Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 349

Fri, 03 Oct 2008

• 1. Pat palter (Rich, Joel)
• 2. KVCT (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Re: Pat palter (Zev Sero)
• 4. What does hamelech hakadosh mean? (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Free Will vs Physics (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: KVCT (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Conflicting Sources (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: What does hamelech hakadosh mean? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Pat palter (Micha Berger)
• 10. Avinu Malkenu (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. Re: "OUT OF HAND LEADS TO OUT OF OUR HAND" (Micha Berger)
• 12. Additional Tefilos for Parnoso etc (SBA)
• 13. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (Zev Sero)

Is the understanding of this from the time of the original exemption
that we know the ingredients are kosher and that he never uses the oven
for something else or just that "normally" this is the case (i.e. no one
is checking on a regular basis on this particular baker)
GCT
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081001/cf859d80/attachment-0001.htm>

Something occurred to me this evening: most people switch from Ketivah
Vechatimah Tovah, or Leshanah Tovah Tikateivu, to Gemar Chatimah Tovah
or for short Gmar Tov, right after Rosh Hashanah.

However, all the tefillot are written in terms of "Ketivah": Zochreinu
Lechaim, Avinu Malkeinu, Besefer Chaim Tovah Uvracha, etc., and use
that verb right up through mincha on Yom Kippur.  Only for Neilah do
the tefillot switch to Chatimah.

So why do the greetings change, when clearly the aggadic message of
the tefillah texts, the theological message, is that the whole period
right through Yom Kippur afternoon is associated with Ketivah?

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Rich, Joel wrote:
> Is the understanding of this from the time of the original exemption  
> that we know the ingredients are kosher and that he never uses the oven 
> for something else or just that "normally" this is the case (i.e. no one 
> is checking on a regular basis on this particular baker)

AIUI, at the time it was unheard of for bread to contain anything treif,
so there was no need to worry about it.  This continued to be the case
in many countries until quite recently.  Bread was bread, and it had
known ingredients, none of which were a problem.  Anyone who enriched
his bread with unusual ingredients would surely advertise that fact,
and charge extra.


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

The gemara in Berachos (12b) states that during the ten days of
repentence we change the nusach of the shemoneh esrei and say hamelech
hakadosh instead of hakel hakadosh as well as saying hamelech
hamishpat instead of melech ohev tzedaka umishpat. Rashi on the gemara
comments that hamelech hamishpat is grammatically incorrect, it should
be melech hamishpat and it is to be understood that way (the king of
mishpat) and basically we ignore the extra heh. The Beis Yosef
comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

Interestingly enough this is a dispute between Artscroll and Metzudah.
Artscroll in their siddurim and machzorim translate it as "the holy
king" while Metzuda translates it like this interpretation of Rashi
"the king, the holy one".

To sum up there are 2 interpretations of hamelech hakadosh

1. the king, the holy one (which is the literal translation with the
heh at the beginning of the word)
2. the holy king (the 2 words are 1 phrase) like hamelech hamishpat
the king of mishpat

R' Zev said:
"I see a baby as like a person holding the remote control to a TV, one  
of those
complex remotes with hundreds of buttons and all kinds of functions,
but who has no idea how to use it, or even what it's for."

That's a very good analogy and you make a cogent argument.
However, you originally stated that a baby makes a choice whether to
cry or not and there, I disagree. Baby's cry when they want something,
when they hurt, when they wet their diapers, etc. Do you really think  
that
involves free will?
I don't think so.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081001/b90c16e7/attachment-0001.htm>

 

Something occurred to me this evening: most people switch from Ketivah
Vechatimah Tovah, or Leshanah Tovah Tikateivu, to Gemar Chatimah Tovah
or for short Gmar Tov, right after Rosh Hashanah.

However, all the tefillot are written in terms of "Ketivah": Zochreinu
Lechaim, Avinu Malkeinu, Besefer Chaim Tovah Uvracha, etc., and use that
verb right up through mincha on Yom Kippur.  Only for Neilah do the
tefillot switch to Chatimah.

So why do the greetings change, when clearly the aggadic message of the
tefillah texts, the theological message, is that the whole period right
through Yom Kippur afternoon is associated with Ketivah?

--
        name: jon baker      
============================================================
I was taught that we switch to gct because the righteous get written in
first morning R"H so to say kvct to someone is to imply they didn't make
the 1st cut.  But for us to pray, it's best to assume we didn't make it
even if someone might have.  BTW I was also taught we go to gmar tov
between Y"K and Hoshana rabba.

GCT
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.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:46:04PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> Did not Rashi instruct his grandson how to put tefilin together?  When
:> exactly was the Rashi vs. Rabbenu Tam tefilin forgotten or confused?
:> Gershon gershon.du...@juno.com

: 2 possible answers
: 1. both were acceptable for a certain time (like why we now blow
: shevarim and truah according to some)

As I already noted in this discussion, this is what Yigal Yadin found.
From a post of mine to scjm (16-Jan-2002):
> They found tefillin that date back to the Hasmonean revolt....
> And the tefillin found were kosher according to halachah as we now know
> it -- aside from the issue of the order of passages. Square, remains
> of black paint, hand tefillah in one section, head tefillah in four,
> the base and channel for the strap as required, tied shut as required,
> from one peice of leather as preferred, etc, etc...

