Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 22

Tue, 15 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Seeing the Alps (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: abayudaya (David Eisen)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Joshua Meisner)
• 5. Re: charging ribis to a Jew / non-Jew (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Lashon Hara about non-Jews (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: dvar tora (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Richard Wolpoe)

I think the way to understand Rav Hirsch's seeing the Alps, is in
light of his other writings.

It is a major theme in his writings, the correspondence between nature
and Torah. For example, in his 19 Letters, in the Tehilla we say on
Shabbat about the heavens declaring Hashem's glory, that switches
halfway through the psalm to extolling the Torah, Rav Hirsch comments
that we can learn of Hashem's existence and mastery, etc, from nature,
but Torah is of course a higher method of this.

In From the Wisdom of Mishlei, to perakim 3 and 8 (about Hashem used
wisdom to create the world), Rav Hirsch says that just as the world
runs according to its laws (of nature), humans run according to their
laws (of Torah), only the former is by compulsion and the latter is by
free will.

In R Klugman's biography of Rav Hirsch (Artscroll), there is a story
of Rav Hirsch dreaming that all of nature obeys Hashem's decrees, and
yet man refuses to do so - how can he disobey when the grass and the
trees and the animals all obey??!!

So Rav Hirsch mamash was a country man. In From the Wisdom of Mishlei
on how to manage finances (Mishlei speaks of agricultural finances),
one sees that Rav Hirsch in truth desired a quiet rural lifestyle. In
his chumash to the laws of yovel, one sees this even clearer. He was a
country man at heart. If he had been able to find himself to a
kibbutz, I think he would have been the happiest man on earth.

> How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity -
> sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur mid'orraisso?
>
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
> see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

Perhaps we use that name like Christopher - if I speak to my friend
Chris, everyone knows it's because that's his name, not because I am
referring to J-man. Likewise, perhaps we use Tammuz as stam the month,
and everyone knows we don't mean the deity.

Interestingly, Artscroll in their Chanuka history book, admits that
the names of the month are Babylonian. They suggest we kept these
names to remind us that geula hasn't come. I'm not sure whether they
mean that this is the reason we *retained* these names into 2nd Bayit,
or if this is the reason we *adopted* them in the first place. If the
latter, I would object that under Ezra, we were still hopeful geula
could come, as Chazal do indeed say geula could have come then. If the
former, I have no problem, except I might say we kept them out of
habit (lol). In any case, it is remarkable that Artscroll recognizes
this. I recall a refusal of theirs to even contemplate that our
current Hebrew script is Babylonian as the pshat of "Ktav Ashuri [sic
- why not Bavli, I don't know]" indicates and as all academics (so far
as I know) take for granted. I also recall somewhere that they refuse
to even contemplate a literal interpretation of the Gemara that the
names of angels were brought from Bavel.

Of course, what it means we take these literally, if our script comes
from Bavel, and even more importantly, if the names of angels come
from Bavel, is a totally separate subject.

Mikha'el Makovi

AFAIK, the gemara is found in Masekhet Shabbat (Pereq Bameh Madliqin) on
Daf 32.

On Jan 10, 2008 7:20 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says
that
> one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of
communal
> gathering rather than avodat Hashem, but googling "beth Am" gives the
> following: " Results 1 - 10 of about 944,000 for beth Am. ( 0.21
seconds)
> " What is sad is not that that many congregations voted to name their
shuls
> by a name explicitely assur in the Gemarrah, but that none of their
Rabbi's
> actually learned (or cared about) the first tractate of Shas to know
it's
> forbidden at all.
> ~Liron

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:23 PM
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 21

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: Seeing the Alps (Daniel Israel)
   2. Re: manipulating bodily energies (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
   3. Re: The Burning of the Golden Calf (Joshua Meisner)
   4.  Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm
      (Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts)
   5. "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this? (Richard Wolberg)
   6. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Zev Sero)
   7. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
   8. Re: Isaac Leeser (Simon Montagu)
   9. Re: Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm
      (Richard Wolpoe)
  10. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Richard Wolpoe)
  11. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Richard Wolpoe)
  12. Re: Seeing the Alps (Richard Wolpoe)

