Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 058

Tuesday, May 30 2006

• Re:Calling a Spade a Spade
• RE: chumres (chumros)
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: geirut
• source for stmnt attributed to Rav Herzog z"l
• Re: Nasi
• Re: Doctor's fees
• Re: Doctor's fees
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Haftorah
• Re: Tzimtzum Kipshuto
• Leshem Tzitzum k'Peshuto.pdf
• Tzimtzum K'Peshuto

RZL insists on reopening an old debate, but I think that he misunderstands
the position that I state - and the opposition of many to kollel.
Part of it is semantic, but it leads to a real confusion.

I am thankful that at least, he agrees that the rambam is absolutist in
his opposition to communal support of torah study and torah functionaries
- something that some have tried to blur. He tries to suggest that the
rambam allows familial support - but there is nothing in the rambam to
suggest that (as we have gone over before).

The question is the status of the rambam in normative halacha and poskim.
I think that there are essentially three approaches - but the semantics
and implications of each vary.
1.  Hold halacha is like the rambam - agree that this is a minority opinion.
2. Completely reject the rambam - and hold lecatchila of the desirability
of maximal communal support of torah institutions and rabbanim. This,
too is a minority opinion - especially before the twentieth century.
3. Agree halacha should (in some sense) be like the rambam as an ideal,
but argue that as a practical matter, because of communal needs, we need
to pay rabbanim.
Now, the question is how to call this accomodation. Given the fact that
it is assumed that the majority of rabbanim will follow this accomodation,
it is difficult to call it b'dieved. Given the opposition to it, it is
not quite lecatchila, in the sense of yochlu anavim veyisbau.

Therefore, RZL can object to my use of the term bedievad, and in some
sense, it may be called lecatchila, although there is quite a bit of
halachic "kvetching" to fit it into other halachic modes (eg, sechar
batala). However, the rambam remains an ideal. It is called midas
chassidus rather than lecatchila because it is difficult to call the
practice of so many kehillot lecatchilla.

If one reads the rema, this dynamic is quite clear. The rambam is
presented straight as ikkar hadin - and then multiple qualifiers about
how it is impossible for us to follow, so it becomes midas chassidus.

The clear implication of this is that the rambam does remain the ideal -
and that therefore institutions that significantly expand the deviation
from the ideal are intrinsically problematic. (This is not a case where
I would say mitoch shehutra letzorech, hutra nami lo letzorech...)

I understand why I have to pay a communal rav, and a day school/mesivta
teacher. I can also understand to some extent some more advanced
learning (semicha), even though the rambam would object - and the rema
would classify them as "lecatchilla" permissible, although preferable if
such support is not needed. However, kollel represents a tremendous
expansion of this concept - and therefore should be opposed on the
basis of the rambam and the rema - even if we don't strictly follow the
rambam, it represents the halachic ideal, and therefore we should oppose,
vigorously, expansion of those institutions that oppose that ideal.

I would add that given the current trend to be yotze lechol hadeot, and
to be machmir, it is problematic that an entire social system is built
on a model that, at the least, the rema holds is not "midat chassidut".

Meir Shinnar

[RCBK:]
>> I get into trouble even with some of my RWMO world when I suggest that 
>> knowing a posek's personality/circumstances would be helpful.

> Why's that? It sounds like good sense for a thinking person.

I can't explain it very well - it goes something like -"we're only
concerned with how later authorities perceived the shitot, not on what
they actually were"

KT
Joel Rich

S & R Coffer wrote:
> Before I make the following comment, I wish to state that essentially,
> I agree with RYGB that Toras Chabad regarding Tzimtum is limited to
> 'Or' rather than 'Maor' chs'v but I have a problem. The way I remember
> the sicha of the LR, he stated (Shoftim 5711 I think) regarding his
> father in law that he was (in Yiddish) "atzmus u'mahus azoi vee ess
> iz areingishtelt in a guf" (as opposed to utilizing terminology such
> as OES). This was one of his first (his first?) sichos and was stated
> regarding his father-in-law who had recently (one year?) departed. IIRC,
> he mentioned that this doctrine was not obligatory on his followers
> and IIRC he defended his position (in the footnotes) by referring to
> a Zohar regarding the fulfilment of the mitzvah of re'iy'yah on Yom
> Tov by appearing in front of RSBY. I would have liked to have seen
> something more definitive in the direction of RYGB's interpretation but
> unfortunately I have not encountered such throughout my exposure to
> the modern day explication of Toras Chabad. Perhaps RYGB can discuss
> this with his eminent uncle and report back to us (I am aware of the
> sefer Al haTzadikim...I am looking for a clear explanation from RYGB,
> not a pass the buck reference...)

