Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 219

Tue, 09 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: literalism (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: heter mechira produce - d'rabanan (saul mashbaum)
• 3. Don't Blow Out the Candles and Make a Wish (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Rationalism and Mysticism (R Wolberg)
• 5. Re: Don't Blow Out the Candles and Make a Wish (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: Noach "Oppression Of One's Fellowman Is The Worst Sin" (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: mechitza (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Don't Blow Out the Candles and Make a Wish (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Shir HaMaalos Mimaamakim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: literalism (Richard Wolpoe)

On 10/8/07, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> RRW wrote:
>
> >>
> Hazal were rarely highly literal.  Applying highly literal standards are
> mis-leading and often can lead to mis-perceptions of what is meant.  Often
> the Gmara itself reformulates statemnts wti h"hachi Ko'amar...
> >>
>
> . However, when judiciously applied, RRW's priciple about literalness is
> sound. Too bad it's so difficult to determine when the principle applies.
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>

There is no simple rule but the more one learns the more likely one applies
this correctly .

The idea of not being highly literal is elaboratd by R. Avraham ben Rambam's
intro to Aggadah.

The literary style of that era was to often speak in meataphors or
hyperboles
EG: Adam rotze bekav sehlo miti'sha kabbim shel haveiro. there the Talmud
tells us it is a guzma b'alma.

Remember, that seeing things as not literal is NOT meant to  deny the
underlying TRUH behind the statement. Rather  it poisnt ot a style of
getting how one gets a  point  across.

Di Yehsay literally  mean [ ch. 1 haftora of Hazzon]   that we were as S'dom
and A'morah?  OR were they metpahors alluding to the kind of evil behavior
and he was  using hyperbole?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/ffc4c7d6/attachment-0001.htm 

RRWolpoe has posited several times that there are levels of strictness of d'rabbanans, based largely, but not exclusively, on closeness to some d'oraita, or lack thereof. 
This thesis is confirmed in the 6th chapter of R. Tzvi (Herschel) Schacter's Eretz HaTzvi. The perek discusses this concept in regards to the issurim d'rabbanan of Shabbat. 
Briefly, there are two categories of  issurim d'rebbanan of Shabbat: m'lachot d'rabbanan, and gzeirot. Muktza, refua, mekach umemkar, and amira l'nochri, among other things, are in the latter caregory. 
For the most part, the g'zeirot  are not as stringent as the m'lachot d'rabbanan. For example, they are permitted for a chole shein bo sakana, while the m'lachot d'rabbanan are forbidden in this case lacking some further cause for leniency such as shvut d'shvut.
In one respect the g'zeirot are more stringent than the m'lachot d'rabbanan: the latter require some action to be done, while the former can be violated even b'sheiv v'al taase (several examples are given, among them sh'hiyaa and hachzara). 
There is eveidence that even within the g'zeirot there are differing levels of stringency, ayen sham.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/60450cbb/attachment-0001.html 

The following is an excerpt from the article "Segulot, Superstitions, 
& Darchei Emori" that appears on pages 63 - 75 of the Fall 2007 
(Number LIV) issue of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.

Finally, we have the truly pagan superstitions. The classic example 
of this is blowing out candles at a birthday party and making a wish. 
To fully appreciate this we must consider the source of this custom.

In Greek times, people on their birthday would try to find favor in 
the eyes of the moon goddess, Artemis. [49]  In an attempt to do so, 
they would make round cakes (to symbolize the full moon) and light 
candles on top (to symbolize the light of the moon.) They would then 
ask the moon goddess to grant their requests.

ln light of that, telling the birthday boy or girl to blow out the 
candles and "make a wish" seems problematic. In fact, one could ask 
about the permissibility of the candles being there at all! This, 
however, is permitted. The Maharik, quoted by Darchei Moshe (179:1), 
states that the violation of following in
the paths of the Gentiles applies only when there is no rational 
reason for doing something other than to be similar to the Gentiles. 
This would not apply to candles, as they make the birthday cake more 
exciting, and children appreciate the fact that there is one candle 
there for each of their years. Round cakes as well are the normal 
shape of most icing-type cakes, and are not made intentionally round 
for birthdays.


[49.]  Gibbons, Happy Birthday, (New York, 1986). Others disagree 
with this, but by almost all accounts, it is a tradition based on idolatry.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/9aca8c81/attachment-0001.htm 

For me, the definition of mysticism is the belief in the existence of a
state of reality hidden from ordinary human understanding coupled to
phenomenon that far exceed coincidence.

