret--Late Rishonim
• Re: WTC tragedy
• Re: Of Arks and Rainbows
• A mussar haskel from P. Noach.
• Re: indivuality/equality - should be individual/collective

1. On 82a, the Gemara says that the takana of krias haTorah is to read
Shabbos, be mafsik Sunday, read Monday, mafsik Tuesday and Wednesday,
read Thursday and be mafsik Friday. Why the emphasis on hafsaka?

2. The Gemara on 82b tells the story of how the brother (whichever the
correct girsa is) outside the walls of Yerushalayim was given an advice
by a person who was familiar with chochmas yevanis. What exactly is
chochmas yevanis and how does it relate to this particular advice-it is
not clear to me why the advice was related to the chochma.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Reb Micha said:
>4a) The question is that since the cuttlefish was available throughout
>the golah, how would we forget that it's the chilazon? This is how I
>understood the objection when I read the Radziner's reply.

>4b) RYBS's version, that one can't use science to restore mesorah.

>I'm not sure either of these apply to the murex-derived techeiles, as:
>    4) the dying process wasn't known;
>    4a) the murex isn't as availble; and
>    4b) there are meqoros within the mesorah that the science is merely
>        confirming.

Regarding 4a, this question would apply more to the murex. The murex
species was famous - it was not a secret where the dye came from. Coins
had images of the murex and the name in Latin and Greek means purple.
More importantly, purple dyeing from murex, though less popular, was
used until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century. Thus all of
the Geonim and Rishonim lived while purple muruex dye was still being
used and was still well known. How could we have forgotten that it
was the chilazon? Yes, I have heard *claims* from P'til that there were
Rishonim and Midrashim that did say something to the effect that murex was
chilazon, *but* when I searched I found that it this was simply not true.
Like the Raavya so often cited as equating techeiles with purpura (murex)
- not true, as I demonstrated in my article. Same for the Aruch and
Midrash HaGadol. It can be confusing since Purpura or porphyra came to
denote royal attire in midrashic literature, even being used to denote
Hashem's tallis, if I recall correctly (I'll have to check this when I
get home). The legitimate sources for murex are the Makor Chaim (Baal
Chavos Yair) and Shiltei Giborim. They both explicitly state that the
murex was the source of techeiles. Unfortunately, these statements are
terse and are not a part of any substantive discussion of the subject
of chilazon and techeiles - thus we are not told any reasons for this,
though from the Makor Chaim it seems that he may be suggesting that
techeiles is purple, not blue, in which case murex would indeed be an
obvious guess. He refers to chidushim that he had written about this, but
this is not extant as far as I know. There is also the problem that both
of these works were kisvei yad discovered hundreds of years after they
were written, which raises a number of questions. While it is true that
many gedolim refuse to consider kisvei yad (I recall hearing this about
the Brisker Rav and the Chazon Ish in particular), it is hard to ignore.

This is less of a problem for cuttlefish since its ink was used as ink
in ancient times, and then as an artist pigment during the time of the
acharonim, but was really only used for food in the interim time (and
was not popular at kosher restaurants!).

mendel

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> The old minhog IIRC, AFAIK, is that two neiros are lit - one each kineged
> Zochor and Shomor.
> Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
> one candle for each child.

My halacha teacher, Rabbi Elazar Barclay, (Litvish) explained to us that
the origin of this 'minhag' is actually a form of cnas. If the woman
gives birth shortly before Shabbos she may be unable to light candles at
home. Thereafter she lights an extra candle as a cnas. This developed
into the custom of adding candles even when the woman could have kept
up this practise at home- if she gave birth early in the week.

My 'shamor vezachor' candlesticks are significantly taller than the ones
which 'represent' the children in order to preserve the 'shamor vezachor'.
Many households around here do the same thing though I have seen some
families with a multibranched candelabrum and no distinction between
the lights.

This is actually separate from the Chassidic custom of the girls lighting
candles for themselves from the age of three. It is also recommended
that these extra candles should be in different rooms around the house
(as long as it can be done in such a way that there won't be a significant
fire hazard)

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> The old minhog IIRC, AFAIK, is that two neiros are lit - one each kineged
> Zochor and Shomor.

> Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
> one candle for each child.

I have never heard of this being a L minhag. AFAIK (and seen) many have
this minhag with no connection to Chassidus.

> 2) Does the adding of more candles not denigrate / eliminate the zochor
> vishomor symbolism?

No - see Ramo 163:1 who writes that the minhag is to add, and see MB etc.
there.

> 5) Also perhaps involved is the common belief that 'more is better' -
> in contrast to the Jewish teaching that 'kol hamosif goreia'.