The exact source is in Likutei Sichos vol. 2 p. 511. If you look
there, beginning the previous page with Os #40 you will find a very
interesting - and IMHO dubious - chiddush, that since a Rebbe is a
"memutzeh ha'mechaber" instead of a "memutzeh ha'mafsik," one may make
requests of a deceased Rebbe, even though it is normally heretical to
make requests of the dead, and even of malachim.

But this specific expression has never bothered me as much as it
has others. It is supported by the citation (in the Sicha, not in the
notes!) of the Zohar that states "Man pnei ha'Adon - zeh Rashbi;" and the
fact that a malach is called b'shem Havayah when speaking b'shem Hashem,
and that Moshe spoke of Hashem's commandments in first person.

And this bechinah is one of OES - see, for example,
<http://www.katif.net/art.php?table=jew1&;id=157> or
<http://chabad-il.org/hit/hit191.htm>

I am cc'ing one of our greater Chabad scholars to ask for additional
marei-mekomos.

YGB

The Rambam's Letter

I had written that although the Rambam prohibits public funding of
rabbanim, talmidie chachamim, etc., he permits family support. Indeed,
I noted, the Rambam himself was suppported by his brother while still
alive. Others have claimed that this support was contingent on the Rambam
investing his own money into his brother's business, an arangement which
is permitted and recommended even for out-of-family support. Those who
made this claim cited the very letter from which we learn of the Rambam's
brother's support, where the Rambam writes "uv'yado mammon rav li, v'lo,
ul'acheirim." They translate it, "he had much of my money, and his, and
others'," whereas I translate it "he had much money for me, for himself,
and for others."

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 R. Meir Shinnar wrote: 
> 1. WRT to the rambam's letter ... the phrase uv'yado mammon rav li, v'lo,
> ul'acheirim ... [ZL's] saying that the rambam says that his brother died,
> and that he had much money designated for me, and for him,and for others -
> is very awkard (and unnatural - it should be that beyado mammon rav lo
> shehaya (noten, mahazik - choose along those line)oti ...

Sorry, but I find RMS's suggestion the awkward and unnatural one.

RMS:
> ... rather than that he died, and he had much money that he was going
> to support me with, and oh, it was also his money...)

I did not suggest "/it/ (i.e., the money he was going to support me with)
was also his money." I understand Rambam to be saying, "the shipwreck
caused the loss of the money my brother earned, some of which was for me
(because of our Yissachar-Zevulun arrangement), some of which was for
himself, and some of which was for others" (following the standard
grammatical progression from first person singular to third person
singular and then plural).

And yes, of course, it sounds silly if one inserts the words, "and oh,
it was also his money" -- just as it would if one inserts them into
RMS's (grammatically incorrect) translation, rendering: "in his hand
[as capital] was my money, and oh, also his own [capital], and others'
[capital]." In either case, such an insertion is disingenuous.

RMS:
> Even if one insists that the designation li means for me rather than
> mine, it makes far more sense to suppose that that the rambam is saying
> that the brother, having made money from trading in his, the rambam's,
> and others' money, now had monies for the rambam, himself, and others...

"Makes far more sense" as opposed to saying that the Rambam's brother,
with altruistic intentions, took it upon himself to designate part of his
earnings to allow the Rambam to study Torah without the distractions of
financial burdens? I fail to see why, either linguistically or logically.

RMS:
> ...--although until the rambam actually received them they wouldn't
> technically be his (he wasn't koneh them)- they would be for him...

But this technicality exists whether or not the Rambam provided capital
for the trading that resulted in the money gained. Again I fail to see why
therefore "it makes far more sense to suppose that ..the brother... made
money from trading in ...the rambam's... money...."

