Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 058

Friday, June 2 2000

• Re: definition of self
• Re: Chazaka with a Rei'usa
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Interesting Maharsha
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: hechsherim
• Definition of Self
• Re: Definition of Self
• definition of self
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: definition of self
• hechsherim
• Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Rather, one's nefesh is free to return to HKBH because it is no longer held
> in tension between olam ha'emes and the ruach when the ruach is asleep.

Neshomo?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Note from MSB: Yes, thanks for the correction.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Actually, I thought it was obvious. For example, we do hold by the chezkas
> kashrus of a chalaf that wasn't checked before shechitah, or a mikvah that
> late in the evening was found to hold less than a se'ah. The Sh"Sh is
> quite explicit about this in 2:8,9 that ikka rei'usa is only by safeik, and
> not by chazakah. More telling, perhaps, is that he assumes it as a given
> when he explains tum'ah birshus harabim in terms of chazakah in 1:7,8.

Thanks for the impressive lomdishe review!

> More relevent to our original discussion, where's the ikka rei'usa about our
> shocheit? Is there any indication that he's referring to a "mumcheh yarei
> shamayim" who has a history of a flaw in either qualification?


You are right in your seifa - we are no longer talking about the same thing,
so my ta'ana does not apply.

I am currently listening to a R' Reisman ("RYR") tape in which he discusses
this very issue.  Aside from a melech yisroel, one does_not_have to spend
every free moment learning torah.  RYR discussed a teshuva from R' Moshe (I
believe it may be the same one that was recently referenced here on
Avodah/Areivim: YD 4:38) where the question was:  If a person is making
enough money to support himself, can he, e.g.,  start a second business to
make even more money, or does he have to use that extra time to learn?
Answer:  go ahead and get rich.

RYR also mentioned that R' Yaakov Emden says something to the same effect in
his siddur (in his "hilchos talmud torah" (siman ches) located in the siddur
after shachris), but RYR wouldn't speak it out in public (and I haven't yet
been able to find his siddur yet.  Perhaps one of the chevra has it handy).

RYR explained that is very important to know and understand this yesod,
because if one is of the belief that he must use every second of free time
to learn, and he knows that he can't/won't really do that, he will get
discouraged and not learn anything (or far less than he is capable of
learning).

However, with the realization that there is no such chiyuv, and that,
perhaps, all that RBS"O wants from him is to learn 30, 60, 90 or 100 minutes
a day, it makes it that much easier to learn for the appropriate time.

(RYR didn't explain how one determines what is expected from him.  I suppose
each person must be honest with himself and get rabbinic guidance.  And, for
a person such as R' Moshe, for example, perhaps RBS"O_did_expect him to use
all/most of his "free" time learning.)

Imagine, said RYR, if, after 120, the RBS"O turns to a person and says
"Another 15 minutes of Torah...that's all that I expected from you!"


KT
Aryeh


-----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 16:38:13 -0500
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Subject: occupy yourself with Torah

Two weeks ago, in Pirke Avos we read: "Minimize your business activities
and occupy yourself with Torah."

Someone in shul asked the following question: _if_ one has enough money to
live on for the rest of his life (not necessarily comfortably, but enough),
it is incumbent upon them to cease working and start studying Torah?

Any thoughts?

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:52:09AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: RYR explained that is very important to know and understand this yesod,
: because if one is of the belief that he must use every second of free time
: to learn, and he knows that he can't/won't really do that, he will get
: discouraged and not learn anything (or far less than he is capable of
: learning).

IOW, tafasta merubah lo tafasta.

I still think HKBH expect us to occupy ourselves with Torah as per the mishnah
RES quoted from Avos. However, note that it doesn't say "limud Torah". Masa
umattan kehalachah requires constantly thinking about Torah as well. As do
mitzvos ma'asiyos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

In a message dated 6/1/00 9:27:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:


>  "klei milas" (which I thought were silk, but 
>  may have been wool) 

While were on this topic, there are some who Teitch that the Ksones Pasim 
that Yaakov made for Yosef was made of silk, that is how they Teitch Rashi 
(Breishis 37:3) based on the Medrosh Hagodol "Klei Milas" also the Gemara in 
Shabbos 10b and Megila 16b say "Mishkal Shnei Sloi'im Milas", see also Beis 
Yehuda, Vtzorich Iyun from Shabbos 54a and Rashi there, and see MaHaRShA in 
Megila, and see RaShaSh on Bava Metzia 78b.

  
>  The third 
>  way is to fulfill it davka with the wrong kavana. For example to 
>  enhance one's own kavod. This is what the Gemara is saying 
>  Nakdimon ben Gurion did. 

See B"B 10b.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

See S"A Horav O"C 156:1 and Hil. T"T chapter 3.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

R Gil Student wrote:
> Therefore, from the Shulchan Aruch it would seem that any rabbi can be
> trusted.

> However, the Pri Toar (end of 1) and the Taz (2) are clear that it all
> depends on the particular situation of that time and place and where there is
> room to be suspicious one should be stricter (and where not, more lenient).
> Later poskim are even stricter than the Rama. See the Chochmas Adam (71:1),
> Shu"t Divrei Malkiel (3:22), Shu"t Divrei Chaim (1:22, 2:40) that not all
> hechsherim can be trusted and only those that are known to be reliable can
> be trusted. See also the Sha'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah (117:8).

Please see Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah IV:6.

Talking about a situation where many caterers, with different hashgachot,
share utensils (presumably a hotel type situation), and one does not know all
the hashgachot, saying about someone who is hoshesh about a caterer he does
not know, perhaps because the caterer could deceive the mashgiach,or that the
mashgiach does not know how to supervise, he says muttar lehishtamesh bahem.
Deha midina eyn ze safek klal mishum chashashot shelo leha'amin lehamashgiach
veharav, shehatorah heeminatam midin ed echad ne'eman beissurim.

He then goes on to say why one may use the dishes even for those who still
have a safek. However, he clearly paskens like the Shulchan Aruch, and not
like the PritToar, taz, etc.

Meir Shinnar

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:35:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Definition of Self
 
<<Your nefesh remains attached to your body (even, it seems, after death
- that is how Ov works). The neshomo comes and goes.>>

So,  to cross threads recklessly (again),  we are all ba'alei nefesh
<g>?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Moderators note:

I was going to move this to Areivim, where kibbitzing is more appropriate.
But I have a serious response, so I didn't.

Kidding aside, not everyone who has a nefesh is its master. A recurring theme
in how the Gra interprets aggaditos is that riding a chamor means that one
is in mastery of his chomer -- which, as we saw, meant ba'alus over the nefesh.
This is why moshiach's steed must be a chamor and not a horse.

Moderator's note:
>                not everyone who has a nefesh is its master. A recurring
> theme in how the Gra interprets aggaditos is that riding a chamor means
> that one is in mastery of his chomer -- which, as we saw, meant ba'alus
> over the nefesh.  This is why moshiach's steed must be a chamor and not
> a horse. 

I would have thought, Micha, (although I think this would be going too
far) that you would have said a shomer nafsho is one trying to restrain
his nefesh, a ba'al nefesh, one who has mastered it.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

From: "Edward Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
: The Baal haTanya (in Tanya 1:29; daf lamed vov)  makes the diyuk in
: "neshama sh'nasata bi" and writes that "I" is the neshama hatehora only
: for tzadikim; for the rest of us, "I" is the nefesh hachiyunis
: habehamis. v'ayin bifnim

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
: It is dangerous to try to mix the Vilna Gaon and the Ba'al haTanya in an
: attempt to get can get a single cohesive shitah. I wonder why, according
: to this description, no one is in between -- nobody has an "I" that is
: their ruach -- the very place where the Gr"a places bechirah and
: thought.  (And the Maharal places perfection of the self and Torah.)

: Perhaps the BhT is saying that a rasha's ruach is intimately linked with
: his nefesh, his animal nature, while a tzadik's is totally freed from the
: animal and therefore cognizant of what goes on in the neshamah.

IIUC, the BhT generally places the nefesh hachiyunis habehamis of a
person separately below the nefesh Elokis of naranchai, so that the "I"
for non-tzadikim is not even the person's nefesh Elokis (or neshama,
used in its general meaning).
  
(The BhT's teminology is difficult; he seems in places to use nefesh
Elokis, neshama and naran interchangeably.)

However I'm not a Lubavitcher and am not very knowlegeable in Tanya, so
perhaps a chaver out there can verify this.  

KT 

Avrohom Weidberg

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:56:38PM -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
: 
: I would have thought, Micha, (although I think this would be going too
: far) that you would have said a shomer nafsho is one trying to restrain
: his nefesh, a ba'al nefesh, one who has mastered it.

That was my intent. However, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Someone
could have been blessed with mastery without needing a period of guarding it;
to the opposite extreme someone else could be in control only because they
are on guard.

As you suggest that my thoughts are further than you would go, you piqued my
curiousity as to what you think on the subject.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:04:27PM -0400, Edward Weidberg wrote:
: IIUC, the BhT generally places the nefesh hachiyunis habehamis of a
: person separately below the nefesh Elokis of naranchai, so that the "I"
: for non-tzadikim is not even the person's nefesh Elokis (or neshama,
: used in its general meaning).

In which case his model is totally incompatable with the Gr"a's (which I'm
claiming is probably also the Maharal's). Or at least the terminology is.
It is possible that the situation is similar to what I've identified with
RSRH: he has the same three concepts and their interrelationships (or close
enough that I haven't seen a difference), but doesn't understand them to be
what Nara"n is describing.

: (The BhT's teminology is difficult; he seems in places to use nefesh
: Elokis, neshama and naran interchangeably.)

Much like my problems pinning down the Maharal's position. In addition,
his sefarim are peirushim. They attack subjects as they come up rather than
setting down a cohesive picture of how the various comments fit together. I
even wonder if the Maharal believed it was the human mind was capable of
constructing a cohesive whole out of hashkafah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

RYGB responded to my citation of Rav Moshe about hezkat kashrut with
> Not necessarily. There are many more reasons to be mattir keilim
> (actually, one primary one, eino ben yomo) than foodstuffs.

Yafe shekivanta. Rav Moshe uses this reason, among several others, to be
mattir the kelim for those who harbor a hashash against the mashgiach.
However, he says specifically that there is no justification al pi din for a
hashash against the mashgiach, because ed echad ne'eman beissurim.   It is
only for those who still harbor a hashash  that he says that with regard to
the kelim, even for them there isn't a problem.  Readers can read the tshuva
and decide.

Meir Shinnar

The Gemara records stories about Tana'im and Amora'im who left their homes
to learn Torah for twelve years.

This is great in terms of his learning Torah.

But what about his wife and children left without a husband and father
for 12 years. Are we "somach al ha nes" that they will not be emotionaled
impaired by his absence. Derech hateva we know that this is not certainly
not a healthy situation for a family?

Would it not be better (in terms of the _overall_ picture) for him to marry
_after_ the 12 years of limud?

Reuven Miller

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]