Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 61

Thu, 07 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: "Does God Change His Mind?" (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: "Does God Change His Mind?" (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Not Making Kiddush Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Zev Sero)
• 5. The influence of Nusach Sephard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Moshe Shulman)
• 6. The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach (Eli Turkel)
• 7. "Does God Change His Mind?" (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 8. Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (or equivalent) (Moshe Shulman)
• 9. No hesped? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Shiluach Hakan (Moshe Shulman)
• 11. Re: Mussar (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

R' Micha said:
> Attributing an emotion to HQBH doesn't mean He actually > experienced that emotion. (At least, in any hashkafah that > survived to this day.)

Rav Berkovits explicitly says in G-d Man and History that Hashem
actually did experience that emotion; He does NOT act "as if" angry,
but rather, He actually is angry. And it's not that His emotions are
like ours and we are creating Him b'tzalmenu; rather, ours are like
His - we are created b'tzalmo. (He also notes that we are referring to
His emotions in His relations with us (such as happiness, favor,
anger, etc. towards us); we are not speaking of His actual essence
itself. This brings his position closer to the normative one.)

I'm not sure if Rav Berkovits however counts as a "hashkafah that
[has] survived to this day". ;-D


> Michael Makovi wrote:
What, no R'?

> > Nevertheless, when He actually interacts with the world, > > He *must* interact with that particular slice of time and
> > place. When He talks to a prophet, for example, He is
> > talking to the prophet at that moment; not an hour before
> > and not an hour later, and not a mile in front and not a
> > mile in back.

> I disagree. Hashem is one, He performed one act. With no > space or time, what separates His actions into multiplicity? > We call that act Maaseh Bereishis. What we feel over time > are different effects of that one act. HQBH didn't start a
> movie, He created a 4D sculpture. (As
> discussed in the aforementioned blog entry
>http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/divine-timelessness.shtml.)

The 4D sculpture idea is a very interesting suggestion; I'll have to
ponder that.

In any case, however, I'll insist again on what I said. If I
oversimplify what you said, you seem to be saying that Hashem did one
act (4D sculpture) and sits back now and does nothing, as the
repercussions of His initial act play out through time. If this is
what you meant, I don't need to put out the theological problem.

In your blog, you yourself say this is not the case, for it is not
that He is now resting and letting His work carry on; He created the
entire 4D sculpture at once, and it is only our perception of time
that makes it seem as if time is passing. But still, I'd say, the
result is about the same, viz. He created the sculpture and now the
sculpture does whatever it does, without input.

Regarding the Avot that the miracles were created in twilight: I
haven't seen Rambam on it, but I am highly pleased with Rav Hertz on
it (he says the same comment in the Hertz Chumash on Bilaam's talking
donkey): he says that miracles are not violations of nature, for
Hashem provided for miracles within the laws of nature, during
creation. So Hashem created tthe laws of nature and lets them act as
they do, and when He needs a miracle, the laws of nature provide for
the ability for Him to inject himself into the world and perform some
action, without upsetting the laws of nature. For example, the
splitting of the sea was via a strong natural wind.

(I personally think that even though He knows the future (because He
can see all time at one glance), nevertheless our actions have
repercussions. For example, if we hadn't done the golden calf, there'd
be no second set of tablets. It's simply that He already knows
beforehand that we will do it. But His knowledge does not affect what
we do, and hypothetically, had we not done it...)

So, instead, I would say, He Himself is outside time, but when He
interacts with the world, He perforce does so within the limits of
time and place; not that He is within time and place, but His act
itself is. It's like if I interact with a software program. I myself
am not within the limits of the software, but my act itself is.

This answers the following objection you made:

> When we change some stretch of space-time, the
> consequences of Maaseh Bereishis will change. But HQBH > Himself can not. It's meaningless to speak of change of the > Creator of Time.

He didn't change; His act did. Nevertheless, your objection (paragraph
just above, continued)

>Or even multiple acts.

remains. This I simply disagree with, as above.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Thu, February 7, 2008 5:55 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: Rav Berkovits explicitly says in G-d Man and History that Hashem
: actually did experience that emotion; He does NOT act "as if" angry,
: but rather, He actually is angry....
: I'm not sure if Rav Berkovits however counts as a "hashkafah that
: [has] survived to this day". ;-D

In the eyes of most O Jews, it isn't. Frankly it's ideas like these
that kept REB on the sidelines of Torah thought. I know from repeated
citations that you think highly of his approach; however, I would
hazard to guess that most of us do not see them as particularly
mainstream.

Overly anthropomorphic, complete with Rav Saadia Gaon's, the Rambam's
and the Kuzari's problems with assigning positive attributes. It also
doesn't work in a timeless context -- it would mean that Hashem feels
every emotion at once.