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> But ditto in the opposite direction as well. Many years ago, we had a
> thread --- wow, I just went to look it up. It was in 1999, Avodah
> volume 3, approx. issues 143-154, under subjects like "Wagner's
> Music" and "Is all music value-neutral?" Back then I felt, and I
> still feel today, that while wordless music can give a person a very
> basic emotional feeling such as calmness or frenzy, I do not see how
> it can bring one to a higher-lever emotion such as love or hate, and
> even more so, I do not see how wordless music can inspire one to
> something like deveykus to Hashem. --- Unless, of course, one has
> reason to associate that particular niggun with some particular
> lyrics, in which case it is not really a wordless niggun.

I don't remember that discussion.  So let me just say, listening to some

of my favorite orchestral music can inspire me (in terms of the 
emotional effect) exactly the same way as seeing the Alps.  (Well, I 
haven't seen the Alps, except maybe from an airplane window, but 
substitute some other relevant natural wonder.)

I'm not sure if that is consistent or inconsistent with what you write 
above.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> But nowadays there seem to be many types of Jews who accept
> ol Mitzvos but have chas vshalom rejected Monotheism...
> Examples: Praying to avos at kever Avos
> Praying to malachim
> etc.

R' Zev Sero responded:
> I believe in Yiddishkeit - if you choose describe it as
> monotheistic, then so be it, I'm a monotheist; but if you
> then change the definition of monotheism so that
> Yiddishkeit no longer fits it, then fine, I'm not a
> monotheist.

This discussion will not make any progress unless and until we get a
working definition of the word "monotheism".

I am very tempted to offer my views on this topic. However, since RZS
has accused RRW of changing the definition, I would suggest that RZS
should expand on his post, and explain what he thinks the original
definition was, and what he thinks RRW changed the definition to.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click now and enhance your business with great email newsletters.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nBDMPaQl0U6JAVF7VL4PG
Zfr4p11nRiZO876DUv35m7tTxY/

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> That said, I'm not sure that the Ibn Ezra's words work with this.
Quote (Ibn
> Ezra Ha'aruch, from MHK's Toras Chaim Chumash): Ki Yeish Davar
She'yusam
> B'eish Im HaZahav U'm'yad Y'sareif V'yi'yeh Shachor Ul'olam Lo Yashuv
Zahav.
> The first part sounds like it is something that happens either
> instantaneously or close to it, and the last phrase makes it sound
that this
> causes some reaction in the whole piece

The only way that a metal can undergo a chemical change (as opposed to
a physical phase change such as melting) is if something comes in
contact with the metal atoms to make them react.  In order for
interior atoms to change, therefore, either they have to be brought to
the surface or the reacting molecule (e.g., sulfur) has to be brought
to them.  Although it is possible for sulfur to diffuse through solid
metal, it would take a *long* time - and possibly even longer to
dissolve through a layer of copper sulfide.  You bring a good point,
though, that the passuk implies that grinding was not an essential
part of the burning. So... I don't know.

>- if it were just tarnish then why would he say that it never becomes
gold again?

Barring methods such as that described by RMM to chemically remove
tarnish, it does never become gold again.  Physically rubbing a
tarnished object doesn't change it back to metal, it merely removes
the outer layer, something that would not be possible if we're dealing
with a fine powder (unless one grinds it moreso).

