Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 7

Mon, 09 Oct 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Mike Miller" <avodah@mikeage.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:19:37 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 12 Step Programs


On 10/9/06, Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > I am exceedingly leery of the 12 steps, although I appreciate
> > that Rabbi Dr Twerski has no doubt helped many using them.
>
> I do not understand all this handwringing about the 12 step program.
> Why are we darshaning certain steps? This program is not meant as a
> primer on Torah Hashkafa. It is meant as a means to overcome an
> addiction.

Regardless of whether or not this is meant to be a primer on Hashkafa
or not, it would be inappropriate for Jews to make use of a philosophy
that carries messages counter to our beliefs or not. In much the same
way, I wouldn't expect a believer of any religion to make use of ideas
(not techniques, but ideas and ideologies) that run counter to their
basic views.

> As such the twelve steps make emminent sense. Trying to say that this
> or that step is not in concert with Torah Hashkafa is way besides the
> point and counterproductive. Besides these steps are not counter to
> Torah Hashkafa if understood properly.

I agree with you that they're not counter to our Hashkafa, but that
decision is still important

<snip example because I agree>

> I applaud Rabbi Twerski's efforts and successful use of the twelve
> step program. I don't think it is wise to do an Halachic or Hashkafic
> analysis of it. For those who use it successfully, such discussions
> can only be damaging.

I can't agree with this analysis. If a Jew who's feeling emotionally
depressed benefits from a philosophy that teaches that G-d loves him
so much that he gave his son to redeem his sins, and begins living his
life according to this historical "fact," I don't think you would
consider this good, despite the fact that it may have boosted the
person's self esteem enough that he's overcome his alcoholism, fixed
his marriage, and saved himself from suicide. Instead, we would try
and encourage a similar belief based on our mesorah as to how Hashem
loves His people, etc.

Since it appears to me that that the 12 step program is halachically
OK (more importantly, R' Twersky appears to agree), I agree that a
condemnation of such a person would be damaging. I don't, however, see
anything wrong with the discussions, nor do I think that we can say
that anything that helps people must automatically be good.

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@012.net.il>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:32:49 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Missing Rambam. Help!


>> Over YT someone pointed out to me Rambam, Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek 7.
Halacha # 8 is missing.

Halakhah 8 is not missing. All that happened is that in the numbering of the
halakhot provided by the printers (which in any case is generally a poor
numbering in any case from which nothing should ever be learned or
inferred), they simply forgot the number 8 and jumped from 7 to 9.

All manuscripts and editions have the same text here; no text is missing.

In general, for all questions of girsa in the Rambam, for learning bekiut in
the Rambam, and for looking of citations in the Rambam, no Torah home should
be without the new edition:

www.mishnetorah.com

Seth

????? ??? ?????? - ????? ??????
http://www.seforimonline.org/seforim7.html (#169-172)

?????? ??????? ??????
http://www.makorrishon.co.il/show.asp?id=7467

????? ?????? ?????? ???????
A Guide to Reading Nevi'im & Ketuvim
http://skadish1.googlepages.com/guide
----- Original Message -----
From: <avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6


