Volume 29: Number 14
Wed, 08 Feb 2012
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:54:53 -0800
Subject: [Avodah] why stop learning?
so then the sentiment is that davening for a person , is a bigger zchus
than learning for that person?
and certainly more than doing a chessed for the zchus of that person?
because we are now in an era of all kinds of sgulos /ceremonies for
healing eg baking challa
then the conclusion would be , that actually dropping all those acts
and just davening would be more efficacious.
and is there an analogy in the le'ilui nishmas category? i presume
there leading davening in the 1st year is kenedged kulam .
but what about after that? there seem to be an endless varieties of
memorial gemachs/funds etc ; so presumably there isn't one thing better
than
another?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120206/bd105b9f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:53:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] s&amora
Related to this discussion:
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero/14chavero.htm
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #14: Tzedek II -- Middat Sedom and Its Relation to Us
In last week's lesson, we developed the concept of tzedek, righteous
behavior rooted in feelings of legal obligation and responsibility. We
tried to illustrate how God seeks to clarify for Avraham the proper
definition of tzedaka and mishpat, by revealing to him that the legal
system of Sedom has produced an incorrigible society, to which the
only remedy is destruction. We started to identify Sedom's corrupt
system of legalized cruelty; in fact, a true understanding of their
outlook is essential for recognizing similar inclinations amongst
ourselves.
Before identifying the evil of Sedom, we must be very clear on what
the Jewish understanding of tzedek is, as we discussed last week. A
proper delineation of tzedek is essential for any individual
who strives to be a tzaddik, a righteous individual, one who
fulfills all the dictates that Avraham gave to his descendants. An
accurate definition of tzedek is essential for another reason as
well. Sometimes we find ourselves giving undue credit to ourselves
because of "righteous" behavior that we exhibit. While this is indeed
praiseworthy, many of our activities are rooted in obligations; the
simple reason is that they express an outlook of Jewish justice in
which not everything we have is truly "ours."
Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler explains that a priori, people may feel
that tzedek, righteousness, should demand that all which they own is
truly theirs; however, this is, in fact, viewed as characteristic
of Sedom. Avraham's beseeching God on behalf of Sedom reveals that
there is no tzedek and there are no tzaddikim in Sedom. He explains
why this is:
Truthfully, when God gives out property to individuals, he
gives out property that in reality belongs to others; if so,
what belongs to my friend is in my possession, even though
it is really his. So says the Rambam. My father zt"l would
say that even a friendly face when greeting your friend is an
entitlement that others have a right to demand from you, and if
you do not provide it for your friend, then you are performing
an injustice... Therefore, the root of tzedaka is tzedek,
because it is unjust not to give to another what, in fact, is
rightfully his. This is Jewish justice... outside of the realm
of chesed. (Mikhtav Mei-Eliyahu vol. 5, p. 36)
Sedom's outlook stands diametrically opposed to this Jewish
understanding of tzedek. They espouse the philosophy "What I have
is mine, and what you have is yours" (Avot 5:10) -- unless "I" know
how to appropriate "what you have" legally. This becomes known as
"middat Sedom", the behavior, trait or values-system of Sedom,
for all generations.
...
Middat Sedom
The Mishna in Avot (5:10) lists four different character types...
Among the character types listed here are the unlearned, the wicked,
the pious, and the initial character type which some define as
average and others as "middat Sedom." Regarding this first individual
mentioned in the mishna, the one who says "What I have is mine and
what you have is yours," the question can be asked: how could it
be that the two opinions are so divergent? Some scholars consider
this attitude to be innocuous, average, while others view it as the
root of all evil, middat Sedom. The various commentators attempt to
understand the distinction between the two opinions in ways that
would explain their diverging outlooks. Rabbeinu Yona asks this
question in a very straightforward manner.
This [disagreement] raises a question. How can it be that the Sages
of the Talmud disagree about the classification of middot? Everyone
is familiar with them and agrees as to what they are. The prophet
Yechezkel explicitly states that withholding charity is the midda
of Sedom and our Sages (Ketubot 68a) often call one who does so
totally wicked...