> In the Hasmonean caves they found both tefillin with the chapter orders
> recommended by Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam (his grandson and one of the more
> prolific Tosafists). I posted the following back in March of '98:

> <reprint>
> ...
> According to a braisa (tannaitic material compiled after the mishna)
> in [Tr.] Menachos, Shemos 13:1-10 and ibid 11-16 are on the right, the
> first ("Shema") and second ("Vehayah im shamo'a") chapters of the Shema
> on the left.

> Rashi describes the ordering to be the same as that in the Torah,
> with Shemos 13:1-10 first, and "Vehaya im shamo'a" last. Rabbeinu Tam
> has the quotes from Shemos going right to left, but switches the two
> from Devarim so that they are in order from left to right -- "Shema"
> becomes the leftmost chapter.

> A third pair found in Qumran, but not in the older geniza nor amongst
> the rishonim is right-to-left: Shemos 13:1-10, Shema, Shemos 13:11-16,
> Veyaha im shamoa. This has each chapter from Devarim to the left of one
> from Shemos, as well as the rightmost being from Shemos and the left-most
> from Devarim, which would fit a third possible reading of the braisa. 

Admittedly the Qumran version could very well not be kosher, as they
weren't Perushim, but then, that version didn't appear as a shitah in
the machloqes rishonim, either.

Which does seem to show that the Sanhedrin allowed for varations in
practice, and didn't try to close up every machloqes.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:53:49AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: ...                                             The Beis Yosef
: comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
: yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
: understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
: titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
: standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
: like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

This is all over Hebrew. HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora -- one noun and
three adjectives, or four nouns?
Boneh Y-m could be "the Builder of Y-m" or "who is building Y-m".
HaMotzi lechem min ha'aretz

I argued in early volumes of Avodah that this is for a fundamental
philosophical reason. That lashon haqodesh intentionally treats
present-tense verbs, nouns, and adjectives as the same part of speach.

From <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n103.shtml#18> (16-Aug-2000;
before my quphs):
> I commented a while back that I'm not sure that parts of speech are as
> distinct in lashon hakodesh as they are in English. The example I gave
> was "haKel haGadol haGibor vihaNorah" which the Vilna Gaon takes to be
> four nouns, while others seem to assume haKel is a noun and the other
> three are its adjectives. My suggestion was that Hebrew is intentionally
> ambiguous on this point.

> There is a debate between Aristotle and Plato on the subject of
> definitions. According to the former, when you call something a "horse"
> you are really *describing* the object, saying that it shares a list of
> properties with other "horses". A word that we consider a noun, therefore,
> is merely shorthand for a list of adjectives.

> Kantians would discuss whether a noun refers to the thing itself or
> our perceptions of it. If the latter, then it really is a collection
> of adjectives.

> I'm suggesting that this ambiguity between noun and adjective in
> lashon hakodesh is because it is using nouns in the Aristotilian or
> Kantian-perception sense.


> I would like to add that the same motivation (if real) would apply to
> the ambiguity between "boneh" as a noun (builder) and as a verb (hu
> boneh achshav). The issue comes up in "boneh Y'laim" vs "boneih Y'laim",
> something some of us are discussing off the list. The former uses "boneh"
> as a verb, the latter uses it as a noun and then reconjugates it with a
> tzeirei to make it "the Builder of". But without that semichut to mean
> "of", there is an underlying ambiguity causing that machlokes.

> Lashon hoveh and adjectives are *supposed* to be one notion. "A is
> building B" and "A is the builder of B" both state the same relationship
> between A and B. English has two terms, but since Hebrew is describing
> the relationship and not the pair of objects it only requires one.

> It's a fundamentally different perception of reality.

Later in that thread, I noted that this continues to LhQ giving adjectives
a hei hayedi'ah along with the noun. Because it is also describable as
describing an object using a list of specifying nouns.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:36:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: AIUI, at the time it was unheard of for bread to contain anything treif,
: so there was no need to worry about it...


My understanding is that this is still true for some breads for which
there is a strong tradition to use a particular recipe. Such as buying
baguettes in France. RAF?

The star-K told me the same about traditional teas. Much like beers
that aren't dark here in the US. A brewer may use red wine to color beer
without "losing face" or calling it anything fancy. But most beers do not
require a hechsher. Whiskies, without the issue of sherry casks. Etc...

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

No, not that one. The Avinu Malkenu said in chazaras hashatz on Yamim Nora'im before uchsov lechaim tovim.

1. Is there a discernible order to those things we ask HKB"H to end? 
Specifically, why are "ketata" and "sinas chinom" separated by two other
things;  one would expect them to be together.

