Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 100

Tue, 18 Dec 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:20:10 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yosef and his brothers


On Dec 17, 2007 7:02 AM, Richard Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:

> Toby Katz wrote:
> This reminds me of something striking that I always think about this time
>  of
> year, when we read the whole Yosef story. That is, when Yosef is set upon
> by
> his brothers, put in a pit, and then sold -- the Torah doesn't say a peep
> about  how Yosef reacted to all this at the time, whether he said
> anything,
> fought back  or what.  He's just -- silent.  The emotional tone of the
>  sale is
> flat.
>

Mikketz 42:21 "behischaneno eileinu.."

There IS a brief mention of Yosef's emotions as reported by the guilt-ridden
brothers during their recollection of the event.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/1762f143/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:48:41 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] All transgressions are sins?


On Dec 16, 2007 9:08 AM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>    1. Is the parking ticket a FEE for parking and you MAY lechatchila
>    park illegally so long as you are willing to pay
>    2. OR is it a fine for bad/moralunethical/anti-social behavior and
>    it is not OK to do so unless under duress?
>
>
>
>  ======================================
> is one nafka mina whether it is forbidden under the broad interpretation
> of dina dmalchuta?
> KT
> Joel  Rich
>

AIUI that is still within the hakira.

Is the Medinah's legislation  SAYING it is ASSUR
or
Is the Medinah really saying that wehn you DO you park there you are subject
to a fine, but is it is not assur per se.

I guess you could say it is almost like a lav hanitak l'asseh.  Is it OK to
leave Nossar so long as one is prepare to destroy it as per the Torah? or is
even THAT not OK.  [FWIW seems obvious to me that it is indeed NOT OK at
least lechatcila. But perhaps in a sha'as hadechak one could make such a
case...].

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/16729199/attachment.html 


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: T613K@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:34:49 EST
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yosef and his brothers


 




>>This reminds me of something striking that I always think about  this time  
of 
year, when we read the whole Yosef story. That  is, when Yosef is set upon by 
 
his brothers, put in a pit, and then  sold -- the Torah doesn't say a peep  
about  how Yosef reacted  to all this at the time, whether he said anything, 
fought back  or what.  He's just -- silent.  The emotional tone of the  sale  
is 
flat. <<[--TK]



RRW then wrote:


>>Mikketz 42:21 "behischaneno eileinu.." 

There IS a  brief mention of Yosef's emotions as reported by the guilt-ridden 
brothers  during their recollection of the event.<<


>>>>>>
That was the exact point of my post, which maybe I didn't make sufficiently  
clear.  AT THE TIME of the sale, the emotional tone is flat, numb -- which  is 
apparently how the brothers made themselves feel at the time they sold their  
brother.  The heartwrenching "ra'inu tzaras nafsho behischan'no eileinu" --  
the pleading and crying, the sorrow and the guilt -- only show up (in the text 
 and in the brothers' memories) years later, when the brothers are standing  
before Yosef in Egypt.  It is only then that the brothers feel the emotion  in 
retrospect that they didn't feel (or didn't let themselves feel) at the time  
of the sale, and it is also only then that we, the readers, feel the  emotion.


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



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071218/0d334536/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:41:09 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Removable Tattoos


R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I was wondering about the Halachic status of a new method of
> tattooing. Basically, the ink as inserted under the skin is sealed in
> translucent polymer beads. The colors show through the beads, effecting the
> tattoo appearance. When exposed to certain (laser) wavelengths of light,
> the polymer casing disintegrates, and the ink - which by itself is not
> permanent - is absorbed by the body. The website is
> http://www.freedom2ink.com/technology.asp.
> So, here we have ink which is nonpermanent, and when encased in the polymer
> - which is colorless - has a permanent effect, yet is intended to be
> nonpermanent and easily removed. What sayeth the Chevrah?

IIUC, this is still a tattoo. It is permanent, if left alone. It can be easily 
operated away, but in and of itself, the tattoo will not disappear. Writing 
with such kind of ink would, IMO, be a biblical prohibition on Shabbat.

KT,

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:02:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] what came first?


On Tue, December 18, 2007 1:09 am, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote to Areivim:
:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?_r=1&;8dpc&oref=slogin
:   .. the laws of Nature or the universe?  those who believe in Science
: also have conflicts

It's not really "conflicts" as a large unknown. Iba'i lehu, not tiyuvta.

Mark Twain is credited as writing: "[a] believer in God must explain
one thing, the existence of suffering; the nonbeliever, however, must
explain the existence of everything else."

