Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 8

Tue, 10 Oct 2006

• 1. Chazarta Hashas. (Harry Weiss)
• 2. Re: ushpizin as Panim Chadashot (Sarah Green)
• 3. Re: ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Rambam on corporeality (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Panim Chadoshos - Ushpizin (Dubin Avrohom (Abe) P)
• 8. Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Kohn, Shalom)
• 9. Re: 12 steps (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Chazarta Hashas. (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Rambam on corporality (David Riceman)

> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
>
> On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
> : Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during
> chazarat
> : hashatz?
>
> ====================
> Yes, but I've been asked for written sources (versus mpi hashmua or
> "that's what R' X does")

Look at Igros Moshe, Orech Chaim Chelek Daled, Siman Yud Tes.

I am under the impression that Yom tov counts as Panim Chadashot.  Once you've passed that first Yom Tov meal, if the Ushpizin were coming, they came, so it seems that they won't be new for the next meal.

 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/934a856c/attachment.htm

 
 
From:  "Cantor Wolberg" _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ 
(mailto:cantorwolberg@cox.net) 

>>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". 
 <<





>>>>>
In Eliyahu Kitov's Sefer Haparshios he says that the letters beis and lamed  
-- "bal" -- suggest that a person must be an anav in order to accept the 
Torah,  self-negating.  You need both lev and bal -- lev he defines as a desire for 
 emes, and bal as humility.


--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/15f57221/attachment-0001.html

Silverman, Philip B wrote:
> I was wondering where Rabbi Akiva Tatz's position (as described in
> his book WorldMask) fits into all this.
>
> If I understand R' Tatz correctly, he takes the expressions "God's
> hand" and "God's eyes" literally. If there's any metaphor going on,
> it is we humans who have the metaphoric hand and eyes. (Extending
> this thought, I suppose the whole universe would be, in a sense, a
> metaphor.) At the same time, he believes firmly that God is
> completely incorporeal, and that He is absolutely One. I believe he
> holds that the seeming contradiction is above humans to comprehend.
> I don't fully understand this position (and don't know how 'kosher'
> it is), but I was wondering something. Perhaps the "sages (the
> Raavad refers to) who are greater and better than the Rambam who
> hold this ... view" believed not that God was corporeal in any way,
> but rather, believed in the way R' Tatz writes about.
>
> Maybe what I'm doing is trying to defend the honor of these unknown
> sages against the charge of believing in a corporeal God, but my
> main goal is to figure out whether R' Tatz's position is the one the
> Raavad was actually referring to as being mistaken.
>   
Rabbi Tatz is presenting the kabbalistic view that everything is a 
manifestation of some non-physical spiritual reality. Thus our
physical hands correspond in some way to a non-physical spiritual hand. This
is not the view of the Rambam at all. The Ravaad is generally
understood as agreeing with the Rambam that corporality is wrong - but they simply 
disagree as to whether a sincerely observant Jew who takes the 
expressions in the Bible and medrashim literaly is a heretic.

Daniel Eidensohn

 

RSM:
> >>. Are you in doubt as to whether the   Ushpizin count for a  minyan? A
> mezuman? <<
 
TK: 

>> If you have nine men at a bris do you not count  Eliyahu Hanavi as the
tenth?<<
 
.
After I wrote the above, a distinguished member (call him DM)  of this august 
body informed me off-list that a minyan is not required  for a bris at all, 
but I recalled that we did not have a minyan at our  son's bris -- we had nine 
men --and someone said, "It's OK, Eliyahu Hanavi makes  it ten."  To my query 
as to why it would matter, RDM  replied:




>>AFAIK, the only need for a minyan is for bentching. I don't  
think the Nodeh L'shimcha is sid without one.<<
 
I then asked him, 
 

<So re bentshing -- can you add the Nodeh L'shimcha to the bentshing  
if you have nine men and Eliyahu Hanavi?>
 
And RDM said, 

>>Only if the ushpizin in the sukkah  count.  In other words, no.<<

--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061010/71d2341e/attachment.htm

"lev he defines as a desire for emes, and bal as humility"

That's a beautiful vort, except for the fact that I think viewing "bal" as humility is reaching. 
Putting Lev and Bal together in my way of thinking would be a negative concept. I'd much prefer Lev Tov, as opposed to "heart trouble." 
Also, I see Lev as more a desire for compassion and it seems to me that an "anav" would be more a desire for emes.
Even the esrog which resembles the heart (lev) would symbolize humility, and that is not "bal" by any stretch of the imagination. 
ri
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: T613K@aol.com 
  To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org ; cantorwolberg@cox.net 
  Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE 


    From: "Cantor Wolberg" cantorwolberg@cox.net

    >>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". <<


  >>>>>
  In Eliyahu Kitov's Sefer Haparshios he says that the letters beis and lamed -- "bal" -- suggest that a person must be an anav in order to accept the Torah, self-negating.  You need both lev and bal -- lev he defines as a desire for emes, and bal as humility.


  --Toby Katz
  =============


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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/fa15431d/attachment-0001.html

The Panim Chadoshos of Shabbos is not the Shabbos itself. Rather the people attending the Sheva Brochos have a different Panim than they had on Thursday night. As Chazal say regarding the brocha of Shabbos - Barcho Bmeor Panav shel Adam. It is the people who are different, or should be different on Shabbos. Since they are not the same people that they were before Shabbos, they - the people - qualify as Panim Chadoshos.
 
The reason why you don't need Panim Chadoshos on Shabbos morning is generally assumed to be based on an Arizal who says that an extra measure of Neshama Yeseira comes to a person who says Nishmas properly. Again, it is the person's extra neshama that qualifies.
 