See Ramo mentioned above..

Good Shabbos
Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

In a message dated 10/18/2001 5:57:55pm EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
> one candle for each child.

IIRC there is a minhag to add one candle for each Shabbos missed

I suspect that since New Mothers often missed their first Shabbos lighting
at home that this is the source of this minhag

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
<<I would like to raise the issue of the neiros lit right before Shabbos
(usually by women) in Jewish homes....>>
...
<<Does the adding of more candles not denigrate / eliminate the zochor
vishomor symbolism?>>

Balance snipped as well. I might remind you before you go too far off
here that unless you turn off all the electric lights in the house, you
too subscribe to what you call the "more is better" concept. In halacha,
this is the idea that ribui neiros brings ribui simcha, and therefore
more, in this case, is in fact better.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:48:46PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: The old minhog IIRC, AFAIK, is that two neiros are lit - one each kineged
: Zochor and Shomor.

I have a book my parents picked up in Israel of photos from archeological
digs of items mentioned in Mishnah and Shas.

Shabbos licht were often a single oil lamp with multiple wick holders. One
looks like a pottery shoe with 5 holes for wicks, and one large hole
where oil would be poured in. Others had two or three.

In richer homes, people would hang a metal ring from chains, and the
ring would support typically 7 glass lamps. (The original crystal
chandalier?)

What I'm trying to say is, even this "old minhag" isn't the original
takanah.

: Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
: one candle for each child.

That's our minhag as well, albeit Siggy lights olive oil. I don't know
if it's a Litvisher minhag, or one of the more Sepharadi minhagim that
we retained.

My sister does similar to R'it GA -- two lamps are oil, the rest candles.


When discussing this idea in general, I would make a chiluq. Some cases,
like this one, the minhag is bedavka not to do something. Doing more than
two eliminates the meaning of one alternative. In other cases, however,
one is adopting a practice which one's minhag gives no reason against.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

R' Phyllostac wrote:
<<I do not see mention of the idea and practice of adding one neir per 
child. Where does that come from? It seems to be fairly common today
among some.>>

IIRC this stems from earlier times when childbirth virtually always
caused a woman to miss lighting: longer confinements, less help, etc.
Although this should not invoke the "kenas" of adding one candle, it
was so assumed.

<<However, nowadays, when the situation is mostly / usually different,
perhaps a stronger argument can be made to light davka a limited number
of neiros (e.g. kineged zochor and shomor with the largely symbolic
(as well as actually illuminating) oil lights and candles.>>

Interesting that you mention this a few days after I saw the
following beautiful piece on neiros from Rebbetzin Dena Weinberg
http://www.innernet.org.il/archives/shabbat.htm

InnerNet: Jewish CyberMag 
NOVEMBER 2001 EDITION 
by Rebbetzin Denah Weinberg 
The author is dean and director of E.Y.A.H.T., Aish HaTorah's College
for Women in Jerusalem. She has been a world-renowned lecturer for over
three decades and has helped thousands of women to grow and maximize
their potential to greatness.

Reprinted with permission from "JEWISH WOMEN SPEAK ABOUT JEWISH MATTERS"
http://www.jewishmatters.com
Published by: Targum Press, Inc. - http://www.targum.com

Look around. The world is a dark place. People are wandering, roaming the
world, searching for meaning. They are trying out this philosophy, that
religion. People are groping. Where are the answers? Where is the light?
Light was created on the first day, and the Torah says, "It was good."
It is a woman's mitzvah to light the Shabbat candles. It is a woman's
privilege to bring "good" into the world through light. How can those
two little flickering candles on my table, light up the big, dark world?
The Shabbat candles usher in the holy day of Shabbat. Thus those little
candle lights direct us to a much greater light, the light of Shabbat.

SHABBAT IS A BIG, BIG LIGHT
The light at the end of the tunnel is bright -- it breaks the darkness.
Shabbat also breaks the darkness. ...

[Rest of article deleted. The material is copyrighted, long, and already
available. Please chase the link given above. -mi]

There is also a strong minhag to light seven candles. Ha-Rav Ovadiah
Yosef, shlita, brings it in the name of the Shelah Hakadosh, among others
(sorry I don't have the sefer with me to check, but there were a number of
other mekoros as well.) Derech agav, he also mentions a strong preference
for olive oil, as opposed to candles.

Kol tuv
Elisheva Schwartz

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> It is certainly not surprising that the Chacham Tzvi and RY Emden had the
> same minhag since they were father and son.

...unlike those who have abandoned this minhag avoysom..

>> (Didn't Yaakov Ovinu say - Becho yevorech Yisroel...)
> Every Friday night?

