Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 095

Friday, January 24 2003

• Re: History, Truth, Memory: Nemonus of Baalei Mesorah
• Re: History, Truth, Memory: Nemonus of Baalei Mesorah
• Re: RYBS
• Rachmonus - paternal and maternal
• Re: excuses for living in chu"l
• RE: Rambam and Yissachar zvulun
• Re: Contradiction in R. Shimon's shita in Brochos 33 and the mechilta.
• Re: Malachim singing shira by yam suf
• Philosophy of RSRH, and MM too.
• Hirsch--"nobody reads him" Re: Avodah V10 #85
• Re: MO and RW: definitions?
• Re: MO and RW: definitions?
• animal suffering
• Re: Tza'ar Ba'aley Chaim
• Re: Davening with a minyan of a different nusach
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Re: Benjamin Franklin and Mussar
• Re: Hirsch--"nobody reads him" Re: Avodah V10 #85
• Re: RMF vs. RSBA
• Re: Hirsch--"nobody reads him" Re: Avodah V10 #85
• RE: The Torah isn't Strict Enough
• Mussar schools

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:45:55AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: The view that Jewdaism is not interested in accurate history is widely
: held as posted...

The Rambam says the same about medrashim written as historical stories,
be they about tanna'im or about figures in Tanakh. Since midrashim exist
to relay a nimshal, chachamim used the story without any concern as to
whether it was history or myth.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:48:43PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Rabbi Schwab raises important questions. I do not understand the answers
: he offers.

ZGG.

...
: But I get the feeling that Rabbi Schwab would want an author to
: conveniently omit such points. He asks, "What is gained by pointing out
: their inadequacies?" This is a good question, but I think I have a good
: answer: We would gain inspiration. We would gain a role model.

And what about midevar sheqer tirchaq?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:06:06AM +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
: Mussar? Put people down?
...
: I think the flaw is two-fold:
: 
: 1- That mussar's focus on yir'as H' is to produce someone who is
: hunched over, quaking in fear...
: 2- That mussar promotes an anivus which translates to "ich bin gornish"....

Forgot a major issue that I've raised before:

3- Mussar, at least as R' Wolbe presents it, is not about destroying
negative middos. Rather, it's about "shtaiging", climbing ladders
(think Mesilas Yesharim), building one's strengths. A va'ad wouldn't
be designed to attack ka'as as much as to build savlanus and menuchas
hanefesh.

This is also seen in Cheshbon haNefesh. Each week's middah is a positive
to assess, where do I actually stand in my bitachon or shetiqah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

From:   T613K
> M:
>> Chaza"l say 'Gimmel middos yeish bo'umoh zu - rachmonim, bayshonim 
>> vigomlei chasodim'. ... So Chaza"l seem to be saying that those
>> three middos are naturally part of Jews - males and females....

>> Rebbetzin Katz seems to be saying that women naturally have these three 
>> middos, while men must work on them. What is her source for such a
>> position?

> You are correct that compassion, kindness and so on are inherent in 
> Jewish nature...
> You are also correct that there are many women who are far from perfect...
> I seem to remember Hirsch somewhere taking the word "rechem" as being related 
> to the word "rachem" but don't remember where.

I recall encountering the vort of Rav Hirsch z"l, alluded to above. IIRC,
Rabbi Dr. Leo (Eliyohu) Jung z"l used to translate rachmonus as 'motherly
love' or similar (based on that etymology, I believe).

However, what about this -

We say in certain tefillos (e.g. selichos) 'kiracheim av al bonim, kein
tiracheim Hashem oleinu' (as a father has mercy on children, so should
Hashem have mercy on us). Note the depiction of a father's mercy as the
paradigm - and not a mother's. Does that perhaps imply that the father's
mercy is greater than / superior to the mother's ?

Mordechai

On 21 Jan 2003 at 15:11, Gil Student wrote:
> Ari Zivotofsky wrote:
>> There may be legitimate excuses and heterim to live in chu"l, but
>> they are just that, excuses and heterim. Whatever talents, etc. that
>> God gave any Jew can also be used in Israel today.

