Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 225

Tue, 10 Nov 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:34:25 -0700
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Seclusion is not the Jewish Way


T6...@aol.com wrote:
> Avraham kept himself away from the evils of the big city and refused to 
> associate with reshaim -- it was Lot, not Avraham, who settled in Sedom, 
> while Avraham lived a rural life, in a tent.  At the same time, his tent 
> was open on all four sides and he was exceptionally warm and hospitable 
> to all -- on his terms, in his own home.  ("Wash that avodah zarah off 
> your feet before you come in -- now, how can I serve you, what can I do 
> for you?  Please enjoy my chulent and kugel, my beautiful Shabbos table 
> and a soft bed and how else can I help you?  And oh yes, don't forget to 
> thank G-d -- me?  pshaw, it was nothing...it was all His doing, the 
> least I can do is share His bounty...")
>  
> This is the model for austritt and kiruv, love for your fellow Jew, 
> cordiality towards all humanity, and Torah independence.

AFAIR, it was, "How may I serve you, let me start by washing your feet, 
..."  No need to get into the problem of AZ with the person until he had 
a chance to experience the positive interaction.  Also a relevant lesson 
for contemporary kiruv.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:55:56 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash


I was wondering if there are any sources that discussed how Olim LeRegel 
from Egypt or Bavel handled the issue of Yom Tov Sheni when they came to 
Beit HaMikdash.

Was it an issue?

Are there any sources about people coming to Israel from Europe (Rome, 
Greece), for the purpose of Aliyah LeRegel during the time of Chashmonaim, 
for example?

Shoshana L. Boublil





Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:17:25 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is a minhag?


R' Ben Waxman wrote:
> the difference between minhag and practice (the former being
> binding and the latter not) starts to break down.

and R' Rich Wolpoe responded:
> Who says every minhag is binding? ...
> Here are many optional minhaggim
>    Ushpizin
>    Tashlich
> ...

Let's not get bogged down in semantics. RBW is using the word "minhag" to
describe one which is binding, whereas RRW sees some minhagim which are
*not* binding.

To me, there is a very simple way to resolve this, and I'll use RRW's
example of Ushpizin to illustrate it: IT seems clear to me that Ushpizin
*is* a "minhag", in an abstract sort of way, in that it has certain rules
about when and how to do it. There are even disputes about the "right" or
"proper" way to do it -- i.e., where Yosef appears in the list.

However, it is quite possible that it is binding upon some, and not binding
upon others. This will depend on the practices prevalent in one's family
and/or community. Some people might not be bound to follow this minhag, and
so they refer to it as a "practice" which they might not do, or perhaps
they might even do it occasionally, or even on a regular basis but with a
distinct "bli neder" approach so that it doesn't become binding in the
future. Other people *are* bound to do Ushpizin, so they refer to it simply
as a "minhag", with all the relevant rules in place.

In other words, if something is *a* minhag, but not *my* minhag, I may be
tempted to refer to it as a "practice", even though it may be binding on
others. Other things might never be binding on anyone, even if the practice
is widespread.

Here's a practical example. Perhaps someone can help me research it:
Shuckeling (swaying) while davening. Is this a practice or a minhag? Is it
binding or optional? (I clearly remember seeing it mentioned in KSA or MB,
citing Tehilim 35:10 as the source, but I can't find it, so I don't know
exactly how it was written up there.) If it is binding, did Rav Moshe
Feinstein need to do Hataras Nedarim when he chose instead to stand at
attention for his prayers?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Copiers for Sale
Compare prices and save. Large selection of top name brands!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=DVL1FB_nft9yfeqXfPs4cwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAN9PTT4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIVYwAAAAA=




Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:58 +0100
Subject:
[Avodah] Why Avraham wasn't chosen for bringing down the


Last week or so someone posted that according to the siluq (last piyut
recited before qedusha - may also include several sections, such as a
seder, which is usually a poetic elaboration on one verse) of Shavu'ot
morning, Avraham didn't merit to bring the Torah to mankind or to his
budding 'am yisrael because he partially failed his ultimate nisayon,
as he didn't pray for G"d to let Yits'haq live.

Unfortunately I must report that there ain't any such statement in the
siluq in question. Both the siluq of the 1st and 2nd days deal with
the heros of Jewish history who did not merit to bring the Torah down,
and indeed, on the first day, a reason is given why Avraham didn't
pass muster, but his fault was not connected to teh 'Aqeida at all;
instead, his fault was asking bamah eida' ki irashenah.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: bass...@queensu.ca
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:15 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Meir Bar-Ilan



A technical correction to your technical correction.
The gentleman I was referring to, Professor Meir Bar-Ilan is certainly a
descendant of the netziv BUT he is very much alive and a prolific scholar
with a huge website and was and likely is currently the head of the talmud
department at bar-ilan university. Abraham Epstein, so far as I know was
not related to yechiel michal epstein family.

Zvi Basser

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091110/424ab494/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Joseph C. Kaplan" <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:45:03 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Meir Bar Ilan


"Just a technical correction.  R. Meir (Berlin) Bar Ilan, after whom Bar 
Ilan University is named was niftar before the univesity was established. 
He was the younger son of the Netziv of Volozhin.  Since he is from second 
marriage, he wass much much younger than his older brother R. Chaim 
Berlin."

There is a Meir Bar Ilan who currently teaches at Bar Ilan University in
the Jewish History and Talmud Departments.  I believe he is the grandson of
the original.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091110/7448f4ee/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:51:30 +0100
Subject:
[Avodah] Daily Vidui Recitation


Nussach Sefard recites vidui and 13 middot daily. This is also common
in Israel, even among adherents of minhag Ashkenaz.

This minhag is based on the Zohar parshat Bo and the Zohar 'Hadash.
Under influence of the Ari, many congregations incorporated the
recitation of vidui and 13 middot into the daily liturgy. It is found
in the siddur of the SheLaH, too.

It is unclear to me whether those congregation who stick minhag avot
and do not recite vidui daily, do so out of allegiance to past
practices only, or also because of a perceived disadvantage or even
halakhic problem in reciting that daily.

Does anyone know of actual opposition to this daily recitation of
vidui? Any sources opposing it?
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:54:54 -0800
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yishmael v. the mitzri???


RHB:

> in this week's parsha, Rashi tells us that Hashem judged Yishmael as he
>> was (then), not looking into his future or the future of his descendants.
>>
>> However we know that by the episode of Moshe we do know that Moshe
>> looked forward to see if the Mitzri would have any worthy descendants,
>> (he saw none, and then killed the Mitzri)......
>> Why the difference between the two cases??
>>
>> RSZ:
>> It's obvious.  The mitzri then was not innocent, he was guilty!
>>
>
LK:
And Yishmael was innocent? See the Siftei Chachamim on Rashi there. Rather,
I think you have to say that for all the bad Yishamel's descendants have
done to us, there have been good ones as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091110/0acf6d74/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:38:17 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is a minhag?


Akiva:
> To me, there is a very simple way to resolve this, and I'll use RRW's
> example of Ushpizin to illustrate it:

All I am trying to say is that Minhag is a very general term and has
very diferent meanings in different contexts - as Akiva himself seems
to be saying.

And those different meanings impose differing levels of chiyyuv, etc.

AISI some impose Reshus only, IOW totally optional, but perhaps
praiseworthy anyway

EG reciting certain parshiyyos, EG Man, Yirah, etc.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:52:47 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is a minhag?


On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:38:17PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: All I am trying to say is that Minhag is a very general term and has
: very diferent meanings in different contexts - as Akiva himself seems
: to be saying.

: And those different meanings impose differing levels of chiyyuv, etc.

I thought this whole thing began by my trying to identify these specific
meanings, because RnTK spoke about something just being customary, not
minhag (or words to that sort).

You split it into
1- a pesaq that one community follows
2- other practices, not followed mishum halakhah.

I accepted this dichotomy, but don't think it goes far enough. I think
that there are
2a- minhagim that are binding
2b- minhagim that are optional; perhaps this is limited to minhag
    chassidus

Then there are
3- secular customs.

In which case, the original question is whether category three even
exists.

E.g. 1: Bet Yosef meat to a Sepharadi is in category 1. It's their pesaq,
and for Sepharadim it's ikar hadin. Glatt to someone from the south of
Eastern Europe is in category 2a, I would guess, since it's his entire
qehillah's practice. But they take qulos because they don't believe it's
ikar hadin. A Litzvak might follow glatt for pragmatic reasons (can't
find a non-glatt shechitah he is comfortable with) or at most as 2(b)
a minhag chassidus.

E.g. 2: Maaser kesafim, depending on shitah, is de'oraisa, derabbanan,
minhag or a hanhagah tovah. If in the latter category (2b), then in the
Vaad 4 Aratzos, where the qehillah established a tax of 10%, was that
also a secular custom (simultaneously 2b and 3)? Or is it inherently
binding anyway -- that the whole religious vs secular practice thing is
inherently alien to Yahadus?

On a different chiluq (types of 2, rather than e.g. 2's implications
about whether a Jewish community's customs could ever be secular):

I used the QSA about automatic nedarim to question whether the difference
between category 2a and 2b, since he seems to say that practices that
are meichamas siyag uperishus can create a neder unless you explicitly
decide "beli neder". This would appear to mean that practices done
to add hislahavus, including our Qabbalah derived practices, would
be in category 2b, since they are not to avoid sin through accident,
habit (these two being reasons for a siyag) or irresistible temptation
(otherwise avoided through perishus).

However, this would make the pattern by which we wash neigl vasr or
before hamotzi non-binding, and I find that conclusion hard to believe.

Is it possible my definition of perishus isn't the same as R'
Ganzfried's? Or does someone have a different possibility?

But in short, to me this thread was about binding vs non-binding
(non-pesaq) minhagim vs secular customs -- how do we define them, and
do all three categories exist?

Note that this is a variant on our perennial "what is a chumrah"
discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:01:29 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] RSRH on "acheir"


See Peirush on Humash Breishis 9:23
[New edition p. 241]

"Acheir is anything characterized by NEGATION" - emphasis mine

Thus [Acheir] Elisha ben Avuya and the
Acheirim Omrim would/could have a negative connotation. IOW it would go
beyond a simple "Yeish Omrim" to convey a perjorative.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:20:38 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] R' Marc Angel on the Obligation of Women to Learn


Rambam, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:13 rules that teaching women Oral Law
is to teach tiflut, while bedieved they may be taught Written Law. His
reason is that "since the intelligence of the majority of women is not
geared to be instructed; rather, they reduce the words of Torah to
matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their
understanding."

(As an aside, I might personally note that Rambam speaks only of
FATHERS teaching their DAUGHTERS Torah; nothing is said of teaching
women in general. Perhaps there is a fear that the father - but not a
schoolteacher - will dote on his daughter and not see that she is
perverting the Torah into tiflut?)

First, we might note that Rambam is pasqening by Rabbi Eliezer, but of
course, Ben Azzai disagrees. So it's not as if we can say that
Rambam's ruling is unequivocally the opinion of "the Sages" (even
though Rambam says his is).

Now then, Rabbi Marc Angel (Maimonides, Spinoza, and Us: Towards an
Intellectually Vibrant Judaism) notes (p. 173) following Professor
Warren Zev Harvey ("The Obligation of Talmud on Women According to
Maimonides, Tradition 19:2) that "Moreover, Rambam rules that all Jews
- men and women - must fulfill the commandments of knowing, loving,
and fearing God. Furthermore, in his view, these commandments
presuppose a prior knowledge of physics and metaphysics." As Harvey
shows based on Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah, Rambam did explicitly
consider women to be obligated in Pardes, and according to Rambam, one
may not speculate in Pardes until one has "filled his belly with bread
and meat", i.e. Written and Oral Law. So how can Rambam exempt (or
forbid!) women from learning Torah, if they are obligated in Pardes,
which has learning Torah as its prerequisite?

(Harvey for his own part has his own solution to this problem,
utilizing Rabbi Soloveitchik's distinction between mussar avikha and
torat imekha, between legal tradition and experiential religion;
Harvey suggests women are obligated to learn Torah insofar as they
must learn the experiential component and pass it on to their
children, but that women are exempt from learning Torah insofar as
transmitting the legal tradition is concerned. Rabbi Angel does not
cite this solution of Harvey, rather being more concerned with the
question Harvey raises.)

Furthermore, as we saw, Rambam explained the prohibition of women to
learn Torah to be "since the intelligence of the majority of women is
not geared to be instructed; rather, they reduce the words of Torah to
matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their
understanding." Based on this, (quoting Rabbi Angel) "Rabbi Haim David
Halevy [Mayyim Hayyim 2:45] suggested that in earlier times, girls
received no formal education at all; thus, to teach them Talmud would
have been beyond their ken They lacked the rudimentary intellectual
training required for proper analysis of Talmud. Since in our times
women do receive formal education, Talmud may be taught to girls and
women who have demonstrated their ability to grasp the material."

Additionally, following Abraham Melamed ("Maimonides on Women:
Formless Matter or Potential Prophet?" in Perspectives on Jewish
Thought and Mysticism, ed. A. Ivry, E. Wolfson, and A. Arkush, Newark:
Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 99-134), Rabbi Angel says, "It
has been argued that that in spite of Rambam's words relating to
women's intellectual abilities and education, he actually had a far
higher opinion of women's intellects. His statement in the Mishneh
Torah reflected his understanding of how things were, but now how they
could or should be. Throughout his writings, Rambam describes women as
being akin to children, in the sense that they had potential to learn
but had not yet fulfilled that potential. Indeed, some women did
achieve prophecy, which for Rambam was predicated on attaining
philosophical truth through intellectual exertion."

According to Rabbi Angel, then, Rambam would apparently ideally like
men and women to learn Torah equally, since (based on Harvey) both are
equally obligated in the mitzvot and Pardes. However, because (based
on Halevi) women of his time did not learn anything in general, they
were incapable of learning Torah, and so their untrained minds were
liable to pervert the Torah into tiflut, thus giving rise to the
prohibition. But Rambam would have preferred that this not be the
case, and indeed, in our days, it is no longer so.

Michael Makovi



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:20:21 -0800
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit


Quoting "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>:
> I was wondering if there are any sources that discussed how Olim
> LeRegel from Egypt or Bavel handled the issue of Yom Tov Sheni when
> they came to Beit HaMikdash.
>
> Was it an issue?

I was under the impression that during the time that YT sheni was a  
gezeirah, as opposed to minhag avos, that is, before the fixed  
calendar, that you went according to the place you are in.  It is only  
when it became a minhag rather than a gezeirah that this changed.

Isn't this the basis of the Chacham Tzvi's psak that everyone keeps  
one day in EY?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu





Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:59:55 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit


Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> I was wondering if there are any sources that discussed how Olim LeRegel 
> from Egypt or Bavel handled the issue of Yom Tov Sheni when they came to 
> Beit HaMikdash.
> 
> Was it an issue?

Isn't it obvious that they *must* have kept one day?

-- 
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: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:05:41 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit


Daniel Israel wrote:
> Quoting "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>:
>> I was wondering if there are any sources that discussed how Olim
>> LeRegel from Egypt or Bavel handled the issue of Yom Tov Sheni when
>> they came to Beit HaMikdash.
>>
>> Was it an issue?
> 
> I was under the impression that during the time that YT sheni was a 
> gezeirah, as opposed to minhag avos, that is, before the fixed calendar

You have that backwards.  Before the fixed calendar it was a practise
(minhag, if you like) based on the existence of a safek de'oraisa.
The gezeira "hachaziku minhag avoteichem biydeichem" came *after* the
introduction of the fixed calendar.

 
> that you went according to the place you are in. [...] 
> Isn't this the basis of the Chacham Tzvi's psak that everyone keeps one 
> day in EY?

Indeed.


-- 
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: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:57:24 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit


On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:05:41PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >I was under the impression that during the time that YT sheni was a 
: >gezeirah, as opposed to minhag avos, that is, before the fixed calendar
: 
: You have that backwards.  Before the fixed calendar it was a practise
: (minhag, if you like) based on the existence of a safek de'oraisa.

Not a minhag, a din mishum safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. I'm butting in
more because of the "what is a minhag?" thread than anything here.

: The gezeira "hachaziku minhag avoteichem biydeichem" came *after* the
: introduction of the fixed calendar.

And so it shifted from a pesaq based on whether or not one was besafeiq
into a din derabbanan which now lacks that limitation (since there is no
safeiq anymore).

The question which I still feel wasn't fully resolved from a month or two
back was when the first version of the fixed calendar was introduced. Are
we sure it was after churban bayis, or was there a period of time in
which they were told to follow minhag avos AND were olim laregel?

: >that you went according to the place you are in. [...] 
: >Isn't this the basis of the Chacham Tzvi's psak that everyone keeps one 
: >day in EY?

: Indeed.

IOW, the question is: Then they were gozerim to continue the practice, was
it based on who is during Yom Tov where the safeiq would have been (CT),
or a taqanah on the community one lives in (what most of us do lemaaseh).

The fact that it's not minhag avos trumping minhag hamaqom is interesting,
since that's the way the taqnah was explained to begin with. (It would
have provided support/disproof for Prof Agus's theory, because we could
have seen who had how many immigrants fro EY and how many from Bavel
even many years later.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:19:22 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is a minhag?


On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:07:59AM +0200, Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:
: Rav Broyde's guest post on Hirhurim
: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/11/halacha-first.html includes several
: paragraphs, towards the end, about different types of minhagim and the
: different degrees to which they are binding.

I personally was gratified by this citation:
> First, Nodah beYehuda observes (correctly in my view) in OC 2:18 that
> when there is a clear minhag yisrael to do something (in this case, to
> have 12 windows in a shul), but that minhag is an obstacle to serious
> religious growth, then if the minhag is not grounded in halacha, we
> ought to abandon the minhag in that particular case. Most of us think
> that the Noda beYehuda?s formulation is correct, and if that is true,
> then all arguments of minhag without any serious reference to halacha
> will not really persuade anyone who is not already persuaded....

> Second, some of you will certainly be critical of the post as
> understating the importance of "minhag yisrael din hu," and this is
> worthy of a reply. Minhag comes in at least two forms. The first,
> which is the subject of the phrase "minhag yisrael din hu," is a
> reference to those cases where minhag serves as tool for resolving
> halachic disputes in the Talmud or the Rishonim....

First, RJMB seems to either rule out my class 2a, binding minhagim
that aren't a community's inherited pesaq, or (more likely) make it much
less binding.

But what I really liked was the similarity between the NbY's willingness
to ignore minhagim that "is an obstacle to serious religious growth"
and what I wrote to Areivim:

> I do too [see the loss of inherited minhagim as a tragedy to be
> mitigated], but I'm currently worried about a bigger tragedy, the lack
> of passion in observance. So I don't think minhagim should be trashed
> trivially, but where these two collide, I would prefer to see someone
> moved by what he does than preserving his minhag. Halevai he could
> acheive both.

There is a difference between eliminating roadblocks and proactively
taking on things that enhance, but now we're discussing shiurim, not
whether or not the concept is valid.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites



Go to top.

Message: 18
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:42:50 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yishmael v. the mitzri???


RSZ
> It's obvious.  The mitzri then was not innocent, he was guilty!

Daniel Israel;
> Looks to me like an issue of din vs. rachamim.

RRW
How about this version of "It's obvious."? How about ko'ach Hatefillah?

By Yishma'el:
Elokim heard Kol hana'ar so Yishmael was granted "ba'asher hu sham"
because he had davened!

While the Mitzri didn't daven to be spared and so he got middas haddin
instead

IOW had Yishma'el not davened and if the Mitzri had davened the converse
might have occured.


KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 225
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >