Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 066

Tuesday, June 13 2000

• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Adam Before and After The Chet
• Re: Adam Before And After The Chet
• Re: Adam Before And After The Chet
• Re: Avodah V5 #64
• Re: Adam Before And After The Chet
• Ex Nihilo
• velo yera'eh becha ervat davar
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Quick Lesson By Example From Rabbi Henkin
• Re: re:Brisker derech
• TIDE and Women's Learning
• Re: Telzer Derech
• Re: Adam Before And After The Chet
• Re: Ex Nihilo
• Yesh koach b'yad chachamim
• Adam Before And After The Chet
• Re: Telzer Derech

RM Berger wrote:

>>As I couldn't find a Sha'arei Yosher (which is why I'm replying over a week 
>>later), I can't answer the questions.

See RYGB's remark in
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n012.shtml

>>However, I'm not sure why you're introducing questions of rov in a 
>>conversation of ta'am. Ta'am exists despite laws of bitul. The ta'am in the 
>>pot is less than 1/60th of the pot, never mind whatever ta'am actually gets 
>>reintroduced into the food. I would see this as an argument in favor of 
>>defining ta'am as an EA (defined in quote), and not the quantity of food 
>>particles actually in the k'li.

If the ta'am exists then why can we eat it?  I am saying bitul berov is the 
reason and we learn bitul berov (as well as azlinan basar ruba) from acharei 
rabim lehatos.  Reb Shimon shows how we can learn both from dayanim.  I think 
there is a Reb Chaim in the stensils who does similarly.

According to you, the Existential Association (EA) of ta'am is assur, not the 
metzius of ta'am.  So bitul is not a way of matiring the issur but of removing 
it altogether.

>>The process of kashuring allows one to think of the k'li as a beria chadashah,
>>to lose the EA to anything before the kashuring.

Or, the process of kashuring removes enough of the ta'am for the remnant to be 
considered non-existent.

According to you, why are their shitos (for which we are machmir) that we can't 
kashur a ben yomo?  Or in non-water?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

 In a message dated 6/8/00 6:27:09 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

<< >>By sinning, Adam proved himself human. Without sin, the notion of free 
will is
 >>extraneous at best. 
      
 Without POTENTIAL for sin there is no free will.  ACTUAL sin is unnecessary. 
>>

True. But wasn't it Rambam's point that the pre-sin Adam was "pure" in his 
efforts at truthseeking and in his love of G-d because he was not yet 
*capable* of sin. That capability came later, when HaShem arranged for the 
forbidden fruit to be forbidden, introducing the emotional concepts of lust, 
corrupting desire, etc. The fact that Adam actually ate the fruit is, as you 
imply, irrelevant. Until Adam became capable of sin --  before HaShem put him 
to the test -- Adam had no potential for sin. The Rambam thought this to have 
left Adam in an elevated state. Once Adam faced the temptations of sin, well, 
his state was no longer elevated. Adam may or may not have had free will all 
along, but until the chet he had no reasons to exercise it.

So while I may have this all wrong, I understand the story of Adam's fall as 
the introduction into human psychology of the potential of sin, i.e., the 
longing for bodily fulfillment, both sexual and otherwise. The key word is 
longing -- the sense of need and unfulfillment, the premonition of death, the 
acceptance that death (in the words of the poet) is the mother of beauty. 
Longing as the seed of mortal love. 

Personally, I just can't buy the Maimonidean notion of Adam frolicking around 
in a heightened state of knowledge and love because he hadn't yet been 
tempted to sin. 
At least you must admit that without such temptation Adam couldn't be called 
Jewish. There was no reasons for Judaism to exist until the temptation 
existed.

David Finch 



 

>>> Is there any way for Adam after the chet to see things objectively or are we
>>> doomed to be subjective because of our internal desires? Is this similar to 
>>> R. Elchanan Wasserman's vort that if one does not fulfill the Torah properly
>>> one can never see objectively?
     
> Fulfilling Torah helps give us HaShem's insight -- without Torah, we are 
> left to our our miserable devices. I'm not sure that internal desire has 
> much to do with it, except in the sense that the literal story-line of the 
> chet addressed such desire.
     