One can divide the various explanations into different categories:
A group of commentators explained that the attitude "What I have
is mine and what you have is yours" is to be viewed differently
depending on one's motives; it is not identical for all who share
this attitude. For instance, Rabbeinu Yona explains that the Mishna
is definitely not referring to a difference of opinion as to how to
view one who does not give tzedaka. Rather, it must refer to someone
who gives charity for the wrong reasons, and therefore there is
room for different outlooks on this individual. He identifies the
person discussed as one who provides for others out of a sense of
religious obligation, while inside he is selfish; he will, therefore,
only provide what the strict halakha obligates him to give.
It must be that they only disagree about the specific characteristics
which this mishna refers to, namely giving charity as required
by Halakha, because the giver is God-fearing, but not because
he is generous. By nature he is not a giver, but a miser. He is
not generous, for he does not want the world to benefit from his
property. He also does not want to benefit from others, because "one
who hates gifts will live" (Mishlei 15:27). This is average; some
say it is the trait of Sedom. However, even if he is not naturally
generous, he still does give to the poor when asked because he
is God-fearing. If so, what does it matter what sort of nature
he has? His behavior is average. Others say that his behavior is
characteristic of Sedom; its roots are evil, and it distances one
from generosity.
Rabbenu Yona seems to imply that the second opinion in the mishna
holds that middat Sedom can be very subtle; it does not necessarily
refer to someone who refuses to give charity. Even one who provides
for the needy without the proper measure of generosity might fit
into this category, which is a rather scary thought.
Rav Hirsch explains succinctly that this attitude, while objectively
average, is liable to undermine an individual's caring heart, until
it completely corrodes a person's empathy:
It would seem that the idea that every person should keep that
which is his and that no one else should derive benefit from
the property of another is midway between good and evil. Some,
however, feel that it is a most reprehensible attitude, because
it would expunge from the human heart and mind the guiding
principle of loving-kindness without which man would lose his
divinely-given nobility, and human society would be deprived of
the goal ordained for it as its destiny.
Many others commentators view the directive as societal. One
individual in a community who does not want to share with and does
not expect others to share with him is tolerable. However, when it
becomes the prevalent attitude of society, then one will witness
the cruel and deplorable outlook that will infest the minds of all
inhabitants, so much so that major efforts will be made to protect
this middat Sedom. (See Lachmei Toda and others.)
...
Continues with the halakhos of kofin al midas Sodom, as I already
raised before reading this mailing (but after printing it up and simply
seeing it).
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM)
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:58:11 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] The Day of Death
Another YHE ("Gush") email raises the question of whether the advice
R' Levi bar Chama repeats in the name of Reish Lakish really works:
R. Levi bar Chama said in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish: A
person should always incite his good inclination against his evil
inclination, as it says: "Tremble and do not sin." If he succeeds,
well and good; if not, he should engage in Torah study, as it says:
"Commune with your own heart." If he succeeds, well and good; if
not, he should recite the Shema, as it says: "Upon your bed." If
he succeeds, well and good; if not, he should remind himself of the
day of death, as it says: "And be still. Selah" (Berakhot 5a).
Skipping to the maqanah of http://vbm-torah.org/archive/aggada72/13aggada.htm
Despite the cogency of the above approaches, I believe that a
more profound argument lies at the heart of R. Shimon ben Lakish's
reluctance to use the day of death as a spur to repentance. R. Reisher
argues that the day of death is a very effective medicine, but one
with dangerous side effects. But one can challenge R. Reisher's
assumption that remembering the day of death is effective. R Eliyahu
Lopian (1876 -- 1970) was an influential Rosh Yeshiva and Mashgiach
(Yeshiva head and spiritual advisor) in England and Israel. In his
Lev Eliyahu (parashat Toldot), he insightfully explains why musing
about death may be ineffective. Thoughts of mortality certainly
create a sense of urgency; given little time, we rightfully focus
on what we truly care about. Yet some people's ultimate concerns
revolve around the trivial and the mundane. If a person's lifetime
goal is pursuing the perfect steak, then thinking about the limited
time remaining will only energize his attempts to locate novel steak
options. As Yeshayahu pointed out long ago, some react to the prospect
of death by indulging in physicality: "And behold joy and gladness,
slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine--'Let
us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die!'" (Yeshayahu 22:13). A
sense of urgency only helps those whose heart is in the right place
to begin with.