As a matter of fact, in the very passage the Rambam advocates the system
of businessmen supporting scholars with earnings they gained using the
scholars' capital, he uses the word "lahem" in reference to the scholars
designated to receive the money, /before their having made a kinyan on
it/: Rambam's terminology in his commentary on Pirkei Ahvos (Chapter
4)is that the talmidei chachamim "should give their money to someone
to conduct business as he chooses and, if he [the businesman] pleases,
the entire profit will be /lahem/ [for them]." So we see that the Rambam
has no qualms in using "lahem" in reference to monies designated but not
yet delivered to the intentioned recipient despite the technicality that
until actual receipt the money does not yet belong to the recipient. The
same is true of "li."

(By the way, I can't resist pointing out that now that RMS allows
himself to say "Even if one insists that the designation 'li' means for
me rather than mine..." his understanding of "lomdus 101" [see previous
posts] would define his position as a weak one, since he is offering an
alternative payrush of the source...)

Zvi Lampel

> Is anyone aware of a katan shenitgayer who renounced the geirut at bar/bat
> mitzvah (or when they found out if later)?  

Yes -- a friend in Yeshiva found out when he started going on shidduchim,
and the R.Y. advised him to get his ancestry records to save time
later. (He had been adopted and converted as a baby).

> IIRC according to some (Rambam?) opinions even an adult ger could have a 
> similar issue if the original geirut were not "complete" (i.e. bet
> din watches the individual after the fact to determine the status of
> the original kabbalah)

An interesting question -- under what conditions can we say an original
geirus (of an adult) is retroactively null and void? How long after the
fact, and what conditions would have to arise?

Akiva

Anyone know a source for a statement attributed to Rav Herzog z"l,
to the effect that "we have a mesorah that klal yisrael will NEVER be
driven out of Eretz Yisrael a third time" ?

Thanks, gut yom yov/chag sameach...
Pinchus Klahr

On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:12:39 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> RMB:
>> Hillel's matrilineal connection to beis david was therefore a 
>> point in his favor

> Matrilineal? Did you mean patrilineal? (I thought Hillel was a
> descendant of Dovid Hamelech?) Or did you really mean matrilineal,
> and if so, why would that matter?

Matrilineal. Hillel was from shevet Binyamin. I believe this is
mentioned in the Iggeret of Rav Sherira Gaon.

I also remember hearing a story about R' Yehudah HaNasi bowing down to
Antoninus as a kind of tikkun for the fact that Binyamin hadn't bowed
down to Eisav, though I may be mangling that.

As to why it would matter, it's still yichus. What I'm curious about is
his mother's family. If his mother was from Beit David, and Hillel was
from Bavel, does that suggest that Hillel's maternal grandfather might
have been a Resh Galuta? Is there any material that addresses this?

Lisa

>>>> Since when is one not allowed to give family  discounts?

cbk:
>>That's not what he said. The statement said  "a doctor who charges his
Jewish patients less than his gentile patients"  with no mention of family
status. If that were the case then the dr. would  give the same discount
to families of non-Jews. Otherwise, it is religious  discrimination and
that is subject to legal  action.<<

If the doctor is not Jewish and gives discounts to Jews but not to
non-Jews, then he is guilty of religious discrimination. However if
the doctor /is/ Jewish and gives discounts to Jews, well, hey, we're
all family, right? Remember Yisrael Saba, our Zeida Yakov?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

"CBK" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
>>> Since when is one not allowed to give family discounts?

> That's not what he said. The statement said "a doctor who charges his
> Jewish patients less than his gentile patients" with no mention of family
> status. If that were the case then the dr. would give the same discount
> to families of non-Jews.

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Since when are non-Jews family?
Are you talking about a doctor who is a ger?

> Otherwise, it is religious discrimination and that is subject to
> legal action.

Since when is it anyone's business what someone charges for his services,
or what discounts he chooses to give?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> As a matter of fact, in the very passage the Rambam advocates the system
> of businessmen supporting scholars with earnings they gained using the
> scholars' capital, he uses the word "lahem" in reference to the scholars
> designated to receive the money, /before their having made a kinyan on
> it/: Rambam's terminology in his commentary on Pirkei Ahvos (Chapter
> 4)is that the talmidei chachamim "should give their money to someone
> to conduct business as he chooses and, if he [the businesman] pleases,
> the entire profit will be /lahem/ [for them]."

Didn't the Rambam write this in Arabic?
On a more general note the Rambam was the elder brother, so he started
with two thirds of the family estate. What happened to his capital?

