Volume 26: Number 99
Wed, 27 May 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "I. Balbin" <Isaac.Bal...@rmit.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:33:44 +1000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
> I would like further clarification on this point, too, but this is
> what I
> think it means: not that the actual Aramaic words used by Onkelos
> were
> given on Sinai together with the Torah [who even spoke Aramaic back
> then? Why
> would Hebrew-speaking Israelites need a translation in a language
> they did
> not even speak?] BUT that the correct understanding and
> interpretation of
> the words of the Torah Shebichsav were transmitted orally along
> with the
> Torah Shebichsav
Indeed. This is explicitly mentioned by the Rav, RYBS zt"l in some of
his comments on the Parsha as recorded by Rav Hershel Shachter.
Namely, that Onkelos listened in and learned from the lessons given to
the Tinokos Shel Beis Rabon by their Melamed/Rebbi.
That Melamed was transmitting the oral mesora from sinai in his
translation/basic explanation. Onkelos served to record these
in Aramaic
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Maxi Yedid <maxiye...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:51:09 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] 70 nations
Shalom
I heard a while back that there are two "sets" of 70 nations; one from Noach
and one from Esav and Ishmael. Any sources on this?
thanks
nissim yedid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090526/9577db26/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 00:16:35 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How were Levi'I'm Counted?
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Rashi Bamidbar 3:16
Levi'I'm were counted "al pi Hashem"
Does this imply that they did not use Mahatzis Hasheqel?
Do any Midrashim or Mefarshim elaborate upon this method?
>>>>>
It certainly does imply, as you say, that they did not use machatzis
hashekel to count the Levi'im, but I'm not sure what your question is. The
Rashi you cite says that Moshe stood at the door of each Levi's tent and a bas
kol announced how many Levi'im were inside. Rashi says "how many babies"
but clearly means babies plus.
This is probably not an answer to your question but Eliyahu Kitov in his
Sefer Haparshios says that after the bas kol announced how many children were
in each tent, Moshe added up the total and announced how many Levi'im
there were, and then the bas kol repeated the number that Moshe had said,
confirmed Moshe's count. He says the reason for this was so that all would know
that Moshe had counted accurately and had not purposely undercounted the
number of Levi'im in order to gain more silver for his shevet (because each
of the "extra" first-borns who did not have a corresponding Levi had to pay
silver, if you recall).
(Kitov gives sources in his chapter endnotes but I can't make sense of all
the abbreviations.)
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************We found the real ?Hotel California? and the ?Seinfeld?
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
(http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/2ea4b3ab/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:06:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How were Levi'I'm Counted?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:16:35AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: It certainly does imply, as you say, that they did not use machatzis
: hashekel to count the Levi'im, but I'm not sure what your question is. The
: Rashi you cite says that Moshe stood at the door of each Levi's tent and a bas
: kol announced how many Levi'im were inside. Rashi says "how many babies"
: but clearly means babies plus.
Rashi could mean "how many people too young to give a machatzis
hasheqel". Although I thought the Leviim were counted by peteq, which I
would deduce from RKBloom's post was something I saw in HaEmeq Davar
once. But the same answer would work either way, that the bas qol was
only needed for those too young for the manual method.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:09:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] rules of evidence in halcha
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:30:21AM -0400, Dov Weinstock wrote:
: 1. Is there a similar concept in halacha, or do we find both parties liable
: - i.e. the entrapper and the entrapped?
There is very little discussion of how the shoterim do their jobs in
general. You got me wondering about a bigger picture.
: 2. Is there anything similar to 'inadmissible evidence' - i.e., valid
: evidence that the court will ignore because of the way it was obtained?
Ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. In contrast to the 5th ammendment in US
Law, which only says that lechat-chilah one musn't self-incriminate.
The fact that even bedi'eved we don't accept the eidus (even down to
palginin dibura) would seem to be similar.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole?
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:42:13 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name)
> "There are inscriptions that evidence the earliest use of the language,
> dating from the tenth century BCE.[--RYG]
That late, huh? So what did Lavan speak?
--
Zev Sero
>>>>>
Lavan spoke whatever language was spoken in Aram Naharaim in his day. It
was "Aramaic" in the same sense that the language then spoken by the
Egyptians was "Egyptian" -- and we know that language was not Arabic. Lavan's
Aramaic may have been a Semitic language but it seems to me that we have no
way of knowing that one way or another. Maybe someone here can clarify that
point, too.