 

A perfect example: First posuk of the Torah: "Bereshis bara..." etc. has 7
words and twenty-eight letters.   "Y'hei sh'mei rabba..." etc. has 7 words
and twenty-eight letters.  And finally: the posuk immediately prior to the
Aseret Hadibrot (Shmos 20:1): "Vay'daber Elohim es kol had'vorim ha'eyleh
leimor" has 7 words and twenty-eight letters.  What's the kesher between the
3 sentences above: 

 

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The foundational
purpose of creation is "Y'hei sh'mei rabba..." and the way that can be
effected is "Vay'daber Elohim es kol had'vorim ha'eyleh leimor".

 

It certainly can be argued that the above conceptually is not mysticism.
However, the chazaka of 7 words and twenty-letters for the three independent
verses is a bit harder to summarily dismiss as not being mysticism. 

 

ri  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/0b84b41b/attachment.html 

R' YL:
The following is an excerpt from the article "Segulot, Superstitions, &
Darchei Emori" that appears on pages 63 - 75 of the Fall 2007 (Number LIV)
issue of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.

Finally, we have the truly pagan superstitions. The classic example of this
is blowing out candles at a birthday party and making a wish. To fully
appreciate this we must consider the source of this custom.

In Greek times, people on their birthday would try to find favor in the eyes
of the moon goddess, Artemis. [49]? In an attempt to do so, they would make
round cakes (to symbolize the full moon) and light candles on top (to
symbolize the light of the moon.) They would then ask the moon goddess to
grant their requests.

ln light of that, telling the birthday boy or girl to blow out the candles
and "make a wish" seems problematic. 
<SNIP>



Can something like this be Assur when the original meaning of the action has
been lost over the years? I would think that it becomes an action
independent of previous connotations. For arguments sake, assume the
opposite: In Greek times, people blew Birthday candles out because they
would attract flies, spoiling the atmosphere of the moment (a purely
practical, and thus permitted, action). Today, people blow out candles
because of the Buddhist belief in reincarnation - blowing out the candles
releases the trapped souls of one's ancestors from their karmic purgatory.
In such a case, the action should clearly be prohibited, although it was
originally intended for an innocuous purpose.

I was at the florist this Erev Shabbos, and noticed one of the florists
making a flower arrangement in a cornucopia. I wondered if she knew about
the mythological connection to Zeus (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopia) - she did not. Would the author of
the above article have prohibited that flower arrangement?

KT,
MYG

Cantor Wolberg posted many examples to illustrate the idea summarized in this thread's title.

R' Micha Berger commented:
> It's not like lo sa'ashoq is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.

Indeed, it is both difficult and dangerous to try to divine which sin is worse, by comparing their punishments, or by seeing which one is "yeihareig ve'al ya'avor". Using such crude tools, one might easily come to the wrong conclusion.

My favorite example is one in which the Chofetz Chaim held (for a particular individual in a particular situation) kashrus to be more important than Shabbos. For more details, see my post in the Mail-Jewish thread titled "Big Mitzvah", at http://ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v40/mj_v40i14.html#CDX

Disclaimer: This post is not intended to dispute Cantor Wolberg's post. In fact, I'd like to offer another example that he might have included: Churban Habayis from such a "minor" thing as not giving enough respect to each other.

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Until the 19th cent, it was assumed that since women aren't
> mechuyavos in meshiyas Amaleiq, they weren't mechuyavos in
> Parashas Zachor either. ... The earliest clear pesaq lemaaseh
> requiring women to attend Zachor is shu"t Binyan Tziyon by ...

Can someone please help me understand how halacha can change so radically?

I can understand how, over time, View A might shift from being held by only 5% of Am Yisrael to 95%, while View B becomes less popular, shifting from 95% popularity to 5%. This can happen when a person who was a mere talmid of a View A community when he was young, became a major teacher later on.

That's how I understand the shifts between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, or the shift from Shabbos starting when it gets dark to Shabbos starting when the sun goes below the horizon. In these cases, the different views were *both* pre-existing, only their popularity shifted.

But I get the feeling that this is not what happened in the case of Parshas Zachor For Women. I get the feeling that for millenia women were simply presumed to be exempt from this mitzvah, and then, relatively suddenly, someone came to a different conclusion, and out of the blue, this came to be a widely-held view.

How did people of the Binyan Tziyon's time view this? I don't doubt the forceful and compelling nature of his halachic reasoning, but surely there must have been some people who said, "That can't be right, because if it is right, then our mothers and grandmothers, for millenia, were mevatel a Mitzvas Aseh D'Oraisa."