R. Lopian cites an earlier biblical source for this idea. Esav
says: "I am at the point of death; what do I need the birthright
for?" (Bereishit 25:32). According to Rashi, Esav considers the
many halakhic restrictions involved in Temple service and foresees
committing a capital offense. In a more straightforward reading, Ibn
Ezra explains that hunting reflects a dangerous lifestyle, so Esav
harbors constant doubts about how long he will live. Either way,
thoughts of mortality do not bring Esav to greater religiosity;
on the contrary, they make him think about his next meal.
Chatam Sofer's creative reading of a different gemara echoes
R. Lopian's insight:
Reish Lakish sold himself to the Ludae (Rashi Shabbat 10a says
that they Ludae were cannibals. Marcus Jastrow says that they
were people who hire men for gladiatorial contests). He took with
him a sack and a stone. He said (to himself): "I know that on a
person's last day (before they kill him), they grant him whatever
he wishes so that his blood will be atoned for." On his last day,
they said: "What would you like?" He said: "I want to tie you
up and sit you down and give each one of you a sack and a half
(i.e. hit them with the sack)." He tied them up and sat them
down. He hit each one of them, and their spirit departed. They
gnashed their teeth. He said: "Are you smiling at me? I still
have another half to give you." He killed them all (Gittin 47a).
We could take this gemara at face value, portraying Reish Lakish as
heroically and cleverly removing scourges of society. Accepting such
a literal approach, Tosafot think this story must have occurred
in the earlier stages of Reish Lakish's life, before he joined
the world of the beit midrash (see Bava Metzia 84a). Yet given the
fantastical nature of this tale, it might make more sense to read it
allegorically. R. Sofer does so by connecting this gemara with Reish
Lakish's statement in Berakhot 5a. He identifies the Ludae as the
evil inclination that consumes flesh. The hit refers to Shema and
Torah study, the preferable ways of subduing the evil inclination;
the half hit refers to recalling the day of death, a less optimum
strategy. Given Reish Lakish's righteousness, the first hit knocked
out the evil inclination, and he did not require the half hit.
Like R. Lopian, R. Sofer mentions the possibility of mortality
motivating a turn to hedonism. He says that remembering the day of
death only works when one first studies Torah and recites Shema. Given
the right background and priorities, thoughts of death can help. Yet
this strategy has great limitations; it requires the right context
to work and, even when effective, causes negative side effects.
Educators who are frustrated by their students' apathy may try to
up the emotional ante by talking about such matters as death or
the Holocaust. They feel that only such powerful themes will affect
indifferent students. R. Lopian and R. Sofer remind us not to quickly
adopt such an approach. Torah study and reciting the Shema are more
basic and positive educational strategies.
(Personally I get a kick out of noticing how often teshuvah-related
discussions in the gemara involve R' Shimon ben Laqish.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:04:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] s&amora
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 02:53:37PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: Related to this discussion:
: http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero/14chavero.htm
More, now from the prior email in that series:
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero/13chavero.htm
An analysis of the Midrashic sources yields a still darker picture
of Sedom: a society based on social norms of iniquity beneath a
cloak of legality. The inhabitants of Sedom relapsed, returning to
antediluvian crimes. The Midrash Rabba (31) teaches that they would
steal items worth less than a peruta, the minimum amount for criminal
liability. Sin was sanctioned; violating the cruel laws was not.
Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (25) states that public ordinances were
issued, making it the law of the land that pity was a capital offense:
They issued a proclamation in Sedom saying: "Everyone who
strengthens the hand of the poor and needy with a loaf of bread
shall be burnt in the flames."
Lack of hospitality was not merely the norm; it was mandated and
required....
One could imagine that the people of Sedom had arrived at their
legal system based on some deep-seated beliefs -- for instance,
that each man gets what he deserves from God. However, the verse in
Yechezkel seems to speak of haughtiness and the failure to perform
kindness. The Tosefta (Sota 3, quoted in Sanhedrin 109a) describes
their mindset as based on an understanding of the beautiful land
they had (13:10-11) and a fear that outsiders would flood their
region and take it over. The Ramban expresses this clearly:
The people of Sedom intended to prevent the entry of all
strangers. They believed (as our Rabbis maintain) that many
people would come to their land on account of its fertility. They
refused to share their bounty with the less fortunate... Yechezkel
similarly testifies that this was their offense... They rebelled
in their prosperity and persecuted the poor... According to our
Sages, they were notorious for every kind of evil, but their fate
was sealed due to their persistence in failing to support the
poor and the needy. They were continually guilty of this sin,
and no other nation could be compared to Sedom for its cruelty.
...
Rav Hirsch (v. 19) puts it nicely as he answers some pressing
questions: What was the message of the despicable system of justice
employ in Sedom? Where did it go wrong that it had to be destroyed?
Sedom was a pleasure-seeking world, addicted to sensual
enjoyments, a world that ultimately valued a person only to the
extent that he was useful or provided pleasure. Precisely such
a world is likely to twist the idea of strict justice into a
double-edged sword of shameless sophism, arguing, "What I have is
mine, and what you have is yours" (Avot 5:10). According to this
worldview, egoism is a sacred principle of life, helplessness
is considered a crime, and offering assistance is considered
a folly and an offense against the public welfare. Under the
rule of the principles of Sedom, entitlements were dictated
only by achievements, not by needs; the poor and the needy were
despised. Only a wealthy man, like Lot, who was bound to provide
jobs and profit, could perhaps be granted rights; but begging
was forbidden, and those who could not support themselves,
were punished, imprisoned and exiled.
Mishpat without tzedaka is deprived of the human spark, and it
turns into cruelty. By contrast, Avraham's testament to his
descendants places tzedaka before mishpat. What is more, in
certain cases the legal code of the children of Avraham regards
tzedaka too as mishpat, a legal obligation... Avraham is to direct
his children to give Jewish tzedaka, not the pittance to the
poor that makes the giver proud and humiliates the recipient,
nor the public aid designed to protect the rich against the
bitter anger of the destitute and despairing. He is to direct
his children to practice the mitzva of tzedaka, which entitles
everyone who is in need to exercise rights vested in him by
God. This mitzva helps the poor stand tall before the rich and
makes the rich man realize that he is merely the custodian of
funds that rightfully belong to the poor.
...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:07:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] why stop learning?
R' SZN:
so then the sentiment is that davening for a person , is a bigger zchus
than learning for that person?
and certainly more than doing a chessed for the zchus of that person?
<SNIP>
---------------------
I just saw a great story that says the opposite. The Rogatchover was known
for his short tefillos on Yom Kippur. He used to daven quickly, and then sit
down and learn for the rest of the day. He explained that when he davens,
he's talking to Hashem. And when he learns, Hashem is talking to him. "And
on Yom Kippur, I'd rather Hashem is talking to me than I am talking to Him!"
KT,
MYG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120207/aa10a902/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:10:11 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] The Workings of Tefillah
Last in a series of teasers for YHE emails, this one on approaches to
tefillah, and how to understand what we hope to accomplish. Obviously,
the Borei doesn't need to be told of your need, He isn't going to be
swayed by our nagging, and He would do what is best for us either way.
So why are we davening?