My suggestion (and possibly R. Elchanan Wasserman's) was that without the 
subjugation of our desires (which can only be done properly through Torah) it is
IMPOSSIBLE to see truth because we are stuck in the realm of good and evil 
instead of truth and falsehood.  Not that we are left to our own devices but 
that we are subtly (or not so subtly) diverted from the truth because of our 
hidden (and not so hidden) desires which affect our thoughts.  Only one who has 
mastered his desires through Torah can see clearly.

In a footnote in one of his books, Menachem Kellner dismisses this Reb Elchanan 
because Martin Heidegger was a Nazi and was still brilliant.  BUT did he see the
full truth or did his desires partially cloud his vision.  Clearly he did not 
see the full truth so I don't see the kashya at all.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

RD Finch wrote:

>>But pre-sin Adam was stupid, not smart. It's absurd to think of pre-sin >>Adam
as a "pure" truthseeker or an "intellectual."

See the Moreh Nevuchim 1:2.  The Rambam quotes your view and calls it absurd.

>>By sinning, Adam proved himself human. Without sin, the notion of free will is
>>extraneous at best. 
     
Without POTENTIAL for sin there is no free will.  ACTUAL sin is unnecessary.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On 8 Jun 00, at 8:30, sadya n targum wrote:

> Yitzchok Zirkind writes
> > Torah was Kadma Alpayim Shana Lolom, in it already said Vloi Yeiroeh 
> > Bicha Ervas Davar
> 
> 	Where is this posuk which says "vlo yeiroeh"? 
> 

I think the reference was to Dvarim 23:15 (which actually says "v'lo 
yireh").

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:17:41PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:> 1. What is wrong with walking around naked? It is just our subjectivity that
:>    tells us that it is wrong.

: Torah was Kadma Alpayim Shana Lolom, in it already said Vloi Yeiroeh Bicha
: Ervas Davar, (Ilmolei Nintna Torah, Lomadnu ... Tznius Meichosul is not a
: problem as "Nitnah" torah was after the Chet).

Rashi connects the parah adumah to ma'aseh ha'eigel. Yet, it was written in
the Torah four and a half millenia before the eigel. Avraham earned for us
mei sotah, the straps of tefillin, etc... Your argument is overly strong, in
that there are far too many mitzvos that are given causes that post-date
creation.

-mi

PS: I intentionally omit liting the yomim tovim because that yezti'as Mitzrayim
occured on Pesach because of the nature of Pesach as a z'man for ge'ulah. And
not the Pesach's significance derives from it being the date of the yetzi'ah.

The following is from Hamaayan by Shlomo Katz <skatz@torah.org> distributed by
Project Genesis <http://www.torah.org>.

-mi

: R' Meir Leibush Malbim z"l (19th century rabbi of Bucharest and other cities)
: writes:

: Rambam writes in Moreh Nevochim ("Guide to the Perplexed") that there are
: three views regarding the origin of the world. Some believe that it is very
: ancient, having formed itself at some time in the past when conditions were
: ripe. A second group believes that some higher being created the world,
: but did so with matter that existed previously. The Torah view, in contrast,
: is that G-d formed the world "yesh mai'ayin" / "something out of nothing,"
: not because any outside conditions required it, but simply because He so
: chose.

: Rambam also cites three views regarding the nature of prophecy. Some
: believe that a person need only prepare himself, and prophecy will come on
: its own. Others believe that even after one has prepared himself, prophecy
: will come only if and when G-d chooses. Finally, there are those who believe
: that no preparation is required, for G-d alone determines who His prophets
: will be. Note how each view of prophecy roughly parallels one of the views
: of creation in regard to whether G-d acts alone, circumstances act alone,
: or the two act in combination.

: Interestingly, while the Torah's view is that G-d created the world from
: nothing, needing and receiving no help from any other source, the Torah's
: view of prophecy is that "G-d does not reveal his presence except on one who
: is wise, rich, brave, and humble" (Nedarim 38a). In other words, prophecy
: requires preparation. Why?

: Although Hashem created the world from nothing, He decreed that never again
: would such a miracle occur. Henceforth, He would work through nature. Thus
: Chazal tell us that such miracles as the splitting of the Red Sea were
: ordained at the time of creation (see Chazal's comment on Shemot 14:27.) Why?
: Because if Hashem would repeatedly change creation it would call into
: question creation's perfection and (G-d forbid) that of G-d himself.

