Once a man came to Hillel and asked him "Teach me the whole Torah while standing on one foot."
Hillel replied "That which is hateful to yourself, arrange to be done to others by an agent for a group of people that includes you. All the rest is commentary, now go and study."
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
New class in HIghland Park
One of the things I love about living in Highland Park is the wide range of educational opportunities available. This came across my desk today. I'm editting out the contact info, but if anyone is interested contact me for details.
A chabura is in formation to learn the laws of baking matza. The plan is to learn the halachos in depth over the course of the next year and to begin planning, purchasing the oven and necessary equipment, and preparing to bake matzos mitzva next year (in yerushalayim; and if mashiach hasn't come, then in HP). If you would like to participate in the chabura, please reply to [name elided]. As we already have several shiurim on Shabbos, a weeknight or Sunday time may be required. I anticipate that the chabura or individuals will also need take a few field trips for those who have not yet participated first hand in matza baking.
A chabura is in formation to learn the laws of baking matza. The plan is to learn the halachos in depth over the course of the next year and to begin planning, purchasing the oven and necessary equipment, and preparing to bake matzos mitzva next year (in yerushalayim; and if mashiach hasn't come, then in HP). If you would like to participate in the chabura, please reply to [name elided]. As we already have several shiurim on Shabbos, a weeknight or Sunday time may be required. I anticipate that the chabura or individuals will also need take a few field trips for those who have not yet participated first hand in matza baking.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Purim Parties
I went to 3 purim parties yesterday. You can take it as given there were wonderful divrei torah, excellent food, and enthusiastic singing. I wanted to focus on a couple of 'Only in HP' vignettes ..
- Going to the house of a white haired rabbi and feeling the floor literally flex with the vigor of the dancing, with the rabbi keeping up with the teenage yeshivah bochrim every step of the way.
- Finishing up at a seudah, when one of the guests mentioned that they were from Jackson Heights, someone asked "Isn't that where Patty Duke lived?". This resulted in half a dozen people singing the Patty Duke theme in 4 part harmony until it was confirmed Patty and Cathy lived in Brooklyn Heights, not Jackson Heights.
- Someone giving a dvar torah citing as a source a time when Spock erased Kirk's memory of his love affair with Edith Keeler in City on the Edge of Forever to be followed instantly by a correction from someone else that first cited Reuven Malter's correction of Rav Saunder's gematria in The Chosen, followed by the fact that Spock erased Kirk's memory of Kirk's affair with Rayna in Requiem for Methuselah
- Leaving the MO party to get to the chassidic seudah to discover one of the local chassids playing the 'Beverly Hillbillies' theme on the banjo as the Rav commented it was a lively tune.
- Someone reciting a dvar torah written by someone else by giving the introduction "Here I am as a man of 50 years, yet I did not understand a simple gemara about Purim until Rabbi Norman Lamm explained it ..."
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Authority and Responsibility
Rav Meir Twersky posts:
Comment: I know I used to try to think this way as I became observant. Part of that process has been to reduce the weight I give my own opinions, learning, and feeling and to raise the weight I give to the halachic experts, which always means the Rav I have chosen to guide me as opposed to the abstract opinions of the gedolim. I am dithering regarding the question of whether I truly forfeit my responsibility for my decisions just because I choose to give the authority for making them to someone else, or if I remain responsible. I'd be interested in comments on this question.
As far as the consistency issue goes, just as I do not accept any doctor's opinion, however august he might be, as the final voice in decisions involving my health I don't accept that the 'gedolim' can make my moral choices for me. I give them great deference - in fact I let their opinion override my own more often than not, but the final opinion and final responsibility regarding my moral and medical choices is mine. Furthermore in this internet age the patient has a chance to become a lot more educated than in the past, and so can be more of a partner with his doctor in making medical decisions rather than the target of those decisions.
How does Rabbi Twersky deal with uncertainty among his experts? If two doctors have different opinions which does he choose? If he has the choice of having a hand amputated and using a prosthetic, or keeping the non-functional hand attached does he have his expert doctor make that choice for him?
One final example, also drawn from contemporary ideological discussion and debate. Many “hot-button” issues are currently being debated in the public square. Some of these are women’s issues – role of women, aliyas, and so on. There are many other issues as well – for instance, the boundaries of legitimate tolerance and openness. Many people are very opinionated in such matters, passionately advocating a particular point of view. Some go beyond advocacy and introduce change and innovation. And, of course, ostensibly everything is said and done l’sheim shomayim. But is the advocacy truly l’sheim shomayim? Or, perhaps is it self-serving, remaking halachah in our image in concert with our predilections?
Consistency test: do we maintain the same professional standards for the resolution of halachic issues that we insist upon in other contexts? For instance, in complex medical affairs we seek – as we should – the best, most expert medical care and guidance. If need be, we travel the world to seek out an expert. For a laymen or even an undistinguished doctor to make decisions or even advocate in complex medical issues would be reckless. We would not allow it. How many of us – laymen and rabbonim alike – are entitled to even express an opinion, much less advocate, in complex halachic matters? If, lack of qualifications notwithstanding, we persist in advocating on halachic matters, are we truly doing so l’sheim shomayim? The consistency test, honestly administered and uncensored, can be very revealing.
Comment: I know I used to try to think this way as I became observant. Part of that process has been to reduce the weight I give my own opinions, learning, and feeling and to raise the weight I give to the halachic experts, which always means the Rav I have chosen to guide me as opposed to the abstract opinions of the gedolim. I am dithering regarding the question of whether I truly forfeit my responsibility for my decisions just because I choose to give the authority for making them to someone else, or if I remain responsible. I'd be interested in comments on this question.
As far as the consistency issue goes, just as I do not accept any doctor's opinion, however august he might be, as the final voice in decisions involving my health I don't accept that the 'gedolim' can make my moral choices for me. I give them great deference - in fact I let their opinion override my own more often than not, but the final opinion and final responsibility regarding my moral and medical choices is mine. Furthermore in this internet age the patient has a chance to become a lot more educated than in the past, and so can be more of a partner with his doctor in making medical decisions rather than the target of those decisions.
How does Rabbi Twersky deal with uncertainty among his experts? If two doctors have different opinions which does he choose? If he has the choice of having a hand amputated and using a prosthetic, or keeping the non-functional hand attached does he have his expert doctor make that choice for him?
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Top that chumrah!
In class tonight we played an impromptu round of Top that Chumrah. For the last several weeks I've been bringing in objects to the Hilchot Shabbat class to illustrate questions and/or solutions we had come up with for several different questions about cooking food on Shabbat.
Tonight I brought in a black knitted scarf to return to one of the class members. Naturally everyone wanted to know what sort of bishul (cooking) b'shabbat question I had that I could illustrate with a knitted scarf.
I explained that in his comments on siman 318 of Orach Chayim the Magen Avraham says that as a penalty for intentionally illegally cooking on Shabbat (Bishul Shabbat b'issur b'mazid) the pot in which the food was cooked is considered treif until it is kashered by libun gamur (high intensity heat, most commonly a blowtorch or the self clean cycle of an oven.)
I pointed out that if this scarf were wet and was draped over a radiator on Shabbat, it would technically be a violation of the laws of cooking on Shabbat. I asked if this meant that if that happened, would it mean I could no longer drape the wet scarf over the radiator even on a weekday, since it would involve cooking something treif.
One classmate piped up and said that the scarf wasn't the pot, the scarf was the food(*). The radiator was the pot, and therefore the radiator would have to be kashered. Another person said even the radiator wasn't really the pot, the real pot was the main unit of the boiler, and thus the hot water tank would have to be kashered. I mentioned that in my house we don't have a separate hot water heater - we have a coil that runs through our oil furnace. It was immediately suggested that I would have to use a blowtorch to kasher the oil furnace. One person said he'd really like to see that, but after due consideration agreed that he would be better off having a camera in the basement and watching remotely.
(*) Under that interpretation the scarf cannot be used by any Jew ever again, although one may sell it or give it to a non-Jew.
Tonight I brought in a black knitted scarf to return to one of the class members. Naturally everyone wanted to know what sort of bishul (cooking) b'shabbat question I had that I could illustrate with a knitted scarf.
I explained that in his comments on siman 318 of Orach Chayim the Magen Avraham says that as a penalty for intentionally illegally cooking on Shabbat (Bishul Shabbat b'issur b'mazid) the pot in which the food was cooked is considered treif until it is kashered by libun gamur (high intensity heat, most commonly a blowtorch or the self clean cycle of an oven.)