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/faith/12faith.htm
PRINCIPLES OF FAITH
By Rav Joshua Amaru
...
3. The Anthropocentric Conception of Prayer
The conception of prayer most prevalent amongst the classical medieval
Jewish philosophers is articulated most fully by Rav Yosef Albo in
his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim.[3] Human beings cannot change God: as opposed
to a king of flesh and blood, the King of Kings, who is perfect and
eternal, is not subject to influence and not affected by us. Prayer
should be conceived as a fundamentally human-focused activity; in
other words, prayer is anthropocentric. Though addressed to God,
the act of prayer does not affect the Divine -- it does not "work"
by changing God's mind. Rather, it affects the pray-er and changes
his or her personality and standing. Prayer is an act that gains
one merit: in praying, in turning to God and crying out to Him, a
person becomes more worthy and more deserving, and divine judgment
may change in light of this change. God does not change -- the person
praying is changed, and this can at times lead to the realization
of one's prayers.
As one would imagine, one who subscribes to the anthropocentric
approach to prayer has an easier time accommodating prayers of
praise and thanksgiving than prayers of petition. In encountering
the greatness of God and His Creation, he or she is inspired and
perhaps obliged to sing His praises; likewise the human object of
divine grace is morally obligated to express thanksgiving. Petition,
however, remains a problem from this perspective: it is not clear
what human good is achieved by the detailing of our needs before an
all-knowing God and begging for His grace.
4. The Theurgical Conception of Prayer
At the other end of the spectrum lies what we can call theurgical
prayer. Theurgy is an activity in which human action affects or
influences the divine, through prayers or rituals. Praying becomes
part of a larger spectrum of religious ritual activity that is
dedicated to changing and improving the spiritual world. Prayer,
so to speak, can "work," in that it can effect a change in spiritual
reality.
In the Kabbalistic tradition we find a great deal of sophisticated
theurgical thinking. Such notions as "raising the sparks," and
"tikkun olamot elyonim" (repairing of upper worlds) are metaphors
for the ways that prayer (and mitzvot) can make a change on a higher
plane. These approaches posit a complex theological reality, of
which the ten sefirot are the most basic components. In performing
mitzvot, and especially through prayer and specific kavvanot,[4]
a person can make a positive difference to spiritual reality in a
way that reverberates also in the everyday world.[5] The perfection
of God is protected by the fact that divinity is mediated through
this complex reality, such that God's higher aspect remains perfect
while He grants people the ability to affect His lower aspects.
Though there is great power and nuance to be found in this
approach, there are two aspects of it that I, at least, find
very difficult. First of all, one must affirm the reality of an
elaborate spiritual reality that is subject to human influence in
a manner that appears magical. The gap between the magicians and
diviners forbidden by the Torah and permitted "magical" practices
becomes very small. Furthermore, the conception of influence on God
as quasi-magical promotes a kind of mechanistic theology. God is
conceived almost as a force rather than as a person, and someone
who has the correct knowledge and technology can manipulate this
force. It goes without saying that this is not how advocates of this
approach conceive of themselves.
These extreme approaches mirror one another's basic strengths and
weaknesses. ...
It is important to appreciate that these brief summaries border
on caricatures of what are profound attempts to grapple with the
concept of prayer and, more generally, the relationship between the
human and the divine....
5. Rav Soloveitchik's Existentialist Conception of Prayer
In his writings posthumously published in Worship of the Heart, Rav
Joseph B. Soloveitchik (hereafter, "the Rav") elaborates a conception
of prayer that marginalizes the question of how or whether prayer
"works." Rather, claims the Rav, prayer must be understood as
primarily a medium of religious experience, as a mode of forming a
relationship with God:
The efficacy of prayer is not the central term of inquiry in
our philosophy of avoda she-ba-lev.... The basic function of
prayer is not its practical consequences but the metaphysical
formation of a fellowship consisting of God and man.[6]
Prayer is the realization of a dialogical relationship between the
individual and God, in which the pray-er is the speaker and God is
the listener. Its parallel is prophecy, in which these roles are
reversed. In both cases, communication leads to communion, and the
human comes into contact with the divine.