> When one of the Chief Rabbis came to speak at YU, I think R' Avraham
> Shapira, he tried to convince R' Hershel Schachter to move to EY.
> After a brief discussion of the harbotzas Torah that RHS does in
> America, RAS told him that he *may not* move to EY. This happened in
> the early '90s when I was in yeshiva.

That makes sense. How many of us are marbitzei Torah in chu"l on Rav 
Shachter's level? Leaving aside the question of whether there may be 
other valid reasons for staying in chu"l....

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

In Avodah 10:93, R' Meir Shinnar wrote <<< While it is true that the
Rambam blasts someone who throws himself on to the tzibbur, he is refering
to a person who has no means of providing for his financial needs and
chooses to rely on the public purse. The Rambam is NOT referring to a
person who makes a financial arrangement with a partner to support his
Torah study. Would the Rambam invalidate a Zevulun-Yisachar relationship >>>

RAM:
> Just to clarify: In which of those two categories would you place the
> following common situation: A person has chosen to learn in a school,
> where that school pays him for his time, and then makes appeals
> to the public to help support their students. Is this student in "a
> Zevulun-Yisachar relationship" with the people who donate to his school,
> or has he chosen "to rely on the public purse"?

Just to clarify:

RAM cited in my name the post to which I was responding in opposition -
that was not my position.

With regard to the substance - the rambam does not allow to accept money
for learning in any way - he does not have Yissachar zevulun, and would
clearly assur what you are describing.

Meir Shinnar

In fact, both R. Yishmoel and R. Shimon appear to hold contradict
themselves in Menachos 99b. Most approaches to resolving these
contradictions pursue the approach that there are two types of Torah
study, one that obligates continuous immersion and the other which can
be exempted by morning and evening Shema.

They have been anthologised in Y. Levy, Torah Study: A Survey of
Classical Sources on Timely Issues, Feldheim, 1990, pp.58-63. I also
discuss several such answers in relation to the Shema as Torah Study in
With All Your Heart: The Shema in Jewish Worship, Practice and life -
arriving in your better seforim stores this week.

M. Levin 

I heard an explanation on HKBH reprimanding the malachim who wanted to
say hallel/shira upon the Mitzrim drowning in Yam Suf - "ma'asei yadai
tav'u vayam v'atem omrim shira?" Why does it say "tav'u" (drowned)
instead of "tov'im" (are drowning), after all, this is right when the
Egyptians are drowning. Answer: because HKBH punishes mida k'neged mida.
The malachim thought to kill the Mitzrim by singing shira, just as
they would do hundreds of years later to Sancherev's army at midnight.
HKBH said no, just as ma'asei yadai (the Jewish male babies, not Paro's
army) were drowned in the yam (actually thrown into the Nile), so too
the Mitzrim must die by water.

There was an article that I once saw by a 19th century Agudah ideologues,
i think the name was Friedenson. It was tranlated and reprinted in the
Light magazine. He elaborately made a point that MM was primarily in
the world of the salon and only reluctantly emained in the fold.

RSRH was a passionate Yirei Shomayim. Superficial similiarities do not
mask the cruicial difference.

M. Levin

On Jan 7, R' Mechy Frankel wrote:
>  It is my own opinion that
> RSRH's reputation survives today partly by the luck that nobody actually
> reads him. Thus the charedi world seems to have adopted the notion that
> RSRH is a good guy and therefore so is torah im derech eretz without
> actually paying attention to what it is that he actually said....I believe 
> that MM's approach to modern culture
> indeed had a good deal of overlap with many of the formulation of RSRH,

I feel the need to protest this. Hirsch is widely read and admired
to this day. Most of the charedi world views Torah Im Derech Eretz as
a hora'as sha'ah, a view which is mistaken. Hirsch believed TIDE was
timeless truth. My own view is that both TIDE and Torah-only have their
roots in a duality of vision that dates back at least to Mishnaic times.
Be that as it may, "nobody reads him" is absolutely false. In contrast,
"nobody reads Mendelssohn" is pretty close to the truth.

