Volume 20 Number 71
Produced: Thu Jul 27 20:41:05 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Angels have free will? and soul transfering to angel
[M. Linetsky]
Angels, Good and Bad (2)
[David Charlap, Micha Berger]
Direction to face when praying
[Akiva Miller]
Eliyahu a Cohen
[Rose Landowne]
Eliyahu Hanavi -- A Kohen
[Mordechai Perlman]
Eliyahu- a Cohen?
[Dani Wassner]
Lying (v20n24)
[Mark Dratch]
Picture Taking at Weddings
[Laurie Solomon]
Rennet (and gelatin)
[Josh Wise]
Wedding Issues
[S.H. Schwartz]
Why the proof text in only one of tha "Ani Ma'mins"?
[Michael E Allen]
Yechiel Naiman a"h
[Mike Gerver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 81920562%<TAONODE@...> (M. Linetsky)
Date: Tue 25 Jul 1995 15:19 ET
Subject: Angels have free will? and soul transfering to angel
I would like to mention that in Judaism it is difficult to say,
especially in the area of theology, thaat no one holds
something. Indeed, the last Gaon of Sura, prior to its relocation, Rabbi
Samuel ben Hophni, believed that angels have free-will and are able to
do bad. He asks in a section of his com. to Num. how G-d gaurantees
that the angel will not stray from his command. He replies that G-d
knows with his providence what that the angel is reliable. The extreme
mu'tazila view was objected to by Rabbi Saadia and Hayye Gaon. I also
recal that Rabbi Abraham ibn Daud in his 'Emunah Ramah' in the section
under prophecy does speak of a man transducing into an angel. Please see
there to verify if I did not err.
Sincerely Michael Linetsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 12:12:29 EDT
Subject: Angels, Good and Bad
<tarac@...> (Tara Cazaubon x3365)
>Regarding the posts below, Rachel Rosencrantz and David Charlap mention
>that angels do not have free will like men, that they can only do what
>Hashem tells them to do. How then do we explain the "bad angels" (like
>the Satan mentioned in the bedtime shema)? I understood that there were
>good angels and bad angels. Does Hashem command bad angels to do bad
>things? Any comments or elucidation would be welcome.
My understanding of this is that God is above and beyond "good" and
"evil". The concepts are only relevant in this world, not in His.
God does occasionally create Angels to perform actions that we humans
might consider "evil". Like when the Angel of Death takes a child. I
believe that such actions are not "evil", but are done for a reason that
we can not understand. (Perhaps the child was destined to become a
great force for destruction? How would we ever know?)
As for the references to the Satan - it's not the Christian concept of
an anti-god. The Jewish concept of the Satan (as I was taught) is one
of God's "special prosecutor" whose created purpose is to point out all
of your bad traits and misdeeds in the Heavenly Court.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 12:54:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Angels, Good and Bad
In v20n65, Tara Cazaubon (<tarac@...>) asks:
> Regarding the posts below, Rachel Rosencrantz and David Charlap mention
> that angels do not have free will like men, that they can only do what
> Hashem tells them to do. How then do we explain the "bad angels" (like
> the Satan mentioned in the bedtime shema)? I understood that there were
> good angels and bad angels. Does Hashem command bad angels to do bad
> things? Any comments or elucidation would be welcome.
Well, it's not clear that angels don't have free will. There is a
medrash that Rashi made famous where the angels in charge of the trees
refused to obey G-d's command to make the tree taste the same as its
fruit.
This opens up a can of worms on the subject of whether or not the story,
and aggadic (what we call "medrash") material in general needs to be
literally true, or only conveys a moral.
But to get to the question, assuming that angels don't have free will,
what is Satan's role?
Satan is the angel in charge of insuring that a person _chooses_ to do
good, instead of just doing good automatically. It is the choosing that
makes us grow from mitzvos -- performance by rote has little (although
some) value. In this way, the existance of Satan guarantees that habit
will not rob us of free will.
As the book of Job shows, Satan's role is to challenge mortals. When Job
mastered the art of serving G-d when he was living the high life, it was
Satan's role to see that Job also learn from adversity. Therefor, he is
an obstacle -- which is exactly what the word Satan means. In Tanach he
is most often referred to as HaSatan, The Obstacle.
In this way, Satan's job is a necessary part of G-d's plan. So yes, he
too is doing G-d's Will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 01:52:18 -0400
Subject: Direction to face when praying
In MJ 20:69, Lon Eisenberg explained his view that
>...So, if you want to face the Kodesh haKodeshim
>when praying (in the normal area) at the Kotel, you should face
>northeast.
Though I am not a rabbi, my reading of the Mishna Brura suggests that
when praying at the Kotel (Western Wall), one should NOT face northeast
towards the Kodesh haKodashim (Holy of Holies) but rather due east,
directly at the Kotel itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (94:1) states: "When one stands up to pray, if he
stands outside Israel, he should turn his face (yachazir panav) towards
the Land of Israel, and turn his heart (y'chaven) also towards
Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Holy of Holies. Standing in the Land of
Israel, he should turn his face to Jerusalem, and his heart to the
Temple and Holy of Holies. Standing in Jerusalem, he turns his face to
the Temple, and heart to the Holy of Holies..."
On the words "turn his heart", the Mishna Brura (94:3) explains: "He
should turn his heart toward them, even though it is impossible to face
them."
This is difficult to understand. Why is it impossible to face them? From
anywhere in the world, if one faces the Holy of Holies, he will also be
facing the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Land of Israel. Not only is such a
thing possible, but it is intuitively correct, and it seems to be Mr.
Eisenberg's suggestion. So why isn't this simple idea the one given in
the Shulchan Aruch, and in the Gemara from where it was originally
given? (see Brachos 30a, middle of page)
Here is my answer: Imagine one who stands mere inches from the Wall, and
chooses to face northeast instead of due east. Is this not an insult to
the holiness of the Wall? He ignores the holiness which is nearby, in
favor of a more distant (though admittedly greater) holiness! There is a
level of holiness just inches away, but he chooses to turn, and now his
shoulder is closer to the Wall than his face is! This is *not* what the
Shulchan Aruch wants us to do. (So it seems to me.) Perhaps we can even
generalize this to situations other than which way to face when praying:
When one aims towards a higher level of holiness, he *must* be careful
to take it one step at a time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:41:17 -0400
Subject: Eliyahu a Cohen
In answer to the one who asked for a source for Eliyahu being a Cohen, in
Baba Mitzia 114b, Rabba Bar Abuha finds Eliyahu in a cemetary and asks him,
"Aren't you a Cohen?" The Rashi there equates Eliyahu with Pinchas,
explaining why Rabba thought he was a Cohen. The Haftarah of Pinchas being
about Eliyahu may support the suggestion.
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Perlman <aw004@...>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 04:03:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Eliyahu Hanavi -- A Kohen
On Tue, 25 Jul 1995, David Steinberg wrote:
> I don't have it available here. The best I can do is give you the
> reference cited in the Mosad HaRav Cook edition of Rabbeinu Bachaai
> on Bereishis 49:19 > B'R 71:12
I found it! The sources are actually misquoted in the Moysad HoRav
Kook edition of Rabbeinu B'chaye. In note 9 it should say B'reishis
Rabbo 99:11. In note 12 it should say B'reishis Rabbo 71:9.
If you look in the Y'fai To'ar on B'reishis Rabbo 71:9, he brings
the Gemora in Bovo M'tzio (114b) that shows that Eliyohu was a Kohen.
Tosfos on 114b goes into the differences between this gemora and the
B'reishis Rabbo.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dani Wassner <dwassner@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:40:26 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: Eliyahu- a Cohen?
An interesting fact. If one goes to the Golden Gate "Sha'ar Harachmim"
in Jeruslaem today (that is the sealed gate, leading directly to Har
Habayit, through which Mashiach will enter), one will find a Muslim
cemetry in the area immediately around the gate.
The reason for this is that the Muslims believed that Mashiach (or
perhaps Eliyahu) is/was a Cohen. They did not want the Al-Aqsa Mosue to
be destroyed when Mashiach comes and rebuilds the Beit Hamikdash. So
they put a cemetry there so that a Cohen would be unable to pass through
the gate.
The cemetry is many hundreds of years old.
Dani Wassner- Sydney, Australia (Shalom ve Tel Hai).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MDratch@...> (Mark Dratch)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 18:41:02 -0400
Subject: Lying (v20n24)
Re: Gilad J. Gevaryahu's question on the nature of the aveirah of lying
"A side issue: Is "Sheker" an issur de'Oraita "me'dvar sheker
tirchak"(Ex 23:7) or de'Rabanan? Sefer Ha'chinuch counts this pasuk for
dayanim, but the Talmud expands this to a general lie. Does it include
ommision or only commision?"
See my article in "Judaism" (about five years ago) entitled "Nothing But
the Truth?" (I'll be happy to send reprints upon request) See also a
chapter in Basil Herring's book on Jewish Ethics, Vol II.
Mark Dratch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Laurie Solomon <0002557272@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 12:25 EST
Subject: Re: Picture Taking at Weddings
>...the respective families and so on that don't involve the chatan and
>kallah being together before the chupah. After the chupah and yichud,
>the chatan and kallah join the tziburah. Towards the end of dinner, they
>go off while everyone else is eating dessert and take the group
>pictures.
Taking the pictures at this point really isn't the answer. By the time
dessert comes around, most chosen and kallah and other family members
are all bedraggled and tired, even if still exhilarated, and not really
looking like they'd want to take formal pictures at this point.
Not that I have a better solution, but this doesn't seem to be it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Wise <jdwise@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:44:54 EDT
Subject: Rennet (and gelatin)
Elisheva Rovner asks:
>what are the implications regarding rennet, an animal derivative used
>in cheeses?
Rennet (and gelatin) fall under the category of Davar Hama'amid
(something that jells or solidifies). A non-kosher food that acts
in this manner cannot become nullified under any circumstances.
However, a kosher food, even if the substance is of meat
origin and will be placed together with a dairy food, DOES
become nullified.
For those who are interested, the concept of "Davar Hama'amid"
is discussed in the Shulchan Aruch, Yorah De'ah 87:11.
Josh Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <shimmy@...> (S.H. Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 22:18:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Wedding Issues
I am following this thread closely, inasmuch as my own wedding will be, G-d
willing, November 5, 1995. :-)
Janice Gelb writes:
>>>
There are certainly ways to time the picture-taking so that it involves
neither excessive tircha d'tziburah *or* the chatan and kallah having to
see each other before the chupah. One can take most of the pictures of
the respective families and so on that don't involve the chatan and
kallah being together before the chupah. After the chupah and yichud,
the chatan and kallah join the tziburah. Towards the end of dinner, they
go off while everyone else is eating dessert and take the group
pictures.
>>>
While I like this last idea, I fear that with all the dancing that will
occur during dinner, by the time dessert rolls out, Rebecca and I will not
be looking -quite- our best. :-)
Shimon Schwartz
<shimmy@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael E Allen <allenme@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 08:47:13 -0500
Subject: Why the proof text in only one of tha "Ani Ma'mins"?
In Rambam's 13 principles, as recorded in after Shacharis in most
siddurim, one principle comes with a proof text (HaShem knows what kind
of thoughts you are having, as it says....)
Why is only that one principle stated with a proof text?
-Thanks,
Michael
<allenme@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 23:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Yechiel Naiman a"h
Yechiel Naiman, father of MJer Aaron Naiman, was niftar this morning.
The levaya will be in Israel. I do not know where they will be sitting
shiva, but will pass on the information when I find out.
Yechiel was a neighbor and friend, a fellow physicist, and a vital member
of the Bostoner Rebbe's shul. It is hard to imagine the shul without him.
He could be counted on to come to a neighborhood minyan at the house of
someone who was unable to walk to shul Friday night. Between mincha and
ma'ariv on these occasions, I never saw him engage in idle conversation,
unlike most of the rest of us. But he was so knowledgable, and so
capable of sharing his knowledge and enthusiasm, that discussing Torah
with him was more fun than engaging in idle conversation with other
people. He will be missed very much. Baruch ha-dayan ha-emet.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 71