Dunno.
But doing it once a week, we are being mekayem the havotocho
of our ancestor YO...

I have since noticed that the Siddur Hagro also mentions it is a minhag
nochoyn. (Do Litvaks do it?) But he says it should be done with one
hand only - except for Kohanim. Whilst RYE calls the 1-handers '"chasrei
daas"...

Also, the MA (274) writes - from sefer Kavonos - 'tov lenashek y'dei
imoy b'leil Shabbos'. The Darkei Chaim v'Sholom writes that the ME did
so every week [followed by his mother kissing his hand (?)].

AFAIK all those who are bentched indeed kiss both parents hands' every
Friday night. Do the non-bentchers do it as well?

SBA

In a message dated 10/18/2001 5:58:05pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com  writes:
> I looked up the Otzar HeTefillos and let's face it, these are ex post facto 
> reasons.  ...

Tangentially - finding post facto justification in Rabbinic sources
for an existing minhag is IMHO parallel to Chazal finding an "asmachta"
in the Torah for a Derabbanan.

IOW When Chazal cite an asmachta they are not necessarily saying the
passuk created the imperative. Similarly when Poskim interpret a source
in such a way as to suport a minhag it is not necessary to construe that
this interpretation was actually the impreative for creating the minhag
in the first place.

In both cases AISI, the justifcations are more suggestions - more zecher
l'davar than raya l'devar.

Another example perhpas is the way Tosafos's rationalizes saying a
Bracha on Hallel b'dillug on Rosh Chodesh. IOW I don't think Tosfaos was
mandating a bracha based upon a raya, reather he was seeking a source
to support the existing Minhag.

Remez AFAIK never creates an imperative. Whether a Remez or Asmachta
is merely a mnemonic device or is seen as a suggestion - albeit not a
compelling one - is probably worthy of an article

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From:   cgsteinmetz@juno.(Chaim G Steinmetz)
> Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
> one candle for each child.

I have never heard of this being a L minhag. AFAIK (and seen) many have
this minhag with no connection to Chassidus.

> 2) Does the adding of more candles not denigrate / eliminate the zochor
> vishomor symbolism?

No - see Ramo 163:1 who writes that the minhag is to add, and see MB etc.
there.

> 4) I think / suspect that increased affluence, the modern consumer
> economy, easy availability of inexpensive packaged products, etc.,
> making the addition of neiros easier, definitely is playing a role 
> here.

> 5) Also perhaps involved is the common belief that 'more is better' -
> in contrast to the Jewish teaching that 'kol hamosif goreia'.

See Ramo mentioned above..

I thank R. CGS for his reply. I must admit that I did not look up the relevant
section in the SA right before writing the post and R. CGS does a service
by directing us there for illumination.

After looking at SA OC 363:1 again, I am more knowledgable about the subject,
but questions still remain, as follows.

1) The Ram"a says that 'one is allowed (not obligated) to add and light
three or four candles and so is the custom'. Perhaps that means that the
custom is that one is allowed to add - but not that 'everyone' does so.

2) Why does the Ram"a say (after citing from the Tur and Kolbo the minhog
to light two neiros kineged zochor and shomor) that one is allowed to add
and light three or four lights (for more light presumably) - why doesn't
he just say something like ' vichol hamarbeh harei zeh mishuboch' (the more
the better)?

3) The CC / MB there states (bisheim the MA) that some have the custom to
light seven neiros kineged the seven days of the week and some light ten
kineged the aseres hadibros (bisheim the Shala"h and the BH says that the
AR"I wrote that way). Does anyone know people who follow those customs today?

4) I do not see mention of the idea and practice of adding one neir per
child. Where does that come from? It seems to be fairly common today among
some.

5) Licheora if a woman whose family custom is to light more than two marries
a man who's custom is to light only / davka two, she should follow the custom
of the man, as with other similar situations - correct (unless he is mocheil,
e.g. for sholom bayis [the prurpose of neiros Shabbos]). Tangentially, I
have seen what may be more women keeping their pre marriage customs nowadays
after marriage, (perhaps the influence of the feminist movement is involved)
and I think that could be dangerous at least at times, to sholom bayis,
etc. Even if the husband does not object, he may harbor resentment inside -
even if he says that he is mocheil - it may not be bileiv sholeim.

6) I think there may be another important factor lurking in the background
here. I am thinking of the fact that most (all?) of us 'modern orthodox'
(lower case - not the same as the upper case Modern Orthodox) Jews use
electricity and electric lights for illumination and the neiros Shabbos lit
by many with candles, oil, etc., is not the primary source of illumination
usually. Therefore, whereas when the old fashioned neiros were the main /
only illumination there perhaps there was more of a sevara to add more of them
and bring more light into the house. However, nowadays, when the situation
is mostly / usually different, perhaps a stronger argument can be made to
light davka a limited number of neiros (e.g. kineged zochor and shomor with
the largely symbolic (as well as actually illuminating) oil lights and candles.