I hope someone will tell me that, actually, there was a small minority of women who did hear Parshas Zachor all along, and the Binyan Tziyon (or someone else) merely popularized that view.

Akiva Miller

On 10/8/07, Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:
>
>  The following is an excerpt from the article *"Segulot, Superstitions, &
> Darchei Emori" *that appears on pages 63 - 75 of the Fall 2007 (Number
> LIV) issue of *The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society*.
>
> Finally, we have the truly pagan superstitions. The classic example of
> this is blowing out candles at a birthday party and making a wish. To fully
> appreciate this we must consider the source of this custom.
>
>
Given a cheifetz of Avodah Zoro can be nullified by a goy [bittul]
lI wonder nowadays that since many of these sueprpsitions that USED TO BE AZ
have the status of being Batel because they have been secularized -
therefore no issur is hal anymore.

I would speuclate the same MAY be true for Halloween which has pagan/Xtian
origins but is has really evolved into a secualr Purim style masquerade for
most people.

But even if it is teachnically muttar, I concede it is certainly no mitzva
to imitate this stuff.  The question might then devolve to mutav sheyioyu
shoggegim.....



-
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/1d8be181/attachment.htm 

On 10/8/07, Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  <<  >1) Isn't saying Shir HaMaalos MiMamakim a hefsek between Yishtabach
> and
> Borchu?
>
>
> The Aroch Hashulchan defends the custom of saying it after yishtabach on
> the basis that it is l'tzorech hatefillah and no worse than other
> mitzva-related interruptions which the Rema permits at that point.  Jeckes,
> of course, do not say it...
>
> As I posted before, Rema permits a public request for a hearing in fornt
of Beis din at this point. So that is aiui the pesach for this concept

I still like the Jecke position of not saying it.  OTOH it does make a
dramatic point.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071008/3f749131/attachment.html 

On 10/8/07, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> RRW wrote:
>
> >>
> Hazal were rarely highly literal.  Applying highly literal standards are
> mis-leading and often can lead to mis-perceptions of what is meant.  Often
> the Gmara itself reformulates statemnts wti h"hachi Ko'amar...
> >>
>
> I am in considerable sympathy with the above position, although it is
> somewhat overstated; I would have said *at most* "Hazal were often not
> highly literal", and in fact prefer "Hazal were sometimes not highly
> literal". The question of the literalness of a given Talmudic statement is
> of course a complex one, which one may decide from the specific context,
> and by comparison to other texts and principles. One needs a *very* good
> proof to be able to say that a given statement is not to be taken literally.
> We would be be throwing the baby out with the bath water if we were to
> state, without proof, about any given Talmudic statement "It is not meant to
> be taken literally". However, when judiciously applied, RRW's priciple about
> literalness is sound. Too bad it's so difficult to determine when the
> principle applies.
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>

Let me rephrase it.
Hazal are often to be taken literally but rarely HIGHLY literally.
Even when Hazal are telling you something straight, it can be misleading to
take it TOO stiaight.

Example,

> OR l'arba'a asar "bokdim es hechametz"
> An overly literal position would mean
> On the eve of the 14th we inspect the Chametz.  This begs the qeustion
> what are you inspeccting the chametz for? To find bugs? The meforshim say,
> on the eve of the 14th we search [the house] FOR chametz. but if we were
> reading it "highly literal" we would get a mis-leading halachah.
>

Example 2:

> V'tzivanu al netillat Lulav
> That might be taken literally at one level but if taken HIGHLY literally
> we MIGHT presume that a lulav w/i the other 3 minnim triggers a bracha.  of
> course, that is not so. Thus, we should not see LULAV in this context as
> highly literal Lulav but Lulav among the 4 minim.


Example 3:

> As pointed out before lo sochal al hadam is a d'orraisso taht tells us NOT
> to eat before davening. Problem: Davening is NOT a d'orraisso and even the
> Rambam who holds it IS has not set time for davening mi'doraisso.  Taking
> this mitzva highly literally as applying to davening is a bit mis-leading.
> But that does not take away from teh fact thatythe Torah may indeed be
> suggesting something that applies to a derabbanan in 1 instance.


Example 4:

> Ein bein implies there is ZERO difference except what is listed. As is the
> case in many of the items on this list, the  differences listed are NOT
> exhaustive.



Most of us realize that these statements were never meant to be taken THAT
literally in the first place. However, to a person from Mars looking from
the outside the FIRST premise is to tell him that Hazal are rarely HIGHLY
literal. I'll stick with that terminology


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/2d2ff1df/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 219
***************************************

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..."