gmane.culture.religion.jewish.avodah

Re: Torah Pre-Sinai

Lisa Liel — 2012-05-25T16:08:21

Offensive?


I agree with this.  But I don't agree that the Avot *literally* kept all 
the mitzvot.  For one thing, since people weren't born Jews at the time, 
the basic infrastructure of much of Torah law was simply inapplicable.  
I'm aware that this is used as a excuse for Yaakov Avinu marrying two 
sisters, but it doesn't explain him giving the bechora to Yosef.

Midrashim have a purpose.  They are tainted when people insist on taking 
them all literally.

Lisa

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today?

Zev Sero — 2012-05-25T16:13:18



I didn't think I was being oblique.  Is it really a common
misconception that "biah bekahal" means conversion?!  It never
occurred to me that so many people would make this mistake.
Is this like people who think Esther was Mordechai's niece?



In other words someone who is not in "kehal Hashem".



The Sifri says that "dor asiri" implies that the 11th generation
is permitted.  Thus the plain meaning of the pasuk about a mamzer
would seem to mean that the disability is not forever.  But then the
pasuk about Amoni uMoavi says "gam dor asiri...ad olam".  If their
issur is forever then why mention the 10th generation?  What's
special about it?  So the Sifri says it's mentioned in order to make
a gezera shava to mamzer, and to teach us that a mamzer's disability
is also forever.

But this doesn't explain why the Torah couldn't have just spoken
plainly, said "ad olam" in both cases, and not mentioned the 10th
generation at all.

Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today?

Zev Sero — 2012-05-25T15:06:27

Which had nothing at all to do with the validity of Ruth's giyur; there
is no indication that anybody ever doubted that, then or later.


Again, nothing to do with her conversion.

Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today?

Micha Berger — 2012-05-25T15:56:20

For some reason Zev is choosing to be oblique. So, to spell things
out.

Devarim 23:2-4 has three prohibitions phrased as "lo yavo ... beqehal
Hashem. Pasuq 2 -- "petzua daka ukherus shofkhah", pasuq 3 -- "mamzeir",
and pasuq 4 -- "amoni umoavi".

Pesuqim 8-9 permit an Adomi and Mitzri after three generations "yavo lahem
beqehal Hashem.

As is clear from the other pesuqim (or Rashi on ours), we are talking
about marriage, not geirus.

Just as is well known about a mamzer, a Moavi too can marry a mamzeres or
a giyores. And like a mamzer (but unlike a Jew who is ethnically Adomi
or Mitzri), the child is also excluded "gam dor ha'asi lo yavo lahem
beqehal Hashem" but here it is added "ad olam".

Anyone know the difference in implication?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today?

Gershon Dubin — 2012-05-25T14:56:35

From Areivim...

There are so many quotes and requotes [on Areivim -micha] that I can't
figure out who said what.

My recollection (sources on request, but after Y"T) is that according to
one man de'amar in the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to publicize
the pesak of Moavi velo Moavis (The other IIRC was that it was for sheva
berachos; more accurately birchas nisuin since it was alman ve'almana))
It was not in dispute but (this is not in the Gemara; I believe I saw it
in one of the meforshim) not "lemaaseh" since Moav was always a bitter
enemy and intermarriage was not a major problem. Ploni Almoni did not
DISPUTE the pesak; he questioned it. He said "pen ashchi es nachalasi"
meaning he was afraid that down the line his yichus would be questioned
and he wasn't prepared to risk that (also meforshim I think) Finally,
Doeg did question the pesak at the time that Dovid took on Golyas and
was up for the position of son in law to Shaul as a result ("ben mi ze
ha'elem") This is also a Gemara. I don't know if

Re: Torah Pre-Sinai

Zev Sero — 2012-05-25T13:54:32

Only Ashkenazim seem to have intuited this, though :-)

Re: Kamatz

Aharon Gal — 2012-05-25T10:02:14

My impression is that the American Ashkenazim have their own way of how to pronounce, which is not the traditional Ashkenazi, and not Sephardi.
In my mind, those who chose to pronounce kamatz as patach, must pronounce kamatz katan like cholam.  Those that pronounce kamatz like a cholam can pronounce kamatz katan as cholam.
otherwise it is tartei desatrei, and they need to be corrected.

galsaba
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Re: Torah Pre-Sinai

2012-05-25T11:41:28


R' Joel Rich wrote:


I'd like to expand on this a bit.

It is relatively easy to apply this to some mitzvos, such as kashrus: A sufficiently spiritual person can figure out on his own that predatory species are to be avoided, that the gentler species should be killed in a way to minimize their pain and residual blood, and that the mixing of their milk and meat is offensive. But other mitzvos, such as rituals like tefillin and mezuzah are more difficult. And historical commemorations before-the-fact are on yet another level.

But I don't have a problem with any of it. If we truly believe that certain cycles are built into the briah, causing a climate of teshuva on this day each year, and a climate of geulah on that day each year, I see it as entirely possible that a sufficiently spiritual person might pick up on that even before the events that we associate them with.