I have not yet looked in newer works such as SSK to see what is stated there
on the matter.


From:   gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
> I might remind you before you go too far off here that unless you turn
> off all the electric lights in the house, you too subscribe to what you
> call the "more is better" concept. In halacha, this is the idea that
> ribui neiros brings ribui simcha, and therefore more, in this case,
> is in fact better.

I thank R. Gershon for his illuminating comments.

However, I think people are not michavein to be mikayeim neiros Shabbos
with electric lights usually - or at least not everyone is. If the
electric lights in various parts of the house are turned on after the
brocho with the kavonnoh of being used as a kiyyum of neir Shabbos
perhaps so, otherwise I don't know about that......

The fact is, that the candles / oil lights are what are thought of
as neiros Shabbos in the minds of people - and there may be a place
for numerical symbolism more there, as opposed with the significantly
different in appearance, type of light exuded and placement, electric
lights.

A gutten chodesh Mirachashvan (did I get it right R. AZZ?) (see article
by R. Ari Z. Zivotofsky in recent Jewish action on topic of 'Mar-Cheshvon
[not]) un a gutten erev / Shabbos.

Mordechai

In Avodah V8 #21, GStudent opined:
> He was probably referring to something kabbalistic, which then leaves
> me surprised that the Yekkishe community still does it.

If I may generalize, the leaders (and followers) of WEuropean Jewry
may have preferred that nistorim remain nistorim, but hidden does not
mean unknown or ignored. I don't know what the source for the practice
of Birchas HaBonim is (clearly, as per the p'sukim, it's based on
laying-of-hands [physically or virtually] b'rachos in the Torah, but
then shouldn't "v'yiten l'cho..." be done in the same manner by parents
rather than being said communally [or by each person at home] when Shabbos
leaves us?), but I privately speculated to SBA that Friday night, when
Daddy comes home from shul, may have been considered an auspicious time
because of the accompanying malochim.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> As is well known, he was a Litvak but served as rov in a Lyubaviche 
> town.
> He tries to find sources and justify all chasidishe minhogim that he is
> aware of.

Lubavitch Minhog is to sit in the Sukkah SA, back to the time of the
Alter Rebbe (as far as I can tell.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

I wrote:
: I was thinking about this question on Yom Tov: Since we in galus sit in
: the sukka on day 1 of Shimini Atzeres then why do we not defer Geshem
: to day 2 - iow Simchas Torah?

Micha responded:
> Wouldn't it be for the same reason we don't defer for the returning
> olei regel -- because it's shevach, not baqashah?
> 
> As for the idea of mentioning rain at a time when it would be an insult
> to our sitting in the Succah... I'm sure the Master would prefer His
> servant not be chayav in Succah on Sh"A.

I'm not sure I get it. If we can defer the Shevach of Geshem until Sukkos
is over then why not defer it one more day and thereby avoid ANY conflict
between Sukkah and Geshem?

As R. Seth Mandel notes, there is an open Gmara to sit in the Sukkah on
Shmini Atzeres.

Perhaps the Gmara did not preclude starting Shmini A in the Sukkah w/o
necesarily eating every meal there. Or IOW: granted it would be a stira
to this Gmara to abandon the Sukkah completely on Shmini A. However most
of the people I know who do not use the Sukkah for every meal on Shmini
A, at least use it part of the time. And af al pi she'ein raya ledavar
yesh zecher ledavar.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 09:28:39PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I've been trying to follow this discussion, but I've gotten very lost.
: I'm wondering if the differences of opinion might be slight or
: nonexistent. If the participants might take a moment to summarize and
: restate their positions, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

My position:

We'll never have a good answer. One shouldn't take a position.

OTOH, we are obligated to take lessons, to use our emotional reactions
to experiencing tragedy (even 12th hand) in constructive ways. So, while
we can't resolve the problem, we also can't let it drop. Stuggling with
the question is an important part of finding and being moved to pursue
an appropriate reaction.

My meqoros are (a) how sefer Iyov reads to me; (b) RYBS's Qol Dodi Dofeiq.


As far as what I believe about hashgachah vs teva (as opposed to discussing
what the Rambam, Ramban, REED or Ohr haChaim believed):

I believe that there are times when the person's emunah is so strong,
that witnessing a neis nigleh wouldn't change his position. This is R'
Chanina ben Dosa, who saw no difference between oil (teva) or vinager
burning (neis).

Then there's the person who is zocheh to neis nistar, because such is
his emunah. It allows for the same amount of doubt about the neis as
the person already holds.

Below that is the possibility that a person's results be tailored to
his life without violating teva. This requires believing, as physicists
today do, that teva is non-determininstic. However, such violations still
obey the statistical law of large numbers. If everything went your way,
we'd be back in neis nistar territory (at least).

For example: HQBH making a given coin land heads once could be within
teva. His doing it 20 times in a row would already be a neis.

Last, there are times when none of the above apply. When "gam zu litovah"
is only a tovah because the alternative would require robbing you or the
actor of any meaningful bechirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RZZ pointed me (off-list) to his article in Jewish Action, Spring '760
<http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760spring/legalease.pdf>. In it he
debunks the common belief that the gemara connects the partial Hallel
of shevi'i shel Pesach is connected to "ma'asei yadai..."

Unlike what I posted, he says that the connection well post-dates the
gemara. That doesn't actually make my D"T false, "just" based on acharonim
rather than amora'im.

One reason that he gives I find problematic:
> The Torah Shleimah (Bo, 12:287) cites another, possibly related, reason
> for the reduced Hallel on the last days of Passover. The complete Hallel
> is only recited on a day called a "chag" and the final days of Passover
> are never called chag; whereas all the days of Sukkot are so designated.

But we say Hallel on Shemini Atzeres, which is never called "chag". See
the SA, Rama and MB on the wording for Ya'aleh viYavo for S"A. The
question of whether and where to place the word "chag" (biyom chag shemini
atzeres hazeh; biyom shemini atzeres hazeh; biyom shemini atzeres hachag
hazeh) is over this issue.


As for the other contraversial point, there I think I was relying on
an even shakier acharon. The Rashi on "tzohar" seems to be describing
a machloqes between the Y'lmi and Bavli.

The Y'lmi (Pesachim 1:1) assumes that Noach could see the sky (and
therefore couldn't tell the date because the mazalos weren't working),
and brings the presence of the tzohar as the ra'ayah.

The Bavli (Sanhedrin 108b), when it discusses the building of the
teiva, defines tzohar to be "avanim tovos umargolios". Pearls aren't
clear gemstones. It would seem that if the Bavli is the sole maqor
for this shitah, then what's being described is simply a neis. Worse:
a description based on something Chazal's contemporaries thought was
teva -- that gems have an internal glow -- but isn't.

And yet there is a shitah that is meyasheiv the machloqes by suggesting
that according to both shitos the metzi'us was the same. Light came in
through a window and was scattered throughout the teiva by a gem. The
machloqes is scene entirely in terms of peshat in the word itself,
and therefore in what aspect of this apparatus did HQBH consider the iqar.

This peshat in Rashi doesn't fit the Gemara's "umargolios". I'll find
it's maqor iy"h over Shabbos. (Unfortunately, I didn't give it last year
when I first posted this spectrum idea.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I got the following in an email from the Torah Center of Deal NJ.
(The transliteration scheme from Syrian havarah takes getting used
to, BTW. E.g. "The Hafess Haim writes...".)

-mi

Setting an Example

"Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations" (Beresheet 6:9)

Rashi comments: "There are some among our Rabbis (rabbotenu) who explain
this as praise for Noah: Were he living among sadikim he would have
been a greater sadik. Others, however, explain it to his discredit:
Noah was only a sadik in comparison to his generation; were he in the
times of Abraham, he would be considered naught." Why in the negative
opinion does Rashi omit the word "rabbotenu"?

The word "rabbotenu" literally means "our teachers." There are many ways
to learn from a teacher. One can learn from his behavior, from his manner
of speech and from the knowledge he instills.

In Pirkei Abot (1:6) we are taught to always judge a person favorably,
giving him the benefit of the doubt. To judge Noah's status were he living
in another generation is to speculate. Thus the Rabbis who praised him
are suited to be "our teachers": we can learn from them to look favorably
on another person.

The opinion of the others (who project that Noah possibly would not be so
great) may be correct, but those who said it would not be qualified to
be regarded as "our teachers" who are to instruct us in judging another
person. (Vedibarta Bam)

There are interesting he'aros one can make on this point from this
week's parashah.

It opens with a world of "individual only". Chamas is the norm. Noach
himself doesn't try to save anyone or bring them to teshuvah.

Then we make our way to the Dor Hahaflagah. Where, as RSRH puts it, the
nation places its national goal over the value of the individual. Bricks
and the project count, people do not. Totalitarianism.

Finally we're introduced to the path to synthesis with Avram entering
the scene...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]