Shabbos as a concept is not Panim Chadoshos. Neither are the Ushpizin.

________________________________

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061010/37f6bb74/attachment-0001.htm

 Recent posts dealt with whether Uzhpizin would serve as panim chadashot
for sheva brachot, as does Shabbat.

As I posted some time ago (probably on a different list) on the subject
of "why not ushpizot," these questions miss the point about the Ushpizin
(in my view).

Bi-kituzur nimratz:

The Sukkah represents tzelta d'mehaminusa, reminiscent of the clouds of
glory in the desert.  Sitting in the sukah, therefore, we welcome the
shechinia.  There are seven aspects (sefirot) of the schechina,
corresponding to the midot of chesed, gevura (pachad), tiferet, etc.
Each of these aspects corresponds to the avot and other leaders (Moshe,
Aharon etc.)  E.g. Avraham is chesed, etc.  (There is some dispute as to
some of these correspondences.)  Thus, when we welcome the Uzhpizin, we
are welcoming the shechina, and each day focusing on another aspect of
the shechina as we use the entire chag to rise in our spiritual growth
as we go through the sefirot.  That is also why we mention one name each
day, but say we welcome you together with the other six names, because
the shechina in its entirely is present each day, although the daily
focus is on one aspect.

No, I did not see this anywhere (although I once say another poster say
the same thing), but it is an idea which as I recall I originally
discerned within the language of the Zohar (source not now available to
me).  Moreover, I've never heard an alternative satisfactory explanation
for ushpizin.

Doubtless the kabalists on the list can lend additional detail.

On a related subject, there is another deep explanation between the
cloud motif of Sukkot and timing of simchat beis ha'shoeva, which
involved an attempt to discern the shechina at simchat beis hashoeva
(sho-avim mi-ruach hakodesh), following immediately after the "cloud" on
the kaporet and the smoke in the kodesh ha-kodashim of yom kippur [my
drash for this sukkot], but time does not permit elaboration of this
idea in depth.

S.



Shalom L. Kohn 	

Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 10/10/06, 09:25:43:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

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

R' Joel Rich asked:
> 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?

Off the top of my head, I think this would be an excellend example of 
the Rambam's advice, that when when is trying to correct a bad midah, 
he should go to the opposite extreme for a while. Even though both 
extremes are normally to be avoided, this is a case where it is a 
necessary evil. And then, after a while, when he has broken himself 
of the bad midah, he can gradually ease up on himself, and end up at 
the golden mean.

In the case at hand (alcoholism) the individual may feel that this 
temporary measure might be needed for only a century or two. Such is 
the nature of shaas hadchak, some of which have been going on for 
even longer periods of time. Publication of Torah Sheb'al Peh is the 
only one that comes to mind right now, but others can probably think 
of even more relevant examples. Perhaps schooling for women might be 
in this category.

Akiva Miller

> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
>
> On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
> : Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during 
> chazarat
> : hashatz?
>
> ====================
> Yes, but I've been asked for written sources (versus mpi hashmua or 
> "that's what R' X does")

Look at Igros Moshe, Orech Chaim Chelek Daled, Siman Yud Tes.
===================================
Yes- In which he prohibits it - but differentiates between if 10 aren't
listening (there it's mdina) versus if 10 are listening(then can't do
since others may learn from you and not answer amen)

So again - any sources that say it is OK? If not, why do we see people
doing it and not being corrected?

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.

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

<I'm not sure whether this was directed to me or to RDG>
> I don't think your alternative is relevant for the masses and my
> original question remains.

I'll entirely rephrase what I wrote (without re-citing any sources). 
Consider the following syllogism:

MP:  Only something embodied exists.
mP:   God exists.
C:     God has a body.

We can analyze this logically or halachically.  The Rambam points out two 
logical flaws: the major premise is false, and the major and minor premise 
use the same word ("exists") to mean two different things.  Either flaw is 
enough to invalidate the syllogism.

The Rambam also points out, however, that the masses do not recognize either 
of these flaws.  They accept the major premise, and they believe that the 
word "exists" has the same meaning in both the major and minor premise.

Halachically the major premise is false but not heretical (accepting or 
rejecting it is of no halachic significance), the minor premise is true and 
is yesod hayesodoth v'amud hahachnoth (someone who rejects it is liable to 
summary extrajudicial execution - - moridin v'lo ma'alin), and the 
conclusion is heretical (someone who accepts it is liable to summary 
extrajudicial execution).

What's perturbing about this is that, for the Rambam (in mathematical 
lingo), heresy is not closed under deduction.  In plain English, premises 
which lead to heretical conclusions need not be heretical.

If I understood RDE's original question correctly, it was isn't the Torah 
teaching heresy? My answer was that the Torah is teaching the major premise, 
which is not heretical, and avoiding the logical conclusion (which is 
heretical) by fiat: "v'el mi tdamyuni ...."  RDE's objection to that, if I 
understand him correctly, is that the masses are not sophisticated enough to 
understand the distinction between a premise and a conclusion, so the Torah 
really is teaching them heresy.

What's wrong with that objection is that the sophistication of the masses is 
irrelevant.  The masses may be deducing heresy from the Torah, but the 
structure of the laws of heresy are such that the premises from which they 
make the deductions are not prohibited.

And it is that problem that the Rambam responds to with the idea of 
progressive education.  Why teach premises which could lead the unwary to 
heretical conclusions? Because they are the fastest way to even more 
important true conclusions.

David Riceman 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 8
************************************

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..."