Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 25

Thu, 13 Feb 2014

• 1. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The man in the iron mask (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: sephardiot wearing tefillin (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Sephardiot Wearing Tefillin (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Moshe's Name, Followup (j...@m5.chicago.il.us)
• 7. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Can a dead person effect a change (by his own actions) in his status in Olam Haba? (Marty Bluke)
• 12. "Women, Kri?at haTorah and Aliyyot? by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 13. Re: A Rasha or Tzadik from the womb? (Joshua Meisner)

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:33:23PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Well, no. He heard differently than you. As did I. Any movement a meit
: has after death is due to things we do here...

I think it's more complicated than that. Kant believed that time
is phenomenological, it is part of the world as humans experience
it more than what is really out there. REED's position (MmE vol
II pp 150-154, "Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam", which I discuss at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation ) is less
extreme, but he does consider linear time and time's arrow to be products
of the human condition and time as we experience it is far snort of the
reality, a consequence of the cheit of the eitz hadaas. Adam's seeing
the world min haqatzeh el haqatzeh refers to the ends of time. Einstein
ties time to space in a single whole, and how we experience an interval
-- how much is distance and how much is time depend on motion through
space and gravity.

Notice that according to none of these ideas do we have any notion of
what "time" would mean to a meis. So we should start by admitting we don't
know what we're talking about.

The notion that a meis can get more sekhar / less onesh for something
they themselves doen't deserve doesn't git the concepts of Din or
Mishpat. Or to frame it in other langues, the idea that Hashem wouldn't
do what's best for the neshamah "ba'asher hu sham" (really: "hi shamah",
but that's not the pasuq) becausew of other people's actions that don't
change the soul in question doesn't fit the concept of Meitiv.

So, given the idea that we aren't talking about time as we usually think
of it I want to wave aside the terminology of living people causing
"aliyas haneshamah" for things done after petirah with a kevayakhol.
To replace it with something we can't really comprehend beyond the words,
because it involves violating the normal past-to-future causality, I would
suggest that the meis's place in olam haba is determined by what they
did that led to someone else doing a mitzvah after their petirah. The
aliyas haneshamah can be as much thought of as lemafrei'ah as beshe'as
ma'aseh -- they're both mere approximations of the emes.

But it also explains why we have conflicting statements about whether
meisim experience change -- what happens to a non-rasha by 11 months.
Because each side is right, in some way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:58:27AM -0500, M Cohen wrote:
: When did Moshe wear the mask (masveh)?
: For the rest of his life (40yrs in desert)?

Since Moshe's "Peh"-el-peh nevu'ah was suspended for 38 years from
the eigel until seifer Bamidbar, I would wouldn't be surprised to learn
he didn't need the veil then, either.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I wrote:

 

<<This of course also raises the question about the extent to which
Ashkenazim actually follow the Rema. On the Sephardi side, Rav Ovadiah,
a big proponent of following the Shulchan Aruch (Maran), claimed that
there were only three exceptions where the minhag is against Maran which
may be followed, but Sephardi poskim less of the Maran is the mara d'asra
school argue for a number more.>>

 

I think I may have been mistaken about the ?three? exceptions.	In his
klalei Shulchan Aruch (at the back of Yechave Da?at) number 5 what ROY
actually states is that if there is a minhag from before that is against
the psak of Maran we do like the minhag even though the minhag is against
what Maran writes in the Shulchan Aruch.   He then gives three citations to
Yabiat Omer ? two of which deal with avelus customs (in one case only in
Yerushalayim and dealing with tearing kriya on chol hamoed).   Given his
usual comprehensiveness, I might have jumped to conclusions that weren?t
warranted ? because there are definitely others of this nature (even in
Yabiat Omer).  But still not a huge number by any means.

 

Then RET wrote:

 

>First there are loads of cases where the nosei keim (MA, Taz, Schach etc). disagree with the Ramah. 

