Not a Charm?
Michael Shimshoni
murra...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu brings:
>**********************************************************************
>
> L'CHAIM ISSUE # 230 PART 1 OF 8
>**********************************************************************
Towards the end we read (I only bring that part of L'Chaim):
> The mezuza is not a charm or amulet and should not be considered as
>one. Yet it does offer protection. As explained in the Kabbala, the
>mezuza provides G- d's protection from the time we leave the house
>until the time we return home.
I wonder why this function of the mezuza does not make it what is
commonly called a charm or amulet? Where is the difference? Is it in
that one believes that it is a charm which invokes God?
Michael Shimshoni
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
|> > The mezuza is not a charm or amulet and should not be considered as
|> >one. Yet it does offer protection. As explained in the Kabbala, the
|> >mezuza provides G- d's protection from the time we leave the house
|> >until the time we return home.
|>
|> I wonder why this function of the mezuza does not make it what is
|> commonly called a charm or amulet? Where is the difference? Is it in
|> that one believes that it is a charm which invokes God?
Look at the Rashi on Parshat Hukat (Bamidbar 21:8). There it
talks about the plague of serpents that HaShem sent against
the Jews for their Lashon Hara. Moshe is told to build a serpent
(of brass) place it on a pole, and if the person was bit, he
should look at it and live.
Rashi:
The Rabbeim asked: "and is it the serpent that kills or causes to
live"? rather it is that when the Jews look towards Heaven and
subjugate their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they will
be healed and if not ...
----
Ultimately, one has to look beyond the mere physical mechanical
properties of the world. It is not merely physical natural property
of snake venom to kill. It is ultimately the will of G-d that it
have that effect. If He does not wish snake venom to kill,
it would not have any effect.
There is a story about R. Channinah's (I believe) daughter. Who
accidently bought vinegar instead of oil for the Shabbas candles.
Her father told here not to worry, the same G-d who commanded
oil to burn can also command vinegar to burn. And this is
exactly what occured for them that Shabbos.
Just as the cause and the healing from the snake wounds are ultimately
not physical categorical necessities, but ultimately brought about by
the will of G-d, so too are the accidents of the world and the power
of the mezzuzah to protect one from them. The mezzuzah is not an amulet
endowed with magical properties. Nor do accidents and unfortunate
occurances happen serendipidously (Contrary to anything that Kushner
might have said in "Why do bad things happen to good people"). All is
ultimately in the hands of G-d.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutf...@gte.com
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joel Goldberg
>In article <1992090313...@das.wang.com>, MA...@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>Look at the Rashi on Parshat Hukat (Bamidbar 21:8). There it
>talks about the plague of serpents that HaShem sent against
>the Jews for their Lashon Hara. Moshe is told to build a serpent
>(of brass) place it on a pole, and if the person was bit, he
>should look at it and live.
>
>Rashi:
>
>The Rabbeim asked: "and is it the serpent that kills or causes to
>live"? rather it is that when the Jews look towards Heaven and
>subjugate their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they will
>be healed and if not ...
>
when it was becoming an object of idol worship. We, who are
not on the same level as first temple B'nei Yisrael, should be
enjoined by our present day shoftim from kissing the mezuza,
because how much more so are we likely to venerate the mezuza
itself.
>Ultimately, one has to look beyond the mere physical mechanical
>properties of the world. It is not merely physical natural property
>of snake venom to kill. It is ultimately the will of G-d that it
>have that effect. If He does not wish snake venom to kill,
>it would not have any effect.
>
>There is a story about R. Channinah's (I believe) daughter. Who
>accidently bought vinegar instead of oil for the Shabbas candles.
>Her father told here not to worry, the same G-d who commanded
>oil to burn can also command vinegar to burn. And this is
>exactly what occured for them that Shabbos.
:-)
>
>Just as the cause and the healing from the snake wounds are ultimately
>not physical categorical necessities, but ultimately brought about by
>the will of G-d, so too are the accidents of the world and the power
>of the mezzuzah to protect one from them. The mezzuzah is not an amulet
>endowed with magical properties. Nor do accidents and unfortunate
>occurances happen serendipidously (Contrary to anything that Kushner
>might have said in "Why do bad things happen to good people"). All is
>ultimately in the hands of G-d.
eating a tunafish sandwich at the moment in order to protect my
house and myself from accidents.
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
|> >Just as the cause and the healing from the snake wounds are ultimately
|> >not physical categorical necessities, but ultimately brought about by
|> >the will of G-d, so too are the accidents of the world and the power
|> >of the mezzuzah to protect one from them. The mezzuzah is not an amulet
|> >endowed with magical properties. Nor do accidents and unfortunate
|> >occurances happen serendipidously (Contrary to anything that Kushner
|> >might have said in "Why do bad things happen to good people"). All is
|> >ultimately in the hands of G-d.
|> One can make the same argument about everything. I, for one, am
|> eating a tunafish sandwich at the moment in order to protect my
|> house and myself from accidents.
Only if you are eating it L'shaim Shemayim :-)
--
Robert B. Israel
>In: <P09gqB...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
>murra...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu brings:
>Michael Shimshoni
My shul's Rabbi devoted his Shabbat morning drasha a couple of weeks ago
to the idea that the mezuza provides protection. Now I know that the
Shulchan Arukh supports this point of view, but (as he often does)
the Rabbi tried to enlist the Rambam as a supporter as well.
I looked up what the Rambam says in Mishneh Torah, and it's a very strong
denunciation of people who make the mezuza into an amulet by including
extraneous things (such as names of angels). While he doesn't come right
out and say that it does NOT provide protection, his theory is that its
purpose is to remind us not to sin.
When asked about this, the Rabbi asserted that the Rambam talks about mezuza
somewhere else too (he couldn't remember where), and does support the
"protection" theory.
Can anyone provide a reference to other comments of the Rambam on this subject?
--
Robert Israel isr...@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics or isr...@unixg.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y4
Arthur S. Kamlet
>>>one. Yet it does offer protection. As explained in the Kabbala, the
>>>mezuza provides G- d's protection from the time we leave the house
>>>until the time we return home.
>
>>I wonder why this function of the mezuza does not make it what is
>>commonly called a charm or amulet? Where is the difference? Is it in
>>that one believes that it is a charm which invokes God?
Well, if it's not clear whether a mezzua is a charm or not,
or whether it provides protection or not, how about tfillen?
The usual "English" translation for tfillen is phylacteries. Not
that anyone has the slightest idea what phylacteries are, except
that they are tfillen, but the word phylacteries has the same root
as prophylactic, which means protection.
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Robert B. Israel
>>In: <P09gqB...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
>>murra...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu brings:
>>Michael Shimshoni
Some things my son pointed out to me:
1) In Hagahot Maimoniot (13th cent. CE), Hilchot Tefillin chapter
1, footnote 7:
... I heard in the name of R. Moshe Maimon that mezuza doesn't
need to be made lishma ... and he says the reason of the mezuza
is not because of its own obligation (chovat gufo) but it is to
guard him from the spirits (mazikin). But one can not rely on
this because ... this reason did not come to the heart of R.
Moshe, as you will find later on in chapter 5 halacha 4 how he
writes concerning those who think that a mezuza is for the
purpose of protection and for benefit in this world, that they are
included in those who don't have a portion in the world to
come...
In chapter 5 halacha 4, as I mentioned above, Maimonides is
talking about people who write names of angels in the mezuza.
One might think you're OK if you write a kosher mezuza (without
extra names) and think that it's for protection. But at least
Hagahot Maimoniot interprets Maimonides as meaning that anybody
who thinks the mezuza is for protection has no portion in the
world to come. However, you might also make a distinction
between those who think it's for the PURPOSE of protection, and
those who think it's for the purpose of the mitzva but protection
is included in the package.
2) The Rai (commentary found in the back of the Rambam) writes on
Hilchot Mezuza chapter 5 halacha 4:
"But those who write inside": ... The intention of the Rambam
here was (to refer to) those people who _intend_ personal benefit
(from doing the mitzvah)... But it is true that the mezuza
guards the person: it warns him not to sin, and reminds him to
do good, which the Rambam says later at the end of chapter 6.
In Devarim 11:20-21, we have a source for the mitzva of mezuza
("Write them on the doorposts of your houses and gates") and then
for the "protection" ("In order to prolong your days..."). But
we find in other places in the Torah (e.g. Devarim 8:1) it says
that if you do the mitzvot you will live long. Therefore it
seems logical that the "protection" of the mezuza consists in
reminding the person who sees it to keep the mitzvot, which in
turn causes him to live long.
BTW, another reference I'd like to see is to a story from this
same drasha, in which the Roman emperor and R. Yehuda ha-Nasi
exchange gifts: a precious jewel from the emperor and a mezuza
from Rabbi. The emperor is angry until Rabbi explains that
while a jewel needs to be guarded, the mezuza will guard the
emperor.
While I'm sure such a story exists (though I don't think it's in
the Talmud), it seems to me to be "off the wall". <|:-)
The mezuza itself is supposed to guard an idolator (who has no
connection to the mitzva)?
Jacques Goldberg
>In: <P09gqB...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
>murra...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu brings:
Perhaps the question ought to be rephrased, to generate agreement: what
KIND of protection do you expect from an amulet, what kind of protection do
you expect from a Mezuzah?
In Spring '74 touring children from Zfat were"hi-jacked" by some PLO
heroes (they were sleeping at nib\ght in a school in Maaloth); many were
killed or injured (by the way, I recommend a brief visit at the Zfat
cemetary, or at least a look at the cemetary from the old Synagogues area,
as a lesson of History: tombs of famous Rabbis, of Dov Gruner, of these kids,
almost side by side). In winter 74-75 I was on Sabbatical in Paris. A trio
of Hassidim of a very (rightly) famous Rebbe, easily recognised by their
uniform, once knocked and asked to check the Mezuza on the door, which I
of course agreed to (the appartment belonged to a very observant friend then
living in my home in Haifa). They asked if I knew why Mezuzoth had to be
checked these days: periodical check, I answered. No, it's because it had
been found that Mezuzoth were bad where Zfat kids had been hurt, and Ok
where other kids were not hurt in the "incident" above. Then I withdrew
the approval to check the Mezuza, the three screamed at a person allegedly
"rebelling" against a request from their Rebbe (whom, again, although not
mine, I very deeply respect), and left quite unhappy after I had repeated
that I could not believe that their Rebbe could have given such a stupid
reason. Sure enough, on the next Shabbath one of the three walked across
Paris to the Synagogue near my home, just to announce that they had checked,
found I was right, and had identified the warmed up source of the alleged
reason to check Mezuzoth in Winter 74-75, not their Rebbe needless to say.
So what sort of protection does one expect from a Mezuzah? What kind of
reward does one expect from performing a Mizwah? I can't resist quoting again
Emmanuel Levinas, now translated in English ("Difficult Freedom"), partly
because I feel as indirectly quoting my late Master: " the way to REAL
Monotheism HAS to go through Atheism".
>Michael Shimshoni
Yaaqov Goldberg
A.J.S. Nusbacher
>BTW, another reference I'd like to see is to a story from this
>same drasha, in which the Roman emperor and R. Yehuda ha-Nasi
>exchange gifts: a precious jewel from the emperor and a mezuza
>from Rabbi. The emperor is angry until Rabbi explains that
>while a jewel needs to be guarded, the mezuza will guard the
>emperor.
>
>While I'm sure such a story exists (though I don't think it's in
>the Talmud), it seems to me to be "off the wall". <|:-)
>The mezuza itself is supposed to guard an idolator (who has no
>connection to the mitzva)?
You know that. I know that. Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi knew that. Just don't
tell the Emperor that!
Actually, according to a classicist buddy of mine, the Romans were very
keen on adopting the sponsorship of "local gods", and I can certainly see
an Emperor in Rome appreciating an amulet from one of the local gods of
one of the subject kingdoms.
I can imagine the Emperor turning the mezuzah over to the bureaucrat
responsible for keeping track of this sort of thing, and the mezuzah
ending up nailed to a door in the Imperial country house.
Aryk Nusbacher
Jacques Goldberg
for such a son!
>................
>In Devarim 11:20-21, we have a source for the mitzva of mezuza
>("Write them on the doorposts of your houses and gates") and then
>for the "protection" ("In order to prolong your days..."). But
>we find in other places in the Torah (e.g. Devarim 8:1) it says
>that if you do the mitzvot you will live long. Therefore it
>seems logical that the "protection" of the mezuza consists in
>reminding the person who sees it to keep the mitzvot, which in
>turn causes him to live long.
On Sunday morning of the KI-TEZE week, I can't resist to suggest
to those, if any, that would not be satisfied by the above, but believe
that this means mundane protection, to quickly begin climbing on each and
every tree on their way to anywhere, to check for nests. It's of course
a sure way not to break a leg or an arm when accidentally falling... There
also, the promised outcome is "to prolong your days"...
This quote may trigger a thread about ecology and bird destruction.
Before writing about this, a good idea would be to begin from the Hebrew
text, not a translation, and first study exactly what the word ROBETZ means.
Yaaqov Goldberg
Arthur S. Kamlet
>
>The letters on the outside of the mezuzzah, Shin, Dalet, Yud are one
>of the names of G-d.
Is this really a name of G-d? Or is it kEl Shadai?
Is Elyon (by itself ) also a name of G-d? [ When applied to angels,
it is malachay elyon. ]
User - Don Gertler
>murra...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu brings:
>> The mezuza is not a charm or amulet and should not be considered as
>>one. Yet it does offer protection. As explained in the Kabbala, the
>>mezuza provides G- d's protection from the time we leave the house
>>until the time we return home.
>I wonder why this function of the mezuza does not make it what is
>commonly called a charm or amulet? Where is the difference? Is it in
>that one believes that it is a charm which invokes God?
My understanding of an amulet or charm is that the "power" exists in,
and emanates from, the item itself. My understanding of the mezuza
is different, though from the quote above, one could certainly infer
otherwise. The mezuza itself has no inherent power. Similarly, a
talit, shofar, sukka or any other "prop" of halakha is an impotent,
inanimate object. Each is necessary for proper performance of the
associated mitzva, but it has no magical powers of its own. Performance
of the mitzva has its effects, both in the individual and in one's
relationship with G-d, perhaps even "persuading" G-d to protect us
somehow. But the objects themselves, IMHO, are inert. Otherwise
we may have to revisit the classic midrashim on Avraham Avinu's
argument against avoda zara.
-Don Gertler
David Kaufmann
The letters on the outside of the mezuzzah, Shin, Dalet, Yud are one
Yisrael, Guard the Doors of Israel.
There is indeed an element of protection in the mezuzzah, but as was
pointed out, this is not in the object, which would make it a charm,
but in the relationship it creates.
Then again, we should ask or define the nature of protection we're
talking about.
David Kaufmann
INTERNET: da...@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
Simon Streltsov
>of the names of G-d. They are also an acronym for Shomer Daltos
>Yisrael, Guard the Doors of Israel.
>
Simon
A.J.S. Nusbacher
because the Torah tells us to. Anything further sounds dangerously
close to chassidut!
Aryk Nusbacher
A.J.S. Nusbacher
>>The letters on the outside of the mezuzzah, Shin, Dalet, Yud are one
>>of the names of G-d.
>Is this really a name of G-d? Or is it kEl Shadai?
If I can have two names in Hebrew, al achat kamah ve-kamah, God can have
two names. \8-)
>Is Elyon (by itself ) also a name of G-d? [ When applied to angels,
>it is malachay elyon. ]
My impression is that almost every word in the Hebrew language (except,
perhaps, felafel) is a name of God.
Shalom (also a name of God),
Yehudah Aryeh ben Ya'akov Nusbacher (all of which are my names)
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
Which reminds me of the story of a certain "Orthodox scholar" who said he
believed in Torah, but was not so sure about G-d.
I would say that we do mitzvot because G-d commands us to, and Torah
is the vehicle via which G-d makes his desires known to us.
BTW: I don't know if others were as jarred by this as I was. But one
SCJ commentator said how he felt that the custom of kissing the
mezzuzah was something that should be banned as being too close
to avodah zarah. (and he made a hekesh to the nachash nechoshet).
I wonder where an individual gets the chutzpah to pass judgement on
a minhag accepted by k'lal yisroel for generations. And who
has the right to pass judgement on righteous of this and previous
generations who keep this mihag. And what does individual
perceptions of a minhag have to do with what has to be a cold
intellectual halachic analysis of the basis that underlies a
minhag.
Joel Goldberg
>BTW: I don't know if others were as jarred by this as I was. But one
>SCJ commentator said how he felt that the custom of kissing the
>mezzuzah was something that should be banned as being too close
>to avodah zarah. (and he made a hekesh to the nachash nechoshet).
>
>I wonder where an individual gets the chutzpah to pass judgement on
>a minhag accepted by k'lal yisroel for generations.
the mezuzah in order to achieve a specific effect, which was where the
comparison to the copper snake came in. Making an active
acknowledgement of the mezuzahs presence--making the mitzvah a
continuous event in some sense--by touching it, is entirely
different.
Michael Allen
I heard a nice p'shat on the purpose of kissing the Mezuzah this last
weekend from R' Abramov (the husband of Tehilla Abramov, who "The Secret
of Jewish Femininity") in the name of the Rambam.
We read that Moshe Rabbenu wore a mask because of the radiance of his
face. But when he entered the Ohel Mo'ed (the Tent of Meeting), he
would remove the mask. Why, becuase Moshe was the most humble of all
men, and when he went out into the world he had to "put up a front" in
order to get the job done. But, when he entered the Ohel Mo'ed, he
had no need for any facades; he was at home.
So too, we wear many masks when we are out in the world. But when we
come home, to our real life and world, we should drop the facade and
be ourselves. Kissing the Mezuzah upon entering gives us a chance to
pause and (should) remind us to drop our mask. At home rather than
being an Office Manager, Professor, or Business Executive; we should
be a Mensh.
The point was driven home by R' Abramov through the following true
story:
When a young Yeshivah student in Jerusalem was promoted to the Staff
of the Yeshivah, he decided that in his position it would dishonor the
Torah for him to be seen taking out the garbage. He therefore
informed his wife that she would now be responsible for schlepping the
garbage down the four flights of stairs during the free time she had
while taking care of a half a dozen small children. His wife was less
than happy about this and indicated her displeasure to her newly
promoted husband. After some discussion, they decided to take the
matter to the Rosh Yeshivah (R' Gifter, I believe). The Rosh Yeshivah
listened to both sides, and then poskened in favor of the young man.
The woman was not happy, but after all, this was the decision of the
Rosh Yeshivah. So she agreed to abide by his decision and the two of
them went home.
That evening, around 8:00 there was a knock at the door. The door was
opened and, to the surprise of all, there stood the Rosh Yeshivah.
The young man hurried to invite his Rav in and find out what he had
done to merit such a visit. The Rosh Yeshivah said, "I am here to
take out the garbage. As you explained it would be beneath your
dignity, and obviously it is not fitting for your wife to do it."
--
===================================================
But those who toiled knew nothing of the dreams of
Those Who Planned;
And the minds who planned the Tower of Babel
Cared nothing for the workers who built it.
-Metropolis
Gideon Ehrlich
>
>I heard a nice p'shat on the purpose of kissing the Mezuzah this last
>weekend from R' Abramov (the husband of Tehilla Abramov, who "The Secret
>of Jewish Femininity") in the name of the Rambam.
The custom of kissing the mezuza is a nice way of honoring the Tora.
Remember that like Tefilin the mezuza has some paragraphs of the Tora
written in it.
But this kissing is far from being a must.
There were a wide gates in the entrance of Jerusalem and the temple
mount.
If every one had to kiss the mezuza then just the 1 foot on the side
of the mezuza was of use !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom Gideon Ehrlich
.-. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
.-. ((@)) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
((@)) / `.-. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
.-.\ / `-' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
((@))\ /<Z> XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
`-' Y XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
|<Z> XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
David Charlap
And what's wrong with Chassidut? Don't condemn them because they wear
black clothing and observe more Mitzvot than you do (probably).
--
|) David Charlap "LECTURER, n. One with his hand in your pocket,
/|_ dic...@hertz.njit.edu his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
((|,) patience."
~|~ --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Warren Burstein
>I wonder where an individual gets the chutzpah to pass judgement on
>a minhag accepted by k'lal yisroel for generations. And who
>has the right to pass judgement on righteous of this and previous
>generations who keep this mihag.
Sigh. I didn't think that the posting was suggesting that once you
read it, if you kissed a mezuzah that you were chayyav sekilah, and so
were all of your ancestors retroactively. Agree or not with the idea
that since maybe some people are confused as to the significance of
the mezuzah it might be worthwhile to not kiss them as an educational
tool, but I hardly think this reaction is called for.
I'm sure that most of the Jews didn't use the nachash hanechoshet as
an idol either, maybe there was a group of people who thought it
would be insulting to Moshe to melt it down because of the actions of
a few idolators who would worship something else if we took away this
one.
But the poster didn't call for people to throw away their mezuzot -
just to remember what they're there for. Myself, I don't kiss
mezuzot, but I try to remember to take notice of them. I suppose that
I could train myself to automatically put my hand up, but then I'd
have to try to remember to take notice of what I was doing by habit.
This is the second posting I've answered today that strikes me to be,
well perhaps indicative of the need to suggest that while we're each
doing our own Teshuvah, and perhaps this makes us less tolerant of the
mistakes each of us has individually made since last year, it might
not be benificial to anyone to extend this praiseworthy increased
rigor to our evaluations of others.
I hope this is not taken as a criticism of Teshuvah.
--
/|/-\/-\ Amar Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak:
|__/__/_/ "P'amim sheadam ba b'sharav
|warren@ v'rochetz afilu b'mai mishrah"
/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Matthew P Wiener
>And what's wrong with Chassidut? Don't condemn them because they wear
>black clothing and observe more Mitzvot than you do (probably).
But it's forbidden to observe more mitzvot than the taryag.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
David Charlap
>In article <1992Sep9.2...@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz (David Charlap) writes:
>>And what's wrong with Chassidut? Don't condemn them because they wear
>>black clothing and observe more Mitzvot than you do (probably).
>
>But it's forbidden to observe more mitzvot than the taryag.
First, I said "probably".
Second, I doubt you do all 613 of them. As a matter of fact, few
people can, since there is no Temple.
Third, I never said the Chassidim do more than 613. But they do more
than any other group of people do. At least as far as I've been able
to see.
Matthew P Wiener
>Third, I never said the Chassidim do more than 613. But they do more
>than any other group of people do. At least as far as I've been able
>to see.
Then you've obviously not looked around very much. Your assertion that
Chassidim do more mitzvos than Aryk Nusbacher--with or without the prob-
ably--was insulting and uncalled for.
User - Don Gertler
> Third, I never said the Chassidim do more than 613. But they do more
> than any other group of people do. At least as far as I've been able
> to see.
This is ridiculous. Chassidism is a movement started by the Baal
Shem Tov. Very different from its character at its roots, the
movement is now generally considered to be quite observant. But
doing MORE mitzvot than any other group is way out of line. What
about the non-Chassidic Charedim, for example? (I'm going on the
assumption that the so-called Ultra-Orthodox are the most prolific
mitzva performers, which itself may be quite invalid.)
The movements are not monolithic. Take a look at Lubavitch, for
example. Many members are relative newcomers to religious life.
This is in no way a negative aspect of the movement, but one would
have to agree that many non-Chassidim practice more than these
individuals. (At least if you disagree with the tenet that saying
"We want Moshiach now!" stands k'neged kol haTora kula :-)
-Don Gertler
Matthew P Wiener
>But doing MORE mitzvot than any other group is way out of line. What
>about the non-Chassidic Charedim, for example? (I'm going on the
>assumption that the so-called Ultra-Orthodox are the most prolific
>mitzva performers, which itself may be quite invalid.)
It's not a question of "more", but of "fence height", that distinguishes
strictness from leniency. About the only way you can claim "more" would
be in particular or unusual cases: the priestly blessing, issuing a get,
chalitza, a Levite guarding the Temple Mount, chasing a mother bird away
before taking the eggs, Nazirite vow, martyrdom, cohanim blowing the silver
trumpets during times of danger, shechita and covering the blood, etc.
Most of these have a brocha even.
David Charlap
>...chalitza....
What is chalitza?
--
David Charlap |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic...@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Matthew P Wiener
marrying the widow to propagate the departed man's name, or to not do
so. The latter is now the obligatory choice, at least among Ashkenazi,
and involves a rather odd ceremony, whereby the brother's shoe (and a
special shoe at that) is taken off, the widow spits at the ground in
front of him, and some other stuff. This is called "chalitza", from
the Hebrew for removing (ie, the shoe). See Deut 25.
I mentioned it since this is rare enough that most of us haven't done
it, and the few who have, other things being equal, may be said to have
done "more" mitzvos than the rest of us.
Not to be confused with "chaleetza", a prisoner of war.
Jacques Goldberg
>When a married man days childless, his brother is offered a choice of
>marrying the widow to propagate the departed man's name, or to not do
>so.
NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY. Not of "marrying" and not to "propagate a name".
The brother should substitute to his dead brother so that somebody is born
to inherit the land actually or potentially owned by the dead brother.
This Mizwah is called YBUM.
AFTER THIS SUBSTITUTION, the living brother is not forbidden to marry
the woman. But the land which was owned by the departed one remains the
sole property of the child issued from YBUM, and this child will NOT get
any share of his biological father inheritage.
If for any reason no brother or next closer relative agrees (some people
are greedy for wealth, you know...), then the CHALIZAH ceremony is performed.
Without it, the widow may not remarry anybody.
Last, unfortunately, this very sad situation occurs more often than one
may think. A few months ago I quoted a responsa by MAHARAM from Rothenburg
about a Jew converted to Catholicism who deliberately refused to perform
CHALIZAH thus preventing his sister-in-law from remarrying for over 20 years.
Indeed this was 700 years ago, but I personally know two cases, one with
Chalizah performed (one of our graduate students was killed during the Kippur
war shortly after his wedding), one pending (my niece lost her husband one
month ago from leucemia three months after they married).
I quoted these three cases with a very clear intention. The "ceremony" and
the concept are difficult to accept in our days. People tend to hide them.
A person hit by this situation would accept it more easily if the veil of
shame (no shame!), secrecy, and exceptionality (again, this is unfortunately
much more frequent than anybody, except Rabbis handling weddings, believe)
would just be removed.
And, just by the way, the Torah section last Shabbath was the source for
this. Timely question.
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Yaaqov Goldberg
Arthur S. Kamlet
>A person hit by this situation would accept it more easily if the veil of
I had thought chalitza was supposed to be a shameful ceremony. The
brother is supposed to fulfill his brother's duty and only if he
refuses should he be publicly shamed by her. Loosening his sandal,
spitting and reciting the public declaration is a legal alternative
for those who refuse to fulfill their duty. True, Rebbenu Gershom
said to always refuse and choose chalitza, but the fact remains that
a chalitza ceremony is supposed to be a public shaming of the
brother.
Jacques Goldberg
You made the point yourself. No shame, since it is enforced. What is more
a shame, to yield to this now symbolic rule which is a MIZWAH, or to prevent
the widow from ever getting married again?
>Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Yaaqov Goldberg
Warren Burstein
>but the fact remains that a chalitza ceremony is supposed to be a
>public shaming of the brother.
I didn't see it myself (but I know someone who did, does this make
chalitzah an Urban Legend?), but about five or six years ago there was a
chalitzah held in NY (at YU, I think) and they did it publically so
people could witness the rare event, or maybe so that Rabbis who have
to do another one in a few years will have seen it done so they'll
know what to do.
--
/|/-\/-\ New signature will appear "acharai hachagim"
|__/__/_/
|warren@
/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Warren Burstein
>What is chalitza?
If the shoe fits, spit at it.
Gideon Ehrlich
gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>>When a married man dies childless, his brother is offered a choice of
>>marrying the widow to propagate the departed man's name, or to not do
>>so.
> NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY. Not of "marrying" and not to "propagate a name".
> The brother should substitute to his dead brother so that somebody
> is born to inherit the land actually or potentially owned by the
> dead brother.
False information.
The one who inherit brother ( not just land) is the brother who marry
the widow, if the widow and her new husband will actually have a
common son is of no importance. ( Shulchan Aruch , even Haezer 163 ).
> This Mizwah is called YBUM.
> AFTER THIS SUBSTITUTION, the living brother is not forbidden to
> marry the woman.
False information.
The living brother inherite his dead brother by the action of Yibum.
( Shulchan Aruch , even Haezer 163 ).
> But the land which was owned by the departed one remains the
> sole property of the child issued from YBUM,
False information.
The one who inherites the dead brother ( not just lands) is the
brother who did the yibum, the child , if any, that issued from yibum
has no rights in the properties while his father is a live. If the
father died, the child issued from the yibum has no special status and
the properties are divided among all children the dead brother had
either from the widow or from any other women as in all other cases.
( Shulchan Aruch , hoshen mishpat , hilchot nachalaaot, 284, 3)
> and this child will NOT get any share of his biological father
> inheritage.
False information.
The status of this child is identical to that of any other child his
father had either from that woman or from any other.
( Shulchan Aruch , hoshen mishpat , hilchot nachalaaot, 284, 3)
> A few months ago I quoted a responsa by MAHARAM from Rothenburg
>about a Jew converted to Catholicism who deliberately refused to perform
>CHALIZAH thus preventing his sister-in-law from remarrying for over 20 years.
>Indeed this was 700 years ago.
Partial information.
Did you informed what the Maharam of Rothenberg quoting and
explaining the Rabenu Hananel opinion that in a case of only a
christian brother there is no need to perform yibum or haliza?
Christianity was involved deeply in that case.
They did the whole case.
The husbant was murdered by christians on the year 1349 . Christians
performed than many ritual Jews-murdering (pogroms) and that person
was one of their victims.
> And, just by the way, the Torah section last Shabbath was the
> source for this. Timely question.
One who learned Tora out of some "authorized" version - king Games
or a like - may arrive to most of Yaaqov Goldberg conclusion , there
is a need for some creative book to arrive to the "law" that the
chields do not inherite his father- "biological father".
If one want to keep himself away of such mistake he should learn the
Tora with Rashi. In this case Rashi cites the oral-law about
" vehaya habchor asher teled" look there and in SIFTEY HACHAMIM.
Janice Gelb
>In article <goldberg....@techunix.technion.ac.il>
>gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>
>
>> But the land which was owned by the departed one remains the
>> sole property of the child issued from YBUM,
>
>False information.
> The one who inherites the dead brother ( not just lands) is the
>brother who did the yibum, the child , if any, that issued from yibum
>has no rights in the properties while his father is a live. If the
>father died, the child issued from the yibum has no special status and
>the properties are divided among all children the dead brother had
>either from the widow or from any other women as in all other cases.
> ( Shulchan Aruch , hoshen mishpat , hilchot nachalaaot, 284, 3)
>
Are you sure about this? The story of Tamar seems to indicate that
it's the child that is the important part of a yibum arrangement, and
that the widow and the living brother don't even need to get married;
they just need to produce a son. My understanding was that the son is
created in order to carry on the dead brother's name.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | (415) 336-7075
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!)
********************************************************************************
Gideon Ehrlich
>In article 42...@bimacs.BITNET, ehr...@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
>>In article <goldberg....@techunix.technion.ac.il>
>>gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>>
>
>>
>>> But the land which was owned by the departed one remains the
>>> sole property of the child issued from YBUM,
>>
>>False information.
>> The one who inherites the dead brother ( not just lands) is the
>>brother who did the yibum, the child , if any, that issued from yibum
>>has no rights in the properties while his father is a live. If the
>>father died, the child issued from the yibum has no special status and
>>the properties are divided among all children the dead brother had
>>either from the widow or from any other women as in all other cases.
>> ( Shulchan Aruch , hoshen mishpat , hilchot nachalaaot, 284, 3)
>Are you sure about this? The story of Tamar ....
I quoted the Shulchan Aruch.
I didn't checked the tamar case, since it was BEFORE the Tora was
given.
Look at Rashi in DEUT. ( about chapter 26, and read the siftey
hachamim explaining Rashi.
Shalom Gideon
Jacques Goldberg
>In article <goldberg....@techunix.technion.ac.il>
>gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>> A few months ago I quoted a responsa by MAHARAM from Rothenburg
>>about a Jew converted to Catholicism who deliberately refused to perform
>>CHALIZAH thus preventing his sister-in-law from remarrying for over 20 years.
>>Indeed this was 700 years ago.
>Partial information.
> Did you informed what the Maharam of Rothenberg quoting and
>explaining the Rabenu Hananel opinion that in a case of only a
>christian brother there is no need to perform yibum or haliza?
>Christianity was involved deeply in that case.
>They did the whole case.
>The husbant was murdered by christians on the year 1349 . Christians
>performed than many ritual Jews-murdering (pogroms) and that person
>was one of their victims.
My purpose was NOT to discuss the Halachic case of a widow whose
potential CHOLETZ converted but to show that some widow could not get married
again for 20 years, rightly or wrongly. I could ask why did you select
DAVKA Rabeinu Hanana'el rather than other Posqim quoted before him and after
him in the Maharam's responsa, so that your information could also be seen as
partial.
But I do have one serious question to you. Are you aware that MAHARAM passed
away in 1293, that is, about 56 years BEFORE the pogrom which you refer to,
where the husband of the widow was killed, 20 years before MAHARAM was
asked the question?
I know how you got to 1349.
"WYSIWYG".
About your other remarks, "WIQIWIL" from my private sources of Oral Law, not
from any "translation". I asked my current source (the former and only other
passed away almost 24 years ago), he says that my memory worked right, and
that "WYSIWYG" made a new victim. He will be happy to study with me each of
your points in detail, and I will report to you (privately) the outcome.
Meanwhile, let me thank you very much and very sincerely for having triggered
me to read more Gemara, Shulchan Aruch, Mishneh Torah and other material. To
say the truth, I had started before, and was perplexed by seeing something
seemingly contradicting what I remembered from my sources. But I am definitely
willing to give you all the credit for a nice and long evening of study.
>Shalom Gideon Ehrlich
L'SHANA TOVA TIKATEV W'TIHATEM Yaaqov Goldberg
Gideon Ehrlich
gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>ehr...@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
>
>>In article <goldberg....@techunix.technion.ac.il>
>>gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>
>>> A few months ago I quoted a responsa by MAHARAM from Rothenburg
>>>about a Jew converted to Catholicism who deliberately refused to perform
>>>CHALIZAH thus preventing his sister-in-law from remarrying for over
>>> 20 years. Indeed this was 700 years ago.
>
>>Partial information.
>> Did you informed what the Maharam of Rothenberg quoting and
>>explaining the Rabenu Hananel opinion that in a case of only a
>>christian brother there is no need to perform yibum or haliza?
>>Christianity was involved deeply in that case.
>>They did the whole case.
>>The husbant was murdered by christians on the year 1349 . Christians
>>performed than many ritual Jews-murdering (pogroms) and that person
>>was one of their victims.
>
> My purpose was NOT to discuss the Halachic case of a widow whose
>potential CHOLETZ converted but to show that some widow could not get married
>again for 20 years, rightly or wrongly.
> I could ask why did you select DAVKA Rabeinu Hanana'el rather than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> other Posqim quoted before him and after him in the Maharam's
>responsa, so that your information could also be seen as partial.
Because , even mentioning other opinions Maharam follows Rabenu
Hananel!
Rabi David Hacohen (Rada"ch chapter 9 ) writes about the problem of
a widow to a childless person wile his brother is a christian :
" The opinions of the Geonim that Mordechi Z"L cited are like the
opinion of Rabbi Hananel Z"L ... and MAHARAM Z"L AGREE WITH THEM "
>But I do have one serious question to you. Are you aware that MAHARAM passed
>away in 1293, that is, about 56 years BEFORE the pogrom which you refer to,
>where the husband of the widow was killed, 20 years before MAHARAM was
>asked the question?
>I know how you got to 1349.
>"WYSIWYG".
I don't know what "WYSIWYG" means and stand for. But why hidding the
sicret of knowing who I rrived to the 1349 year?
I wrote that date simply because this is the date written in the
Maharam book !
If this information in that book is found to be false then it is
important to no that, you should then suspect other details , as the
"20 years" tp be un correct.
>Meanwhile, let me thank you very much and very sincerely for having
> triggered me to read more Gemara, Shulchan Aruch, Mishneh Torah and
> other material.
I am hapy to read that.
>>Shalom Gideon Ehrlich
> L'SHANA TOVA TIKATEV W'TIHATEM Yaaqov Goldberg
AMEN Gideon
Jacques Goldberg
about MAHARAM (died in 1293) writing in a responsa known as his about
an event occurred in 1349:
>If this information in that book is found to be false then it is
>important to no that, you should then suspect other details , as the
>"20 years" tp be un correct.
Note that it is not signed at the end as usual (I write usual, not always).
Also, note that it is printed in a relatively recent edition whose editor
writes that he has brought to print many responsas not printed before.
I would love to at least check if there has been a widely known massacre
in 1349 (the writing in the responsa quotes it as something that everybody
would know). In an other responsa footnote I found a pointer to a book by
Salfeld (1898) with "Martyrologium" in the title. Thanks to Josh Backon
I found a copy (lent, not presently available, at Haifa University). There
also is a microfiche copy under "Judaica FIC D31 SAL m" at your place
(Bar-Ilan). Are you, or any other interested reader (hence wide posting)
willing to take a look at this book (written in German and Hebrew) to check
for a tentative massacre, likely in Germany or France, in 1348-1349 (Jewish
year QOF-TET) ? There also are book copies at the Hebrew U. and Ben Gurion U., in case one of you, dear friends, gets interested by this enigm.
L'SHANA TOVA TIKATEVU out there ! Yaaqov Goldberg
Jonathan Baker
it's a "well known fact" that there were persecution of the Jews in 1348-9
because of the Black Death. The Christians blamed it on the Jews, saying
that the Jews were poisoning the wells. This of course made no sense, as
Jews died of the plague as well as the Christians. Perhaps the Jews died
in smaller percentages than Christians because of better sanitation: Jews
are required to be physically clean for a lot more things than Christians
(tefillin, mikvah, etc), so they might have had fewer rats than their
Christian neighbors.
---+ || --+ --+
| ' ' Jonathan J. Baker
---+- ba...@robocop.nyu.edu
samuel.saal
Subject line.
In article <920924151...@robocop.NYU.EDU> ba...@ROBOCOP.NYU.EDU
(Jonathan Baker) writes:
>Re: records of masscres in 1349. I don't have sources at the moment, but
>it's a "well known fact" that there were persecution of the Jews in 1348-9
>because of the Black Death. The Christians blamed it on the Jews, saying
>that the Jews were poisoning the wells. This of course made no sense, as
>Jews died of the plague as well as the Christians. Perhaps the Jews died
>in smaller percentages than Christians because of better sanitation: Jews
>are required to be physically clean for a lot more things than Christians
>(tefillin, mikvah, etc), so they might have had fewer rats than their
>Christian neighbors.
I have heard that Jews did not suffer as much from the Black death - in
proportion to population - because of a side effect of the same gene that
causes Tay Sachs disease. That is, a population prone to the TS genetic
effect is also prone to immunity from Black Death.
Can any of the net.geneticists say something about this or is it just a
JEL (Jewish Urban Legend)?
--
Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Robert B. Israel
>I have heard that Jews did not suffer as much from the Black death - in
>proportion to population - because of a side effect of the same gene that
>causes Tay Sachs disease. That is, a population prone to the TS genetic
>effect is also prone to immunity from Black Death.
>Can any of the net.geneticists say something about this or is it just a
>JEL (Jewish Urban Legend)?
>--
>Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
> Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
I don't have the data in front of me, but my impression is that the TS
mutation appeared considerably later than 1349. And in order to affect
mortality much it would have to be present in a large fraction of the
population, whereas in fact it's on the order of 1%.
--
Robert Israel isr...@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics or isr...@unixg.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y4
Mark Ira Kaufman
It has always been my belief that Jews did not suffer as often
as their gentile counterparts because of practices involving more
cleanliness.
-Mark
--
"One can be a racist. Or one can be a human being. But one
may not be both."
- Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
DNA Kaifeng
>I have heard that Jews did not suffer as much from the Black death - in
>proportion to population - because of a side effect of the same gene that
>causes Tay Sachs disease. That is, a population prone to the TS genetic
>effect is also prone to immunity from Black Death.
>Can any of the net.geneticists say something about this or is it just a
>JEL (Jewish Urban Legend)?
>--
>Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
> Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Jared Diamond wrote an article on the topic called "Curse and Blessing
of the Ghetto" in Discover, March 1 1991. I think I recall that the
the idea was still in the hypothesis phase. If you can't find the article,
I'll try to dig it up and summarize it for you. I'd also be happy to let
you know of any further evidence I may read about.
-steve
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************
@ email: sr...@beagle.colorado.edu @* "Nothing in biology makes sense except *
@ Dept. of Molecular, Cellular @* in the light of evolution." *
@ and Developmental Biology @* - T. Dobzhansky *
@ University of Colorado, Boulder @* Opinions are my own. *
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************
DNA Kaifeng
>In <1992Sep25.1...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>>I have heard that Jews did not suffer as much from the Black death - in
>>proportion to population - because of a side effect of the same gene that
>>causes Tay Sachs disease. That is, a population prone to the TS genetic
>>effect is also prone to immunity from Black Death.
>>Can any of the net.geneticists say something about this or is it just a
>>JEL (Jewish Urban Legend)?
>>--
>>Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
>> Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
>I don't have the data in front of me, but my impression is that the TS
>mutation appeared considerably later than 1349. And in order to affect
>mortality much it would have to be present in a large fraction of the
>population, whereas in fact it's on the order of 1%.
It's my understanding that the protective effects of the TS mutation occur
when the individual is heterozygous (a carrier), in a manner analogous to
the protective effects of a sickle-cell anemia mutation for malaria.
Ashkenazi Jewish carriers occur at a frequency much higher than 1%,
although I can't remember the exact figure.