Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 39

Sun, 22 Feb 2009

• 1. Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Harvey Benton)
• 2. Re: Wedding Rings for Men (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Micha Berger)
• 7. Shmiras Shabbos for non-Jews (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Harvey Benton)
• 11. Re: Wedding Rings for Men (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Yemach Shmo (Harry Weiss)
• 14. Re: yemach shmo (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 15. Re: yemach shmo (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. The Relationship Between the Written and Oral Law (Yitzchok Levine)
• 17. Singular Becomes Plural (Cantor Wolberg)

Theoretical Question:
We all know that Hashem punishes us slowly for the Chet Eigel; a little a
time.? We also know that when needed (Rosh Hashanna, etc.) he recalls the
zchus for us of? the Akeidas Yitzchak.? If the debt of one (Eigel) was
approximately the same as the zchus of the other (Akeida), could we ask
Hashem to let them cancel each other out?? and maybe call it even??? 

Though perhaps we wouldn't have the zechus of the Akeida ready-at-hand when
we needed it, we also wouldn't have the debt of the Chet Eigel hanging over
our heads, and therefore it might be worth it for us, in the long and/or
short runs.? Just a thought.? HB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090218/1dcaec5b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 08:47:20PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Now I come across the apparently (according to a talmid of the Yeshiva
: once occupied space at) famous chinuch

#552.. Which is really discussing why the minhag arose that the shaveh
perutan with which he marries her evolved to be a ring.

: So why is it not a good idea for men to be reminded as well?

It would be. But it's not like he's getting an object of value anyway.

And of course, it was "simlas ishah" until about a century ago, not worn
by non-Jewish western men (I don't know about other cultures) either.
That was, I believe, the primary topic of discussion last time around.

(A century sounds like a long time ago, until you consider the age of
the uniforms worn in the various communities that make a point of men
not wearing one...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 04:45:20PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
> We all know that Hashem punishes us slowly for the Chet Eigel; a little
> a time. We also know that when needed (Rosh Hashanna, etc.) he recalls
> the zchus for us of the Akeidas Yitzchak. If the debt of one (Eigel)
> was approximately the same as the zchus of the other (Akeida), could we
> ask Hashem to let them cancel each other out? and maybe call it even?? 

Zechus and onesh aren't fungible. Every sin is accounted for, and every
mitzvah rewarded. Being good in one way doesn't mean one can ignore
flaws that exist in another aspect.

One could ask about the justice of punishing subsequent generations
-- or reward them, but asking about that is looking a gift horse in
the mouth. Nu, so we talk about the lingering effects of that sin on
the next generations. The child learns behaviors from the parents. But
here it seems to run counter to the pasuq "notzeir chesed la'alafim"
-- nu, zechus avos fits. But the eigel, "poqeid avon avos al banim,
ve'al benei banim, al sheleishim ve'al ribei'im..." The contrast of
thousands of generations vs four being pointed out as a statement of
midas haRachamim. Well, we're well past ribei'im on the eigel. Ideas?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 08:49:48AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The obvious question is, why the distraction? If it wasn't time for
: the geula so don't bring the geula. Why would Hashem be forced to
: answer the tefillos of R' Chiya and his sons? ...

The problem is one of conflicting goals. HQBH wants sunshine and
happiness, a world of bestowed good. But He wants us to have free will
even more.

I see this story as a statement about that conflict. It would place the
motivation of sechar and justice for R' Chiya and his sons ad odds with
fairness for the rest of the world and where they were up to in the
process for ge'ulah.

The irresistable force and the unmovable object -- something had to
give. This interruption was how it gave; neither were violated.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 02:21:36PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: The entire concept of "Theurgy" is quite controversial....
: FWIW when the malachim comained zo torah v'zo sechara? Re: the 10
: martyrs HKBH Shushed them by threatening tohu vavohu.

Things are a little more complicated WRT mal'akhim, since they
(particularly when up in Shamayim I there is broader agreement) have no
bekhirah. I would say therefore that the medrash is clearly pure allegory,
without intent of literal truth as well.

WRT the creation of "eitz oseh peri" instead of "eitz peri", HQBH's
statement is of the ideal, whereas the mal'akhim's position represents
the compramise necessary within the real. IOW, the mal'akhim express
the results of the conflict of goals -- trees can't taste like their
fruit because for other reasons Hashem made a world where that would
mean they would be eaten to death.

Here, the mal'akhim cry at the violation of one ideal. No one implements
the compromise, so the medrash doesn't need them in that role. Instead,
Hashem explains the need for compromise.

The world is fragmented, thus Hashem's single goal is refracted into
multiple sub-goals. This creates conflict. None can be fully expressed,
since if they all were fully expressed, we would be back at tohu vavohu.
"Mi she'omeir le'olamo 'Dai!'..." is the process of maaseh bereishis,
no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

> Well, we're well past ribei'im on the eigel. Ideas?
> -Micha

Pokdi Is not punishment more like legacy or maybe karma

We are still suffering from cheit adam harishon and from cheit hameraglim
and from cheit ho'egel.

AISI it is not retribution so much as the lingering after affect.