Petitional prayer is at center of this religious experience. The
Rav emphasizes the fact that petitional prayer is a mitzva,
a religious obligation. In a person's realization of his or her
utter dependence upon God, in recognition of his or her existential
"depth crisis," both the need and the obligation to call out to God
are formed. Every person must realize that despite the greatness
of the human personality, each individual is a "being born out of
nothingness and running down to nothingness."[7] We are equipped
with infinite imagination and desire but "must be satisfied with
a restricted, bounded existence."[8] The mitzva of prayer includes
the responsibility that a person realize this fact and experience
the distress attendant upon it. From the depths of crisis, a
person is drawn to call upon God out of the realization of his
utter dependence. This call, when issued from the depths of the
human personality, brings about the miraculous manifestation of the
divine presence.
...
6. Prayer as Intersubjective Influence
I now turn to a final conception of prayer, which I think is very
widespread; it is the simple meaning of the liturgy as well as
the mainstream understanding of prayer found in both the Torah and
Chazal. What I have to add is merely a philosophical defense of the
idea that petitioning God is an actual request of an individual to his
Maker, which includes at least the possibility that the request will
be answered affirmatively. It is explicitly an attempt to influence
and impact upon the Divine.
How can such a conception of prayer be accommodated to the idea of
God as transcendent, complete, perfect and all-knowing? The short
answer is that it cannot -- but that is not a tragedy. As I have
emphasized in previous shiurim, insistence on the transcendence of
God as our point of departure produces nothing but silence. We cannot
think about or relate to a fully transcendent God -- all we can do
is point to the presence of a being beyond our ability to grasp. Yet
the transcendent God, in His chesed (grace), has chosen to manifest
Himself to us, as a subject, with various personae: the King of Kings,
the Lawgiver, the merciful Father, etc. Our relationship with God is
necessarily limited and constrained by our own limitations, and all of
religion is mediated by the varying conceptions we have of God. None
of these are complete, but by negotiating our way amongst them we
can accomplish, to some limited extent, the seemingly impossible and
have a relationship with the Divine. That relationship can include
situations in which we make requests of God and they are answered.
Yet even within our human conceptions of God, petitional prayer
poses a problem. If God is the ultimate arbiter of justice, who
determines the fate of everyone and everything in accordance with its
just deserts, then even the hope that God might "change His mind"
because of someone's petition amounts to a scandal. Should a judge
change his verdict because the convicted criminal falls to his knees
and begs for mercy? Doing so would make a mockery of justice! How
is petitioning God for mercy any different?
...
But there is another sort of influence. How we relate to another
is not indifferent to the nature of the relationship or to the
forms in which it is expressed. This is perhaps easiest to see with
parents and children. When the same child asks nicely for the candy,
the parent might be inclined to loosen up the rules a bit (no candy
before dinner). This is not necessarily the parent acting against his
better judgment, but in accordance with it. It is possible to err in
the direction of being overly rigid, even in enforcing appropriate
rules, while it may be preferable to let things go occasionally. When
these occasions are, and how frequent they are, will be functions
of the relationship between the parent and the child. The trust the
parent has in the child, as well as the circumstances, which include
whether the child has asked for a special treat and how he has asked,
all play a role.
Chazal (the Rabbis of the Talmud) understood a person's relationship
to God in an analogous fashion. They make use of different images
to represent the ways that God relates to the world. Most prominent
are the images of God as judge, exhibiting the attribute of justice,
and the image of God as merciful Father, exhibiting the attribute
of mercy. The scandal arises when we presume that justice is
to be equated with some sort of ultimate rightness, the correct
way for God to manage the world. If so, then any divergence from
that is a scandal. But the Rabbis did not conceive of justice in
this comprehensive fashion. A judge must never allow his judgment
to diverge from the fair and the just. But God is not merely a
judge. Justice is but one of the ways that divine concern for the
world is manifest...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Elliot
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:52:16 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Learning while getting a haircut
Listening to a shiur about the Rogatchover and his long hair. Anyone know if it's assur to learn without a kippah while you are getting your hair cut?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120207/55032e09/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:10:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] s&amora
Thanks to an email by RMPoppers, I found R' Lord Jonathan Sacks' takes
on the issue. From Covenant and Conversation, Noach 5768
<http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1021>:
...