:> Michael Makovi wrote:
: What, no R'?

I don't always catch the line my email reader automatically places
before quoting. (And, as you can tell, I use more than one email
reader depending on where I am, that do different things. One with
time stamp, as in the first line, one without.) Sorry.

...
: In your blog, you yourself say this is not the case, for it is not
: that He is now resting and letting His work carry on; He created the
: entire 4D sculpture at once, and it is only our perception of time
: that makes it seem as if time is passing. But still, I'd say, the
: result is about the same, viz. He created the sculpture and now the
: sculpture does whatever it does, without input.

Not at all! There is input, the input is equal at every moment:
"hamchadeish betuvo bekhol yom tamid ma'aseh bereishis". However, it's
only one input, one "Act". Remove the "and now" from your last
statement, it shows you didn't fully embrace the model. The sculpture
doesn't do anything after its creation, "after" is one of the
dimensions within the sculpture. You turned my 4D sculpture into a 4D
movie, creating a second concept of time in addition to the one folded
into the model.

...
: So, instead, I would say, He Himself is outside time, but when He
: interacts with the world, He perforce does so within the limits of
: time and place; not that He is within time and place, but His act
: itself is. It's like if I interact with a software program. I myself
: am not within the limits of the software, but my act itself is.

Actually, your act is mechanical, hitting a key, moving a mouse,
etc... Your act has IMPACT on the software.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

> And even assuming the 6th standard hour after noon, one would need to
> also correct for the equation of time [...]
> I don't see how a maamar that old would presume an average noon.

Kiddush Hachodesh does (for determining a molad zaken).


> OTOH, RMF holds WRT zeman minchah that chatzos is an average noon. So
> maybe...

WRT *all* zemanim.


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

RallisW@aol.com wrote:

>> The Taz says to keep them on, in places where Kesser is not said.
  
> It's not only the Turei Zohov but the Ramoh.

The Rama, after raising the possibility that it should be so, says
to take them off anyway.  The Taz disagrees.

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

At 09:57 AM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
>From: RallisW@aol.com
>Two things that I see as areas where N"S has influenced N"A;
>Not wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMoed all together, taking the tefillin off
>before Musaf on Rosh Chodesh.
>Having more than one person say kaddish at the same time.

These are more halacha, then nusach. The issue of Tephilin has been 
adopted by Chassidim and others who follow customs of the Ari. These 
are done for Kabbalistic reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080206/47f9454c/attachment.html 

I heard Rabbi Bamberger of Sherushei Minhag Ashkenaz fame >>

I note that one of the topics of recent interest is re-establishing the minhag
of local communities. For many years there was a push in many yeshivot for
uniformity.
Rabbi Bamberger has been pushing for the keeping of many old Yekki minhagim.

I just read a sefer (respectfully) attacking many of the psakim of ROY
on the basis
of old Morrocan minhagim and urging the Morrocoan community to keep to their
own customs and not be overwhelmed by what other sefardi communties do.
Most of the sefer is a halachic justification of their customs against
the psak of
ROY to change them
The end has several articles of a general nature on psak
In particular they point out that most communities have been
influenced by outside
sources. In particular sefardim were very influenced by the Rosh and
his descendants
who lived in Toledo for many generations.

-- 
Eli Turkel

In a link that R' Micha included, the following occurs:

The Or Samei?ach explains it slightly differently. Just as His Knowledge of the past does not change the nature of the present, so too His Knowledge of the future. Because to Him, past and future are the same.

IMHO I would say also "Just as His knowledge of the past does not influence man's future, so too his knowledge of the future does not effect the present. Because to Him, past, PRESENT and future are all the same. It is only the creation of time that separates the three, as a prism separates the rays of light."
ri

At 09:57 AM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
>From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>Kulam Chachamim; Kulam Nevonim etc..  That's probably the reason that this
>issue hasn't been discussed (AFAIK) on Avodah.
>I would greatly appreciate it if the membership, which includes many
>Talmidei Chachamim, would spend some time on discussing the various reasons
>why wearing a Burka (or equivalent) is NOT appropriate for a Jewish woman.
>Issues like "Bal Tosif"; the true meaning of Tzni'ut; Chukot HaGoyim and
>other relevant issues could be discussed.
>The reason I'm asking is that while the answer is obvious to the Talmidei
>Chachamim here, many others don't realize that there are problems with this
>issue -- and what they are.
>As Avodah is publicly available, this would make the material also available
>to other women who are asking this question and aren't getting answers.
>A more detailed article can be found at (as suggested by R' Aryeh Stein):
>http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&;SecId=11&AId=57786&ATypeId=1
>and a response:
>http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12&;SecId=12&AId=57829&ATypeId=1
>IMHO, when issues like this fall by the wayside without appropriate halachic
>and hashkafic reaction, many women may fall into the false belief that such
>behavior (and similar) are actually not only good - but recommended.
>Shoshana L. Boublil