R' Mikha'el Makovi wrote:

> A strong acid would just dissolve the gold into a salty solution. By
salt I
> don't mean table salt, but rather salt in the sense of a metal and
nonmetal
> ionically bonded.
>
> For example:
>
> Sulfuric acid + gold
> H2SO4(aq = water) + 2Au
> H2SO4(s = solid) + H2O + 2Au
> SO4 (-2 charge) + 2H(+1 charge) + H2O + 2Au
> SO4 (-2) + H2 (gas) + H2O + 2Au(+2 charge)
> Au2So4 (aq) + H2 (gas)

No, it wouldn't (That's what led me to suggest that it must be
something else in the eigel that was doing the reacting).  Gold is so
resistant to chemical attack that even H2SO4 won't do it.  A reagent
commonly used to dissolve gold is aqua regia, a solution of
concentrated nitric acid and hydrochloric acid, in which (acc. to
Wikipedia) the nitric acid produces a very small number of gold ions
which react with the chlorine ions from the hydrochloric acid to
produce chloraurate ions, so that little by little, the system is
thermodynamically driven towards a dissolution of the gold.  Sodium or
potassium cyanide also works.  Either way, though, the dissolution of
gold requires truly vicious chemicals that were not likely to have
been utilized more than a few centuries ago - and at any rate, would
produce only a clear solution, not a scorched solid, as you mentioned.

Joshua Meisner

The Rebbe stood up for him twice, the first time in 5725 Vov Tishrei
when R. Soloveitchik came to be Menachem Avel the Rebbe (this as per the
account of R' Sholom Kovalski who drove him there - see the following
video clips of the interviews online of Rav Kovalski & Rav Hershel
Schacter)
the second time was when R. Schechter drove R.S. to the Rebbe's
Farbrengen (10th shvat 1980), the Rebbe got up for him when  he was
leaving the Farbrengen. 
about godol Hador I don't remember seeing or hearing this
??? ????? ??? ????
Here's the link for the interviews:
www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/529496/jewish/A-Relationship-fro
m-Berlin-to-New-York.htm

>
I was told - and have beenacknowledged of flsit - that when RYDS
visisted
the Rebbe to be menachem Avel the Rebe stood and said we must stand for
the
"gadol hador". Any confirmation of this story?


Rabbi Zvi Konikov
Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts
1190 Highway A1A
Satellite Beach, FL 32937
(321) 777 2770
contact@jewishbrevard.com
www.jewishbrevard.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
13/e104950c/attachment.html 

> I don't know how someone can state with a straight face that the  
> Amoraim did not believe
> in or use segulot and amulets.  One can argue with the Rambam that  
> they
> were mistaken in so doing, but to deny that they did so in the first  
> place?


Let's not forget the placebo effect. One can even say that HaShem may  
choose to use the placebo effect as one modality of influence.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
13/8b1604b5/attachment.htm 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero responded:
>> I believe in Yiddishkeit - if you choose describe it as
>> monotheistic, then so be it, I'm a monotheist; but if you
>> then change the definition of monotheism so that
>> Yiddishkeit no longer fits it, then fine, I'm not a
>> monotheist.
> 
> This discussion will not make any progress unless and until we get a
> working definition of the word "monotheism".
> 
> I am very tempted to offer my views on this topic. However, since RZS
> has accused RRW of changing the definition, I would suggest that RZS
> should expand on his post, and explain what he thinks the original
> definition was, and what he thinks RRW changed the definition to.

On the contrary, I'm not interested in discussing and refining the
definition of "monotheism" because I don't think it matters in the
least.  My point is that I'm not at all attached to the word
"monotheist".
If the definition you happen to be using matches Yiddishkeit as I
understand it then I'm happy to be called a monotheist; If you choose
to define it in a way that excludes my religion, then I'm equally happy
not to be one.  So attacking my religion on the grounds that it's not
monotheistic doesn't impress me.  I think what RRW has done is go from
a concrete to an abstract, become attached to that abstraction,
analysed it, and then used it to criticise the original.



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

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 10:58:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:                                   I think what RRW has done is go from
: a concrete to an abstract, become attached to that abstraction,
: analysed it, and then used it to criticise the original.