This was also a central part of the machloqes Newton and Leibnitz:
Newton used science to explain the how of the universe, and religious
alchemy to explain the "why". He therefore found the inverse square
law, unifying celestial mechanics and apples falling from trees. But
didn't ask what causes the attraction we call gravity. Leibnitz was
dissatisfied leaving things as being about such "spooky action at a
distance".

A number of serious flaws in the article.

1- The Greeks who got science started were monotheists -- including
their two very examples -- Pythagoras and Plato. It's unclear the
notion of a lawful universe would have gotten off the ground without
it. Pagans have no reason to look for order; reality is described in
terms of moody gods and the battles between them.

2- It also ignores the notion of a multiverse, that this universe is
one out of infinitely many, and only happens to be one that makes
sense since we couldn't be here to ask the question otherwise.

Personally, I call that a theology, one which replaces a Personal G-d
with another kind of infinity, but the article doesn't even explore
one of the leading areas in this discussion.

3- It ignores the philosophy of Kant and Mach, that understandable
laws of nature exist because they describe the world as our minds
perceive it. Thus, "nature" and the laws come from the same mind. The
world as it is "out there" is actually incomprehensible. All the order
is caused by patterns we impose on reality. This is actually a
philosophy Einstein subscribed to.

(A Lubavitcher would say the only thing "out there" is HQBH, and
everything else is our perception.)

I also believe it's the core of REED's peshat in the Maharal, that the
difference between olamos is perception, and the difference between
experiencing teva and neis is similarly so. See
<http://tinyurl.com/2rw5ya> (an entry from my blog), or better, MmE I
pp 304-312.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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




Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:08:21 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yekum Purkan


Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> If Yekum Purkam MENTIONS reishei galvasa by name it CANNOT be from Eretz 
> Yisroel! How can a resih galusa be from EY?   Yekum Purkan is "signed" 
> as from Bavel. -but not because it is Aramaic.

I don't see how that proves anything.  YP prays for the rabbis and
civic leaders of both countries; if people in EY can pray for the
rabbis of Bavel why can't they also pray for the Reish Galuta?

It actually seems to me on reflection that it may have originated
outside both countries, that it's a prayer by the "out of town" Jews,
who depended for their Yiddishkeit on the centres of EY and Bavel,
for the welfare of the leadership in those centres.  Perhaps today
people "out of town" should pray for "maranan verabanan" in EY and
New York!

But that would again imply that it either predated the Italian
yeshivot that were the spiritual centre of early Ashkenaz, or that it
was written outside Europe, where they looked to EY and Bavel, not to
Bari or Otronto.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:53:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yekum Purkan


On Thu, December 13, 2007 12:08 pm, Zev Sero wrote about my using
"rav" vs "rabbi" as an example of differences between Israeli and
Babylonian Aramaic:
: In any case, it's irrelevant, because the difference isn't one of
: language.  Rabbi means someone with smicha and Rav means someone
: without.  That's why all the Rabbis were from EY and the Ravs from
: Bavel.  So it proves nothing about YP's dialect.

IIRC, it's the other way around. People got used to calling those
without true semichah by the title "rav" because in the early days,
they tended to be the ones from Bavel. I think the tendency toward
dropping open syllables had to do with the local forms of Aramaic, and
can be seen in Syriac vs Chaldean as well.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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




Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:59:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] A shemitta miracle story


On Thu, December 13, 2007 10:04 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
:> Anyone who explains an event as reward for a particular mitzvah is
:> assuming the burden of explaining tragedy in terms of sin,
:> explaining why one person gets reward and another not, etc....
:
: Tzadik vera lo and rasha vetov lo are questions that are asked and
: dealt with, but I've never heard of anyone asking about tzadik vetov
: lo or rasha vera lo...

TO rephrase, when you address tzadiq vetov lo, you would have to do so
in a way that doesn't shut the door on explaining tzadiq vera lo.

I think that if you are forced to turn tzadiq vera lo into a Divine
Mystery, which is what Iyov's conclusion boils down to, then all of HP
is Divine Mystery. The times when it seems just simply means it
doesn't bother us. But if Divine Justice can be overridden by other
factors, tzadiq vetov lo must perforce involve the question of the
absence of those factors.

: When the Torah says that a particular mitzvah earns a particular
: reward, and someone does that mizvah and lo and behold gets that
: reward, are we supposed to think that's a coincidence? ...

We are supposed to get on with our chiyuvim, and not play G-d's
Accountant.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: T613K@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:36:57 EST
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yosef and his brothers


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

>>This  is not at all uncommon throughout the Torah.  When Yitzchok is   
about to be sacrificed, the Torah doesn't say a peep about how he   
reacted; when Aaron loses Nadav and Avihu, he too, is  silent.<<




>>>>>
In both those cases the Torah does say a peep, but -- you have to  pay 
attention to catch it.  
 