David Riceman 

R. D. Riceman:
>From: ""Zvi Lampel"" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> As a matter of fact, in the very passage the Rambam advocates the system
> of businessmen supporting scholars with earnings they gained using the
> scholars' capital, he uses the word ""lahem"" in reference to the scholars
> designated to receive the money, /before their having made a kinyan on
> it/: Rambam's terminology in his commentary on Pirkei Ahvos (Chapter
> 4)is that the talmidei chachamim ""should give their money to someone
> to conduct business as he chooses and, if he [the businesman] pleases,
> the entire profit will be /lahem/ [for them].""

RDR:
> Didn't the Rambam write this in Arabic?

Good point. Are there any Hebrew translations that translate differently;
or better yet, anyone out there who knows Arabic?

RDR:
> On a more general note the Rambam was the elder brother, so he started
> with two thirds of the family estate. What happened to his capital?

IIRC, in the same letter, the Rambam writes that his father's death was
shortly before his brother's. And he also writes that he had previously
suffered great financial loss (but without any mention of how this
happened). By raising this point, you make something clearer: perhaps
the "great financial loss" was after his father's death, and objectively
"great" because he originally had the estate. On the other hand, who knows
how much of an estate Rav Maimon left his sons? (BTW, after his brother's
death, he writes he had to take care of his brother's orphaned family.)

Zvi Lampel

R' Ben asked:
> ... on three Shabosim there is no special Maftir, and yet we
> read a special Haftorah. These are 1-Like this past Shabbos,
> Haftorah of Mochor Chodesh, 2-Shabbas Shuvah and 3-Shabbos
> Hagodol. The question that was raised is why are these three
> Haftorot different from the others?

Without offering an answer, I'd just like to point out that these three
are not the only exceptions to the general rule. There are nine more
such Haftaras, namely the nine weeks prior to Shabbos Shuva.

More specifically, the three weeks prior to Tisha B'Av have haftaros
about unfortunate events, and the seven weeks after Tisha B'Av (the last
of which is Shabos Shuva) have messages of consolation.

Thus, in any given year approximately 12-13 haftoros will be exceptions
to this rule. I use this as one of my examples to demonstrate that
Chazal's rules are not as ironclad as some might like to think they
are. Exceptions can be found, when relevant.

Akiva Miller

>I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
>it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto.

>This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. To
>explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is heretical
>no less thansaying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by anything else.

I do not know much about this, and am just following this thread and I
have what I guess are some obvious questions:

1)I have not had a chance to study these yet, but how does this fit with
the Yosher Leivuv, R' yakov Emdin, and R Yonoson Eivshitz, believing
in tzimtzum Kipshuto, as pointed out in the article of the heichal
habesht? Like I said, I have not yet seen it, so my question is really;
do they not say this?

2) Plus, what is wrong with the LR's defense of this Shita in the letter
referenced to on this forum earlier and others like it?

<http://www.afn.org/~afn19926/dvar.htm>
    a) the tzimtzum should be interpreted literally, and moreover, that
    it affected G-d's essence. The proof offered in defense of this theory
    is that it is impossible for the King to be found in a place of filth,
    heaven forbid;...
    ...As is well known, the misnagdim at the time of the Alter
    Rebbe followed the first approach mentioned. They explained the
    expression, "there is no place apart from Him," meaning - apart
    from His providence.[2]

    [2] I.e., that G-d is not found in these places, but that He watches
    over them.

3) Does not the Baal hatanya call this opinion a "Shigegas Miktzas
Chachomim? Not Apikursus by any stretch, but rather just a mistake of
some Chachomim.
  <http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=7993>

  Velvel

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>  From what little I know of the Heichal HaBesht, it is malei v'gadush
> inaccuracy, and this essay is no exception. Tzimtzum in the *_*Ohr*_*
> Ein Sof (OES) is *_*not*_* what is commonly known as tzimtzum k'peshuto
> (TkP). TkP refers to tzimtzum in the _**Atzmus**_ Ein Sof (AES). The
> essay from Heichal HaBesht erroneously conflates the two. It is the TkP
> in AES that is heretical.