: One time in history, prophecy was given to those who were not prepared for
: it, i.e., when Hashem appered to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai. A new creation
: was brought into being for their benefit: Prophecy without prerequisites. Why?

: Chazal say that Hashem did leave one aspect of creation imperfect. As
: Rashi (Bereishit 1:31) explains, G-d made the world's permanent existence
: contingent on one thing. If Bnei Yisrael had not accepted the Torah when it
: was offered at Har Sinai, the world would have returned to its state before
: creation. Without Torah, the world cannot exist. It turns out, therefore,
: that not until the great revelation at Har Sinai was the work of creation
: finished. It is therefore fitting that just as the world was created by Hashem
: without preparation, so, when Bnei Yisrael brought it to completion, they
: should merit a similarly miraculous gift. (Eretz Chemdah: Drush L'Chag
: Shavuot)

R. sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>  wrote:
> Yitzchok Zirkind writes
>> Torah was Kadma Alpayim Shana Lolom, in it already said Vloi Yeiroeh
>> Bicha Ervas Davar

>         Where is this posuk which says "vlo yeiroeh"?

See Devarim 23:15 and the rishonim there.  The Torah describes the
mitzvah of keeping a sanitary military camp, since HKBH is circulating
(mithalech) in the camp to protect you, and would turn around if He saw
"ervat davar".

This is one example where the Torah clearly states Ta'amei haMitzvot.

YH

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:42:32AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: According to you, the Existential Association (EA) of ta'am is assur, not the 
: metzius of ta'am.  So bitul is not a way of matiring the issur but of removing
: it altogether.

According to me, EA is the definition of ta'am. It's not an EA of ta'am --
ta'am is an EA connecting the k'li to tarfus, basar, chalav, chamaeitz,
whatever. Ta'am has no metzi'us -- which is why it's called ta'am. If we
were discussing something with mamashus, it would be batul bishishim, bitul
birov is an understatement.

Which can be done in ways other than kashuring. And, as we had bitul
bishishim even with the ta'am, I'm not sure how to address the topic of
"removing enough". Enough was removed with just soap and water the first
time around.

: According to you, why are their shitos (for which we are machmir) that we
: can't kashur a ben yomo?  Or in non-water?

It's all a question of how tightly halachah expects us to associate a k'li
with its history. Within a day, even with a kashuring process the k'li is
too close to the tarfus.

Non-water actually poses more of a problem to someone who wants to define
ta'am as "microscopic mamshus". What is the non-water were acidic, and is
better at removing those traces of mamashus than water is? It would make
more sense to define kashuring metaphysically or existentially than
mechanically. There are many other ways to clean a kli. Would you matir
something cleaned by ultrasound?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  6-Jun-00: Shelishi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Rabbi Henkin, the person in charge of distributing the charity money of
Ezras Torah of New York, was an employee of this world-known organization.

Rabbi Henkin was known as one of the great poskim [experts on Jewish Law]
of America and many people used to see him in the Ezras Torah office.

As soon as a caller had left, Rabbi Henkin would record in his notebook
the exact time he had spent with the caller. He would later deduct the
appropriate amount from his salary.

SOURCE: TORAH GUIDE TO MONEY MATTERS, by 
Rabbi S. Wagschal, 1996, page 87, Feldheim Publishers.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:
Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (1880-1973, Orthodox) was born in Eastern Europe
and moved to the United States in 1922. In 1925, he was appointed director
of Ezras Torah, a charity founded to help poor Rabbincal scholars.

Sadya N. Targum:
> You asked for the "why" to go with the "what."  What I thought I was
> adding was just such a reason: that in n'zirus, there can be no s'tirah
> on what has already been completed, since it is already over and done
> with. Once the 100 days are over, there is no more minyan left to be
> interrupted; however, until the korbonos are brought, the n'zirus is
> still in existence, and hence can have s'tirah.