Lemashal
A person eats a treif hot dog because it was temptingly delicious.
Poof he has repeated adam harishon's cheit and so he is reviving it.

A person is given a gift and he berates it. Poof he has revived cheit
meraglim via dibbah

A person is unfaithful or disloyal to HKBH or to torah poof cheit ho'egel
is revived.

I heard vesheim the gra say peshat on din vocheshbon:

Din is din
Cheshbon is the legacy or aftermath:

So if a father skips minyan his din is x
If his son grows up and skips minyan a lot due to that one time he gets
cheshbo even after missah! (Fwiw This is my YK yizkor drasha)

Now the din can be spread out only 4 doros. Cheshbon on fundamental
prototypical aveiros can linger for a while.

Lemashal my son broke his ankle. Pain was for several days healing
takes a long time. The bone is fine after 6 weeks but reidual soft
tissue damage can take much longer.

Solution? Intense teshuva!  

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:09:28PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Pokdi Is not punishment more like legacy or maybe karma
: We are still suffering from cheit adam harishon and from cheit hameraglim
: and from cheit ho'egel.
: AISI it is not retribution so much as the lingering after affect.

Mah beinaihu? Are you saying that onesh is retribution as opposed to
after-effect? If so, I disagree.

    Mipi elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov
    Mah yi'onein adam? -
    chai gever al chata'av!
                                - Yirmiyahu (Eikhah 3:38)


Much much more, such as a machloqes whether sin causes spiritual damage
which causes pain or likhlukh upon the soul, the relationship of the
hashkafic "fork" (temimus vs deveiqus), etc... at
<http://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf>, pg 4 onward.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Shabbos commemorates the creation of the universe ? ?ki sheishes yomim  
osso...al kein beirach.
In Va?eschanan, Devorim 5:15, Shabbos is also associated with yetzias  
Mitzrayim? ?vezocharto ki eved hoyiso...al kein tzivcho.

Reb Meir Simcha In Parshas Va?eschanan asks: Shabbos, which is a  
zeicher of briyas ha?olam, should be universal, and observed
by all mankind. Why, then, is the opposite true; not only is Shemiras  
Shabbos not obligatory for non-jews, but it is prohibited for a non-jew
to mark the Shabbos through shemirah? akum sheshovas chayav missa?  
(Sanhedrin 58b)

I have seen seven good responses which I'm sure many of you already  
know.
The following is my own response.

In the Megillas Esther 8:17 it says: "...Moreover, many from among the  
people of the land professed themselves Jews, for the fear of the Jews
had fallen upon them."   The term in the verse "Misyahadim" (Judaized)  
is used as opposed to "misgayarim" (converted).  In a sense, by their
masquerading as Jews, they were ridiculing us (even though the  
m'forshim give another reason). Hence, by a non-Jew keeping Shabbos, it
could be seen as mocking us. Therefore, they are chayav missa. If they  
sincerely believe and want to observe Shabbos, then they can convert.

ri 
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090219/49b9565f/attachment-0001.htm>

> Mah beinaihu? Are you saying that onesh is retribution as opposed to
> after-effect? If so, I disagree.
> -Micha

Lemashal
An arab steals his punishment is to lose his hand

The suffering he has afterwards is real but it's not the punishment.
One arab might live a few days another many years.

Adam harishon's punishment incuded a curse and galus from gan eden.
Even binyamin kil'av etc. Had to die w/o sin because of original sin's
legacy. So then HKBH according to you is always pokeid avon after 4
generations until the end of time.

According to me the punishment can spread over 4 doros but the impact
can be permanent.

We stll have no BhMikdash.  Punishment? Impact? Legacy? Pekidah?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:54:41PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: According to me the punishment can spread over 4 doros but the impact
: can be permanent.

As I see it, "punishment" /is/ impact. A cheit is something HQBH tells
you will cause personal damage. Doing it causes the damage, and the pain
of that damage is onesh.

Again, check my essay for my sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RMBerger: 
... zechus avos fits. But the eigel, "poqeid avon avos al banim,
ve'al benei banim, al sheleishim ve'al ribei'im..." The contrast of
thousands of generations vs four being pointed out as a statement of
midas haRachamim. Well, we're well past ribei'im on the eigel. Ideas?

HB: Doesn't Hashem only punish the sons and grandson's? future generations)
if they follow in the parents (or grandparent's) footsteps?.? Do those
generations have to be immediately following the sinning (HY) parents???
Did the generations (3 or 4) immediately following the Chet Eigel engage in
Avoda Zara?? If not, then Hashem apparently saved or saves the punishment
for future generations; and it might not just be limited to 3 or 4
generations following the immediate sin.? 

Finally, is the sin of Eigel still a problem for Bnei Yisrael, or is it as RMB writes, something that we are well past??


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090219/f3db4f39/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:24:28 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> And of course, it was "simlas ishah" until about a century ago, not worn
> by non-Jewish western men (I don't know about other cultures) either.

I assume you mean wedding rings in particular, not rings in general.  I
couldn't find any authoritative documentation, but this essay seems to
indicate that men's wedding rings actually entered Western culture even
more recently, during WWII:

"It was, in fact, during the second world war that the use of wedding
rings by men became more common. (Note that mens wedding rings and
men's wedding bands are interchangeable, both meaning the same thing.)