> 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..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Chazarat hashatz (Micha Berger)
>    2. Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Gershon Dubin)
>    3. Re: Agag (David Riceman)
>    4. Re: Chazarat hashatz (Rich, Joel)
>    5. ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE (Cantor Wolberg)
>    6. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Rich, Joel)
>    7. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (T613K@aol.com)
>    8. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha Berger)
>       (Meir Shinnar)
>    9. Agag (Yisrael Medad)
>   10. Re: Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur (Akiva Blum)
>   11. Missing Rambam. Help! (SBA)
>   12. Re: RE; Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Simon Montagu)
>   13. Re: 12 Step Programs (Harry Maryles)
>   14. Re: Missing Rambam. Help! (Simon Montagu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:29:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chazarat hashatz
> To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> <29196.171.159.192.10.1160144951.squirrel@webmail.aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
> : Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during
chazarat
> : hashatz?
>
> Didn't you ask something similar in v17 (old) n90? See the thread
> <http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy#MBYESHIVA%20COMMUNITIES>.
>
> Tir'u beTov!
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
> micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
> http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
> Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:10:37 GMT
> From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20061006.081045.15633.454649@webmail27.lax.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>
> <<So you do see why I would consider it. Once one says that Shabbas
> haMalkah can serve, why not the Ushpizin? What sevara would distinguish
> one from the other?
>
> (No I do not have sources; that's what I was asking for!)>>
>
> Following up on R' Saul's he'ara on yichud, think of the Gemara of
> issur yichud of the kallah if the choson should go out for a few minutes.
>
> Even if they're panim chadashos, don't be mechabed them with a beracha
> (certainly not with bentching unless it's Dovid Hamelech, the only one
> who accepted the offer!)
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:22:13 -0400
> From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Agag
> To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Cc: sober@pathcom.com
> Message-ID: <001001c6e96b$f7a9a320$9c054c0c@Ricemanhome1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> From: "Sober Family" <sober@pathcom.com>
>
> <I definitely recall hearing that Agag - in the brief interval after Shaul
> spared him and before Shmuel killed him - found a shifcha through whom he
> was able to continue his line of descent. But I can't find the source for
> this! Does anyone know the source?>
>
> Targum Sheini 4:13.  It's supposed to be in Esther Rabba also, but I
> didn'tfind it there (only a brief glance).
>
> David Riceman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:35:37 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chazarat hashatz
> To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7F5EC37AC45DE64DB56C8AD3D409C2B273DBFD@NYCEXCL01.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
> : Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during
> chazarat
> : hashatz?
>
> Didn't you ask something similar in v17 (old) n90? See the thread
> <http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy#MBYESHIVA%20COMMUNITIES>.
>
> Tir'u beTov!
> -mi
>
> ====================
> Yes, but I've been asked for written sources (versus mpi hashmua or
> "that's what R' X does")
> GT
> Joel Rich
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee
is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify
us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:15:20 -0400
> From: "Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
> Subject: [Avodah] ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <011601c6e95a$3ccd3e10$650fa8c0@CANTOR>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> The very last letter of the Torah is lamed and the very first letter is
beis.
> The two letters together form the word Lev, "heart."
>
> In order for the heart to be complete and whole, there is no break between
the end of the Torah and the beginning.  Bereshis follows D'vorim with no
interruption.
> If there were a break, it would break both the heart of the A-mighty, as
well as the Jewish People.
>
> Now, in reverse, you would have "bal" (bet, lamed) meaning "don't" or
"not".
>
> Going in the natural order, we complete D'vorim and immediately begin
B'reishis, thus we have the lamed of "Yisroel" and the beis of "B'reishis."
When you change the natural order and go in reverse, then you get "bal"
which is a negative?"Not". We must not change the natural order of things,
and we should follow the order of the Torah and "NOT" reverse it.
>
> The last word of the Torah, Yisroel, and the first word of the Torah,
B'reishis, both contain a yud, shin, reish and aleph. If there were a lamed
in B'reishis, it also would spell Yisroel. I thought of the following cute
d'rash regarding no lamed in b'reishis:  The word Yisroel contains the first
letters of the Ovos and Imahos: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya'akov, Sara, Rivka,
Rochel and Leah.
>
> The word B'reishis contains the letters of all but Leah. If you recall,
Ya'akov was supposed to have married just Rochel, but he was tricked into
first marrying Leah.  So for B'reishis, there is no lamed for Leah, because
Jacob wasn't supposed to have married Leah. However, as history would have
it, Jacob did marry Leah and hence the last word of the Torah also contains
her initial.
>
> Richard Wolberg
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/d
2a29023/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:36:52 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos
> To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7F5EC37AC45DE64DB56C8AD3D409C2B273DEA7@NYCEXCL01.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>
