Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 059

Saturday, June 3 2000

• Re: Ta'am and taste
• occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Definition of Self
• Chesed, Din, Emes
• R' Chananya ben Akashya (was Chesed, Din, Emes)
• RE: Avodah V5 #56
• Is Jewish Mysticism identical to Kabbalah?
• Refelctions on the Siiidrah - Bamidbor
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Re: occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: hechsherim
• Re[2]: Apikursim
• Re: Gezeirah Shava
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• re: definition of self
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Ta'am and taste

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> The segulah aspect of mezuzah would apparantly also be limited by RCV to
> the consequences of its power to make a change in the individual. So again
> I wonder why a pasul mezuzah that chazakah tells me is kosher should be
> any less protective than one that is physically kosher.

According to the laws of metaphysics, it is a useless piece of paper.
Especially according to the NhC that ma'aseh is ikkar.

But one should not perform the mitzva of mezuza for shemira. Sounds like
shelo lishma to me.

From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
> 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?

No, because it also says to combine torah study together with a parnossa
both for material reasons and for spiritual reasons (if one is constantly
busy in either torah or parnossa frivolity, shtus, depression, what have
you has little room to enter.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> As you suggest that my thoughts are further than you would go, you piqued my
> curiousity as to what you think on the subject.

It just mean one whose soul is more elevated.

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

from: Micha Berger   Subject: Re: Chesed, Din, Emes
> Well... R' Dovid Lifshitz told me I could eat meat of brand XYZ when served
> it by my mother-in-law but not in any other context.

At a Shiur recently we were told of a case where a widow in Bnei Brak invited
her out-of-town son-in-law and family to spend Sukkos with her. Howeve he
refused because the MIL's Sukkah lacked some Chumra of the Chazon Ish -
which he followed. The Magid Shiur commented on how this foolish SIL was
prepared to be Over an issur D'Oraiyso of being Metzaar an Almono for chumra...

SBA

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya said: Hashem wanted to enhance the merit of the
> Jewish people. It is for that reason that he granted them many mitzvos.

A very interesting Vort from the Chasam Sofer zt"l on this Mishna.

The Maamar Chazal that "Koshim Gerim L'Yisroel K'Sapachas" is explained
thus: Because if Gerim fully comply with Torah u"Mitzvos, then there
may be a Kitrug on those of us who were born Jews and don't do as well as
these newcomers. OTOH if they aren't Mekayem the Mitzvos, we suffer via
"Kol Yisroel Arevim Zeh Lozeh". (So - generally speaking - either way,
we are "better off" without the Gerim...)

Therefore when a potential Ger applies to convert, the Rav or Bes Din makes
it as difficult as possible to him/her by describing the many and varied
difficult Mitzvos Asseh and Loh Sasseh - hoping he will "go away", thus
ensuring that we (Jews) don't "suffer" (as per above).

So - the CS explains: "Rotzo HKBH Lezakos es Yisroel" - HKBH wished to Mezakeh
Yisroel - that they shouldn't have the (above) problems created by Gerim,
"Lefikoch Hirboh Lohem Torah u"mitzvos" - therefore he created many and
varied Mitzvos - which - hopefully - upon hearing
 them all, will make potential Gerim
change their mind...

SBA

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:> In other words, says the Ritva, Chazal were never mechadesh dinim on their
:> own.

: Never? Or were never mechadeish asmachtos in particular?

Never. According to the Ritva, there is always a "raya, zecher or asmachta"
for their dinim from the Torah. "K'lomar, [Chazal] are never mechadesh a
davar from their heart, and the entire Torah Shel Bal Peh is hinted at in the
Torah Sh'B'ksav which is temimah, and chas v'shalom [to say] that the Torah
[Sh'B'ksav} is lacking anything."

KT and Gut Shabbos!
Aryeh

Is Jewish Mysticism identical to Kabbalah?
What is Mysticism?
What is Jewish Msyticism?
What is Kabbalah?
Cano one be a mystic without knowing Kabbalah?
Can one be a JEWSIH mystic without knowing Kabbalah?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Notice the order of the the shvetim in the cencsu. Notice the sublet change in
the machanos.  What percipitated this change?
With Levi promoted out of the 12 who took Levi's place?
What made Gad the third shevet n the Reuven Shimon group?
What criteria determined the groups of each thre shevotim?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In Avodah V5#58, AEStein responded:
> I am currently listening to a R' Reisman ("RYR") tape in which he discusses
this very issue. Aside from a melech yisroel,.... <

and RaShBY (see BT Shabbos 33)? :-)

> 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. <

I would imagine that includes asking a "start a 2nd business?" question, too.

MBerger responded:
> IOW, tafasta merubah lo tafasta. <

Wouldn't that apply to starting a 2nd business? :-)

> Masa umattan kehalachah requires constantly thinking about Torah as well. <

I.e. you're interpreting the Mishna such that "business activities" is
not mutually exclusive with "occupy...Torah." Right? See BT B'rachos 35.
(BTW, this sugya also seems to present a problem to the "Answer: go ahead
and get rich" concept.)

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:35:09PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: According to the laws of metaphysics, it is a useless piece of paper.
: Especially according to the NhC that ma'aseh is ikkar.

I thought I addressed this point. According to the Nefesh haChaim, it's the
hashpa'ah of the ma'aseh on the person that's the ikkar -- even WRT bringing
shefa into the world. My quote may not have been the best one he has on
the subject, but IMO it does prove this point.

Which is why I asked how he explains there to be a difference between a
"useless peice of [parchment]" and a kosher mezuzah is I don't know which
my mezuzah is, and took all precautions required of me.

: But one should not perform the mitzva of mezuza for shemira. Sounds like
: shelo lishma to me.

To me too. The point of the question isn't motivational, but to understand the
NhC.

But is it al minas likabeil p'ras, or likabeil sechar?

-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 Avodah V5#58, AEStein responded:
:> I am currently listening to a R' Reisman ("RYR") tape in which he discusses
:> this very issue. Aside from a melech yisroel,....

On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:53:14AM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com asked:
: and RaShBY (see BT Shabbos 33)? :-)

I thought the gemara concludes that most of us can't succeed in RaShBY's
derech. Notice they don't say it's wrong, just not the derech that we
can stand in.

I responed to RAES:
:> IOW, tafasta merubah lo tafasta.

: Wouldn't that apply to starting a 2nd business? :-)

Yes. To some extent the quote is a tautology. After all -- how would you
define "merubah" if not "more than I can succeed at grasping?

It'd a d'var mussar, though; the point is to be cautious before trying to
go for large amounts, check if it is "merubah" first.

:> Masa umattan kehalachah requires constantly thinking about Torah as well.

: I.e. you're interpreting the Mishna such that "business activities" is
: not mutually exclusive with "occupy...Torah." Right? See BT B'rachos 35.

After the bit I referred to earlier about trying to act like RaShBY vilo
alsa biyadan, the gemara refers to making your learning keva and your
work ara'i. I'm not sure that's a statement about quantity.

Similarly, if one eats a large meal on succos, but all the food is a shehakol,
is it achilas keva, or ara'i? The definitions aren't of quantity, but of
chashivus.

Rather: Do you see work as an interruption from your learning, or learning as
an interruption from your work? The earlier generations did the former,
and succeeded at both; the latter generations tries the latter, but succeeded
at neither.

The attitude I describe in the latter text would, by this definition, qualify
as making learning keva.

As support of my interpretation, note that the next inyan in the gemara is
that the same earlier generation tried to be mechayeiv their produce in
terumah. The conversation continues with lauding their attitude, and doesn't
dicuss their schedule.

-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 2 Jun 00, at 5:18, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
> 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...

See the Maharsha 62b s"v azal yasiv.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

RMS:

Yasher Koach on pointing out the teshuva in IgM YD 4:6.

I have an aversion to the teshuvos that bear signs of editorial tampering,
but let us leave that out of the picture for the moment.

This teshuva is not addrerssing the advisability of relying on the Rabbonim
ha'Machshirim of the other Hashgocho - except "l'dina" and "m'dina". These
terms, as we know, relate to what is theoretically applicable, but not
usually practically acceptable. Of course "me'dina" one may rely on a "Rav
Muvhak v'Ne'eman" (note: If a "Rav" suffices, why did RMF need to add
"Muvhak v'Ne'eman"?), and "l'dina" one may rely on Eid Echad - but the
questioner was not asking RMF whether halacha l'ma'aseh he could rely on
this standard nor did RMF tell him this standard suffices.

Once more, RMS, we disagree on the "learning" (can we please use that term
instead of "reading"?) of an IgM. I think RMF would have agreed halacha
l'ma'aseh with the enhanced standards that RGS noted in his e-mail on
Hashgocho practices.

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

> 2- The origins of Oral Torah. The braisa in perek Cheilek requires belief
>    that every single gezeirah shava is min haShamayim. It's not just Torah 
>    shebichsav that the Sefer haIkkarim is talking about -- even though I don't
>    know if he'd go as far as the braisa.

aiui a gezeiro shovo MUST have  mesorah, but other middos are lav davka.

In Dor Dor v;dorshov, even an a major apikoroes like IH Weiss concedes that
SOME TSBP is misinai

The problem we have toda is the bilbul of genuine TSBP misinai and TSBP that
is NOT misinai

The more conservative approach (small c on purpose!) is to not tkae chances

The more Conservative approach (BIG C) is davka to dispense with any cheshas
or chumra

Tangentially this touches on the entire matter of halachah kadmah lemedrash and 
vice versa.

The belief system I got from the Maharil etc. is that many/most minhagim have 
firm bases BUT sometiems we have since lost the underlying rationale.  So we 
come up assuming that a minhag is no longer applicable and we dispesnse with it

The C movement has taken this a step further into halachah itself.

The W-T movement within the "Orthodox" has accepted teh ditchotomy of 
QUESTIONING the underlying rationale w/o dispensing with the din

Rich Wolpoe

On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 10:27:43AM -0400, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: aiui a gezeiro shovo MUST have  mesorah, but other middos are lav davka.

See Rashi on Rus. In Boaz's day, you could learn "moavi vilo moavis" without
a masorah. Which is why I imply in another post that there must have been
some change, parhaps a loss of knowledge about when a gezeira shava is valid
and when not.

This is also implied by the Malbim's intro to Vayikra. He says that through
613 rules of sevara and derashah one could reconstruct all of Torah shebi'al
peh. Halachos liMosheh miSinai are therefore those halachos for which the
derivation was lost, but the masorah of the din itself was not. Amongst
these rules usable for reconstruction is the g"sh -- thereby implying that
at least in principle one could have a g"sh that is not just repeating an
idea from a known masorah.

I don't know how Rashi fits this with the aforementioned braisa.

Perhaps he sees it as a chiyuv to believe that Boaz discovered rather than
invented the gezeirah shavah.

-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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I thought I addressed this point. According to the Nefesh haChaim, it's the
> hashpa'ah of the ma'aseh on the person that's the ikkar -- even WRT bringing
> shefa into the world. My quote may not have been the best one he has on
> the subject, but IMO it does prove this point.

Disagreed. Don't forget the sofer who wrote the mezuzah. His ma'aseh was not
metukkan (or, if the mezuzah became pasul over the years, the ma'aseh of
affixing the mezuzah = shaking a pasul lulav).

> Which is why I asked how he explains there to be a difference between a
> "useless peice of [parchment]" and a kosher mezuzah is I don't know which
> my mezuzah is, and took all precautions required of me.

Not enough. You are rewarded for your good intentions, but there was no
ma'aseh mitzvah. Like davening after the zman, amply discussed by the NhC.

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

From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
> 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....

	I would hesitate to use the phrase "yode'a tzadik nefesh behemto" except
that the Gemara uses it in this context.  Perhaps it is inappropriate for
us to look at their family life through 20-21 century eyes.  

	The problems mentioned in the Gemara are when those who had been gone
were insensitive to their wives (the ones who were delayed beyond the   
__agreed upon__ time or who surprised her by his sudden appearance.),
 not those who went birshus.

	The Gemara also says that the talmidei chachomim know that they
shouldn't do it  and do it anyway (for 2-3 years) at a cost to their
neshomos.  Kind of a subset of nafshi choshko baTorah.

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

	Machlokes benei Bovel and bnei Ma'arava.  RYZ,  mar'eh mokom please.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RR Miller wrote:

>>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?
     
As many nostalgically say about "Europe", there was a time when community was so
strong that a child could be raised in the "streets" and still turn out 
perfectly frum.  Kal vachomer when raised by a mother (and grandparents, aunts, 
and uncles).

Based on what I've read in two of the Jewish Observers this year, I can still be
fully within the RW and say that times have changed.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

Re: Naran, nefesh elokis, neshama in Tanya; ch. 29 "Elo-kai neshama..."

I'm not an expert but... Acc to Tanya, Nefesh/Ruach/Neshama (NaRaN) are
not three separate souls but instead refer to the three levels of any
"soul". Nefesh is associated with physical life; ruach is associated with
emotions (middos); neshama is associated with intellect (seichel). Each
Jew has two "souls" - a "godly soul" (nefesh elokis) and an "enlivening /
animal soul" (nefesh hachiyunis habehamis), *each of which* is comprised
of these three levels. Of the two, the nefesh habehamis is klipa; it is
oriented towards physicality (nefesh) and is dominated by midos
(ruach). The nefesh elokis is a "cheilek Elo-ka mimaal mamash"; it is
oriented towards spirituality and is dominated by seichel (neshama) (which
is why "the neshama" often refers to the nefesh elokis).

Essentially non-tzadikim identify with the physical body and the soul that
gives it life, intellect, emotions, etc while tzadikim identify only and
purely with G-d. "Elo-kai neshama shenasata bi" seems relevant only to 
non-tzadikim, where "neshama" means "nefesh elokis" (as above), and 
"bi" means the body and nefesh habehamis. See Tanya at length with regards 
to what this should mean to us and how this is relevant to (actually
defines) our avodah.

I hope I condensed these ideas reasonably accurately and if not someone
will correct me.

Josh Hoexter

RYGB wrote:
: Disagreed. Don't forget the sofer who wrote the mezuzah. His ma'aseh was not
: metukkan (or, if the mezuzah became pasul over the years, the ma'aseh of
: affixing the mezuzah = shaking a pasul lulav).

I guess I didn't come across well. I'm not asserting that R' Chaim Vilozhiner
would say the mesusah in question would protect despite a cracked letter. I'm
*asking* how to be meyasheiv the idea that it isn't with the rest of his
shitah.

And yes, the case was where the mezuzah became pasul in year 2, when
halachically I am permitted to rely on chezkas kashrus.

:> Which is why I asked how he explains there to be a difference between a
:> "useless peice of [parchment]" and a kosher mezuzah is I don't know which
:> my mezuzah is, and took all precautions required of me.

In particular, I'm trying to understand a way to be meyasheiv this with his
approach to shefa, that people not objects, are the conduits of shefa to this
world. That nekudah is key to the train of thought I've been posting lately,
so fitting this peice in is of concern to me.

: ma'aseh mitzvah. Like davening after the zman, amply discussed by the NhC.

Not the same. Here there is not even shigigah -- I am following halachah
to the letter.

-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 Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
: Your nefesh remains attached to your body (even, it seems, after death -
: that is how Ov works). The neshomo comes and goes.

*Perhaps* it's more accurate to say the nefesh *is* Naran's association with
the body -- it persists for a while after death. According to R' Aryeh
Kaplan (RAK Reader) this is for the very rational reason that people
can't lose interest in gashmius instantaneously after investing so much
in it.

I mistyped one email in this discussion quite badly (in severity, if not
quantity). I feel a need to correct the following (changes emphasized):
: By the Gaon's terminology, I can't speak to anyone else's and barely about
: his, if one didn't have a *nefesh* breathing would cease. And if one's ruach
: went, one would be aware of making the trip. The ruach spends the night
: experiencing dreams.

: Rather, one's *neshamah* 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.

-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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I guess I didn't come across well. I'm not asserting that R' Chaim Vilozhiner
> would say the mesusah in question would protect despite a cracked letter. I'm
> *asking* how to be meyasheiv the idea that it isn't with the rest of his
> shitah.

And I am saying that it *is* in line with the rest of his shitta (who
argues?).

> And yes, the case was where the mezuzah became pasul in year 2, when
> halachically I am permitted to rely on chezkas kashrus.

From a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz?! Don't you remember the R' Shimon -
chazaka only you means you can assume you fulfilled your obligation, not
that you have, in fact, done so.

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


Note from Micha, as this is short and a repetition, I'm just tagging it onto
your post: I didn't ask "what", I asked "how". How can you fit into a shitah
that attributes changes in shefa to changes in the person who draws it down,
the notion that a difference that makes no change in any people affect shefa?
						-mi

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


[ 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         ]