What does "Yagar Sahadusa" mean, anyway? In Talmudic Aramaic, does it
mean anything?
In Canaan of Avraham's day they definitely spoke [a] Semitic language[s],
and extant inscriptions prove that, e.g., Akkadian was virtually identical
to Biblical Hebrew.
--Toby Katz
==========
_________________
**************We found the real ?Hotel California? and the ?Seinfeld?
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
(http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/9ce4758e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:31:36 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> I would like further clarification on this point, too, but this is
> what I think it means: not that the actual Aramaic words used by
> Onkelos were given on Sinai together with the Torah [who even spoke
> Aramaic back then? [--TK]
Everybody. At least, everybody who was educated, or who engaged in
international trade. It was the English of its day.
> Why would Hebrew-speaking Israelites need a translation in a
> language they did not even speak?]
Rashi Devarim 1:5
--
Zev Sero
>>>>>
Rashi there says Moshe explained the Torah in 70 languages, but does that
mean that Aramaic rather than Hebrew was the spoken language of B'Y? That
is a stretch. They were redeemed from Egypt because they didn't change
their distinctive clothing, their names or their language -- shelo shinu es
leshonam. Now you want to tell me that the language they clung to in Egypt
and never changed was actually Aramaic, the lingua franca of the ancient
Middle East? I'm not buying that.
And if he translated the Torah into 70 languages how come we have the
Targum in only one of those 70?
Anyway that Rashi is just a medrash, which has no bearing on the literal
truth of any other medrash. It has no bearing on the question of whether
the Aramaic Targum is word for word what Moshe said when he translated the
Torah into Aramaic (even if you take that Rashi about the 70 languages
literally). BTW when Moshe translated the Torah into English, did he
prophetically utter the future words of the ArtScroll Chumash or did he foreshadow the
Soncino?
--Toby Katz
===========
_______________________
**************We found the real ?Hotel California? and the ?Seinfeld?
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
(http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/306c025c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:12:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:31:36AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Rashi there says Moshe explained the Torah in 70 languages, but does that
: mean that Aramaic rather than Hebrew was the spoken language of B'Y?
...
The name of the food "mann" presumes they asked the question "Man hu?" not
"Mah zeh?"
From the Kuzari, vol II (Hartwig's public-domain translation at
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitab_al_Khazari/Part_Two>, see
<http://www.tsel.org/torah/kuzari/sheni.html> for Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew),
emphasis mine:
67. Al-Khazari: Is Hebrew superior to other languages? Do we not
see distinctly that the latter are more finished and comprehensive?
68. The Rabbi: It shared the fate of its bearers, degenerating
and dwindling with them. Considered historically and logically,
its original form is the noblest. According to tradition it is the
language in which God spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter
conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from adamah,
ishshah from ish; hayyah from hayy; Cain from qanithi; Sheth from
shath, and Noah from yenah, menu. This is supported by the evidence
of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noah and Adam. It
is the language of Eber after whom it was called Hebrew, because
after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham
was an Aramaean of Ur Kasdim, because the language of the Chaldaeans
was Aramaic. HE EMPLOYED HEBREW AS A SPECIALLY HOLY LANGUAGE AND
ARAMAIC FOR EVERYDAY USE. For this reason Ishmael brought it to
the Arabic speaking nations, and the consequence was that Aramaic,
Arabic and Hebrew are similar to each other in their vocabulary,
grammatical rules, and formations. The superiority of Hebrew is
manifest from the logical point of view if we consider the people who
employed it for discourses, particularly at the time when prophecy
was rife among them, also for preaching, songs and psalmody. It is
conceivable that their rulers such as for instance, Moses, Joshua,
David, and Solomon lacked the words to express what they wished, as
it is the case with us to-day, because it is lost to us? Dost thou
not see how the Torah, when describing the Tabernacle, Ephod and
breastplate and other objects, always finds the most suitable word
for all these strange matters? How beautifully is this description
composed? It is just the same with the names of people, species of
birds and stones, the diction of David's Psalms, the lamentations of
Job, and his dispute with his friends, the addresses of Isaiah, etc.
(BTW, it pays to keep on reading to see how the Chaver actually answers
the question of how Hebrew is superior.)