> Following up on R' Saul's he'ara on yichud, think of the Gemara of issur
> yichud of the kallah if the choson should go out for a few minutes.
>
> Even if they're panim chadashos, don't be mechabed them with a beracha
> (certainly not with bentching unless it's Dovid Hamelech, the only one
> who accepted the offer!)
>
> Gershon
>
>
> How about a golem?  Before you laugh too hard see sh"ut Chacham Tzvi #
> 93
> Gmar Tov,
> Joel
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee
is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify
us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:08:57 EDT
> From: T613K@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org, smash52@netvision.net.il
> Message-ID: <bee.5b179ea.3257f5b9@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> >>. Are you in doubt as to whether the  Ushpizin count for a  minyan? A
> mezuman? Do they affect issur yichud? I rather imagine the answer is  "of
course
> not". I don't know of any basis for thinking that panim chadashot is  any
> different.
>
> It is true that there is one non-corporal entity which  counts as panim
> chadashot: Shabbat. AFAIK, this is the only such  case....<<
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>
>
>
> .
> If you have nine men at a bris do you not count Eliyahu Hanavi as the
tenth?
>  Of course since he went up alive to Heaven, he may not be  "non-corporal"
> but merely invisible.
>
>
>
> --Toby  Katz
> =============
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/5
3672470/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:09:33 -0400
> From: "Meir Shinnar" <chidekel@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha
> Berger)
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID:
> <c802bdbe0610061109j3bc2c030td3134fa7b11c6cef@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> me
>
> : 2)  there is a strong tradition (even amongst literalists like the
kuzari)
> > : that, even if one does not argue for the rationality of torah, torah
> > does
> > : not contradict reason - eg, the kuzari argues that there is no good,
> > solid
> > : evidence for a world older than 5000 years (his time) - but admits
that
> > if
> > : there was such evidence, the position and argument would have to be
> > : rethought - because nothing in the torah can contradict reason.
> > RMB
> > Actually, the statement is that the two could never contradict. Period.
> > The Kuzari and Rambam probably didn't entertain the possibility that
> > their shitos in Torah would need to be rethought. And if they did face
the
> > apparant contradiction, it can not be proven that they would reinterpret
> > the pasuq rather than question the philosophical grounds of using
science
> > to understand origins.
>
>
> 1) The rambam and kuzari are different.  Without going again into our
debate
> on the meaning of that phrase in MN, as a general rule the rambam believed
> that truth from torah and philosophy coincided - but that torah expressed
> its truths allegorically.  He is explicitly aware and states elsewhere
that
> his allegorical interpretation doesnot come from a specific tradition
about
> a verse or an issue - but that the two sources of truth  need to be
> reconciled.  We can argue about the limits of this reinterpretation - but
he
> is quite explicit that issues of time don't bother him....
>
> The kuzari isn't as clear, but I think is somewhat stronger than RMB
states
> - he says that if the  king  had stronger proofs  for the  age of the
world
> being  ~5000 years than merely  Indian traditions,  which  were dismissed
> as  more  mythological than  historical,  then  he would have to  give  a
> different  answer.
>
> It is also in the Kuzari that he explicitly accepts a position that matter
> is eternal as being acceptable (not that it is his position or what he
> considers to be true - but that it is an acceptable position for a
ma'amin)
>
> However, the kuzari was brought in for a different reason - not for the
> issue of explicit allowing of reinterpretation - but that his statements
> about the pshat meaning occur within an explicit  framework of accepting
the
> intrinsic compatibility of torah and reason - and that that compatibility
is
> one that is an intrinsic part of torah beliefs..  For those of us who
accept
> an ancient universe as scientifically and rationally proven - the choice
is
> between accepting the pshat statements of the kuzari about a particular
> statement, or accepting the framework in which they were said - the two
are
> now incompatible.
>
> Therefore, while I can't prove what the kuzari's position would be today,
> the use of the kuzari (or any of the other rishonim or statements of hazal
> brought down which suggest a pshat understanding is problematic evidence
for
> this discussion - because they are all made in the framework where that
> understanding is viewed as compatible with reason. Therefore, the question
> is what their position would be if it was now viewed as incompatible with
> reason - as many of us do.
>
> Meir Shinnar
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/7
9cdcf85/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 21:23:31 +0200
> From: "Yisrael Medad" <yisrael.medad@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Agag
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Message-ID:
> <6f06ff2b0610071223i7c6e75s10ed1c5de0df6b68@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> For Agag impregnating a slave-girl see:
>  Torah Shleima Esther 3:1; Megiilah 13A; Yalkut Shimoni, B'shelach, Item
> 268; Yalkut Mei'Am Loez Shmuel I, p. 188; Daat Mikra Esther 3:1, note 6
>
>
> --
> Yisrael Medad
> Shiloh
> Mobile Post Efraim 44830
> Israel
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061007/a
f9c0c1a/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:35:46 +0200
> From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur
> To: <Avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <200610080935.k989Z5US021220@smtp4.actcom.co.il>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
>    >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur
>    >To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
