Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 224

Thu, 11 Oct 2007

• 1. Parshas Zachor (Sholom Simon)
• 2. Re: literalism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. Re: literalism (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. mechitza [ (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. Re: literalism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Zman Sinchaseinu Redux - An interesting Rema (Sholom Simon)
• 8. A Little More Mysticism (Sholom Simon)
• 9. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: literalism (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Zman Sinchaseinu Redux - An interesting Rema (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Vayoel Moshe- misrepresntations (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Micha Berger)

At 06:22 PM 10/9/2007, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
>Not everyone agrees that the Halachah has changed - one Rav I know 
>is of the opinion that while meritorious, there is no Chiyuv for 
>women to hear Parashas Zachor, and  he thus refuses to allow the 
>Sefer Torah to be taken out on Shabbos afternoon for a second, 
>women's, reading.

If my notes are correct, RS"Mandel told me that not a single Rishon 
says women has to hear krias haTorah, even parshas zachor.

FWIW,

-- Sholom

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

[snip]

> When speaking of nevu'ah, nevu'ah is through chazon -- metaphor is the
> stock of trade. And when giving tokhachah, which nevi'im did more than

Rambam [0] maintains that due to the superior level of Moshe's
prophecy, it was literal and not through "moshol" as were those of all
other prophets,  which clearly implies that prophetic literalism is
superior to prophetic metaphor.

[0] Yesodei Ha'torah 7:6, available on-line here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1107.htm (para. 11 in their edition)

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:18:49PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:> When speaking of nevu'ah, nevu'ah is through chazon -- metaphor is the
:> stock of trade. And when giving tokhachah, which nevi'im did more than

: Rambam [0] maintains that due to the superior level of Moshe's
: prophecy, it was literal and not through "moshol" as were those of all
: other prophets,  which clearly implies that prophetic literalism is
: superior to prophetic metaphor.

Nu, and Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah isn't primarily tokhakhah. Halakhah and
metaphor don't mix well. Nor halakhah and guzma. Nevuah that is in images
has value -- when that's the best mode of xommunication; not when it's used
only because it's the most the navi can reached.

However, your deduction doesn't hold. We are discussing the nature of the
communication from navi to masses, not from HQBH to navi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On 10/10/07, RallisW@aol.com <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  Rabbi Burton Wax of Cong. Ezras Israel in Chicago:
>
> There are several problems with the Rema and with your analogies.
> First of all, there are three holidays referred to as  Atzeret.  One is to
> the seventh day of Pesach.  Another is Shavuot.
>

WADR this is a red-herring argument. The Rema is specifically referring to
Biblical Terminology; while Atzeret as referring to Shavuos appears NOWHERE
in Humash because it is of rabbincal usage only.



The third is Shmini Atzeret.  The first two are definitely in the category
> of CHAG.  So if nothing else, we have a gezera shava "atzeret - atzeret" to
> include Shmini Atzeret as a chag.
> Second, if you look in Parashat Pinchas, where all of the chaggim and
> their respective korbanot are listed, in the last item (Eighth Day...) it
> says:  Bayom Hashmini (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh lachem....
> Since this pasuk is part of the listing of all of the chaggim, obviously
> Atzeret is the name of this holiday of the eighth day.
> This is also why I believe that those who say Shmini Chaga Hatzeret Hazeh
> are more correct than those who say Shmini Atzeret HaChag Hazeh.
>




I don't deny that there are other valid reads
My points were simple and multi-faceted, to whit:

   1. Rema saw a pattern [aisi the terms were Tanach based NOT hazal
   based]
   2. He presumed that since Hag was absent from the Humash for this
   holiday that this absence was significant. [e.g. Dr. Yaakov Elman
   posits that Ramban sees Torah as "omisignificant"]
   3. I extrapolate from this as follows: even were we to reject the
   Rema's conclusion [as you did] you can still view his methodology as having
   merit. IOW that one can find patterns and use them to draw inferences w/o
   drawing that particular inference
   4. This logic is really akin to davar halameid mei'inyano.  I.E. it is
   a form of analysis by means of context.

Illustation: We accept that the lo Tignov in the aseres hadibros is striclty
in reference to gneivas nefashos by the method of davar halaeim mei-inyano
[see Rashi]

There are probably a billion XTIANS who are familiar with the 10
Commandments who would be flabbergasted to see Lo Tignov as so highly
restricted in scope!  Particularly when you consider the broaderr scope of
g'neiva within 7 mitzovs b'nei no'ach [inyona d'yoma]!  And Occums' Razor
logic would posit the broader read as more likley/logical.   Nevertheless,
this is valid Rabbinical technique.