Here's a practical example, in my view, of how Klal Yisrael has collectively exercised this approach, as recently as in the past few centur

Sdei Chemed - Greeting People Who Are Not Wearing AYarmulka

Prof. Levine — 2012-05-25T12:47:57

 From http://tinyurl.com/7qspgqm

There are two Dinim in Shulchan Aruch about wearing a 
Yarmulka.  First in OC 3:6 it says one should not walk four amos with 
a bare head.  In 91:3 it says that one may not mention Hashem's name 
with a bare head.  The Mogen Avrohom says that mentioning Hashem's 
name is an issur while walking four amos or even less is a Midas 
Chasidus.  The Taz disagrees and says that walking four amos is an 
issur of "B'Chukoseihem Lo Seileichu".

The Sdei Chemed says that based on this, you should not greet a 
bareheaded Jew with the greeting "Shalom" since he is likely to 
return this same greeting.  Since Shalom is one of the names of 
Hashem's, it would cause him to be oveir on this Din.
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

When is exaggeration proper and improper?

Joseph Kaplan — 2012-05-25T12:47:50

I don't know when it's proper and I don't know where the line is.  But I do know one way of spotting some (not all) exaggerations if the presentation is in English. If the speaker says "literally" (e.g., it's literally yahareg ve'al ya'avor) you know it's an exaggeration.

Joseph Kaplan
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Re: When is exaggeration proper and improper?

2012-05-25T12:42:46

 
From: "kennethgmiller< at >juno.com"  <kennethgmiller< at >juno.com>
-1

In an Areivim thread titled "Asifa  - Lose Olam Haba", RMB wrote:


I don't read Areivim, nor  did I attend the Asifa, but the context of this 
statement doesn't really matter  too much. But it is a good opening to a 
question which has long bothered me.  Namely: Do Chazal or Poskim discuss when 
guzma is appropriate, and when it is  not?

Are they at all worried about people who will take their words too  
seriously? ....
I have always been something of a literalist, and when I hear  people 
saying things which are clear exaggerations, they tend to lose  credibility in my 
eyes. But as I have matured, I have come to understand that  guzma CAN be a 
legitimate rhetorical device....

Where is that line  between truth and guzma?  Once it gets blurred, to what 
extent can people  be held responsible for their disbelief? ....
The sticking point, in my mind,  is where to draw the line.....

 
 
 
 
Asei lecha rav.
 
 

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

Re: Esther [was: Strengthening Our Belief in Hashem andHis Beautiful Torah]

2012-05-25T04:03:30


 
From: Micha Berger _micha< at >aishdas.org_ (mailto:micha< at >aishdas.org) 



by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

[snip]
Rav Yoel Bin Nun on Megillat  Esther

One may wonder why so many intelligent people are not convinced of  the
truth of Hashem and Torah. ...
Rav Yoel notes that the Megillat Esther  at first glance seems quite 
secular. For
example, it contains no mention of  God and even seems to deliberately
omit mentioning Hashem's name (see, for  example, Esther 4:14-16). Rav
Yoel explains that one has to look behind the  superficial presentation
of events in Megillat Esther to discover Hashem,  such as why Esther
among all the beautiful women of the Persian Empire was  chosen as queen,
why Mordechai foiled a plot to kill Achashveirosh, and why  Achashveirosh
was sleepless and reading about Mordechai's actions the night  that Haman
came to ask permission to execute Mordechai.

Similarly, the  world functions today as it is depicted in Megillat
Esther. Hashem has placed  a secular veneer upon the world and we must
use

kedushat EY = Bet Shean

Eli Turkel — 2012-05-25T08:14:29

The Yerushalmi states that the rabbis purposely did not give kedushat EY to
Bet Shean so that the poor could eat there during shmitta (for terumot and
maaserot a machloket Rashi and Rambam). In fact Rav Yehuda haNasi had to
overrule others who didnt want to permit it.
It is a machloket among modern poskim (eg CI and Rav Frank) how far Bet
Shean exptends whether some 2000 amot beyond the ancient walls or includes
the entire bet shean valley)

In any case it is clear that Bet Shean was a nonJewish city during its
existence and in the days of Ezra and Nechemia there probably were no Jews
at all in the vicinity to worry about. Only in the days of the Maccabbes
did there start a local Jewish population.
from wikipedia

The Hellenistic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic> period saw the
reoccupation of the site of Beit She’an under the new name Scythopolis,
possibly named after the Scythian
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian> mercenaries
who settled there as veterans. Little is known about the Hellenis

size of EY

Eli Turkel — 2012-05-25T08:21:47

see the very bottom of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty

for the size of EY from Yehada HaMaccabe through Hyrcanus II. Note how
small it is in the early years

Re: Gishmaychem

Liron Kopinsky — 2012-05-25T05:17:34



On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Zev Sero <zev< at >sero.name> wrote:



It's hard to imagine that Israel could really produce enough food to
satiate all other countries today (providing food for Canaan is not the
same as providing for China), but maybe this prompts a new understanding of
what Gishmaychem means. With Israel increasingly seen as a world leader in
technology in general, as well as farming agriculture in drip-irrigation
etc. in particular, Gishmaychem could mean more literally *your* geshem, as
in the technology *you* develop will hit the market at the right time and
through that "all the families of the earth will be blessed."