It became the custom for US soldiers going to war to publicise their
marital status by the wearing of a man's wedding ring. They were happy
to make public their commitment to their wife by the wearing of a
public symbol that declared that commitment to all. Given that this
habit of wearing men's wedding bands was reasonably new it was all the
more creditable that these men were willing to forego the marital
obscurity available to them from not wearing a ring and actively chose
to make a public statement about their choice.

Men's wedding rings have become increasingly more common since that
time."

http://www.familyresource.com/relationship
s/marriage/mens-wedding-rings-should-a-man-wear-one-or-not

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

mal'akhim, since they
(particularly when up in Shamayim I there is broader agreement) have no
bekhirah. "

Source please?

Malachim argue so bechira is a given.  Rashi in humash and tanna devei eliyahu zuta both say mal'achim "lack yetzer horo" they don't necessarily lack bechira..

It's a misperception. Malachim are not robots they can have a personality.  They just are above temptation. 

And while in flesh form they probably can be tempted

Kt
Rrw
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] yemach shmo
> The previous LR, in a published letter (which is therefore hora'ah
> larabim) uses that term about Mendelsohn.
>
I don't remember the source but I was taught the exact opposite.  Even if
someone like Achav had died childless his wife would have ben Mechuyav in
Yibum/Chalitza.    therefor that term cannot be used about a Jew.

R' Saul Newman asked:
> ... an off-list discussion where this expression was used
> about an O rabbi who espouses a doctrine that many other
> O rabbis would consider foolish but not neccesarilly
> heretical, ...

I shuddered when I read this.

Someone wishes such a thing on a person who is a mere fool and hasn't necessarily committed any aveira?

I pity the person who 

Scratch that. I don't want to say any more until this person (the one who said "yemach shmo" about a fool) has had a chance to explain himself.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Shop for the one you love today. Click here for quality engagement rings.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsJiego32sRsEIfCzDDfeIXcgw44KKugWWpU4np1DumIx7Wek55goI/

From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
>>in relation to an off-list  discussion where this expression was used about 
an O rabbi  who  espouses a doctrine that many other O rabbis would 
consider foolish but not  neccesarilly heretical,  i wonder if there are 
parameters for the use  of this expression about jews, frum or not.
eg  does it apply to Ben  Gurion? all non-Orthodox rabbis?  Rabbi Slifkin? 
the heads of  Meshichism? one side of a Rebbe succesion dispute about the  
other?<<




>>>>>
"Yemach shemo" should be reserved for the murderers of Jews, for  Amalek, 
Nazis and jihadis.  It should never be used for Jews unless they  are resha'im 
beyond a shadow of a doubt, like those Jews in the Middle Ages who  became 
meshumadim and then denounced the Talmud to the Christian authorities  and 
instigated the burning of Jewish books, men like Nicolas Donin in  Paris in 1240, 
Joshua Halorki in Spain in 1413 and Johannes Pfefferkorn in  Germany in 1509.  


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



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


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID<
/a>
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090219/12a6869a/attachment-0001.htm>

In his commentary at the beginning of Parshas 
Mishpatim RSRH gives a brilliant and incisive 
explanation of the relationship between Torah 
Sh'B'Ksav  and Torah Sh'Baal Peh.  This is a 
somewhat long read, but it does set down some of 
the most important fundamentals of Judaism.  YL

In part he writes on Shemos

21:2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall 
serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying.

This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth
the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate
human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be
expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But
with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells
another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!!

This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written
Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary
source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must
have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before
the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only
exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit
the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom,
that the Law begins!

However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word,
the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book?
serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The
Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been
transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them
for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over
to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional
cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the
principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly.

On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, k'lalim, but
individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive
manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were
entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language
of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual
term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra
or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts.
This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was
meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a
means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they
had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid
for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that
the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before
them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received
by word of mouth.

The relationship between Torah Sh'B'ksav and Torah Sh'Baal Peh is like that
between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture
itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief
notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a
word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring
of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas,
observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not
attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they
try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity
make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the
students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars
for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely
meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt
to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct)
for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear
as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090219/692d9896/attachment-0001.htm>

In this coming week's portion it is written:  'Build a sanctuary for  
Me and I will dwell in them (plural)?'
Many scholars have asked:  "Wouldn't it be more correct to say, 'build  
a sanctuary for Me and I will dwell in it (singular)'?"

I submit what I'm sure is a novel response.

To God ? past, present and future is the same. God transcends time.  
(Also, if you stop and think about it, in one split second, the future  
becomes the present and then is past).
God knew that down the road, the one Sanctuary would eventually be  
replaced by many Sanctuaries, but obviously, in a different format.
Hence, God is saying, if you take the first step and build the primary  
sanctuary, when the time comes that there are many synagogues, I will  
dwell in ALL of Them.
ri

?Media, the plural of mediocrity.?
Jimmy Breslin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090221/ea38d6fd/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 39
**************************************

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..."