Volume 28 Number 73
Produced: Fri Jun 11 16:13:28 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
ANI=Confrontational I, ANOCHI=Supportive I:Old Bible Criticism
[Micha Berger]
FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath (2)
[Zev Sero, Joel Rich]
Frankfurt-Edition-of-Talmud
[Bob Werman]
In defense of Praying in English
[Russell Hendel]
Kissing Tztzit after Shema
[Ezriel Krumbein]
Lines of Latitude - Halachic Significance?
[Akiva Miller]
Second Day Yiom Tov
[Yisrael Medad]
Women's Prayer Groups - Articles & Sources
[Joshua Sharf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ANI=Confrontational I, ANOCHI=Supportive I:Old Bible Criticism
In v28n71, Russell Hendel <rhendel@...> writes:
: People who attacked the Bible use to say that it was not a
: unified document: To prove their point they said that certain parts of
: the Bible use the word ELOKIM for God while others use ADNAY for God
: etc. ...
: As an example of a refutation: ELOKIM is used to denote God when He is
: EXERCISING JUSTICE while the ineffable tetragramaton is used to denote
: God when He is EXERCISING MERCY.
With all do respect, this understanding of the two names well predates
Biblical Criticism. It's found in Rashi.
A more accurate example might be R' YB Soloveitchik's understanding of
Adam I vs. Adam II. The two creation stories in the first two chapters
of Genesis is a common example used to "prove" that at least two
documents were merged to form the Torah. Each document, the claim goes,
had its own creation myth, both were two important to be omitted, so we
have two contradictory stories of creation in the Torah.
R' Soloveitchik (see The Lonely Man of Faith, Tradition (Summer '73 ?))
saw the two stories as portrayals of two visions of man. Each person
harbors a tention between two archetypes: the Adam of Genesis I, the
pinnacle of creation who seeks dignity; and the one of Genesis II, who
is a covenental partner with G-d, and strives for redemption.
Adam I is created at the end of the story, after everything else, and
has no dialogue with G-d. The name for G-d used in Gen 1 is exclusively
"E-lokim", the G-d of Justice (as Dr. Hendell notes), law, and natural
law.
Adam II appears at the begining of the story. G-d is "Hashem E-lokim"
and is in constant dialogue with man. Man names the animals, at G-d's
behest.
The idea is far more complex than this, and is reflected in numerous other
dialectics in the Rav's thought.
In the journal "Jewish Thought", one author proposed an Adam I vs Adam
II explanation of the flood story. Again, Adam I appears through texts
the document theorists attribute to one document, Adam II in the other.
What forms is the idea that the Torah describes the progression from two
disjoint self-perceptions and behaviors to using the tension
cooperatively and productively. It does so by being careful in
terminology, weaving together which "Adam" it's speaking to. The Torah
isn't made of multiple documents, rather, it was written for a pair of
audiences -- that reside within each of us.
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 11-Jun-99: Shishi, Sh'lach
<micha@...> A"H O"Ch 325:32-326:6
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 94a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:57:13 -0400
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...> wrote:
> We had a long discussion in mail jewish on why exactly eggs cannot be
> used on Shabbath. One suggested approach is that a BORN EGG has a NEW
> STATUS--before Shabbath it was part of the chicken, while now it has the
> STATUS of an EGG (e.g. you can point to it and talk about eating it).
>
> In a similar manner--a piece of paper that received a fax message on
> it on shabbath has achieved a NEW STATUS--it no longer has the status
> of being a piece of BLANK paper but rather it has the status of a FAX
> Hence it is "BORN" and should not be read (till after Shabbath).
An egg before it is laid is not an entity separate from its mother;
this is the legal principle `ubar yerech imo'. Thus, when it is laid,
a new entity comes into existence that was not there before. The law
of `nolad' also applies when ice melts and water comes into existence;
legally, ice and water are two distinct entities, rather than the same
substance in different forms, so when ice melts and disappears, the
water is considered to have come into existence ex nihilo. That's why
a mikveh can be made from melted ice.
It seems a flight of fancy to think of a piece of paper with writing on
it as somehow a separate entity from the same piece of paper when it was
blank, and to say that the paper with the writing is something that
didn't exist before, and came into existence today, just as we don't say
that a fruit salad `came into existence' because beforehand it was simply
apples and oranges, etc!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <Joelirich@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:21:11 EDT
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
<< In a similar manner--a piece of paper that received a fax message on
it on shabbath has achieved a NEW STATUS--it no longer has the status
of being a piece of BLANK paper but rather it has the status of a FAX
Hence it is "BORN" and should not be read (till after Shabbath). >>
I'm not a baki(expert) in the laws of nolad but by your definition would
you say a fax printed on a piece of paper that already had printing(or a
prior fax on the other side ) would be considered nolad??
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Werman <RWERMAN@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 8:51 +0200
Subject: Frankfurt-Edition-of-Talmud
An ancestor of my late mother's, Shmuel Shattin [Schotten?] is credited
with -- among other things -- editing the Frankfurt edition of the
Talmud.
Does anyone know if there were distinct improvements over the Amsterdam
edition in use then? I've seen the Amsterdam, but not the Frankfurt,
version and can testify as to its aesthetic qualities, from the red
cover pages to the wide margins and lovely layout.
Any help appreciated.
__Bob Werman
<rwerman@...>
Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: In defense of Praying in English
The interesting question of the ideal way to pray and enunciate words
was raised by David (v28#64), & Rabbi Wasserman, (v28#65).My bottom line
advice (which I will then defend halachically) is that
* if you know Hebrew you should pray in Hebrew at a talking pace-- about
a minute for ASHRAY, 6 minutes for Shma, 4 minutes for Shmneh Esray
* if you don't know Hebrew fluently it is preferable to pray in English
for BOTH the Shma and Shmoneh Esray.
To defend this note that the Rambam identifies the primary requirement
of Shma as UNDERSTANDING (Rambam, Shma,2:1) and allows it to be said in
any language (Shma 2:10). Clearly note (Shma 2:1) that if you don't
understand what you are saying YOU HAVE NOT FULFILLED YOUR
OBLIGATION. By contrast there is NO statement in Rambam that it is
prefered to say Shma in Hebrew.
I am at a loss why Rabbi Wasserman thinks this is a controversy between
Rambam and Raavad. Rambam Shma 2:8 clearly states that it is PREFERABLE
to observe DIKDUK laws but does NOT invalidate the SHMA if you don't.
In fact with regard to using SIGN LANGUAGE during Shma Rambam says that
a) you shouldn't do it and b) if you did do it it is POOR. By contrast
Rambam does not call a non-Dikduk shma as POOR. At any rate the primary
law is expressed in Shma 2:1---you MUST understand what you are reading
(and if you don't understand the first verse it invalidates your
reading)
Of course any Rabbi may insist that a congregant uses a Good English
translation (e.g. art scroll with modifications). As to the SPEED of
davening many people are suprised to learn that there have been business
studies on the idea rate at which to speak when making a business
presentation. The ideal speed is 2.1 words a second; using the number of
words in Shma you get 6 minutes for Shma the exact speed suggested by
the Rambam in Shma 1:11. Thus the primary part of davening---Shma and
Shmoneh Esray---should ideally take 10 minutes (not a difficult task).
Russell Jay Hendel;Phd ASA
RHendel @ mcs . drexel . edu
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:21:27 -0700
Subject: Kissing Tztzit after Shema
> From: Jack Hollander <JackHollander@...>
> My query is why do we release the Tztzit ( Tallit fringes )
> after the word " Lo'ad" ( forever ) in the paragraph following the
> completion of the third paragraph of the Shema?
The source I believe is the AR"I. I have a small pamphlet like sefer
called Shulchan Aruch shel Rabbeinu Yitzchak Luria Z"L. I do not know
how accepted it is. [I did find the attribution of this minhag to the
AR"I elsewhere.] The reason given in rough translation is: because 2
times the word lo'ad is numerically equivalent to kodkod (head) and one
should have intention to do tikun lkodkod shelah ( I am not sure what
this means, it could be spiritually healing ones own head or be related
to filling spiritual completeness relating to the shechina if that makes
sense) and therefore (or to do this) you should kiss the Tzitzis and put
them between his eyes; and afterwards remove them from your hands
because they have all ready done tikun to you in the threads and in the
skull.
Kol Tov
Ezriel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Subject: Lines of Latitude - Halachic Significance?
We have been discussing how to face Eretz Yisrael when davening. In MJ
28:67, Joseph Geretz asked: <<< may I raise the question of why the
North Pole and lines of latitude play a role in determining the relative
direction of Yerushalayim vis a vis New York. ... If we disregard the
North (or Magnetic) Pole and the corresponding lines of latitude (none
of which have any Halachic status as far as I know) why do we face East
along lines of latitude, when the shortest route to Yerushalayim is to
the North? >>>
I don't know whether or not it has any relevance to the suject of Which
Way To Face When Praying, but there is another area of halacha where
lines of latitude and longitude does have a real significance. Namely,
in the halacha of "techum Shabbos" - how far one may walk on Shabbos
past the city limits.
This is an area of halacha in which I am particularly UNlearned, but the
basic rule that I've seen in some places, is that -- at least according
to some opinions -- this is how to draw the lines of the techum: Find
the northernmost point of the city, and draw a line 2000 amos further
north than that, going due east and west. Similarly, find the
easternmost point of the city, and draw a line 2000 amos further east
than that, going due north and south. Likewise for the south and west
sides of the city.
Thus, the techum shabbos is a rectangle, oriented precisely on the lines
of latitude and longitude, and many parts of this area (especially the
corners) will be much further than 2000 amos from the irregularly-shaped
city. This seems to be the opinion of the Chachamim in the Mishna,
Eruvin 4:8. It also seems to be the halacha as explained in the Siddue
Minchas Yerushalayim, in the section "Issur Techumin" a few pages before
Kabalas Shabbos. (page 550 in my edition)
Does anyone know if there is any modern sefer - in either Hebrew or
English - devoted to explaining the laws of Techum Shabbos and how they
apply to modern cities?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:57:49 +0300
Subject: Second Day Yiom Tov
Re what Tzvi Harris wrote on Second day Yom Tov
>(b) There is also a question of what is included in Eretz Yisrael
>(which borders define Eretz Yisrael with regards to the halacha of Yom
>Tov Sheni).
Don't forget that Jews in Lebanon, south of Beirut, did not keep Second
Day because they were in Biblical portions of Etretz Yisrael
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Sharf <jsharf@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:11:05 -0600
Subject: Women's Prayer Groups - Articles & Sources
Over the last few years, a number of articles have appeared in _Tradition_
discussing women's prayer groups, and Rav Soloveitchik's position on them.
Since our public libraries here are somewhat Judaically challenged, I will need
to write elsewhere to get the articles, and would like to know if anyone would
be kind enough to provide me with a list of the articles and letters to the
Editor on *both* sides of the issue?
I don't want to open, or re-open, a particularly controversial topic here, but
I do want to do somne background reading. Thanks for your help.
Joshua Sharf
Denver, CO
<jsharf@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 28 Issue 73