But that is soemwhat of a pardaox: Is he a nazir, a semi-nazir, a quasi-nazir;
what is the mechanism in nezirus that generates a diffference -

I actually think Brisker lomdus is takkeh in order here, because, not being
talui b'da'as bnei adam or any other logical antecedent, we are forced to
create arbitrary categorical differences - but I am not sure that can be
termed "why".

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Interesting to note that when RSRH speaks about women's obligation to learn,
> found later in 494...
> Note the similarity in language to his description of the thirds of learning
> obligated of men. To me it looks like he's saying that women are obligated
> in Mikra and Mishna, but not in Gemara.

Not for nought was Sarah Schneirer inspired by RSRH, and the BY movement
in Europe heavily populated by German educators: The classic Misnagdic and
Chassidic paradigms have no provisions for women in Talmud Torah (barely any
for their Avodas Hashem in general): One needs turn to RSRH for that. Indeed,
except for Gemoro, I think the curriculum in the Hirsch Realschule was almost
identical for boys and girls.

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Tanya:
>     Chochmah = cho-ach mah: the initial insight, like the point of a yud, an
>	undeveloped thought as it enters the mind.
>     Binah: reasoning, the thought broadened and deepened, extending the point
>	to a hei.
>     Da'as: knowledge, the internalization of the results of chochmah and
>	binah, so that it shapes how one thinks and acts.

> Telzh (according to your summary of RYLB's shitah):
>     Chochmah: knowledge, the accumulated facts -- part of the Ba'al haTanya's
>	concept of "da'as"
>     Binah: understanding, cateforization and extrapolation -- similar to the
>	BhT
>     Da'as: the internalization of chochmah and binah to the extent of having
>	certainty.

The mekkubalim identify da'as tachton (the chibbur of chochmao and bino) vs.
da'as elyon (ruach ha'kodesh and scale models thereof). Is it possible that the
the different focus in each of your models correlates to that distinction?

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

I wrote:

>Without POTENTIAL for sin there is no free will.  ACTUAL sin is unnecessary. 
     
RD Finch wrote:

>>True. But wasn't it Rambam's point that the pre-sin Adam was "pure" in his 
>>efforts at truthseeking and in his love of G-d because he was not yet 
>>*capable* of sin. That capability came later, when HaShem arranged for the 
>>forbidden fruit to be forbidden, introducing the emotional concepts of 
>>lust, corrupting desire, etc.  The fact that Adam actually ate the fruit 
>>is, as you imply, irrelevant. Until Adam became capable of sin --  before 
>>HaShem put him to the test -- Adam had no potential for sin.

I don't think the Rambam took a stand on this but the kabbalistic point of 
view, as RM Berger and R. Chaim Friedlander connected to the Rambam, is that 
prior to the Chet, Adam had no INTERNAL compunction to sin (no lust, 
desires...) but could be EXTERNALLY induced to sin.  Adam was absolutely 
capable of sinning.

According to you, Adam changed BEFORE the sin when Hashem made him capable of 
sinning.  The change was before the sin but after his initial creation.  That 
is a very big chiddush.

>>At least you must admit that without such temptation Adam couldn't be 
>>called Jewish. There was no reasons for Judaism to exist until the 
>>temptation existed.

I think we would all agree that Adam was not Jewish.  He only had six mitzvos.  
However, liymos hamoshiach we will all be on the madreiga of Adam before the 
Chet but we will still be Jews.
     
Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com
     
     
     
     

: R' Meir Leibush Malbim z"l (19th century rabbi of Bucharest and other cities) 
: writes:
     
: Interestingly, while the Torah's view is that G-d created the world from 
: nothing, needing and receiving no help from any other source, the Torah's
: view of prophecy is that "G-d does not reveal his presence except on one who 
: is wise, rich, brave, and humble" (Nedarim 38a). In other words, prophecy
: requires preparation. Why?
     
: One time in history, prophecy was given to those who were not prepared for 
: it, i.e., when Hashem appered to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai. A new creation
: was brought into being for their benefit: Prophecy without prerequisites. Why?

IIRC, the Malbim's shitah on prophecy is a little more nuanced.  In his peirush 
to the beginning of a number of sefarim (Amos comes to mind) the Malbim says 
that when Hashem needs a prophet he will choose the most eligible prophet who 
can fulfill the mission and sometimes that navi is not that eligible.