 

Yes, I agree, that is my point, nobody but nobody discussing Ashkenazi
halacha would start of their discussion, as ROY does of sephardi psak,
?kablanu hora?as Rema afilu meah achronim cholkim alav...?  It?s just not
the mindset at all.  The two traditions have two very different approaches. 

 

>I would venture that in most such cases the final halacha is machloket.

 

Sometimes, and often it would seem the Rema is roundly rejected in favour of one of the others.

 

>BTW can Chana tell us the 3 cases that are exceptions according to ROY. Though I suspect there are more. 

 

See above, I think you are right about there being more (although there are
numbers of historic minhagim that he roundly condemns based on the psak of
Maran, that is the objection of numerous other Sephardi poskim more wedded
to the minhagim of their ancestral homelands).	

 

>In any cases there are cases where ROY uses the Ramah at least as one additional factor in a kulah. 

 

Yes but he doesn?t regard that as going against Maran.	Against Maran means
when there are no other factors that mitigate the situation ? because were
there to be, maybe even Maran might have agreed in that case.  

 

One famous case is bishul akum. When one goes to a restaurant where the
owner/cook is a nonJew but with a hasgacha almost always the masgiach
lights the fire as is the halacha according to the Ramah. This means that
many sephardim violate the halacha. ROY finds a heter based in part on the
Ramah against the Mechaber (note other sefardi poskim are machmir)


Agreed, and he has numbers of other rulings like this, but he does not
regard that as going against Maran.  This is also not necessarily a case of
l?chatchila, but bidieved, ie what it is mutar to do in such circumstances
when they already exist.  You might disagree with the characterisation of
l?chatchila and bideved, but given his parameters, ROY does not regard that
as against Maran.

 

Note however that there is another set of exceptions (in klal 4 of his
klalei Shulchan Aruch) that ?anyway in a place where it was hidden from
Maran the words of the Rishonim there is to say taht if he had heard them
he would have retracted, and there is to posken like the words of the
Rishonim even l?hakel?.

 

That is, for example, if there is a Meiri that Maran could never have seen
or we know did never see, then that Meiri can be used to trump Maran.  This
of course is the exact opposite of the view that since such rishonim fell
out of the tradition, they are less authoritative, because they were not
subject to the review of their peers and of klal yisrael and should be
regarded as a less authoritative part of the mesorah.

 

>Eli Turkel

 

Regards

 

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140211/567c58f9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/02/2014 10:21 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> And finally a late Sefaradi rishon (refugee from Spain who ends up in
> Italy) who actually makes the argument that's the elephant in the room
> today. The Sh'iltei haGiborim (RH 9) says it is assur for women to wear
> tefilling it because it's miderekh hason'im -- outright "don't do it
> because that's what the anti-O do".

The Shiltei Giborim (why the apostrophe?) was not a refugee; he was born
in Italy, about 10-20 years after girush Sefard.  Also I don't think he's
usually considered a rishon.  However, the language in question is not his
own, but a verbatim quote from the Riaz, who was definitely a rishon, from
13th century Italy.

I wonder, though, who exactly were these "chitzonim" in the Riaz's day, who
held that women are obligated in tefillin?  Not the Karaim, since AFAIK they
don't believe in tefillin at all.  And radical C was 700 years in the future.
So who was he worried about, that justified an issur on women wearing tefillin?

-- 
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 11/02/2014 3:33 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 2/11/2014 12:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >On 11/02/2014 5:45 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>>> >>R' Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> >>>So? How does that prevent them from getting closer to Hashem?
>>>> >>>Tzadikim ein lahem menucha, they are always moving higher and closer
>>>> >>>to Hashem.

>>> >>Really? I always understood that while living you can move up or down
>>> >>but not after death.

>> >Then you heard wrong.

> Well, no. He heard differently than you. As did I. Any movement a meit
> has after death is due to things we do here.

Again, tzadikim ein lahem menucha.  I didn't make that up, you know.  What
we do can help them, but they can certainly get aliyos without out help too.

-- 
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

> 
> From: Joshua Meisner <jmeis...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] "This is the only Sidra from the beginning of
>    Moshe's birth where his name is omitted"
> 
>>
>> A common error.
>> Try finding it in Nitzavim.
>>
> 
> Or Eikev, Re'eih, Shoftim, or Ki Seitzei.  Moshe's name appears
> seldom in Sefer Devarim, given that the bulk of it is written in the
> first person.
>

This is completely true, except for one minor quibble, that Moshe does
appear as a character in the narrative, albeit in the first person, in
`Eqev (Deuteronomy 9:9-29) and briefly in Shoftim (Deuteronomy 19:17).
What's different about T'tzaveh and Nitzavim is not that the bulk of
each of those parashoth is written in the first person, but, rather,
that the bulk of each of those parashoth is written in the second
person.

In any event the above remark is completely true for Re'eh and Ki
Thetze, and thus renders completely gratuitous the observation that
Netzavim was never a separate parasha when Vzoth Habbrakha was read on
an ordinary Shabbath, and that splitting up Nitzavim-Vayyelekh into
Nitzavim and Vayyelekh never happened until a few hundred years ago,
when people starting reading Vzoth Habbrakha on the second day of
Shmini `Atzereth.  Perhaps an interesting observation in its own
right, but entirely gratuitous in the context of the present
discussion.  Joshua Meisner's observations are much more on point.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Well, no. He heard differently than you. As did I. Any movement a meit
>> has after death is due to things we do here.

> Again, tzadikim ein lahem menucha.  I didn't make that up, you know.  What
> we do can help them, but they can certainly get aliyos without out help too.

Does that quote necessarily say that it is do to things they're doing
after petirah? A lack of menuchah could be due to things done *to* them,
such as the ascent or descent in question.

(Again, I'm still not sure if we can understand time and thus change
in this context.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 11/02/2014 11:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:

>>> >>Well, no. He heard differently than you. As did I. Any movement a meit
>>> >>has after death is due to things we do here.

>> >Again, tzadikim ein lahem menucha.  I didn't make that up, you know.  What
>> >we do can help them, but they can certainly get aliyos without out help too.

> Does that quote necessarily say that it is do to things they're doing
> after petirah?

I didn't say it had to be.  It could just be the natural way of things in
that world, that the longer they're there the  closer to Hashem they get.
That's not the point.  The point is that they do get closer, and therefore
even if you believe the purpose of tefillah is to effect a change in oneself
it makes sense for them to daven.


> A lack of menuchah could be due to things done*to*  them,
> such as the ascent or descent in question.

That would imply that a forgotten tzadik, whom nobody does anything for,
stops advancing.  Which would contradict the gemara.


-- 
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

R' Zev Sero wrote:
"Have you never heard of a neshama having an aliyah especially on a
yortzeit?"

That refers to actions done by a living person to help the neshama of the
dead person not the dead person helping himself. In any case see the
following 2 posts from R' Slifkin where he discusses this very point,
whether anything you can do can actually affect the dead persons neshama.
He points out that this is a very new idea.

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2014/02/another-revolution-in-ju
daism.html
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2014/02/what-can-one-do-fo
r-someone-who-has.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140212/2089aae6/attachment-0001.htm>

Apparently, one central issue behind RMBluke's Qs is that because H' is
Omni___ and doesn't "change His mind," MRAH's plea for *bY* (recorded in
this week's *sedra*) is puzzling.  My tuppence: akin to what some describe
as *tzimtzum*, H' left room for a "mind change" with His "*hanicha* [*li*],"
and we subsequently hear that "*vayinachem* [*H'*]"; and perhaps one can
expand on this concept of a world deliberately created with room for such
"change" as part of understanding *t'filos* and/or certain phraseology we
use based on *ma'asei avos* and the guidance of CHaZaL and past
*g'dolim*/transmitters
of our *m'sora*.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
(BM *sedra*: P'Ki Sisa :))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140212/d55daf6a/attachment-0001.htm>

In the thread Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save
Bnei Yisrael? R' Zev Sero claimed that even after death a person can change
his status in Olam Haba stating as a proof:

"tzadikim ein lohem menucha, lo bo'olom hazeh, velo bo'olom habo"

He further claimed that anyone stating otherwise "heard wrong".

I would beg to differ. R' Sero said a number of times "tzadikim ein lohem
menucha, lo bo'olom hazeh, velo bo'olom habo" as if this statement is is
the ultimate prooof of his position. In fact, the Maharsha (Berachos 64a)
explains this as follows, tzadikim in olam haba are nehena from the ziv
hashechina and that requires intellectual effort and that is what the
Gemara means when it says they have no menucha in olam haba. We can see
that it has nothing to do with tzadikim changing their status in olam haba.

The fact is that there are numerous Gemaras that seem to say that what a
person does in this world is what sets their status after death and their
is no indication that the status can later change. For example, the Gemara
in Avoda Zara (3a) states Mi shetarach b'erev shabbos (Rashi, olam hazeh)
yochal b'shabbos (Olam haba) according to R' Sero that is not necessarily
true, you can still move up after you are dead.

He also still hasn't answered how a neshama after death can change it's
status? They can't do mitzvos (including the mitzva of Talmud Torah) and
there is no yetzer hara after death.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140213/d5797e5c/attachment-0001.htm>

Dear Friends,
    You are cordially invited to read our recent article:  ?Women, Kri?at
    haTorah and Aliyyot? Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 46:4
    (Winter, 2013), 67-238  -- available at  http://www.rcar
    abbis.org/pdf/frimer_article.pdf.   Insights and Comments
    gratefully received.
            Kol Tuv
                    Aryeh and Dov Frimer

--------------------------------
Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail: Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140213/7698a718/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Marty Bluke <marty.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At the end of Maseches Yoma the Gemara discusses when a person is allowed
> to eat on Yom Kippur. The Mishna on 82a states that a pregnant woman who
> smells food and has an irresistible craving is allowed to eat as it is
> considered pikuach nefesh. The Mishna attributes the craving to the fetus
> and in fact the language of the Mishna is "Ubra shehiricha". On 82b the
> Gemara says that before you feed her, you should whisper to the pregnant
> woman/fetus that today is Yom Kippur in the hope that she/it will be able
> to abstain from eating. The Gemara then brings 2 stories, in 1 case the
> woman had to eat and in one case the woman managed to abstain from eating.
> The Gemara states that in the case where the woman was able to abstain the
> fetus was a tzaddik (who turned out to be R' Yochanan). In the case where
> the woman ate, the Gemara calls the fetus a Rasha and in fact a Rasha was
> born. We find a similar medrash quoted by Rashi at the beginning of Parshas
> Toldos on the words Vayisrotztzu habanim b'kirba, that Eisav in the womb
> was a rasha who wanted to go out and worship avoda zara.
>
> How does this fit in with free will? How can a fetus in the womb be a
> rasha or a tzadik?
>

The gemara does not call the fetuses tzaddik and rasha, but rather "yadua"
and "zar".  The first fetus had an inborn capability for accepting delayed
gratification that the second one lacked.  If one is driven by one's urges
to immediately satisfy oneself in any way, one is incapable of undergoing
any meaningful process of growth, so that one will necessarily remain a
stranger to HaShem.  Knowing (and being known by) HaShem requires the
ability to constantly wait one day more, one year more, as growth takes
time.

One can be makir es Bor'o u'moreid and an am ha-aretz can still be a
tzaddik; these inborn characteristics can help or hinder, but they do not
dictate a person's path.

 Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140213/e229f395/attachment.htm>

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


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 32, Issue 25
**************************************

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.)