Even back to Avraham, we used Aramaic for secular conversation. The
notion of having a Yiddish, Ladino, or even dare I say it Abazi"t (Ivrit
bat zemaneinu) is as old as the avos.
And thus of the 70 targumim, the only one of use to us at that time was
that written in mame-lashen, Aramaic. Which is *literally* mame-lashen
-- where did Avraham find Sarai, and where did Eliezer and Yaaqov go to
find the imahos?
We also found that the gemara tells us that Adam spoke Aramaic, not
Hebrew. I laconically suggested that Aramaic doesn't necessarily mean
Aramaic, but rather the general concept of la'az. My notion was based
on a vague recollection of this Kuzari. What? Mal'akhim can figure out
English, but not Hebrew's sister? And in fact in Chagiga 16a the notion
is framed as mal'akhim only speak Hebew. It could be a machloqes, or one
could say (as I want to) that "Aramaic" is sometimes an aggadic buzzword
for any chol language.
In the case of what language Adam spoke, the ra'ayah is from a pasuq
in Tehillim attributed to Adam that has Aramaic in it. (Somehow, it's
a machloqes acharonim what exactly in that pasuq is Aramaic. That would
seem to mean Aramit mamash.
Our understanding of this gemara is complicated by having to explain
Rashi (11:1) who says the pre-Migdal "safah achas" was LhQ, the same
language he says was used in maaseh bereishis (2:23). The notion that
maaseh bereishis was in LhQ is in Berakhos 13a and Sanhedrin 21b. And
the Ramban (Shemos 30:13) holds that LhQ was the language that HQBH
spoke to Adam in, and was the language of all people until migdal Bavel.
I would surmise that R' Yehudah amar Rav was about Adam after the
cheit. That in Gan Eden he, like the mal'akhim, only communicated in LhQ.
But afterward, he was capable of dealing with reality in a manner other
than qedushah, and Aramaic arose. That being the point of both aggaditos,
not the ancestry of the language used by the Aramiim.
More needs to be thought through about the Ramban, along with identifying
what "safah achas" and "devarim achadim" mean. Are either the same concept
as "lashon"? We've discussed this before, but I never was convinced of any
particular conclusion, nor did we weave it into this area of dicussion.
: They were redeemed from Egypt because they didn't change
: their distinctive clothing, their names or their language -- shelo shinu es
: leshonam. Now you want to tell me that the language they clung to in Egypt
: and never changed was actually Aramaic, the lingua franca of the ancient
: Middle East? I'm not buying that.
Why not? The tzad hashaveh -- not that a phantom maamar chazal woven
from thre different sources necessarily has one -- is that we resisted
assimilation. Not that Aramaic was special as much as it not being Mitzri.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole?
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:46:41 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] rules of evidence in halcha
R' DS wrote:
> Mishna 7:10 in Sanhedrin: If a Meisis - one trying to get others to
> worship AZ - is sly and doesn't want to repeat himself in front of 2
> people, the victim hides 2 witnesses behind the fence and then goads
> the Meisis to repeat himself.
That is an exception to the rule. In other crimes, this is not
acceptable evidence seeking; it is the opposite of hatraah.
But, as RYG posted, if it was done, it is unclear whether we would
meaningfully excuse the trapped criminal.
--
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:42:14 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] Ruth on Shavuot
"> My own favourite is that the Torah is the Book of Loving Kindness,
therefore
> we read Ruth because of the kindness she showed to Naomi and Boaz etc.,
> which is reflected in her name, not used often, but means kind. We are
more
> used to its antonym, ruthless!
Some brief googling doesn't indicate that the Biblical name Ruth and
the English noun ruth are etymologically related. Do you have a source?
Yitzhak"
Nope. Beautiful idea though, don't you think?
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/1890789a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:13:52 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] ruth vs ruthless
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ruthless
c.1327, from reuthe "pity, compassion" (c.1175), formed from reuwen "to
rue" (see rue (v.)) on the model of true/truth, etc. Ruthful(c.1225) has
fallen from use since late 17c. except as a deliberate archaism.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/6c037d46/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:49:48 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
RZS wrote:
> That late, huh? ?So what did Lavan speak?
The 10th Cent. BCE date is for when Aramaic is first attested in
writing. There are barely any surviving semitic texts from that era,
very possibly because they mostly wrote on papyrus and parchment,
rather than clay, the medium of choice in Sumerian and related
languages.