Summary: The Rema's particular conclusions have indeed been called into
question. This does not necessarily invalidate the technique of analysis by
structure, context, or analogy.
-- 
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/20071010/f6cf5c01/attachment-0001.html 

From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>

<<See Rama OH 88:1>>

where it implies that certain times of year, such as yamim nora'im, many
women came to shul.
And the rest of the time?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:02:49 -0400
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:18:49PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> :> When speaking of nevu'ah, nevu'ah is through chazon -- metaphor is the
> :> stock of trade. And when giving tokhachah, which nevi'im did more than
> 
> : Rambam [0] maintains that due to the superior level of Moshe's
> : prophecy, it was literal and not through "moshol" as were those of all
> : other prophets,  which clearly implies that prophetic literalism is
> : superior to prophetic metaphor.
> 
> Nu, and Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah isn't primarily tokhakhah. Halakhah and
> metaphor don't mix well. Nor halakhah and guzma. Nevuah that is in images
> has value -- when that's the best mode of xommunication; not when it's used
> only because it's the most the navi can reached.

The Rambam obviously understands that the distinction between Moshe and
other prophets with regard to metaphor is due to the former's superior
prophetic level and not, as you seem to be suggesting, to the
difference in the natures of their respective messages. 

> However, your deduction doesn't hold. We are discussing the nature of the
> communication from navi to masses, not from HQBH to navi.

You wrote (above) "nevu'ah is through chazon"; did you mean that the
prophet's public rhetoric, as opposed to God's message to him, utilized
metaphor? Anyway, the Rambam seems to assume that the metaphors
mentioned in the prophecies occurred in the Divine messages themselves,
and were not introduced by the prophets as pedagogical or rhetorical
devices, so I don't understand what you mean.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

At 07:43 PM 10/9/2007, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
>There is a fasincating Rema [orach chaim 668:1] re:
>"es Yom HaShimni hag Ho'atzeres hazeh"

The Mechaber follows the Tur here...

>Rmea states this is NOT a hag at all! It reall should say:
>"es Yom HaShimni Ho'atzeres Hazeh"

Fascinating.  So Nusach Ashkenaz follow the Mechaber here?

While Sefardim say "Yom Chag Shemini Atzeres Hazeh"

And Nusach Sefard (Chassidishe) is "Yom Shemini Atzeres Hachag Hazeh"

I strongly recollect there is another well known halacha where the 
Ashkenaz follow the Mechaber and Sefardim follow the Rema, but I 
can't for the life of me remember it.  (I learned it from RS"Mandel . 
. . perhaps he's reading this and can recall???)

-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071010/ea576501/attachment-0001.htm 

>The gematria of lulav is 68 and is equivalent to the gematria of 
>chayim (life).  One symbol of the lulav (and esrog)

Tangent tidbit: see B"Y 651, at the very end, where he notes a minhag 
Ashkenaz to have 68 aravos with the lulav (because of this gematria), 
although some had 71 (68 + 3 for either the 3 Avos, or 3 for each of 
the other minim).  And yet the Rambam, and going back to R Saadya 
Gaon, they say that the max is 2 aravos, but unlimied hadasim.

-- Sholom

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 07:51:47PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: WADR this is a red-herring argument. The Rema is specifically referring to
: Biblical Terminology; while Atzeret as referring to Shavuos appears NOWHERE
: in Humash because it is of rabbincal usage only.
...
: My points were simple and multi-faceted, to whit:
:    1. Rema saw a pattern [aisi the terms were Tanach based NOT hazal
:    based]

Does this imply that there *might* well be a precedent for the
hypercorrection of the diqduq of Ashkenazi siddurim to leshon Tanakh?

...
: Illustation: We accept that the lo Tignov in the aseres hadibros is striclty
: in reference to gneivas nefashos by the method of davar halaeim mei-inyano
: [see Rashi]
...

That presumes that gezeiros are constructionist -- an opinion that might
have been the Rambam's, if anyone's, and even that isn't so clear.

But otherwise, we accept that lo signov is limited to geneivas nefashos
because that's the only way TBSK and the din via TSBP miSinai fit
together.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:18:25PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: > Nu, and Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah isn't primarily tokhakhah. Halakhah and
: > metaphor don't mix well. Nor halakhah and guzma. Nevuah that is in images
: > has value -- when that's the best mode of xommunication; not when it's used
: > only because it's the most the navi can reached.

: The Rambam obviously understands that the distinction between Moshe and
: other prophets with regard to metaphor is due to the former's superior
: prophetic level and not, as you seem to be suggesting, to the
: difference in the natures of their respective messages. 