Kol Tuv,
Liron
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Re: Source needed

Ezra Chwat — 2012-05-25T04:58:07

"Simon Montagu :AIUI the Shavu`ot ketubba originated among talmidei Ha'Ari in C16 Ts'fat, e.g. R. Yisra'el Najara, as part of (or connected to) the formalization of Tikkun Leil Shavu`ot."



It's a common habit of the post-Ari Tsfat Kabbalists, and their Hassidic successors, to manifest images and practice symbols which were previously limited to the literary plane. This is a good example.

The image of Matan Torah as the chuppa (first?) appears in the end of the Azhara (First day, Mahzor Frankel, 2000 p. 644 lines 8-11 (end). Even the image of the Torah as the "ketubat Hattan" appears there. See also, Midrash Psiqta DR'Kahana 19:4 the mashal of the Ketubbah, (though not in the context of Sinai). The tiqqun lel Shavuot (including the Tevila at its climax) is a manifestation of the image in Rashbi's "Tiqqun" (Zohar, intro 8a; in context of Shavuot: Zohar Emor 97b-88a) were the vigil is portrayed as process of preparing the kallah and escorting her to the chuppa Shavuot morning.


Dr. Ezra Chwat
Institute of M

Torah Pre-Sinai

Sholom Simon — 2012-05-24T23:37:00

Not all the major rishonim actually held that way (i.e., many held 
that the Avos did not follow the same halacha as Rashi.

See: http://www.tanach.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm

Some even criticize that approach:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/bereishit/11-64vayigash.htm

Here's a 110 minute shiur on it (I have not yet heard it), which 
starts off by saying that pretty much only Rashi (of the rishonim) held that

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/720428/Rabbi%20Menachem%20Leibtag/What%20Mitzvot%20Did%20the%20Avot%20Keep%20and%20Why%20Does%20It%20Make%20a%20Difference

I see R Gil Student wrote, in 2004:

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah< at >lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Re: Torah Pre-Sinai

Micha Berger — 2012-05-24T21:28:09

: They were at such a high level that they resonated to HKB"H's frequency.  (my summary of the Nefesh hachaim)

I think that's more the Baal haTanya's take in Torah Ohr (on parashas
Yisro, "Moshe Yedabeir).

It's a very stereotypical Litvish-Chassidish split.

The Litvak sees the revalation in the avos being able to feel their own
souls, detect that they lacked, and figure out how to resolve that lack.
It's all sheleimus. Aspaqlaria-as-mirror.

The chassid sees revelation in reaching out an pulling down from higher
spiritual realms. Deveiqus beyond the self. Aspaqlaria-as-lens.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Re: When is exaggeration proper and improper?

Micha Berger — 2012-05-24T21:37:44

: I don't read Areivim, nor did I attend the Asifa, but the context of
: this statement doesn't really matter too much. But it is a good opening
: to a question which has long bothered me. Namely: Do Chazal or Poskim
: discuss when guzma is appropriate, and when it is not?

I don't know. It might be situational, depending on obvious factors like
when is the audience likely to be moved by the emotional content, when
are they likely to pick up that it's guzma, and when will they think
it's meant literally and reject the message as absurd -- or accept an
absurd message.

But they clearly believed there was a role for guzma. Eg R Mari explains
R' Eliezer as speaking in guzma (Beitza 4a), and it's not meant pejoratively.
Or Eruvin 2b, BM 38a. Or the Tosafos at the top of Shabbos 119a.

Nevu'os are frequently labeled as guzma.

So, I too am curious where the lines are. But they exist, they
aren't zero. And they might simply not be discussed because they're
commonsensical.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

When is exaggeration proper and improper?

2012-05-24T19:41:30


I don't read Areivim, nor did I attend the Asifa, but the context of this statement doesn't really matter too much. But it is a good opening to a question which has long bothered me. Namely: Do Chazal or Poskim discuss when guzma is appropriate, and when it is not?

Are they at all worried about people who will take their words too seriously? For example, if a recognized gadol attempts to dramatize how awful a certain act is, he might say that it is Yehareg v'Al Yaavor. My fear is that there may be some people who will take that as a psak halacha -- after all, he said it, right? -- and might actually allow themselves to die rather than do that terrible thing. Alternatively, the person might succumb to temptation, and then suffer much worse guilt pangs than are actually appropriate.

I have always been something of a literalist, and when I hear people saying things which are clear exaggerations, they tend to lose credibility in my eyes. But as I have matured, I have come to understand that guzma CAN be a le

Re: Gishmaychem

Zev Sero — 2012-05-24T19:03:19

Go to Rashi's main source, Toras Cohanim:

Your rain, and not the rain of other countries.  So how can I maintain
"And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and your
seed"?  That there will be satiety in Eretz Yisrael and famine in all
the other countries, and they will come and buy from you and enrich you
with money, in the same way as it is said "And Yosef collected all the
money that was to be found in Egypt and Cenaan through the food that they
bought", and so it says "and as your days shall be your excretion", that
all the countries shall excrete gold and bring it to Eretz Yisrael.