That said, regarding the main issue, it is hard to see why our
ancestors at Sinai would have cared for an Aramaic translation, but
then again, they would have been more likely to speak that than speak,
say, Swahili.
--
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:27:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
T6...@aol.com wrote:
> What does "Yagar Sahadusa" mean, anyway? In Talmudic Aramaic, does it
> mean anything?
"Yegar" doesn't come up, any more than does "gal". But "sahada" means
a witness, and "sahadusa" means "the testimony", just as it did 1800 or
so years earlier.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:45:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Targumim from Sinai
Micha Berger wrote:
> Mal'akhim can figure out
> English, but not Hebrew's sister? And in fact in Chagiga 16a the
> notion is framed as mal'akhim only speak Hebew.
RMF takes it for granted that they only understand properly pronounced
Hebrew, and therefore they can only hear the prayers of whichever of
our various edot, if any, has preserved the correct accent. Since all
we have to go on is mesorah, we each have to preserve the one we were
given, in case it's the right one. If we had some way of knowing that
some other edah's accent was the right one, we'd have to switch to it.
> It could be a machloqes, or one
> could say (as I want to) that "Aramaic" is sometimes an aggadic
> buzzword for any chol language.
Say rather that Aramaic is simply an example of a language they don't
understand.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:04:43 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Naaseh V'nishma
The Maharal of Prague asks, ?If the Jewish people had already accepted
the Torah at Sinai with the declaration of Naaseh V?nishmah why was it
necessary for God to hold a mountain over their heads to compel them
to accept the Torah? The Maharal answers that it is true that the
Jewish people had said Naaseh V?nishmah; however, the mountain over
their heads was to demonstrate to them that they must accept the Torah
because it is the Will of God regardless of their own preference.
The naaseh v'nishma paradigm reminds me of when someone asks: "Can you
do me a favor?" Usually the person responds: "What would you like?"
Whereas, the naaseh v'nishma response to some who asks: "Can you do me
a favor" would be "Yes, I'd be glad to do you a favor." Then
afterwards the follow-up response would be: "What would you like?"
That would be the true Jewish response following in the footsteps of
naaseh v'nishma.
rw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/c62aaa0e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:38:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Keneged Hahar
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:55:11PM +0300, Shlomo Pick wrote:
: Nothing wrong. They came har Sinai and turned their backs on worldliness
: which is pure worldliness. After getting the torah, they could now sanctify
: that worldliness. In such a case, it's no longer worldliness but becomes
: torah. This is signified in the two tablets of stone...
: This is not derush, but halakha, as I refer you to OH 131 :1 where there is
: a mandate to make all your worldliness holy but having the proper kavanot.
Qadeish es atzmekha bemah shemutar lakh.
Or: TiDE.
But you gave me a great opening to quote RSShkop (translation mine, from
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>):
For everything He created and formed was according to His Will
(may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So
too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall
walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should
constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual
powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. In my
opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem's mitzvah
"Be holy, [for I am Holy]." The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24)
says about this verse: "Can it [truly] be 'Like Me?' This is why
it continues, 'for I am Holy' to teach that My Sanctity is above
yours." And about the foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity
the Toras Kohanim4 has "'be holy' -- be separate". Nachmanides,
in his commentary on the Torah, explains at length this notion of
separation as it is stated in this mitzvah, that it is separation
from excessive comfort and pleasure -- even if they are actions that
are not prohibited to us. In one illustrative statement, he writes
that it is possible for a person to be disgusting with [what would
otherwise be] the permission of the Torah, see his holy words there.
...
And so, it appears to my limited thought that this mitzvah includes
the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our lives. All
of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing
good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or
get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of
helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart
for an honorable purpose -- which is that a person straightens his
path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the
community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of
his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy,
for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the
good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on
him. But if he derives benefit from some kind of permissible thing
that isn't needed for the health of his body and soul, that benefit
is in opposition to holiness. For in this he is benefiting himself
(for that moment as it seems to him), but no one else.
... [Multi-page skip] ...
The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was
a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the
Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two
stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah.
Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word
of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets,
so will be his ability to receive.
...