In the case of the akeidah,  here is the relevant passage (using the  A/S 
translation):  "And Avraham took the wood for the offering, and placed  it on 
Yitzchak his son. He took in his hand the fire and the knife, AND THE TWO  OF 
THEM WENT TOGETHER.  Then Yitzchak spoke to Avraham his father and said,  
'Father--' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.'  And he said, 'Here are the  fire and 
the wood, but where is the lamb for the offering?'  And Avraham  said, 'G-d will 
see the lamb for Himself for the offering, my son.'   AND THE TWO OF THEM 
WENT TOGETHER."
 
Rashi picks up on the significant repetition of that sentence, "Vayelchu  
sheneihem yachdav."  After Yitzchak asked his father "Where is the lamb?"  and 
heard his father's answer, he understood that he himself was the lamb who  was 
about to be slaughtered, and nevertheless he kept going without hesitation,  
"together" -- as Rashi says, "belev shaveh."  The A/S translates "belev  shaveh" 
as "with an equal heart -- i.e., with the same enthusiasm" but that  doesn't 
quite capture the poignance of Rashi's actual words "belev  shaveh."  The 
pasuk says it delicately but does say it:  Yitzchak knew  where he was going and 
went with the same heart as did his father Avraham -- a  heart willing to make 
the ultimate sacrifice for Hashem. 
 
In the case of Nadav and Avihu, the pasuk /does/ say what Aharon's  reaction 
was.  It actually says, "Vayidom Aharon." 
 
 "Vayidom" is a verb, it means doing something.  It doesn't  mean, "there was 
no reaction." It means Aharon did something -- he silenced  himself and 
stopped himself from showing any outward reaction, consciously  choosing to accept 
Hashem's will without complaint.
 
There are not one, but two, references to Aharon's grief in the pasukim  
following. See Vayikra (P' Shmini) the whole of Perek 10.  One reference is  when 
Moshe tells Aharon and his sons to carry on with the avodah and not to show  
any outward signs of mourning, and he also says, ""Veacheichem kol bais Yisrael 
 yivku es hesereifah asher saraf Hashem"  -- obviously meant as comfort --  
i.e., don't think your sons will not be mourned, just because you as the 
kohanim  are forbidden to mourn right now.  All of Klal Yisrael will mourn for  
them."
 
The other reference is in the same perek (10:16-20), when Moshe shouts at  
Aharon's remaining two sons, Elazar and Isamar (clearly angry at Aharon too but  
doesn't address him directly), angry that the goat from the chatas was burnt 
and  not eaten.  He is angry because he is fearful that they too may die -- 
you  can tell from the flow of the pesukim that his emotion is similar to the  
emotion a parent might feel after losing a child c'v when another child does  
something even slightly dangerous -- the over-reaction, the anger that 
expresses  fear of loss.  
 
Anyway, although Moshe yelled at the sons, it is Aharon who  answers, and he 
says, "Hen hayom....VATIKRENA OSI KA'EILAH, veachalti chatas  hayom,  hayitav 
be'einei Hashem?" 
 
"When such things happened to me today, if I ate the  chatas, would that be 
good in Hashem's eyes?"  IOW he is supposed to carry  on with the avodah 
despite the deaths of his sons, but he is not actually  supposed to eat the 
meat--that already gets to his private mourning rather than  the public avodah.  
 
"Vayishma Moshe vayitav be'einav." -- Moshe heard and  realized that Aharon 
was right.
 
The words "Vatikrena osi ke'eilah" definitely evoke an  awareness of Aharon's 
grief despite his conscious decision to say nothing.


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



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071218/041ef821/attachment.html 


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:26:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Apikores?


On Thu, December 13, 2007 12:38 pm, R Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: What would be wrong with the Inquisition, assuming that a) the
: theology behind it is correct and b) it is not abused by its
: implementers for personal gain?...
: Do you simply mean that bad theology and / or corruption are
: inevitable?

I'm missing something because it seems self-evident. Torture and death
are often worse evils than the ones being avoided. HQBH places the
suffering of others near the top of othe list of my own religious
duties. An Inquisition requires people convincing themselves that
another's suffering in olam hazeh is irrelevant given the gain in olam
haba. Not merely lesser, but ignorable.

:> Despite "mah Ani ... af atah ..." our moral choices differ. Hashem
:> banned murder even though He takes lives regularly.

: But He permitted, and even commanded, judicial / executive enforcement
: of Halachah.

But when Sanhedrin saw that the masses weren't on the same page, and
oneshim would turn Inquisition-esque, they exiled themselves to
prevent the eventuality.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 100
***************************************

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 >