On the contrary. I read RRW as asserting the Rambam's version of the
5th ikkar (the one about not praying to anyone or anything but Hashem,
not to introduce a middleman between oneself and the Borei). The Gra too
had much objection to the distance from that version taken by Chassidim.

And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar. How
many people are aware of capable of towing that line?

The comparison to R is heavy handed to the point of falsity, though. One
misteaches the concept of mitzvah and aveirah, and leads people astray.
The other is people unable to understand a subtle philosophical
distinction.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Jan 13, 2008 5:17 AM, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
wrote:
> And AIUI re: the the portuguese pronunciation is that the NG in ShmaNG
is
> like shma with a suffix of the sound of NI in onion  or the first na
in
> manana [n~]

It's more like the ng in bang. One can hear it in the recordings at
http://www.chazzanut-esnoga.org/ or R Avraham Lopez Cardozo's
recordings at the Piyut site:
http://www.piyut.org.il/cgi-bin/search.pl?Expression=%E0%E1%F8%E4%ED+%EC
%E5%F4%E6+%F7%F8%E3%E5%E6%E5&x=0&y=0
"El Nora Ngalila" at
http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/263.html?currPerformance=295 is a
good example.

On Jan 13, 2008 4:43 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> There is a HUGE chiluq whether RMMS said "the gadol hador" or "a gadol
> hador". Given the role in Chabad thought of the yechidah kelalis, I
> really doubt RMMS could give a non-Chabad rav the title of the
> generation's greatest.
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
>
As  I heard it, the Rebbe exhorted his Hassidim to stand up and honor
the
"gadol hador."  It could be he said A gadol Hador but then why ask
Hassidim
to rise?


FWIW I don't know WHERE I read it but I remember it was around 1999 give
or
take a year.

I also pointed this out to a Habad Hasid who was an Avodah member and he
did
NOT deny it.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/dceeec2f/attachment.html 

On Jan 13, 2008 11:18 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>  >>>>>
> Are you seriously trying to claim that davening at Kever Rochel or
singing
> Sholom Aleichem is the same as the egel or the A'Z temple of Yeravam?!
>

Sometimes a subtle indisious Avodah Zoro is more dangerous than the
obvious
bowing down to a wooden statute!

I find it ironic that some frum someJjews can be so machmir re: e.g.
kashrus
and so  easygoing about issues bordering AZ.



> That is quite a stretch.  If the debate here is over normative
Judaism, it
> is certainly RRW and not RZS who is taking the radical position.
>

How so?  What is your evidence?


> (The question of davening to the Rebbe /instead of/ davening to Hashem
is
> a far more serious problem, and on that point RRW may well be
> correct.)   But saying at a tzaddik's kever "Please be a meilitz
yosher for
> us" is /not/ A'Z.
>

See kitzur Shulchan Aruch about asking Meisim to helop out. It is an
issur
d'orrasios doreach el hameisim.  Kitzur is VERY careful about visitng
kevarim before RH to make this disclaimer?   Why?  AFAIK less man
depalig




> "Kol beramah nishma, Rochel mevaka al baneha" establishes the
principle
> that tzaddikim can ask Hashem for rachamim for their children -- even
after
> said tzaddikim have left this world.  Asking them, "Go to Father and
plead
> for us" is not A'Z.
>

No it is doreish el hameisim, which is probably abizraihu d'AZ and a
yeihareig v'al ya'avor



> Asking the malachim to give you a bracha is likewise not A'Z, any more
> than asking any person for a bracha is A'Z.
>

But would violate 13 Ikkarim of Rambam and according to R. Yehudah
Parness
puts you beyond the pale. IOW a prospective Ger would be rejectd for
doing
this.



> "Al tehi birchas hedyot kal be'einecha" means ordinary people can
bentsh
> other people, and certainly malachim can.
>

Adressing Malachim presupposes they have their own will. See Rambam.
Imagine iof you address a Kings' arm or leg or some inferior body part.
And
BTW, Uriah hachitti was hayyav missa for saying "adoni Avishai" in front
of
David.  Addrssing a Mlachi infron of Hashem is tantamount to ignoring
HKBH
and talkiing to an infeiror being instead.