To my mind this can be connected to what our sages explained in
Nedarim (folio 38) on the verse "carve for yourself". Moses didn't get
rich except through the extras of the Tablets. This is an amazing idea
-- [is it possible that] Hashem couldn't find any way to make Moses
wealthy except through the extras of the Tablets? But through what
we said, we can explain this. Through this change of how Tablets are
to be readied, there was given opportunity for those who receive the
Torah to fear, to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah. Through
this it becomes appropriate for anyone entering the gates of Torah
to separate themselves from all the preoccupations of his world. As
they interpret the verse "'it is not on the other side of the sea'
it is not found at salesman or importers." However, if the first
Tablets had remained, then it would be sufficient to establish
an easy hour for Torah, and spend most of your time trading and
buying. For this reason the Holy One showed Moses as a sign to all
who accept the Torah that He would prepare for them their income
through the making of the Tablet; any "extras that are carved away"
will provide them with income.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole?
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 14:05:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:29:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RDB writes:
:> They are not Tinokos Shenishbu because, to quote RMF in Even HaEzer:
:> "They (Reform) are not at all to be considered Tinokos Shenishbu since they
:> see many Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos, and see also Radbaz that there is almost
:> no such a thing"
: Rav Moshe is an interesting case, because he holds of a half way house -
: between tinok shenishbu and rashaim gemorim - at least in relation to those
: who are not Reform or Conservative rabbis. He holds that today, such people
: are to be considered as people who sin out of desire for parnasa or other
: ta'avas - ie l'ta'avon rather than l'chachis....
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:02:06PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: (PS: Vocabulary note: I have used the word "sinner" here because it
: is deliberately vague. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion
: of what kind of sinner is in which category, such as merely "l'tayavon"
: or full-blown "l'hachis". Wherever you want to put that line, I'm simply
: mentioning which mitzvos it will be relevant to.)
I would draw another distinction than the one RnCL makes or RAM is trying
to avoid -- there are halakhos that depend on the person being kasher,
and there are halakhos that depend on the substance of emunah.
Eg with respect to tefillah... An atheist or someone with a warped
definition of the Deity might not be culpable for his beliefs. He could
be letei'avon, he could be oneis, shogeig, etc... Ebven perhaps someone
RAM couldn't call a "sinner" nor even letei'avon. But he doesn't believe
in E-lokei Avraham.
Should you count him for a minyan? What's he davening to?
That's what I mean by the substance of emunah. Regardless of
culpability, the belief itself is at odds with the mitzvah.
Another case: Stam yeinam. Regardless of guilt or culpability, if the
person is capable of sanctifying wine to something other than avodas
Hashem, where both the avodah and the Deity are as the Torah teaches,
one of the sevaros for stam yeinam (a gezeirah atu yayin nesekh) applies.
Is he included?
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:19:19PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: 1) The level of knowledge today suffices to judge them as Mezidim (Radvaz
: (they have been *warned* to return to Torah,not just heard about
: it)...
I raised this before when this thread was fresher. The TsN is an example
of shogeig, not a kelal in and of itself. However, the same Radvaz holds
that someone who is misled through honest derishah vechaqira is an oneis.
Is the 2nd generation Morrano that he is describing neither shogeig nor
oneis? Is he more culpable for what his parents and the priests in school
taught him than had he reached the conclusion himself?
I find the Radvaz's whole position difficult, and I'm betting we haven't
yet gotten to the bottom of it.
...
: The Chazon Ish himself writes that the Machlokes Acharonim is on the issue
: of "the level of knowledge, to what extent to they know of the existence of
: the Jews, and that their fathers separated from them and turn their
: shoulder." He also writes that the reason why the Tinokos Shenishbu are
: treated as Jews is because they have a Chazakah that they will repent if
: told sufficiently....
Much is in that word "told". I don't think the CI means imparting abstract
ideas; rather, qiruv.
: The CI forbade foods cooked in factories
: by non-Torah observant Jews, and RYSE says that we see that L'chumrah the CI
: did not think they had a Din of TNS.
As above, I would take the CI to mean that bishul aku"m is because he is
aku"m, not because he is a bad person. This is in contrast to maalin
umoridin, which is an issue of guilt.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: As to your question as to whether Rav Moshe would have today or even in the
: 80/90s - which is after the times he was writing, have considered even
: reform and conservative rabbis to fall within a different category than
: kofer b'ikar, we can really only speculate....
I raised the issue for a different reason. It's different enough for us
to need a new pesaq. Not necessarily to guess about what RMF would have
said, but to find out what "Shemu'el bedoro" says.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 99
**************************************
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..."