>    >Message-ID: <20061005015537.19690.qmail@web36702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >--- Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine@stevens.edu> wrote:
>    >
>    >> Many have the custom of making Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom
>    >> Kippur
>    >> right after Maariv. However, this means that the wives of the men
>    >> making Kiddush Levanah have to wait longer before they can break
>    >> their fast, because they have to wait for their husbands to return
>    >> home and make Havdalah before they can eat. Is it really proper to
>    >> perform this mitzvah at the "expense" of others who may well be
>    >> feeling weak from fasting?
>    >
>    >This practice is Halachicly incorrect. One is supposed to eat before
>    >making Kiddush Levana. It is only out of expedience that many shuls
>    >do so. In my son's Shul in Ramat Bet Shemesh everyone goes home to
>    >make Havdlaha and eat immediately after the Maariv and return later
>    >at a pre-determiend time to do Kiddush Levanah.
>
> This practice would seem to ignore the heter of the MB (426:11 see shaar
hatziyoon) that one is not required to eat before KL on MYK, because of the
simcha of mchilas avonos. This is unlike Tisha beav where the practise is
widespread to do as above.
>
> Akiva
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:33:32 +1000
> From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Missing Rambam. Help!
> To: "avodah" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <032901c6eade$6bc63930$427131d2@sbaws1nnv993q7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Over YT someone pointed out to me Rambam,
> Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek 7.
> Halacha # 8 is missing.
>
> It seems to be known by some, who have attached to it
> some chassidish urban legend, which, IMHO, is too ridiculous to repeat.
>
> But can anyone shed any light on this? Is it the work of a censor?
> What about earlier editions and those in Yemen etc?
>
> SBA
> sba@sba2.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:01:28 +0200
> From: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE; Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos
> To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> <580f9f600610071101r40b3bbb1h8a65130dff089c96@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/6/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > So you do see why I would consider it. Once one says that Shabbas
> > haMalkah can serve, why not the Ushpizin? What sevara would distinguish
> > one from the other?
>
> We know that Shabbat is present. We invite the ushpizin, but we have
> no guarantee that they accept the invitation: the Zohar explicitly
> says that if one isn't machnis (physical) orechim, the ushpizin refuse
> to come (Emor 103a).
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 01:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] 12 Step Programs
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <20061009082034.49915.qmail@web36707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
> --- Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I am exceedingly leery of the 12 steps, although I appreciate
> > that
> > Rabbi Dr Twerski has no doubt helped many using them.
>
>
> I do not understand all this handwringing about the 12 step program.
> Why are we darshaning certain steps? This program is not meant as a
> primer on Torah Hashkafa. It is meant as a means to overcome an
> addiction.
>
> As such the twelve steps make emminent sense. Trying to say that this
> or that step is not in concert with Torah Hashkafa is way besides the
> point and counterproductive. Besides these steps are not counter to
> Torah Hashkafa if understood properly.
>
> For example, the first step: "We admitted we were powerless over our
> addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable" ...does not mean
> we do not believe in Bechira Chafshis. Of course we do. It is simply
> an acknowledgement that we have become so addicted to a beahvior
> pattern that it has overcome our natural ability to control it. It is
> a matter of admitting the diminution of will power on this particualr
> act. Of course we know in theory that we can at a moment's notice
> change the behavior... that we have Bechira... but our psychological
> state is very weak and therefore  makes the pratical application of
> Bechira Chafshis seem impossible.
>
> I applaud Rabbi Twerski's efforts and successful use of the twelve
> step program. I don't think it is wise to do an Halachic or Hashkafic
> analysis of it. For those who use it successfully, such discussions
> can only be damaging.
>
> HM
>
>
> Want Emes and Emunah in your life?
>
> Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:25:45 +0200
> From: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Missing Rambam. Help!
> To: SBA <sba@sba2.com>, "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group"
> <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> <580f9f600610090025j680d9a75p1c5f137ed9978591@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/8/06, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> > Over YT someone pointed out to me Rambam,
> > Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek 7.
> > Halacha # 8 is missing.
> >
> > It seems to be known by some, who have attached to it
> > some chassidish urban legend, which, IMHO, is too ridiculous to repeat.
> >
> > But can anyone shed any light on this? Is it the work of a censor?
> > What about earlier editions and those in Yemen etc?
>
> http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1307.htm has the text from Yemenite
> manuscripts, and in this chapter also has the numbering from the
> printed editions in square brackets. AFAICT the difference is only in
> the numbering, and the text is the same.
>
> By the way, see http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3130.htm halacha 15 for a
> case where the censors made nonsense of the text. The original is
> "mehhallel shabbat beferhesia harei hu ke'oved avoda zara, ushneihem
> kegoyim". In the printed edition this becomes "...harei hu ke`akum
> ushneihem ke`akum.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
> End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6
> ************************************
>