> If a person can bentsh another person, what is to say you can't
actually
> ask for a bracha?    It is still up to Hashem to fulfill the bracha.
>

If Presdient Bush was in fron of you and you aske Condy Rice to
helpIsrael
would that be OK because it is STILL Bush'sdecision? Or would you be
violating protocal?


>
> PS Despite the thread subject, I do not believe in kinesiology,
iridology,
> homeopathy et al.  They may not be A'Z but it is a separate mitzva,
very
> well known, for a Jew to have seichel.
> **
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>
>
>
Bottom line, just because the other kids on the block do it does not
make it
OK. Minhaggim are OK and even holy when they enhance Torah. When they
promote AZ I cannot imagine a bigger abuse of Minhag or Moreshes!   Just
because Mitechila ovdeai AZ  hayu avoseinu does not mean we should
emulate
THAT morasha!

Avraham Avinu violated Kibbud Av in order to rebel against AZ.  THAT is
our
Morasha!

I'm not Melech Yisroel but if they made me king some of the first things
I
WOULD do would be:

   1. Abolish all iconography
   2. Abolish all images in shuls except for p'sukkim [iow Shiviss or Da
   lifnei is OK with me]I


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/6197f6d9/attachment.htm 

On Jan 10, 2008 7:20 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says
that
> one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of
communal
> gathering rather than avodat Hashem, but googling "beth Am" gives the
> following: " Results 1 - 10 of about 944,000 for beth Am. ( 0.21
seconds)
> " What is sad is not that that many congregations voted to name their
shuls
> by a name explicitely assur in the Gemarrah, but that none of their
Rabbi's
> actually learned (or cared about) the first tractate of Shas to know
it's
> forbidden at all.
> ~Liron
>

How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity
-
sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur
mid'orraisso?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/85f07ea2/attachment.html 

On Jan 13, 2008 4:33 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com
<kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

>
>
> But the niggun is a human creation, and the Alps are a Divine
creation. To
> me, that is gigantic distinction.

We are talking about what inspires an individual





>
> > If a drunk has booze it is a physical pleasure. if a ehrlihcer
> > hassid has a schnappes it is a spiritual event.  Simple - no?
>
> No. Not unless that schnappes helped that hassid to some sort of
chiddush
> in learning, or in dveykus, or whatever.


For Hassidim alcohol reduces the inhibitrions of approaching HKBH call
that
dveikus if you will but I would simply say imbibing spirits is inspiring
and
spiritual for those who are so inclinded



> Which I freely admit that alcohol *can* help do. But the drinking
alone is
> *not* a spiritual event. And woe to those who think it is.


the points is the attitude with which preceeds the process, not the
process
itself. I'm not sure if you are getting my point here.


>
>
> Akiva Miller
> _


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/17dc97e7/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 21
**************************************

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity -
> sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur mid'orraisso?

Shu"A Yo"D 147:4 says that one is allowed to mention names of deities
that are mentioned in Tanach (In this case, Yechezkel 8:14).

Joshua Meisner

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:38:58 +0200
"Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> to charge you interest. That's fortunate, because it would certainly
> be an interesting thing: go to a bank to take out a loan, and ask the
> bank employee to sign an Aramaic document permitting you to pay him
> interest.

There's no requirement that a heter iska be in Aramaic.

> Mikha'el Makovi

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

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:55:49 +0200
"Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

> interest is morally fine. Now, on business matters, I see no problem -
> and apparently Chazal didn't either, since they created the heter
> iska. But notice that he heter iska is forbidden for personal

Hazal, although they discuss business arrangements called Iskas, didn't
create what is contemporarily called a Heter Iska, which apparently
first appears in the Halachic literature of both Sephardim and
Ashkenazim in the sixteenth century, although it is, of course, based
on the Talmudic rules of Iska [0].