I mentioned something about this on Areivim (where I think it 
belongs.) However if you read the articles these people have no idea 
of the halachos of tzniyos. For example:

'As one of them told Ha'aretz: "The entirety of a woman is considered 
ervah," or a naked part of the body which must be covered up, "even 
one's wrist. A man who isn't your husband must not see it."  '

This is absolutely false. It is just simple ignorance. What more 
needs to be said?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080206/4e098e28/attachment.htm 

There seems to be a not infrequent practice to allow for funerals held
on days when there are not supposed to be hespedim , "recollections"
and/or "life lessons" (substitute appropriate Yiddish depending on your
venue ) .  Given that according to many  (while bechi is a goal) the
main element of hespedim is to remember who the individual was and the
impact of his absence, what is the halachik basis for these talks?  Is
anyone aware of whether this has been minhag Yisrael for a long time for
the masses?


KT
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080207/fbda8fd4/attachment.html 

At 09:57 AM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
>From: "Alan Rubin" <alanrubin1@gmail.com>
>While browsing in a bookstore a few days ago I came across a book on
>Shiluach Hakan. I was a little surprised that there was enough to
>write about this mitzvah to fill a book I had a brief look through its
>pages and I was a little surprised by some of what I read.

I am curious as to which sefer this is as my machitan wrote one.

>Now if you think about it there are three attitudes one could have to
>this mitzvah.
>1. To actively seek out nests to perform the mitzvah on.
>2. To not actively seek out nests but to perform the mitzvah if one
>came across one
>3. To only perform the mitzvah if one needed eggs from a nest.
>I had always assumed that No 3 was correct. And if the mitzvah is at
>least partly to do with minimising pain to animals then to send away
>the mother bird when one does not really need the eggs is
>contradictory. Now I only glanced at the book for a few seconds but I
>was surprised that there could even be a hava aminah that 1 was
>correct or that there was a body of opinion that 2 was correct.

Why would you think that?

>  I was also surprised that there was an opinion that everyone should
>try and perform this at least once in their life. There was a
>suggestion (R. Vital?) that one would be brought back as a gilgul
>until one had performed every mitzvah. According to this opinion would
>one be brought back as a gilgul if one had not performed the
>commandments relating to eshes yefas toar? Now I am aware of the
>promised rewards for shiluach hakan but I cannot believe we are
>supposed to be tramping through woods frightening birds to secure long
>life.

The view of the Ari is that one is required to do every mitzvah and 
one could be m'galgil if one did not.

Last year I was in Israel for a kiddish for a grandchild and before I 
left i spent some time with my machiton and he discussed this mitzvah 
with me. He had be zochah to arrange for a number of great rabbis to 
perform it (including the late Satmar Rov) Unfortunatly it was in the 
wrong time of the year for me to do it. He related a number of things 
to me. One was that the Zohar says that performing this mitzvah is 
makarav Moshiach. He said the explanation is that when a Jew performs 
the mitzvah The Satan comes and complains to HaShem that it is cruel. 
But rather then angering HaShem at the Yidden, he is angry at the 
Satan and complains that for this bird you have mercy but for my 
children who are in exile and suffer, you have no mercy? He also told 
me that the egg is placed in the cholent. (I believe he heard this 
from the great makibal Rabbi Yeshaya Asher Margulious.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080206/37583312/attachment.htm 

Micha Berger wrote:
> However, this email was one section after more than *50* posts of bein
> adam lachaveiro. Yes, yir'as Hashem is important, but I didn't deem
> the role as a defining one in Mussar, given the relative space given
> it in Or Yisrael (RYS), Or Rashaz (Kelm) Madreigas haAdam (Novhardok)
> or Or haTzafun (Slabodka). Or, for that matter, the aforementioned ThM
> or later, RSW's Alei Shur.
>   
Dunno. The paragraph you cited makes the idea pretty central. I don't 
think relative space allocated is a measure of centrality.
> BTW, I disagree with RYGB's description of yir'ah. The Ramchal makes a
> chiluq between yir'as ha'onesh and yir'as Hashem, and within the
> latter, between yir'as hacheit and yir'as haromemus. My point of
> disagreement is with RYGB's calling "yir'as ha'onesh" a kind of
> "yir'as Hashem"
It is Yiras Hashem to the extent that a reality check - a spiritual 
reality check, a cognizance of "/l'ahn atah holeich/" - is Yiras Hashem. 
I would say it is something along these lines.

KT, GC,
YGB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080207/9c2484d1/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 61
**************************************

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..."