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Shalom Carmy" <carmy@yu.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:12:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] Rishonim on faith and reason


My own orientation on science and religion questions is fairly well
known (see recent short articles in Tradition and in YU
Commentator). In a word, I don't think one needs to be much troubled
by supposed conflicts between literal readings of Breshit-as-science
and modern science.

Regarding evolution, cosmology and similar questions, however, the
fact that Rambam, Halevi and other rishonim were willing to revise
their understanding of Torah to avoid contradicting reason does not
entail that they would automatically capitulate to evolution. That
is because their conception of rational proof was more rigid than
our ideas of what is scientifically beyond reasonable doubt.

For a modern example of this high hurdle for proof, see my
discussion of R. Kook in "Rabbi AI Kook & Jewish Spirituality" ed.
Shatz and Kaplan.







Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:30:30 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] 12 steps


This interesting discussion reminds me that many, many years ago I
started to put together a shiur comparing and contrasting R' Moshe's
tshuva on smoking "regular" cigarettes(Y"D 2:49) and marijuana (Y"D
3:35).

Are there any tshuvot on drinking as an addiction? I'd think it
difficult because we'd be hard pressed to say that one can't  drink
liquor (especially 4 kosot) at all yet isn't this what is recommended
for those who are addicted?

GT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/00a59b02/attachment.html


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:51:24 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Rambam on corporality



R' David Riceman wrote

I think this misstates the Rambam's opinion.  What the masses 
misunderstand is the nature of existence, not the nature of God; they 
predicate existence only of physical things (not, for example, of the 
British constitution). Incidentally, it's not only the masses: Boswell 
reports that Dr. Johnson shared this misapprehension.

Even the philosophically sophisticated don't understand what it means 
for God to exist, since existence predicated of God is wholly different 
than existence predicated of anything else (MN I:35,57).  As a result, 
while the Bible uses imprecise language to describe God's existence, 
there is no precise language available.

The Bible tries to correct people's misapprehensions about God but not 
their misapprehensions about the nature of existence.  The Bible uses 
some phrases indicating that God is not physical ("v'el mi t'damyuni 
v'eshveh", MN I:55). Even someone who is philosophically naive should 
realize that there is a way to harmonize those verses with the ones 
which seem to attribute corporeality to God's existence.  Thinking of 
God's existence as a positive attribute is a mistake but not a heretical 
one (MN I:51).


R' david guttmann wrote:
> May I suggest an alternate solution:
>
> Rambam in 1:35 writes that even children have to be taught that G-d is not
> corporeal. He also says further that attributes may be taken literally. In
> 1:26 R. Eidensohn quoted : "thus that which is neither a body nor existent
> in a body does not exist in their opinion." I read it as people can accept
> either one of the two. Isn't "nor existent in a body" attributes? R.Kafah
> indeed translates "Ulefichoch Toaruhu betoarim hamorim al gashmus". So
> people may and can accept "attributes indicating corporeality" but may not
> accept corporeality itself. I think that in 1:35 Rambam makes it quite clear
> that even the simple may not accept corporeality as he enumerates a
> comprhensive list: children,women, stupid ones,and those of deffective
> natural disposition. 
>
> Thus because everyone must be taught that G-d is not coropreal, for them to
> accept that he exists they may be taught attributes that point to
> corporeality. 
>   
You are suggesting a level of sophistication - distinction between 
corporal attributes versus corporal existence - which the Rambam makes 
no mention of in 1:26. A distinction which is beyond the comprehension 
of the masses - as the Rambam clearly state there. There is no question 
that the Rambam states in Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 that anthropomorphisms 
are metaphors. There is no question that the Rambam states elsewhere in 
Moreh Nevuchim that one must educate people away from belief in 
corporality. But he gives no indication in 1:26 that when the Torah uses 
anthropomorphic descriptions it is so that the masses will understanding 
they are metaphors.