> household type transactions - it seems to me that Chazal felt that
> morally, it would be wrong to use a heter iska to permit interest for
> necessary household goods. Only for non-necessary (i.e. business)
> transactions did Chazal permit interest.

There is extensive literature on the question of the permissibility of
borrowing money for non-commercial purposes, but the argument against
is not the one you give.  The problem is, rather, that the legal
rationale for the HI is that the payments made by the 'borrower' are
seen as the 'lender's' share of the profits, and if there's no
commercial enterprise, there are no profits.  In any event, the
Halachah here is not that clear cut [1].

[0] See Bris Yehuda Ch 40 for a discussion of Heter Iska; he begins
with a basic historical survey
[1] See ibid. Ch 38 n. 18 for an exhaustive treatment of the issue, and
a summary in Ch 40 para. 16

> Mikha'el Makovi

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

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:27:27 EST
T613K@aol.com wrote:

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> >> And yet  Bisyah named Moshe because of
> what seems to be a semitic play on the name  "min hamayim meshisihu". Kind
> of neat: Bisyah called him "son" because she  was the one who took him /
> had her maid take him out of the  water.<<
>  
>  >>>>>
> Speaking of which, how did she get the name Bisyah (or as some say,  Basyah)? 

I'm not sure who 'some' are, but the Masoretic text of Divre Ha'yamim
(1:4:18) reads 'Bisyah'.

[I originally wrote 'the author of Divre Ha'yamim wrote', but I
subsequently emended as above since I believe that it is far from clear
that the Biblical authors (or transcribers) actually wrote the Nikkud.]

> --Toby  Katz

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

On Jan 14, 2008 5:47 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 10:58:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> :                                   I think what RRW has done is go from
> : a concrete to an abstract, become attached to that abstraction,
> : analysed it, and then used it to criticise the original.
>
> On the contrary. I read RRW as asserting the Rambam's version of the
> 5th ikkar (the one about not praying to anyone or anything but Hashem,
> not to introduce a middleman between oneself and the Borei). The Gra too
> had much objection to the distance from that version taken by Chassidim.
>

I simply thought I was re-inforcing the concept of Echad as in Shema Yisroel
- Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. The MON in Monotheism is simply teh Echad in
the Shema
But if you want a dissertation on the Yichud of HKBH see the Kesser Malchus
of ibn Gabirol - recited by some on Kol Nidrei night



>
> And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
> precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar. How
> many people are aware of capable of towing that line?
>
> The comparison to R is heavy handed to the point of falsity, though. One
> misteaches the concept of mitzvah and aveirah, and leads people astray.
> The other is people unable to understand a subtle philosophical
> distinction.
>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I was quoting someone on our OWN list many years ago. I don't recall the
entire thread but it should be there in the early years.

Nevertheless, WADR, isn't this a specious argument?  i.e. how is attacking
the attacker a defense?. The fact that Reform does more egregious things
does not at all excuse Ortho's for condoning questionalbe practices re: AZ
just beucse they are more machmir re: Shabbos.  Two wrongs do NOT a right
make

I still hear the Navi saying "v'tofsei Troah lo Yeda'uni" ringin in my ear
obssesively every time one uses Torah as shield to violate core Halachic
beliefs and the "big 3" are certainly in that category.

It's one thing to melamed zechus when people violate a gzeira [codified in a
Mishna Beitza as well as the SA]  by dancing on Shabbos by coming up with
various rationales - although Rav Hai Gaon was ONLY mattir dancing on
Simchas Torah. [see an excellent article in a 2006 RJJ Journal]

 It is imho the WORST case of circling the wagons to condone borderline AZ
in the name of Torah/Minhag/Morasha  etc.

There are approrpriate times when "people do it" is a legitmate ta'ana. But
I fail to see that here at all.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080114/63ebf1f1/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."