There is a huge difference between Hirsch and--not to speak of them in
the same breath--Mendelssohn. One restored the hearts of fallen Jews
to their Father in Heaven. The other demonstrated that an Orthodox Jew
could be a popular guest in the salons of fashionable society hostesses.

Please respond, if you must respond at all, in three sentences or less.
I cannot wade through any more 7000-word discourses on MM. If you wish,
you can cite the numbers of the previous Avodahs containing your magnum
opus on this subject. I don't want to re-open it, but only to protest
on behalf of Hirsch's reputation.

Toby Katz

In a message dated 1/22/2003 9:09:54 PM EST, jjbaker@panix.com writes:
> The statement is attested in Altmann's biography of Mendelssohn, p. 358,
> and in Schochet's book on the Gaon, p. 150: "if one is ignorant of the
> secular sciences in this regard, one is a hundredfold more ignorant of
> the wisdom of the Torah, for the two are inseparable." ...
>                                        Hillel of Shklov is mentioned
> saying something similar about the value of the seven wisdoms of the
> world (corresponding to the Trivium and Quadrivium of the universities,
> I think), cited from Kol haTor.

FWIW, I heard besheim the Gaon that lacking a knowledge of musical theory
one cannot understand certain fundamental passages in the Zohar.

One important point re: the Gaon. His thirst for secular knowledge
was AISI totally lishma in order to understand Torah better. He was
apparently very precise and focused in this pursuit and probably saw
little intrinsic value to secular sciences outside of their value in
deepening comprehension of Torah Topics.

Personally, I can testify that much secular knowledge has aided my
ability to get PSHAT in Torah. But I can also honoestly say that my
learning was not so lishma. I have heard that R. Aaron Lichtenstein
claimed his advanced knowldge of English Lit. is very valuable, but I
do not know how much of that was leshiaim Torah itself etc. Those who
know RAL better may comment.

So it is arguable that even lefi the GRA that secular studies in a
general are not kosher unless they are for a definite Torah objective.
E.G. Studying Geomtery to better understand Eruvei Chatzeiros, etc.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 08:58:41PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: One important point re: the Gaon. His thirst for secular knowledge
: was AISI totally lishma in order to understand Torah better...

Nisht azio klur.

Qol haTor quotes him as saying that secular knowledge is necessary
to bring the ge'ulah in and of itself. Part of the opening of the
gates of da'as in the 6th century of the 6th millenium, as foretold
in the Zohar. (Interestingly, it gives the approximate date of the
industrial revolution as when HQBH will give mankind technology.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

I forwarded to Rabbi Homnick, a neighbor and T"C, my question about animal
suffering in general and my cat playing with a mouse in particular,
along with SBA's jocular suggestion that the mouse may be a gilgul.
Below is his answer:

As a general rule, "gilgul" is never a primary answer to a serious
question of Emunah. By the Chazal refraining from mentioning it in
the Gemara, yet dealing extensively (Brachos 5a, Shabbos 55a and 151b,
Kiddushin 40b et al)with issues of fairness in distribution of life's
assets, general suffering, intergenerational cycling of fate etc., they
are teaching us that Emunah must always be defensible without reference
to reincarnation.

All matters of "gilgul" fit into a supplementary category of "sod Hashem
Li'yeraiav". It is better to say, as does Rabbi Yannai in Avos (4:14)
that we have no understanding of the suffering of the righteous or of
the tranquility of the wicked, than to explain it with such esoterica.

The suffering of animals in general may have many purposes. Specifically,
the mouse's exposure to predators is explained in the Gemara (Horayos
13a) as a retribution for their tendency to destroy even those things
that they take no pleasure in consuming.

                                 Cordially,
                Yaakov Dovid Homnick

Toby Katz

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:48:33PM -0500, rothmanfamily@juno.com wrote:
: In #92 I wrote that person has to go out of his way to alleviate the
: suffering of animals.

Pain. Tza'aros not tzaros.

It was correcting a talmid on this distrinction that started the train
of thought that lead to my previous post.

In order to feel suffering, contraint (tzar), one must be a self-aware
being.

Unlike tza'ar.

The problem with tza'ar ba'alei chaim is that causing pain in others
causes nastiness in oneself. Whether or not the animal has an "I" or
the ability to feel misery, it seems to to the observer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

Is anyone aware of a compilation or sources on what must be done by
the individual different than his own native nusach (eg of possibilities
kedusha,kaddish,tachanun...). Anything on preference on davening with
a minyan of one's own nusach (eg at the kotel must/should I wait for a
ashkenazic mincha if a sfardi one is starting)

KT
Joel

In a message dated 1/22/2003 9:10:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, laser@ieee.org 
writes:
> "The angel who redeems me from all evil will bless the children . . ." has
> the identical meaning to "The angel, the one who redeems me from all evil,
> he will bless the children . . .," and in addition does not suffer from
> an extra pronoun and excess verbiage (additional three words out of 12)
> that serves no valid purpose. And it does not change the clause to
> a non-restrictive one. And it thereby translates the Hebrew clause
> faithfully. Note how economical the clause is in the original Hebrew.
> 
> Imagine translating Mi ha'ish hehafetz hayyim as "Who is the man, the one
> who . . . ."!

Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides on this point so much as adding a
useful piece of information.

According to what I have heard.... afilu to the shita that the Torah
contains ONLY present participles {iow Hagoel means THE redeemer vs. He
who redeems} would concede that by the time T'hillim rolls around the
more modern present tense makes an appearence.

IOW works in the Nach after the Torah introduce several new structures
, etc.
Illustration: "Tzavkos" is not in the Torah but is common in Nach

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:47:22PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: This is true in the Torah world, tocho k'bor'o is important.

: Apparently the Gentile world is willing to allow a multiple personality,
: the one having a noble, ideal shita and the other not living up to
: this ideal...

RYBS writes about the difference between Shem's chessed and Yafes's
politeness. Shem is concerned with helping others, whereas being
polite is about the aesthetic, the chitzoniyus, of the bein adam
lachaveiro.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

RYGB: <<..2. Thanks to RMF for his post on MM vs. RSRH (soon to be on
Avodah, IY"H, I got an advance copy). There is nothing I (nor Dr. Isaac
Breuer) would take exception with there...>>

Shucks. Don't tell me you can't even pick a fight in this joint any more.

But luckily this arrived soon after. Now that's more like it.
RbnKatz: <<Me: It is my own opinion that RSRH's reputation survives today
partly by the luck that nobody actually reads him.....I believe that MM's
approach to modern culture indeed had a good deal of overlap with many of
the formulation of RSRH,..
RbnK: I feel the need to protest this.   Hirsch is widely read and admired 
to this day. Most of the charedi world views Torah Im Derech Eretz as a
hora'as sha'ah, a view which is mistaken...... Be that as it may,
"nobody reads him" is absolutely false. In contrast, "nobody reads
Mendelssohn" is pretty close to the truth.
There is a huge difference between Hirsch and--not to speak of them in the
same breath--Mendelssohn. One restored the hearts of fallen Jews to their
Father in Heaven. The other demonstrated that an Orthodox Jew could be a
popular guest in the salons of fashionable society hostesses.
Please respond, if you must respond at all, in three sentences or less. I
cannot wade through any more 7000-word discourses on MM. If you wish, you
can cite the numbers of the previous Avodahs containing your magnum opus on
this subject. I don't want to re-open it, but only to protest on behalf of
Hirsch's reputation.>>

3 sentences or less? fraid not. I don't do pithy. I'm afraid I will have
to refer you to my opus in #93 (BTW, I'm quite flattered you considered
it magnum though I must immodestly comment that I've produced much more
significant stuff than that, though admittedly in venues not as readily
accessible to list members) on MM/RSRH where I made it clear that I
differentiated between the public perception of RSRH's ouevre and the
actual substance of his philosophical writings. RSRH had a good more to
say than TIDE or T'hilim. I submit that RSRH's philosophical writings
are read almost as little as MM.