The chidush is that he says that the Torah itself speaks in 
anthropomorophic terms because the masses can't accepted G-d's existence 
otherwise. His point is reflective of the difficulty in understanding 
the abstract non-corporal understanding of Yiddishkeit. The Meshech 
Chochma - while agreeing with the problem - offers an alternative solution.

*Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21):* It is said about the Jews that they 
are believers the descendants of believers (Shabbos 97a). However Taanis 
(5b) notes that we find that non?Jews have stronger religious beliefs 
than Jews even when their religion is utter nonsense, ?The Kittites 
worship fire and the Kedarites worship water, and even though they know 
that water can put out fire they have yet not changed their gods but My 
people hath changed their G?d for that which doth not profit.? And even 
if you want to answer that the faith that is being praised, is believing 
in things that will happen in the future such as the resurrection of the 
dead?non?Jews also have strong faith in events that will happen in the 
future. To explain the distinction between Jewish and non?Jewish faith, 
one must note that the appreciation of things such as love, beauty and 
power are all inherent in a person. The ancient peoples sanctified all 
these natural powers and placed high value on them and described them as 
resulting from specific gods. Thus they had a god of beauty, a god of 
power and a god of love as is well known. A person who personified one 
of these natural attributes was described as a godly person. Even today, 
the peoples of the world make images and sanctify these 
tangible?directly experienced characteristics. Even the Moslems have 
sanctified the grave of their savior in Mecca and done other things. 
Consequently, we see that the emotions and senses directly support their 
faith which is built upon experience and imagery. Thus, non?Jewish 
religious faith is essentially just an extension of natural emotion. 
However, that is not how G?d conceives religious faith?. In fact, all 
tangible existence is totally separate from the one Creator. *All this 
is such pure abstract intellectual awareness that Chovas HaLevavos (1:2 
Shaar HaYichud) asserts that true service of G?d is for either the 
philosopher or prophet*. Nevertheless, all Jews?even without reaching 
the levels of prophets or even philosophers?truly believe in these pure 
abstract thoughts of His existence and His unity and they scoff at all 
that which is entirely based upon natural emotional experience. They 
understand that faith based entirely on innate human feelings and 
thoughts is worthless and transient representing only conjecture?G?d in 
the image of man. This is why Chazal state, ?How did the Jews merit to 
recite the Shema which extols the unitary of G?d? Because they were 
descendants of Abraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov.? Because of this knowledge 
gained from their forefathers?Jews understand this profound abstract 
philosophical issue and scorn emotion based faith. How did G?d ensure 
that Jews would continue to believe in this abstract unity and prevent 
the Jews from being confused and misled by their emotions? The answer is 
that He greatly multiplied intellectual abstract Torah both in the 
Written Torah and the Oral Torah. This was part of a two?part program. 
Firstly to train the intellectual powers and strengthen them so that 
they would overcome the power of fantasy and imagination. Secondly, to 
deal directly with the misdirection produced by the untrained emotions, 
He gave them mitzvos which worked against harmful feelings and 
strengthened and sanctified positive feelings. For example, the natural 
power of love was directed to love of fellow man, family and society. 
The natural power of vengeance was used against the enemies of G?d. The 
natural aspect of kindness of channeled into doing things for other 
people. The appeal of the esthetic was directed to in a controlled 
fashion towards specific mitzvos such as esrog and which were time bound 
to holidays. By losing their significance with the passing of the 
holiday, it taught that beauty is not an end in itself but only the 
means of serving G?d.

I don't think your alternative is relevant for the masses and my 
original question remains.

Daniel Eidensohn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/34fadf9b/attachment.htm

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7
************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >