Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 173

Tue, 08 Oct 2013

• 1. Re: There's Nothing Original About Sin... (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: identity of Jews (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: There's Nothing Original About Sin... (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: identity of Jews (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (Zvi Lampel)
• 6. Re: Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: identity of Jews (Brit Mitlah rejectors) (Samuel Svarc)
• 8. Re: Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (Lisa Liel)
• 9. aliyat neshama (saul newman)
• 10. Re: kneged kulam (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: aliyat neshama (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: aliyat neshama (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: the sun's path at nite (Micha Berger)
• 14. Change and Tradition in Halachah (Liron Kopinsky)
• 15. Re: Change and Tradition in Halachah (Ben Waxman)
• 16. Re: Change and Tradition in Halachah (Zev Sero)

On 10/3/2013 11:14 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>
> There is one verse I find very striking in Parashas Noach, Chapter 8, 
> vs.21:
>          ?ba'avur ha'adam ki yetzer lev ha'adam *RA *min'u'rav?
> What G-d is saying is that the nature of man is evil from his youth. 
> Some might
> infer that is the same as original sin, but in Judaism it is not the 
> same.

I think "evil" is a really inaccurate translation of "ra" anyway.

> I vividly recall my childhood years and I can tell you that the 
> expression "innocent children"
> is the furthest thing from the truth. There were many mean kids?many! 
>  Children (and I'm
> not referring to toddlers) are far from innocent and can be very cruel 
> and hurtful.
> This is where parenting comes in and must be a constant. We all 
> remember the school
> bullies and how cool it was to be on the side of the aggressor. I can 
> tell you that the child
> who defended the underdog was in the minority.  So the verse above 
> (8:21) is quite true.

I was bullied, too.  But you overstate things, in my opinion.  And in my 
experience.  My 13 year old daughter has defended younger kids from 
bullying literally since she was in kindergarten.  And while she may be 
in the minority, bullies too are a small minority.  The majority of kids 
are simply afraid to take a stand, and I can't see that fitting into 
that verse.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131006/6977b6a5/attachment-0001.htm>

IIRC it is the latter. Rav Kook was asked if this person, who everyone 
agreed was doing an aveira, should be given a chuppa. This man said that 
while was a (Jewish) atheist, he was willing to get married under a 
chuppa, however he wasn't going to have a brit mila done. If the rabbi 
wouldn't marry them under a chuppa, they would just live together or get 
a civil marriage. So the question was: do we allow a very problematic 
chuppa because otherwise he would be committing an even greater sin. Rav 
Kook answered that under no circumstances do we allow a chuppa.  In this 
case, Rav Kook said, we are not concerned about "shema teizeh l'tarbut rah".

Ben

On 10/4/2013 4:22 PM, Eitan Levy wrote:
> Rav Kook has a tsheuva where he forbids performing a chuppa for someone
> who refuses to have a brit mila.
> But is that a statement about the person's halachic status or a sort of
> 'knas'?
>
>

On 4/10/2013 12:14 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>
> As Jews we obviously do not believe in original sin and it is antithetical
> to our faith.  Christianity teaches that we all die because Adam and Eve
> ate from the /Eitz Hada'as./ This is simply not so, according to the Torah.
>  G-d never intended man to live forever in this life

This is not true.  This is not just a Xian teaching, it is the Torah's
teaching.  Where did you hear otherwise?


> and the proof is that G-d banished them from Gan Eden so as to prevent they
> eating from the Tree of Life. This proves they were not meant to live forever.

On the contrary, this proves exactly the opposite.  Until the sin, they
*were* meant to live forever.  Only after the sin were they banished so
that they would not be able to circumvent their death sentence by eating
from the Tree of Life.  (Note that they were always allowed to eat from
this tree, but until the sin they had no need to; they were immortal
anyway.)


> Another interesting element to note:  The word 'sin' is not even used
> in reference to Adam and Eve. The first time the word 'sin' is used in
> the Torah is in reference to the Cain and Abel story (4:7).

What does this prove?  That it wasn't a sin?!   Chet Etz Hada'as is the
fundamental sin, from which all evil in the world derives.  I don't
understand how anyone can deny this.

> What G-d is saying is that the nature of man is evil from his youth.

"Man is born a wild donkey."   But that was not the case before the chet
etz hada'as.  The yetzer hara was external, in the form of the nachash,
not internal.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 7/10/2013 1:24 AM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> So the question was: do we allow a very problematic chuppa because
> otherwise he would be committing an even greater sin.

What was problematic about it?  You haven't mentioned until now that there
was anything wrong with it at all.  This is new information.


> Rav Kook answered that under no circumstances do we allow a chuppa.
> In this case, Rav Kook said, we are not concerned about "shema teizeh
> l'tarbut rah".

In other words "hal`iteihu larasha veyamot".

It seems to me, based on the few facts you've given, that this is more of
a case of a situation-specific cherem.  At any rate, the question was about
his status, and I don't think there can be any question at all that he is
100% a Jew, and has the right to marry a Jew, regardless of whether anyone
likes it or him.

Where is this teshuvah?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:51:19 -0400 : Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> the maamar Chazal that the Torah preceded the world
> by 2000 years.  ...The "two thousand years" refers to the two
> "alefs", in the pasuk "ve'a'alefcha chochma" (and I will train you in wisdom)
> (Iyov 33:33) and the gemara "alof bina" (train in understanding) (Shabbos
> 104a). The Torah is the chochma and the bina from which the world derives.

Fascinating. Mekor?

Zvi Lampel

On 4/10/2013 12:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>                                   In other words, the world derives from the
> Torah, rather than vice versa.  The "two thousand years" refers to the two
> "alefs", in the pasuk "ve'a'alefcha chochma" (and I will train you in wisdom)
> (Iyov 33:33) and the gemara "alof bina" (train in understanding) (Shabbos 104a).
> The Torah is the chochma and the bina from which the world derives.

For additional clarification: this concept is quoted widely in Chabad
chassidus, with the makor usually given as a pseudo-posuk "a'alefcha
chochma, a'alefcha binah".  But there is no such posuk.  Rather, the
"alef" of chochma comes from the posuk in Iyov; the "alef" of bina comes
from the gemoro on Shabbos.    And "shonoh" can mean "degree".

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Oct 6, 2013 7:35 PM, "David Wacholder" <dwachol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many times I have seen Shomeir Shabbat used as a criterion for "Jew in
> Good Standing" in constitutions of Shuls. has anybody seen "Areil
> Exclusions"?

Yes. RSRH allowed membership to all except someone who was uncircumcised or
did not circumcise his sons, or who was married not in accordance with
halacha.

Public mechallie Shabbos or eating tarfus disallowed one from any official
position, but not membership.

KT,
MSS

On 10/7/2013 10:36 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 4/10/2013 12:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>                                   In other words, the world derives 
>> from the
>> Torah, rather than vice versa.  The "two thousand years" refers to 
>> the two
>> "alefs", in the pasuk "ve'a'alefcha chochma" (and I will train you in 
>> wisdom)
>> (Iyov 33:33) and the gemara "alof bina" (train in understanding) 
>> (Shabbos 104a).
>> The Torah is the chochma and the bina from which the world derives.
>
> For additional clarification: this concept is quoted widely in Chabad
> chassidus, with the makor usually given as a pseudo-posuk "a'alefcha
> chochma, a'alefcha binah".  But there is no such posuk.  Rather, the
> "alef" of chochma comes from the posuk in Iyov; the "alef" of bina comes
> from the gemoro on Shabbos.    And "shonoh" can mean "degree".

How do you darshen a word in the Gemara like that?

Lisa

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/10/what-is-best-aliyah-f
or-neshamah.html

what is best to benefit the departed  neshama?
according to this  ,  ancient sources  list only charity, but in the 19th
century they began to emphasize tora study
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131007/25b5000e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:57:31PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/10/keneged-kulam-redux.html
: using  the  opposite case in the tosefta , a discussion of what  'keneged
: kulam' means....

See RSWolbe's sefer "HaMitzvos haShequlos", where he analyzes 7 mitzvos
which are called keneged kulam with the understanding that they portray
the 7 primary values of Judaism.

You might also want to hit up a research library for R' Asher Rivlin's
1985, "Keneged Kulam -- Pedagogia shel Chazal".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/10/2013 7:07 PM, saul newman wrote:
> http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/10/what-is-bes
> t-aliyah-for-neshamah.html
>
> what is best to benefit the departed  neshama?
> according to this , ancient sources list only charity, but in the
> 19th century they began to emphasize tora study

Not true.  I don't know about general learning (I have never seen it
particularly promoted for this purpose), but learning mishnayos was
emphasized a lot earlier than that.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 04:07:15PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/10/what-is-best-aliy
: ah-for-neshamah.html
: what is best to benefit the departed neshama?
: according to this, ancient sources list only charity, but in the 19th
: century they began to emphasize tora study

Maaseh beRabbi Aqiva is the famous origin of mourner's Qaddish. There are
actually two versions, some have R Aqiva teaching the ghost's son Qaddish,
others, Borkhu. The Qaddish version might even be construed as promoting
the son's talmud Torah, since Qaddish deRabbanan is the original use
of Qaddish. Promoting Qaddish meant promoting attending shiur. But even
Borkhu and Qaddeishim in davening are about tefillah, not tzedaqah.

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/11/Q2 reports that Gesher haChaim ch
30 quotes various versions of the medrash and earlier references to it
and shows that the Qaddish version is more likely to be authentic. (My
Gesher haChaim used to get lent out to aveilim until I lost track of
who had it last. So I can't wait until I get home and check.)

Given the blog's title interest in rationalism, I would think RNS would
conclude that the neshamah would get the greatest aliyah from whichever
mitzvah the niftar most moved people to do, rather than artificially
picking one. (Even tzedaqah.) After all, it isn't rationalism that
would allow one person's actions to go on another's account. OTOH,
it is rationalist to argue that the sekhar being discussed is that
of the actions the niftar did during their lifetime that led to the
posthumous mitzvos.

But besakh hakol, I find the discussion of ilui neshamah that overlooks
Qaddish Yasom to be more than a little odd, anyway.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 01:49:13PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: http://www.zootorah.com/Rational
: istJudaism/Sixteenth%20Century%20Attitudes%20to%20Talmudic%20Cosmology.pd
: f
: http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/TheSunsPathAtNight.pdf
: r slifkin's monographs  in time for the daf....

Already discussed here. I wrote http://lists.aishdas.org/htdig.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/2011q4/021582.ht
ml
about how Chazal followed Persian astronomy when the Persians were considered
the better astronomers, given their star charts. And the gemara records when
Rebbe found Ptolmy (which he encounters in Athens) to be more compelling.

I also like some points I made in
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n135.shtml#12
including this observation about Persian astronomy and identifying the raqia
with the shell behind which the sun goes at night:
    Actually, this is a pretty clever explanation of something that they
    couldn't understand without knowing more about the atmosphere and about
    refraction. It explains why the sun appears to slow down and flatten
    at sunset -- it's heading across the thickness of the raqia!

    In any case, it allowed them to match observation, the then-current
    science, and halakhah.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Moved to Avodah per Moderator request. (Discussion about women dancing with
a Torah on Simchat Torah.)

On 10/7/2013 4:48 PM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> Who says, "it's not how we used to do things," is not a halachic reason?

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> Do you have a source that says it is?

I wrote:
> Minhag Avoteinu B'Yadeinu?

RLL responded:
> That begs the question.  Do you have a source that says "minhag avoteinu
> b'yadeinu" is a halakhic stricture?

I must not be understanding your question. How else do you understand
2 days of Yom Tov in Chutz La'aretz?

Kol Tuv,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com

On 10/8/2013 12:49 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
> Why is that a change? If the rule is that a sheliach tsibbur should 
> wear smart and respectable clothing, the only thing that has changed 
> is what is considered smart and respectable, not the rule. In the 
> Rambam's day, he considered it necessary for women to wear a burka.

So then how is women holding a Sefer Torah a change? There is no halacha 
that they can't and in many places it is considered respectable.

Ben

On 8/10/2013 1:28 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Minhag Avoteinu B'Yadeinu?

> RLL responded:
>> That begs the question.  Do you have a source that says "minhag avoteinu
>> b'yadeinu" is a halakhic stricture?

> I must not be understanding your question. How else do you understand
> 2 days of Yom Tov in Chutz La'aretz?

A specific decree of the Sanhedrin.   There is no principle of keeping
the minhag of your fathers; in that specific case, the Bavlim were told
to keep on observing a particular minhag that their fathers had done, even
though its reason no longer applied.   And they were given a specific
reason why they should do so in that particular case; they weren't just
told "it's your minhag so you should keep it".

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 173
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)