I muchly admire RSRH. Indeed I grew up in WH and am practically an
honorary yekke -- i do a great accent. But the systematically apologetic
distortion of the man -- his real background, his education, his
pre-frankfurt life, his relationship to his contemporaries and their
opinions, his expressed views etc. -- to conform to expectation is
particularly egregious. I do not feel that RSRH could possibly be held
in the same regard he is today in certain circles without the comforting
and wholesale airbrushing that has been taken to his life. It is in
fact a paradigmatic example of a point I tried to clarify in another
recent opus (see #92) which addressed the difference between "history"
and "memory". of course, you'd have to wade through all that prose,
a prospect which might make strong men quiver, but of course you don't
suffer from that congenital handicap. BTW, the group of people whose
reputations survive in certain circles partly because of unfamiliarity
with their doings or writings is hardly an exclusive club. e.g. i can
imagine that's the only reason ralbag retains his rishonic status. nobody
reads that stuff.

As for the reflexive beating up again on poor old MM, while by all
accounts (including RSRH) he was a simply splendid fellow, mailitz yosher
for his contemporaries when they needed it, and quite frum to boot --
he would have made an excellent president or even rav for almost any
young israel in this country -- if you are looking for me to defend
the proposition that anybody still is (or should be) reading the sort
of quaint 18th century period piece that was his jewish philosophical
writings, you won't find it here. so tilt away at that strawman if
you will. Of course we made the argument in that opus? that there was
actually a reasonable philosophical overlap between the two(MM/RSRH)
and thus both of their philosophies languish unread.

Since we're talking about -- or protesting, whatever -- RSRH, I'll mention
that the relatively recent artscroll biography by a R. Klugman, which
i've read, is another example of artscroll at its best (i'm speaking
sincerely here). It is very heavily footnoted so the author did a good
deal of research -- this isn't one of those potato chip or comic book
"bios" that one notices in jewish book stores all apparently authored by
a fellow named shulman, but a substantial piece of work. But what it is
successful at doing is preserving the "memory" of RSRH as opposed to the
real RSRH which would have made much of the readership uncomfortable. It
shades or censors facts, distorts motives, skips over unpleasantness
etc. and of course basically doesn't touch RSRH's actual philosophical
writings at all. But then again its purpose was not a "true" history,
but a "true" memory.

As RbnKatz was kind enough to share her concern/outrage at any perceived
slight to RSRH's memory, which concern i hope has now been allayed,
let me in return offer a modest suggestion which addresses her request
for notions to deal with her areivim/avodah backlog. Simply identify
those authors (innate modesty prevents me from offering more concrete
examples here) whose prose is worth perusing and immediately delete all
volumes where I, er.. I meant they, do not appear attached to a front
end catch phrase.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

In a message dated 1/12/2003 11:54:41 AM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> One of the reasons for being concerning about how Mendelson was viewed
> in previous times is an interesting comment made years ago in the Jewish
> Observer. It asked what in fact was the difference between Mendelson and
> Hirsch? ...           The answer proposed was that the basic complaint
> about Mendelson was that his activities came at an earlier time when
> most people were frum and thus he facilitated the exit from frumkeit
> into assimilation. In contrast Hirsch's activities came after Judaism
> had hit bottom. Thus his approach served to bring people back in. In
> fact the interfaces they both provided were not terribly different.

Take the same facts and come up with this pshat

Had MM not come out first with an open-minded YEt halachically loyal
view of Judaism then Had Hirsch bee n the first HE might have borne the
brunt of criticism instead. Maybe the dead dry bones of Ephraim wer
about leaving Mitzrayim too early or maybe they merely paved the way
for the successful Subsequent Exodus.

Lord Mountbatten commented on the Dieppe Debacle - that - For every life
lost at Dieppe, 10 were save at Normandy!

IMHO, MM was on the right track BUT FLAWED. It took the experience
form his flaws to produce a far more perfected version - I.e. the TIDE
of Hirsch. But Hirsch - as do we - had the luxury of hindsight.

IOW, it would be a big mistake to take MM lock stock and barrell, but
it is alos unfair to condemn him completely. A more selective view
is needed. MM blazed the trail for a ghetto-free frumkeit. For MANY
MANY Jews the choice was more stark, Torah and ghetto, or ghetto-less
assimliation. Had Jewish leadership been quicker to embrace some form
of TIDE earlier, maybe Reform and assimliation would not have been so
successful in the first place.