I pointed out that if this scarf were wet and was draped over a radiator on Shabbat, it would technically be a violation of the laws of cooking on Shabbat. I asked if this meant that if that happened, would it mean I could no longer drape the wet scarf over the radiator even on a weekday, since it would involve cooking something treif.
One classmate piped up and said that the scarf wasn't the pot, the scarf was the food(*). The radiator was the pot, and therefore the radiator would have to be kashered. Another person said even the radiator wasn't really the pot, the real pot was the main unit of the boiler, and thus the hot water tank would have to be kashered. I mentioned that in my house we don't have a separate hot water heater - we have a coil that runs through our oil furnace. It was immediately suggested that I would have to use a blowtorch to kasher the oil furnace. One person said he'd really like to see that, but after due consideration agreed that he would be better off having a camera in the basement and watching remotely.
(*) Under that interpretation the scarf cannot be used by any Jew ever again, although one may sell it or give it to a non-Jew.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sweet 16 Cholent Recipe
The following recipe was modified from the original, which was posted at Mixed Multitudes. We tried it last Shabbat and it was delicious!
Modified sweet 16 cholent recipe (with quantities and certainty added for Yekkies) :
Sauce:
1 bottle Tomato Sauce (I used Barilla Marinara)
1 small can Tomato Paste
5 heaping tsp garlic
1 package Goodman's Kosher Onion Soup Mix
1/4 cup maple syrup
brown sugar to taste
1/2 tsp nutmeg
Cholent:
1 lb bone in stew meat
1 large vidalia onion
1 can Goya Kidney beans with liquid
1 can Goya White Beans with liquid
1 bag barley (8 oz?)
1 white potatoes, sliced in rounds, unpeeled
2 yellow potato, sliced in rounds, unpeeled
1 sweet potato, sliced in rounds unpeeled
The sauce is what makes this cholent unique. Mix ingredient above together and simmer for a while on medium low heat. The red sauce and onion soup is the secret to this cholent.
In a 12" circular baking pot
Dice onions - enough to cover the bottom of the pot.
Then layer in a mixture of beans and barley.
Next, put a layer of stew meat.
We places a layer of the sauce in at this point.
The next layer was a mix of 2/3rds sweet and 1/3rd regular Yukon Gold/Idaho potatoes (just enough to cover the meat). We did not peel the potatoes. They were cut about 1 centimeter thick.
Another layer of sauce.
If there is space, put in another layer of beans, then meat, then potatoes…
I put the sweet potato rounds on the circumference of the pot.
Then another layer of the sauce. Add water if needed.
Cook in 350 degree oven for 3 -4 hours, then just before Shabbat add water if needed and keep warm until Shabbos lunch.
Modified sweet 16 cholent recipe (with quantities and certainty added for Yekkies) :
Sauce:
1 bottle Tomato Sauce (I used Barilla Marinara)
1 small can Tomato Paste
5 heaping tsp garlic
1 package Goodman's Kosher Onion Soup Mix
1/4 cup maple syrup
brown sugar to taste
1/2 tsp nutmeg
Cholent:
1 lb bone in stew meat
1 large vidalia onion
1 can Goya Kidney beans with liquid
1 can Goya White Beans with liquid
1 bag barley (8 oz?)
1 white potatoes, sliced in rounds, unpeeled
2 yellow potato, sliced in rounds, unpeeled
1 sweet potato, sliced in rounds unpeeled
The sauce is what makes this cholent unique. Mix ingredient above together and simmer for a while on medium low heat. The red sauce and onion soup is the secret to this cholent.
In a 12" circular baking pot
Dice onions - enough to cover the bottom of the pot.
Then layer in a mixture of beans and barley.
Next, put a layer of stew meat.
We places a layer of the sauce in at this point.
The next layer was a mix of 2/3rds sweet and 1/3rd regular Yukon Gold/Idaho potatoes (just enough to cover the meat). We did not peel the potatoes. They were cut about 1 centimeter thick.
Another layer of sauce.
If there is space, put in another layer of beans, then meat, then potatoes…
I put the sweet potato rounds on the circumference of the pot.
Then another layer of the sauce. Add water if needed.
Cook in 350 degree oven for 3 -4 hours, then just before Shabbat add water if needed and keep warm until Shabbos lunch.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fun halachic fact of the day
According to the Magen Avraham(*), there is a way to be mechallel shabbat (in violation of the laws of Shabbat) on a Wednesday (or any other weekday), but you can prevent the problem in advance with libun (heating something red-hot).
(*) As interpreted by me according to my personal metasystem for such things.
(*) As interpreted by me according to my personal metasystem for such things.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
A brief comment on the history of machloket
Rabbi Pruzansky of Teaneck posted an essay on his blog which included the following:
A “machloket,” I assume, was not always perceived the way it is today. Abaye and Rava (yeah, yeah, no one is Abaye and Rava here) did not engender the support of partisan factions in their several thousand areas of conflict. (Typical conversation on the Babylonian blogs in the 4th century CE: “Supporters of Rava: ‘Have you heard? Our master Rava says that when a married woman is accused of infidelity by only one witness, and does not deny it, the one witness is still not believed. But Abaya says that the solitary witness is believed! [Kiddushin 66a] He must be anti-woman, that troglodyte!’” Typical ? Somehow, I don’t think so.)
The hostile reaction here was so visceral that I could only conclude that, contrary to traditional halachic methodology, people are emotionally vested in a certain outcome. Like the rabid sports fan who supports his favorite team and wants them to win at all costs – even if they cheat, even if the umpire or referee blows a call [“a win is a win”] – one group of polemicists wants its side to win. They have little interest in halachic process, but rather a passionate desire for a particular result.
I submitted a comment, which apparently he chose not to publish, so I'm putting it out here:
The schools of Hillel and Shammai represent both extremes in partisanship. One the one hand, although they disagreed about kashrut and mazerut they ate in each others' homes and married one another(*).
On the other hand, the Yerushalmi lists the 18 halachot passed by Beit Shammai after they used force (including murder!) against Beit Hillel to create a majority. (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).
So I would say that passion in the pursuit of Torah is not a new thing. Indeed it goes back even to the days of the second Beit Hamkidash, as related in the story of why a lottery was instituted for determining who would change the ashes on the altar.
(*) Personally I assume this to mean that the 2 schools practiced full disclosure with one another - "Although I believe this woman is fit to marry, by your understanding of halacha she is a mamzeret" and so forth. I wonder if this approach can at least provide a breathing space with respect to the current conversion controversy.
A “machloket,” I assume, was not always perceived the way it is today. Abaye and Rava (yeah, yeah, no one is Abaye and Rava here) did not engender the support of partisan factions in their several thousand areas of conflict. (Typical conversation on the Babylonian blogs in the 4th century CE: “Supporters of Rava: ‘Have you heard? Our master Rava says that when a married woman is accused of infidelity by only one witness, and does not deny it, the one witness is still not believed. But Abaya says that the solitary witness is believed! [Kiddushin 66a] He must be anti-woman, that troglodyte!’” Typical ? Somehow, I don’t think so.)
The hostile reaction here was so visceral that I could only conclude that, contrary to traditional halachic methodology, people are emotionally vested in a certain outcome. Like the rabid sports fan who supports his favorite team and wants them to win at all costs – even if they cheat, even if the umpire or referee blows a call [“a win is a win”] – one group of polemicists wants its side to win. They have little interest in halachic process, but rather a passionate desire for a particular result.
I submitted a comment, which apparently he chose not to publish, so I'm putting it out here:
The schools of Hillel and Shammai represent both extremes in partisanship. One the one hand, although they disagreed about kashrut and mazerut they ate in each others' homes and married one another(*).
On the other hand, the Yerushalmi lists the 18 halachot passed by Beit Shammai after they used force (including murder!) against Beit Hillel to create a majority. (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).
So I would say that passion in the pursuit of Torah is not a new thing. Indeed it goes back even to the days of the second Beit Hamkidash, as related in the story of why a lottery was instituted for determining who would change the ashes on the altar.
(*) Personally I assume this to mean that the 2 schools practiced full disclosure with one another - "Although I believe this woman is fit to marry, by your understanding of halacha she is a mamzeret" and so forth. I wonder if this approach can at least provide a breathing space with respect to the current conversion controversy.
Monday, November 23, 2009
RCA draws a line in the sand - but why here
Well, the RCA has decided it stands for something - it requires members not to be meschists. I wasn't aware of a flood of chabadnik rabbis overwhelming the RCA. The new RCA loyalty oath includes the following:
I'd rather see the RCA require the following:
What vertebrae would you add to the RCA's backbone? Reply in the comments
"In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach ben David will begin his Messianic mission only to experience death, burial and resurrection before completing it."
I'd rather see the RCA require the following:
In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not a place in Judaism for the belief that belief in a world older than 6000 years is kefira
In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that only glatt meat is kosher for Ashkenazim
In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that long standing conversions can be retroactively nullified
What vertebrae would you add to the RCA's backbone? Reply in the comments
Rambam and me
One of my few original contributions to the laws of the Jewish internet
were The Rambam syllogisms:
Rambam 1:
Rambam was a genius but he lived a long time ago.
I live today, and I believe X.
Therefore if Rambam were alive today he would believe X.
Rambam 2:
Rambam was a genius, and so his works are correspondingly difficult to
understand
I believe X.
Therefore if we study Rambam's works, we can see that he believed X.
Personally, I believe that if Rambam were alive today, he'd probably say
"get me out of this tomb!". And then he'd be upset at all the bare faced
women on the women's side of the mechitza at the tomb site.
Of course, when people say if Rambam were alive today they generally mean
'if Rambam was born 50 years ago' rather than 'if when Rambam allegedly
died 800 years ago he was actually brought through time and no is saying
what he thinks about the state of today's Judaism'. I'm not very
interested in either Rambam - what the former thinks is unknowable and what
the latter thinks is irrelevant as he does not qualify as 'the judge that
is in our generation'.
were The Rambam syllogisms:
Rambam 1:
Rambam was a genius but he lived a long time ago.
I live today, and I believe X.
Therefore if Rambam were alive today he would believe X.
Rambam 2:
Rambam was a genius, and so his works are correspondingly difficult to
understand
I believe X.
Therefore if we study Rambam's works, we can see that he believed X.
Personally, I believe that if Rambam were alive today, he'd probably say
"get me out of this tomb!". And then he'd be upset at all the bare faced
women on the women's side of the mechitza at the tomb site.
Of course, when people say if Rambam were alive today they generally mean
'if Rambam was born 50 years ago' rather than 'if when Rambam allegedly
died 800 years ago he was actually brought through time and no is saying
what he thinks about the state of today's Judaism'. I'm not very
interested in either Rambam - what the former thinks is unknowable and what
the latter thinks is irrelevant as he does not qualify as 'the judge that
is in our generation'.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Nightmare 3
In a post on Curious Jew's blog, we were discussing the validity of platonic relationships.
Someone asked:
As far as having female friends — is the advantage of their friendship really greater than the danger of inappropriate (in this context) feelings appearing between us?
and I replied
As a 50+ year old man who BT'd in his 40s, I will unequivocally answer that based on the experiences of my life the advantages of platonic friendship with women overwhelmingly outweigh the dangers of inappropriate feelings for me.
A third party responded:
Based on what concept in Judaism do you give this answer?
I was dumbfounded. I talk about the fact that you can and should see everything through the lens of halacha, but the idea that one should simply completely disregard one's life experience unless you can show that halacha supports what you have actually lived seems insane to me.
After a few minutes I answered (in two posts)
Chaim Bachem. Or Darchei Noam, if you prefer.
I'm sure the commenter will find this answer completely inappropriate because he thinks it misuses the concepts I brought up.
Someone asked:
As far as having female friends — is the advantage of their friendship really greater than the danger of inappropriate (in this context) feelings appearing between us?
and I replied
As a 50+ year old man who BT'd in his 40s, I will unequivocally answer that based on the experiences of my life the advantages of platonic friendship with women overwhelmingly outweigh the dangers of inappropriate feelings for me.
A third party responded:
Based on what concept in Judaism do you give this answer?
I was dumbfounded. I talk about the fact that you can and should see everything through the lens of halacha, but the idea that one should simply completely disregard one's life experience unless you can show that halacha supports what you have actually lived seems insane to me.
After a few minutes I answered (in two posts)
Chaim Bachem. Or Darchei Noam, if you prefer.
I'm sure the commenter will find this answer completely inappropriate because he thinks it misuses the concepts I brought up.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Study too hard and your mind starts to wander
(Sung to Maria from West Side Story
The laws of a pot placed before Shabbat
Shehiya
Fully cooked is ok, partially is not
Sheihya
Shehiya - Shehiya Sheiyah Shehiya
Sheiya!
I've learned all the laws of Shehiya
And suddenly I've found
how a cholent can be browned
indeed
Shehiya
If its raw then its OK staying
Fully cooked and its ok remaining
Shehiya
I'll never stop learning shehiya
The laws of a pot placed before Shabbat
Shehiya
Fully cooked is ok, partially is not
Sheihya
Shehiya - Shehiya Sheiyah Shehiya
Sheiya!
I've learned all the laws of Shehiya
And suddenly I've found
how a cholent can be browned
indeed
Shehiya
If its raw then its OK staying
Fully cooked and its ok remaining
Shehiya
I'll never stop learning shehiya
Friday, October 23, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tales from HP 4
I was at a bar mitzvah yesterday at the local Sephardi shul. The BM did quite credibly, reading the entire parsha and doing the haftorah as well.
At the kiddush luncheon that followed, I was sitting with the shul rabbi. I mentioned that I was studying the laws of chazara (returning a pot to the blech on Shabbat) and had some questions. We had a nice conversation, with him mentioning at a few points where the halacha differed between Ashkenzaim and Sephardim. We left with a few unanswered questions, which I researched over Shabbat and was going to write him an email about.
This afternoon the Rabbi called me at home wanting to amplify and correct some of what we said, and also to fill in some of the unanswered questions. Remember, I'm not a congregant, not a regular at his shul, and don't take any classes of he offers. He had to remember my name, contact my teacher for contact information, all to just answer some casual questions someone asked at a kiddush.
At the kiddush luncheon that followed, I was sitting with the shul rabbi. I mentioned that I was studying the laws of chazara (returning a pot to the blech on Shabbat) and had some questions. We had a nice conversation, with him mentioning at a few points where the halacha differed between Ashkenzaim and Sephardim. We left with a few unanswered questions, which I researched over Shabbat and was going to write him an email about.
This afternoon the Rabbi called me at home wanting to amplify and correct some of what we said, and also to fill in some of the unanswered questions. Remember, I'm not a congregant, not a regular at his shul, and don't take any classes of he offers. He had to remember my name, contact my teacher for contact information, all to just answer some casual questions someone asked at a kiddush.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
English source for halachic rulings about electricity
As always, ask your rabbi for actual piskei halacha, but this looks like an excellent study resource: Megavolt.co.il.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Two approaches to the Yamim Noraim
First night Rosh HaShanah this year I was a guest over a friend's house. We were talking and I mentioned that I thought I was less prepared for the High Holidays this year than I had been for quite a while. He asked why, and I explained that between work, Malka Esther's health, and the large number of shiurim I was attending and the work associated with preparing for those shiurim I hadn't actually found much time for cheshbon hanefesh (self examination).
He commented that all my Torah study counted as a great zechut (merit) and thus I really didn't have much to worry about this year. I realized we were celebrating the same holidays two very different ways.
In my eyes, this was a time to engage in self examination, to review my spiritual goals from last year (cut down the personal sarcasm, check, make it to shul every Sunday morning for shacharit, oops, etc.) to decide what I need to work on for next year, to review where I've blundered badly in my personal relationships and figure out who to apologize to for what, and so forth. Since I hadn't done most any of that, I was poorly prepared. Torah study didn't really enter into it, other than my having set a goal of maintaining some serious torah study.
To my friend this was the time when Avinu Malkenu reviewed my actions over the past year, being pleased with my mitzvot and dismayed by my sins. All my torah study didn't just count towards one goal, rather it was a major plus in evaluating my entire status. While I needed to get forgiveness from those I had wronged in order for Hashem to forgive me, the merit of Torah study still counted a long way towards my receiving approval from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
How do my readers see the holiday? Primarily a time for self examination(*) or primarily a time for divine judgment, or something else altogether?
(*) I wanted to make a joke about zman chesbon nefashenu but my friends who take grammar seriously would not have been amused, Plus that is deflecting via sarcasm again, and I'm still trying to stop that.
He commented that all my Torah study counted as a great zechut (merit) and thus I really didn't have much to worry about this year. I realized we were celebrating the same holidays two very different ways.
In my eyes, this was a time to engage in self examination, to review my spiritual goals from last year (cut down the personal sarcasm, check, make it to shul every Sunday morning for shacharit, oops, etc.) to decide what I need to work on for next year, to review where I've blundered badly in my personal relationships and figure out who to apologize to for what, and so forth. Since I hadn't done most any of that, I was poorly prepared. Torah study didn't really enter into it, other than my having set a goal of maintaining some serious torah study.
To my friend this was the time when Avinu Malkenu reviewed my actions over the past year, being pleased with my mitzvot and dismayed by my sins. All my torah study didn't just count towards one goal, rather it was a major plus in evaluating my entire status. While I needed to get forgiveness from those I had wronged in order for Hashem to forgive me, the merit of Torah study still counted a long way towards my receiving approval from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
How do my readers see the holiday? Primarily a time for self examination(*) or primarily a time for divine judgment, or something else altogether?
(*) I wanted to make a joke about zman chesbon nefashenu but my friends who take grammar seriously would not have been amused, Plus that is deflecting via sarcasm again, and I'm still trying to stop that.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Shulchan Aruch and Technical Writing
When I first started studying Talmud, I thought it made a lousy technical manual. I fairly quickly understood that wasn't its purpose. The codes - the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch, the Mishna Berura - that is where I would find decent tech writing, I decided. The memories I had of studying the Mishneh Torah just post bar-mtizvah reinforced this impression.
Years past, and I finally began to study the Shulchan Aruch. My first thought was - wow! the craft of tech writing has really advanced since this book was written. But eventually I came to the conclusion that one of the major problems was the way revisions to the SA were handled.
This is how it would go, IMO, if we did software manuals the Shulchan Aruch way.
The Microsoft Word 1.0 manual would be made by consulting the manuals for WordPerfect, Wordstar, and Notepad. Majority would rule, except where it wouldn't. Shortly after the first edition came out, some tech writer for one of the computer magazines would produce a fisked edition which would quickly become the standard. Other people would take this now standard text and hyperlink their commentaries to it. When new releases of the software came out the old text would be left unaltered, but new hyperlinks would be added. It would like like this:
Shulchan Aruch To exit the program, press Alt F4 Rema: And there are those who say that it is better to press Alt F and then Alt X and this is the custom and should not be changed
[Tons of other commentaries here]
[6 hyperlinks from the Shach which point to earlier comments in the Shulchan Aruch]
Shach It is best to save before exiting, but if one did not do so when the program asks if the text should be saved one should reply yes. In a case of great need, for example if one has completely screwed up shortly before the deadline one may exit without saving.
[On the other side of the page in a different font]
Taz The M"A has an alternate method of closing, which is preferred.
[To be really accurate this reference should be on another page entirely, but I'll spare you]
Magen Avraham: Hitting Ctrl Q requires fewer keystrokes to exit and hence is preferred.
Years past, and I finally began to study the Shulchan Aruch. My first thought was - wow! the craft of tech writing has really advanced since this book was written. But eventually I came to the conclusion that one of the major problems was the way revisions to the SA were handled.
This is how it would go, IMO, if we did software manuals the Shulchan Aruch way.
The Microsoft Word 1.0 manual would be made by consulting the manuals for WordPerfect, Wordstar, and Notepad. Majority would rule, except where it wouldn't. Shortly after the first edition came out, some tech writer for one of the computer magazines would produce a fisked edition which would quickly become the standard. Other people would take this now standard text and hyperlink their commentaries to it. When new releases of the software came out the old text would be left unaltered, but new hyperlinks would be added. It would like like this:
Shulchan Aruch To exit the program, press Alt F4 Rema: And there are those who say that it is better to press Alt F and then Alt X and this is the custom and should not be changed
[Tons of other commentaries here]
[6 hyperlinks from the Shach which point to earlier comments in the Shulchan Aruch]
Shach It is best to save before exiting, but if one did not do so when the program asks if the text should be saved one should reply yes. In a case of great need, for example if one has completely screwed up shortly before the deadline one may exit without saving.
[On the other side of the page in a different font]
Taz The M"A has an alternate method of closing, which is preferred.
[To be really accurate this reference should be on another page entirely, but I'll spare you]
Magen Avraham: Hitting Ctrl Q requires fewer keystrokes to exit and hence is preferred.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Bicycle riding on Yom Tov
Just because I keep needing to refer to this link, and it took me a while to remember the search terms to find it, I'm publishing it here. The Syrian decision allowing bicycle riding on Yom Tov and (within an eruv) on Shabbat can be found at Judaic.org. The key search term I need to remember is Yom Tob not Yom Tov.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)