2. How can we ask HKB"H to end "avon";  we can ask for kapara, but how does this fit with "dever", "cherev" etc?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Fashion Design Education - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3oIaxZjwuTQkNIOh79d750OBdZNM6MPZVmCr2kZ4VdG5e3CR/

On Sun, September 28, 2008 8:19 pm, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote: "If people have pragmatic ideas as to how to gain more
: bitachon,"
:
: All I can say is that looking back at events in life, etc. etc., it
: becomes apparent that there was much good not apparent at the time.
: The more you look back, the more you can gain bitachon.

You are speaking to someone who lost a child, so I have a hard time
embracing that idea. Even if I could accept it intellectually,
emotionally the notion hits a solid wall. I would also think that any
Jew in this post-Holocaust era has a hard time taking comfort in the
idea that everything works out in the end. The price is often so
great, and "the end" so remote...

In the blog entry I mentioned earlier, I listed what I believe to be
three models for bitachon:

1- That if you would just trust in G-d, you would get what you want/need.

2- Trust that G-d is providing what is in your best interest.

3- I believe that while the CI asserts the 2nd is true, he does not
consider that trust to be bitachon. Since you don't know when the
story is over, when you can say "everything worked out in the end",
this statement is vaccuus. This is not necessarily what everyone sees
in the CI, so I refer the chevrah back to my post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/09/bitachon-trust-that.shtml>.

So how do I believe the CI does define bitachon? "[R]ealizing that
there are no coincidences in the world, and that whatever happens
under the sun is a function of Hashem's decree." It being in my
personal best interest is divorced from that definition.

I also proposed a 4th, synthesis position: "Bitachon is awareness that
the Almighty is acting in a covenental partnership with you. It is
from there that Rav Dessler's formula for hishtadlus emerges... It is
the CI's awareness that every event in our lives is part of a plan....
[H]aving bitachon demands that trust in 'my strength and the might of
my hand' is misplaced, and through my activities I can not avoid the
tragic. It is part of the role I play in the Divine Plan, and to not
accept them as from Him and part of the covenant would be disloyalty
to it."

The reason for all this speculation is because I'm trying to avoid
dismissming the problem of evil. Which ties right back to my original
question, which I now have to modify...

Given that plan A failed, I couldn't come to terms, or even with
wanting to come to terms, with things G-d allowed to happen to me in
the past, how can I develop bitachon?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@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

Did you notice how wealth and parnoso seem to be allotted special status on
the Yomim Noroim, with special bits and pieces added for this purpose?

Eg, saying Ledovid Mizmor after Maariv and the following Tefila for Parnoso
(from the Chida) - that most Machzorim include. 

Same with that extra tefila added to "AM Kosveinu besefer parnoso
vechalkolo". 

And even more so, the option (1 of 3) of asking for 'ashirus muflag' - 
while the Chazan says "Ahyei" during the Kedusha of Mussaf.

On that last one, I'd like to know how anyone can actually complete that
Tefilla at the same time. Seems far too long for me to fit in - while the
Chazan says one word.

And what about the other options? 
"Ruach Hakodesh"? Wow! 
Is it really that easy?? 
Same question is for option3 'banim tzadikim'. 

It would be interesting to from anyone who knows more about all this.

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?
==

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this?

GCT

SBA

But what you are describing is something that is for all practical purposes, 
meaningless. When the person learns how to use the TV control, then said 
control can be meaningful in his life. Until then it is one more useless 
hunk of circuits. So a baby's free will, assuming that he really has it, is 
also useless to him.

Ben
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>

>
> What we learn as we grow older (and what animals never learn, if they
> have this bechira in the first place) is how to *use* it.  I see a baby
> as like a person holding the remote control to a TV, one of those
> complex remotes with hundreds of buttons and all kinds of functions,
> but who has no idea how to use it, or even what it's for.  He just
> pushes buttons at random, but he's still *deciding* which ones to push,
> although he has no particular reason for that decision.  Eventually he
> learns that certain buttons produce certain results, and as a result
> his decisions become more rational and planned, but their fundamental
> nature hasn't changed.  He is no more in control of the TV now than he
> was then, he's just getting better results now that he knows what he's
> doing.
> 

Ben Waxman wrote:
> But what you are describing is something that is for all practical 
> purposes, meaningless.

For *practical* purposes the baby himself is meaningless too.


> When the person learns how to use the TV control, 
> then said control can be meaningful in his life. Until then it is one 
> more useless hunk of circuits. So a baby's free will, assuming that he 
> really has it, is also useless to him.

Of course it's useless to him at that stage; but that wasn't the
question.  The question was about the contrast between free will and
physics, i.e. the deterministic or indeterministic processes that
govern inanimate objects, and it was contended that a baby is in this
sense just like an object; that's what I objected to.  A baby's
decisions may be no more useful or meaningful than an object's
mechanical reactions, but I contend that their nature is completely
different -- that he is born with free will, and only needs to learn
how to use it.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 349
***************************************

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..."