Consider this historical factoid: that Circa 1920 the thought of an
Agudist using a language other than Yiddish would have been an anathema...

OR IOW, If you did Artscroll 150 years ago who would have supported it?
Would it then have been wrong?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> I feel the need to protest this. Hirsch is widely read and admired
> to this day. Most of the charedi world views Torah Im Derech Eretz as
> a hora'as sha'ah, a view which is mistaken. Hirsch believed TIDE was
> timeless truth.

It is really not clear that the above is true. R' Schwab himself writes
(Collected Writings) that it wasn't until he had studied Hirsch's writings
for 20 years that he realized that Hirsch did not intend it merely as
an emergency measure. In addition there is a fascinating comment by the
Ksav Sofer's son in his book Igros Sofrim(p 41 of letters of Ksav Sofer)
that Rabbi Breurer wife i.e., Hirsch's daughter that her father had told
her that his approach was only for Germany: "there were only 11 people
left in the Frankfurt community and they accepted as Rav ...R' Hirsch z"l
and even though he did tremendous work in his place and time and also in
other cities but also he did not teach this approach to unite Torah and
secular studies except to his countrymen. But he did not think to employ
such an approach in those places where Torah study and yiras shamayim
were still flourishing and the yeshivas were still teaching as before. I
was told this directly that this was the view of her father by the wife
of R' Shlomo Breurer z"l who was his replacement... Thus we understand
the oppostion of Hungarian rabbonim against R' Hildesheimer...Furthermore
when R' Hildesheimer left Hungary for Germany my father [the Ksav Sofer]
told me While he caused damage here in Hungary he will cause improvement
in Germany."

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

B"H

Micha wrote:
>Going lifnim mishuras hadin is training oneself to keep din, or avoiding
>nisyonos you know you're not ready for yet. It's not saying that halachah
>is insufficient for me, but rather that I'm insufficient to tow the line
>of halachah without assistance.

>Gezeiros are the product of a beis din determining that the same is true
>for enough of the tzibbur to warrant a general policy.

Ayn hachi nami. I am asking how one should view a person going beyond
the reasonable, logical gedarim he and the beis din create. How should I
view someone developing baseless, self-imposed gezeiros?

I can hear that being almost like saying, "The Torah isn't strict
enough,"
or, "The Torah isn't the most perfect it could be. B"H I exist to
expand it."

Ari

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 1- That mussar's focus on yir'as H' is to produce someone who is
> hunched over, quaking in fear. To quote RYGB's translation of
> RAKE's Be'ikvos haYir'ah:
 
>    Yir'ah is not anguish, not pain, not bitter anxiety. To what may

That was apparently not a settled definition; vide infra.

>    yir'ah be likened? To the tremor of fear which a father feels when his
>    beloved young son rides his shoulders as he dances with him and
>    rejoices before him, taking care that he not fall off. Here there is
>    joy that is incomparable, pleasure that is incomparable. And the fear
>    tied up with them is pleasant too. It does not impede the freedom of

Sounds rather like the yir'ah mei'ahava of the Kedushat Levi, in his
comments on "vayar' Yisrael et H', vaya'aminu baH' uv'Moshe avdo"

> 2- That mussar promotes an anivus which translates to "ich bin gornish".
 
> If this were true, then mussar would depress and immobilize. If someone

See the Tanya in the chapters in the 30s. He talks about harnessing
depression as a tool to get to the level of "ich bin gornish", and
then to rise out of that level by realizing that one's bitul to H' is a
*good* thing. I passed this by a relative who suffers from depression,
and his comment was "this guy doesn't understand depression."

> lacks self esteem then he lacks the confidence to accomplish. That is
> obviously untrue of all the products of Slabodka who ended up on the
> 20th cent's collection of pedastals.

There was apparently a split in Mussar, between Slabodka (gadlus ha'adam)
and Novhorodok (katnus ha'adam). The Slabodka students and offshoots
seem to have survived the War in greater numbers than the Novhorodok
students, so that's what we have. But of the various Slabodka offshoots,
how many of them really engage in the mussar derech? With va'adim, and
mussar shmuessin on a regular basis? I asked my current gemara teacher,
who is associated with the Mir, and got smicha at Chofetz Chaim, both
of which are Slabodka offshoots, and he says a few people have mentioned
that this was done in the distant past, but they don't do it now.

R' Rakeffet mentioned this split briefly in his talks on the Rav at LSS.

Here's a fuller treatment from him as to why the Briskers opposed Mussar,
from a series of shiurim he gave on the Rav two years ago at RIETS:

: As a kid, found out that in Volozhin, opposed to Mussar. 19th century
: gave birth to two ideas- Volozhin, focal, central Yeshiva; till then-
: Rabbi was Rav, Reish Mesivta, was haphazard, not every Rabbi knew how
: to teach; knowledge doesn't mean you can teach. 1802, 1803- R. Chayim
: Volozhin decided to organize central Yeshiva, because world changing-
: winds of change sweeping through from Western Europe, until then,
: whether or not succeeded in learning, stayed frum, now would become
: Maskil, Mechalel Shabbos- so now, can't take a chance; can read R.
: Chayim's letter in Mosdos HaTorah by R. Twersky. Says- there's going to
: be a whole new system with classes, competent teachers. Other great idea
: born in 19th century- Mussar Movement. R. Yosef Zundel of Salant saw,
: his Talmid R. Yisrael was popularizer- when people are frum, parents,
: children are frum, people do Mitzvos out of habit- Mitzvos Anashim
: Melumadah- did you ever think about what you're doing? Much of what we
: do is like monkey; R. Yisrael Salanter reaches same conclusion as R.
: Chayim on different level- human malaise, nature of the beast- don't
: think about what we eat- just eat. Switch car on, stop for red light-
: human being is creature of habit. Only pause to think if were sick,
: couldn't eat, or saved from battle, say HaGomel; that's nature of beast.
: Until 19th century, with or without Kavanah, Jew remained good and
: decent. R. Yisrael saw that people had to be kept frum- winds are
: changing, Haskalah and Russification moving in, need something more
: intellectual for Lithuania, White Russia, Misnagdishe world; point was-
: think what you do, before you act; go into room- Mussar Kloyz- without
: windows, no distractions- pull yourself together. Yamim Nora'im- people
: stayed in Kloyz learning endless hours- make it meaningful, pause and
: think, should become much more than trained monkey or Mitzvos Anashim
: Melumadah. Two great ideas in Lithuania.

: R. Yitzchak Blazer, R. Simcha Zissel, R. Naftali Amsterdam- Talmidim;
: but greatest Talmid- Ga'on Adir- R. Yitzchak Blazer comes to Volozhin,
: tries to convince R. Chayim to institute Mussar. Throws him out head
: first; cites- L'Olam Yazkir Adam... Yom HaMisah. Says-no, only one way
: to survive in this world- study Torah- Mashchuhu L'Beis HaMidrash.

: What does Rav Chayim have against Mussar? Rav sat as one of the students
: before R. Lessin giving a Mussar Shmooze. When quote from here- most
: insightful, important part of Ish HaHalacha- Rebbi reached great heights
: in his analysis of what R. Chayim had against Mussar. Two points.

: 1. When I say 'don't stand up for me'- maybe that's false modesty, maybe
: I want the Kavod, just want to be more popular with my students? Drive
: out of Machon Lev, I give two people a lift, they thank you, I say 'Shum
: Davar'- really mean it, or just want them to say I'm a nice guy? Kohen
: is allowed to wear Bigdei Kehunah back to locker room after Avodah com-
: pleted- though Lo Nitnu Lehenos, Lo Nitnah Torah L'Malachei HaShareis
: can definitely walk back to locker room. Jew isn't required to pick his
: mind apart psychologically. One reason R. Chayim opposed- too much
: analysis, introspection, Mussar put you on Freudian couch, can be harm-
: ful; sometimes can't put self back together after took selves apart.
: NCSY, outreach- when you destroy someone's world, can you replace it
: with a better one? Better to be irreligious and normal than semi-
: religious and totally crazy. Lo Nitnah Torah L'Malachei HaShareis
: needn't analyze self, have Freud do a job on me.

: 2. Height of the Rav in philosophy- in Ish HaHalacha- says something
: else; there's universal religion, and the unique expression of Halachic
: Judaism. Universal religion- good deal rests, builds on fear of death.
: Dante's Inferno- every kind of punishment. Priests- you'll rot into dust,
: all sorts of punishments. Come to Torah- R. Hirsch- Emor El HaKohanim-
: when there's death, symbol of religion- Kohen- must leave the room.
: Dignity, joy of life, sanctification of carnal desire- that's Torah;
: totally different from universal religion. Only the Rav could reach
: these heights. Mussar movement- Kloyz- no windows- melancholy, moribund
: atmosphere, little light- candles; Sefarim- death, fear, Mussar, Yamim
: Nora'im, Pachad, Eimas HaDin- Rav said- R. Chayim Volozhin, my forebears
: intuitively recoiled from universal tactics. This wasn't Judaism, Torah-
: this was universal tactics. That's why they wanted no part of the Gemara
: which said Mazkir Lo Yom HaMisah- they wanted Mashchuhu L'Beis HaMidrash,
: so tossed R. Blazer out. Then, Rav said- in next generation, when Mussar
: movement matured- Talmid of R. Simcha Zissel, the Alter of Slobodka- R.
: Nosson Tzvi Finkel- put on garb of Gadlus Adam- whole view changed- not
: Shiflus Adam, like R. Yosel Horowitz of Novhardok; under Mirrer Mashgiach,
: R. Yerucham Levovitz, emphasis became greatness of man- how capable this
: individual can be- Gadlus Adam; as you act in dignified fashion, must
: color standing actions before God- you are chosen of creation- slightly
: less than angel- bring dignity to your status, tradition, upbringing,
: forebears. In later generations when it matured, said the Rav, my family
: no longer felt alienated from Mussar movement. Thus did the Rav sit with
: Talmidim before R. Lessin, once said- beautiful Chiddush.

: Seridei Eish vol. 4- gives 3 more reasons why was opposition to Mussar
: movement- gives also first of Rav's reason. R. Dov Katz- T'nu'as HaMussar-
: five-volume history of Mussar movement- after these came out, he was
: Mazkir for Beis Din in Petach Tikva, son Yehoshua Katz is Rebbi in
: HaKotel. When these 5 volumes appeared, people said- what about oppo-
: sition- all is rosy, etc.! So last volume published before death- Oleh
: Al Kulam- Pulmus HaMussar- the fight over it- citations, analysis of
: what Rav said, R. Weinberg said- one of most fascinating volumes might
: want to pick up. If have Yetzer HaRa for Machlokes, infighting, etc.-
: read that book. 

: What could infer from R. Yisrael Salanter- Eli Babich showed me clearly
: in Ru'ach Chayim. Yom Kippur- Netziv keeps studying when people go to
: eat. What happened in Yeshiva with R. Lessin greatly influenced my own
: personal life. Pride and vanity- story with R. Ya'akov Karlin, absolute
: true story, R. Chaim Ilson, Tovah Lichtenstein. R. Chaim Karlin- Rebbi
: gives him Mussar. Was Rav a hawk or dove? Amalek- Rav had many contra-
: dictions, feelings. Ba'al HaTanya's grandson says to R. Itzele- you're
: a Ba'al Mofes? Yet tells him what's on his mind. R. Yitzchak coming to
: R. Chayim- only a Chaticha HaRe'uyah L'Hiskabed Bah. Mussar- in Vilna-
: tried to reach masses; 1849-1857- Kovno- focused on Yechidei Segulah.
: Rav Dovid Lifshitz- Mussarnik- love every Jew; today- doesn't hold on
: anymore. 

From a set of notes on Eitan Mayer's website, 
<http://www.yu.edu/faculty/emayer/riets_notes/riets_notes_index.htm>

Lots of interesting stuff there, good for learning and chazarah.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

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


[ 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         ]