The Rambam understand the difference to be possible because of their
different levels. A regular navi couldn't possibly receive halakhah,
because he couldn't "hear" from the RBSO the texts necessary for a
legal system.

IOW, you're conflating cause (Moshe's greater level) with purpose (qibel
Torah miSinai).

:> However, your deduction doesn't hold. We are discussing the nature of the
:> communication from navi to masses, not from HQBH to navi.

: You wrote (above) "nevu'ah is through chazon"; did you mean that the
: prophet's public rhetoric, as opposed to God's message to him, utilized
: metaphor? ...

The navi's receipt of the message was through metaphor, thus metaphor
became a staple of his existence, and therefore it is unsurprising to find
him utilize those same metaphors in describing the nevuah -- sometimes.
Sometimes the navi goes straight to the pisron. It wouldn't surprise me to
learn that sometimes the mashal of the nevu'ah only made sense in personal
context, and the navi in writing it down used a mashal more understandable
to others to make his point -- just as Chazal would have. But we won't
know until we can ask Eliyahu haNavi (bb"a!), or perhaps only each of
the nevi'im who actually wrote the particular sefarim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:33:32PM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote:
: Fascinating.  So Nusach Ashkenaz follow the Mechaber here?
: While Sefardim say "Yom Chag Shemini Atzeres Hazeh"
: And Nusach Sefard (Chassidishe) is "Yom Shemini Atzeres Hachag Hazeh"

: I strongly recollect there is another well known halacha where the 
: Ashkenaz follow the Mechaber and Sefardim follow the Rema, but I 
: can't for the life of me remember it...

Close: Ashkenazi sifrei Torah use Kesav BY, Sepharadim use Vellish,
Chassidim use BY as modified by notes based on the Ari. (Close in that
Vellish's very name implies some origin in Yiddish-speaking lands,
but not the Rama...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 12:44:15PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: This post opens a whole new realm of Halachic discussion i.e. the contrast
: between MINHAG and HUMRA

WADR, I think the word chumrah is used in three ways:

1- Minhag: A minhag that requires something about a din that is not
mandatory lehalakhah. As opposed to minhagim that aren't imbellishments
to particular dinim.

2- Pesaq: A pesaq that is more machmir than other pesaqim. But still is
halakhah -- for those who follow that poseiq.

3- Qabbalah: A qabbalah to do something lifnim mishuras hadin knowing
it's not obligated. RYGB once gave categories of kinds of such chumros:
miyir'as hacheit (eg Brisker chosheshim for rejected shitos), mei'ahavas
Hashem (it feels more right, more mistabeir to you personally), etc...

Not using the local eiruv is more often (but not always!) type three
than type two. Which is why so many couples are split on the issue --
he will take on the qabbalah, whereas she (who would be tied to the
house when there are babies in it) would not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:12:19AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: From: Dov Bloom < >
:> For anyone bothered or interested by seeming misrepresentations by the
:> Satmar Rebbe in VaYoel Moshe,  I would suggest they study HaTekufa HaGedola
:> by R Menachem Mendel Kasher...

...
:> Conclusion: Dont learn VM without HaTekufa HaGedola! 

: Farkert, don't learn HH without checking every single quote he brings from
: the VM - to see whether it is in context or is completely and shamelessly
: twisted and distorted as per above examples.
...

I don't expect this to be resolved. However, how does one answer the two
examples RDB gave in his original post?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:15:18PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: ROY believes that the whole world should use nussa'h 'edot
hamizra'h...

The whole world, or "just" EY and the Americas?

The way ROY understands minhag hamaqom, the BY and his generation fully
established it in EY as being that of Edot haMizrach. I would think --
as modified by Qabbalas haAri, but I don't see ROY say that.

Similarly, the first communities in the New World and the US?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:21:10 -0400 (in v23n206) R Richard Wolpoe
<rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
: While Rambam's higher metaphysical plane is - aiui - essentially
: intellectual over emotional, he nevertheless DOES advocate a bridging of
: that gap by demanding that we KNOW God - which is after all the Kafich
: emendation to the earlier translation of BELIEVING in God.  Knowing God is
: of course not Carnal - it is spirital/intellecutal and is  equivalent- aisi
: - to Gnosis.

Gnosis is experiencing G-d. Knowing G-d the way one knows one's best
friend.

The Rambam writes about knowing as much about G-d as possible. Knowing
G-d the way one knows Geometry -- with solid proofs. But as ideas,
not a first-hand experience of the Divine.

Frankly, the way I read the Rambam it looks like he blurs the distinction
when he places the Chokham on the same scale as the Navi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 224
***************************************

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..."