The Netziv (R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893), writing in
Czarist Russia and prophetically foreseeing the worst excesses
of communism, sees Babel as the world's first totalitarianism,
in which to preserve the masses as a single entity, all freedom
of expression is suppressed (that, for him, is the meaning of "the
whole world had one language and a unified speech"). Intoxicated by
their technological prowess, the builders of Babel believe they had
become like G-ds and could now construct their own cosmopolis, their
man-made miniature universe. Not content with earth, they wanted to
build an abode in heaven. It is a mistake many civilizations have
made, and the result is catastrophe.
In modern times, the re-enactment of Babel is most clearly associated
with the name of Nietzsche (1844-1890). For the last ten years of his
life, he was clinically insane, but shortly before his final breakdown
he had a nightmare vision which has become justly famous:
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright
morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly,
"I seek G-d! I seek G-d!"... "Whither is G-d? he cried. "I shall
tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers
... G-d is dead. G-d remains dead. And we have killed him. How
shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? What
was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned
has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off
us? ... Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must
we not ourselves become G-ds simply to seem worthy of it?"
As George Steiner pointed out (in his In Bluebeard's Castle)
there was less than three-quarters of a century between Nietzsche
and the Holocaust, between his vision of the murder of G-d and
the deliberate, systematic attempt to murder the "people of G-d"
(Hitler called conscience "a Jewish invention").
When human beings try to become more than human, they quickly
become less than human. As Lord Acton pointed out, even the great
city-state of Athens which produced Socrates, Plato and Aristotle,
self-destructed when "the possession of unlimited power, which
corrodes the conscience, hardens the heart, and confounds the
understanding of monarchs, exercised its demoralising influence." What
went wrong in Athens, he writes, was the belief that "there is no
law superior to that of the State - the lawgiver is above the law."
...
In http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/torah/babel%E2%80%99s-la
rger-theme/2011/10/26/0/
or http://bit.ly/yF49cx , the CR compares Kayin (whose children invent
cities and industry), Bavel (anothe rcity), Sodom and Mitzrayim as
a backdrop for Avraham and the birth of Yahadus. Also worth a look,
although less relevent to the aspect we're discussing.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:06:29 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Tu BiShvat today
Topic of conversation among the co workers who came by my cubicle for
raisins, dates, olives, and discussions of bugs on raisins or dates...
All qabbalah aside, just talking nafqa mina lemaaseh, what is Tu biShvat
today?
All we could come up with was orlah and not saying tachanun. Did we
miss anything?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Michael Kopinsky <mkopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:24:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu BiShvat today
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> All qabbalah aside, just talking nafqa mina lemaaseh, what is Tu biShvat
> today?
>
> All we could come up with was orlah and not saying tachanun. Did we
> miss anything?
>
Maaser sheini??
KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120208/e795d974/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:32:16 -0800
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu BiShvat today
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Topic of conversation among the co workers who came by my cubicle for
> raisins, dates, olives, and discussions of bugs on raisins or dates...
>
> All qabbalah aside, just talking nafqa mina lemaaseh, what is Tu biShvat
> today?
>
> All we could come up with was orlah and not saying tachanun. Did we
> miss anything?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
Is there an inyan of biur during a shemita year in EY? Also, is there an
issue of taking maaser of chadash al yashan, or are both of those inyanim
only nogeiah with shemita d'oraita?
Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120208/b77b2466/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 14
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."