It would seem that according to your analysis the Leshem is a kofer -
chav v'shalom. He in fact rejects your distinction between Ohr and
Atzmuso. I am attaching the pdf of the Leshem's assertion [os hey]
that the Mishnas Chasidim, and the Gra held by tzitzum kepeshuto. He
also rejects the validity of the text cited by R' Simcha Koffer

Whether you agree with the Leshem (and apparently R' Yitzchok Chaver
did not) is irrelevant to whether your original assertion that no one
holds by such a position - is correct. A discussion of these issues is
contained in the article I cited by Prof. Ross.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/leshemTzimtzum.pdf>

Daniel Eidensohn.

RSC:
> RYGB:
>> I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
>> it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto. 

> This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. To
> explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is heretical
> no less than saying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by anything
> else. "Leis machashavah tefeesah bei klal" means that nothing *at all*
> can be said about the essence of the Boreh (we refer to Him as Boreh
> as pertains to his kesher to our world as Creator but this term is
> not a modification of his essence chs'v) and thus, to state that his
> "Atzmus" was contracted chs'v is the most fundamental kefira in our
> understanding of Hashem. The only reason RYGB qualified his words is
> because Rishonim like the Ra'avad toned down the Rambam's condemnation
> of one who corporealizes Hashem but essentially RYGB is correct regarding
> the crux of the matter.

OK. So you must accept the whole Chabad theology. God's essence and
existence, not just His providence, extend throughout, and make up the
real matter of, what we perceive as the physical universe. God post-
Creation is exactly identical with God pre-Creation, and since God is
infinite, and the universe is finite, God fills and is the universe.
It is only our limited consciousness, as a result of the tzimtzum,
that makes us unable to perceive the reality that we are all God-stuff.

As a logical consequence of your stating that Tzimtzum Eino Kipshuto
is the way it MUST be, then statemtents like "I am God, thou art God,
all that exists is God" is an accurate statement of Jewish theology.
The Church of All Worlds, based on Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 novel,
"Stranger in a Strange Land", is correct. Shabtai Tzvi's "matir issurim"
is correct - why? Because if we are all God-stuff, nothing we do can
be against God's will. Even if it appears to contradict the Torah -
the Torah is just as much an illusory pseudo-creation of God, and we
have no actual requirement to follow its imaginary dictates.

Also, therefore, the Rebbe's father in law, no less than you, I, or
the pencil on my desk, is Atzmus and Mahus of the Ein Sof enclothed in
illusory physical shape. Worshipping the pencil as God, or worship-
ping a cracker (communion wafer) as God, or worshipping a dead man as
God (since the man, while alive, was God as much as you or I) is thus
logical and necessary. If not, why not?

Then also, the Vilna Gaon was a heretic (if his comments in Safra Di-
tzenyusa is not a forgery) - so all his comments on Shulchan Aruch etc.
are not to be accepted. Any followers of the Gra, like, say, much of
Yerushalayim in tefillah, are followers of a heretic.

I just want to see if your statements are only about abstract concepts
like the nature of (our interaction with) God, or are actually statements
of Truth which must be followed to their logical end.

This is the antinomian tension in Chassidic theology - that if the world
is illusion, and we have no real separate existence, then we cannot be
commanded to do X or Y, and further, anything we do is part of God's will.

The last Lubavitcher Rebbe ztvkll"h understood this tension, having
been exposed to the outside world, with a brother who had gone
off the derech, and tried to deal with it in an essay explaining
chapters 4-5 in the second part of Tanya, where this paradoxical
theology is laid out (it can be found in Yiddish in the multivolume
Tanya with commentaries, or in English in the Wineberg commentary,
at http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=7991

R' Alan Brill, when I asked him about this tension in Chassidic theology,
told me "They were Yidden - it wouldn't have occurred to them to go
against Torah & mitzvos - their entire lives were Torah & mitzvos."
But today, when there is much movement in & out of religious life, we are
not all people who have lived Torah our entire lives. For you, probably,
this isn't a theologico-behavioral threat at all. Nor for our esteemed
mod- erator. But for many of us, who were not raised religious, the idea
of living a non-religious life is not all that far-fetched. For those
of us who live in an open society, the Torah-free way always beckons.

Tzimtzum kipeshuto is a) simpler to understand, and b) less behaviorally
problematic. Either way is problematic, come to think of it: kipeshuto
is problematic for the idea that God can't change, eino kipeshuto is
problematic for the antinomian tension. Best just to put such specula-
tion aside (see M. Chaigah 2:1) and get on with learning & living Torah.

   - 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         ]