I believe that the Rambam in Shemoneh Perakim also says that the requirements 
for nevu'ah (ashir, anav, gibor, and chacham) are not absolute requirements but 
the more prepared one is for nevu'ah, the clearer the nevu'ah.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

R' Akiva Eiger in Hil Nesiyas Kapayim (Y"T was a good chance to chazer it)
writes that a kohein who is pasul m'derabbanan should exit the shul before
nesiyas kapayim bec. even though yesh koach b'yad chachamim to be oiker
the mitzva of duchening, the kohein would still be oiver an aseh b'ones.
Two chiddushim: 1)yesh koach works even on an issur aseh 2) if you rely on
yesh koach b'yad chachamim you are stil oiver the aseh, albeit b'ones.

(Possible precedent for #1 would be Tos. kashe in Yevamos 90 by tzitzis =
an issur aseh to wear a beged of 4 corners without tzitzis?)

-CB

In a message dated 6/12/00 11:21:05 AM US Central Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> I don't think the Rambam took a stand on this but the kabbalistic point of 
> view, as RM Berger and R. Chaim Friedlander connected to the Rambam, is that 
> prior to the Chet, Adam had no INTERNAL compunction to sin (no lust, 
> desires...) but could be EXTERNALLY induced to sin.  Adam was absolutely 
> capable of sinning.
 
> According to you, Adam changed BEFORE the sin when Hashem made him capable of 
> sinning.  The change was before the sin but after his initial creation.  
> That is a very big chiddush.

Tell me what you mean by Adam's lack of "internal compunction to sin." You
appear to be saying that Adam had no temptation to sin, but, in your words,
could be "externally induced" -- i.e., forced -- to sin. That's like saying
that I could force a talented parakeet to sing the Ave Maria. There's
no volition, no weighing of desire against spiritual command, of need
against moderation. There's no sin, really, except in the most technical
and irrelevant sense.

If that's the case, then it's not much of a chiddush to say that HaShem
created the mechanism for meaningful sin when He forbid the eating of the
forbidden fruit.

David Finch

On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:33:41AM -0500, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: The mekkubalim identify da'as tachton (the chibbur of chochmao and bino) vs.
: da'as elyon (ruach ha'kodesh and scale models thereof). Is it possible that
: the the different focus in each of your models correlates to that distinction?

AIUI, which admittedly is with much ignorance, da'as elyon is used in two ways:

1- The non-Kabbalistic ba'alei machshavah use it to refer to something akin
to Plato's notion of Idea or Logos, or Plotinus's "nous" (which became a
feature of neo-Platonism). The place where Plato's ideal horse exists, of
which real horses are merely shadows on the cave wall. It's a hypostasis,
and an emanation that is "closer" to HKBH than what we call "the real world".

We see this idea in Mekor Chaim (in general, Ibn Geveirol was a neo-Platonist),
and in Chovos halVavos much is made about proving that the Logos is a
hypostasis, a nivrah, and not ch"v a divisible unit of HKBH. (R' Bachya ibn
Pekudah may have been intentionally refuting the position of the Notzrim on
this point.)

IOW, we must be very clear that this is a nivrah, and is NOT to be confused
with the anthropomorphic notion of Hashem's "Da'as". Da'as elyon is real,
Hashem's "Da'as" is an illusion, a product of us trying to percieve Him.
R' Saadia Gaon's or the Rambam's notion of "Hashem acts in ways that people
would require da'as to act".

2- In Kabbalah, this idea gets expanded by the fact that there is a sephirah
of da'as.

Da'as tachton is therefore man's da'as, da'as elyon is the cosmic da'as,
the expression of Hashem's "Da'as" through which our da'as, and everything
intelligable in creation, exists. There is only one da'as elyon, but there's
at least one da'as tachton per person.

I say "at least one" because R' Shalom Ber of Lubavitch writes that each
level of nara"n cha"i has it's own chaba"d. Given that the Tanya might say
there's one nara"n cha"i each for the neshamah E-lokis and for the neshamah
beheimis, there would therefore be 10 dei'os tachtonios per person.

FWIW, this resolves Einstein's mystery as to why the universe is so
comprehensible. The da'as elyon which is the organization behind the rest of
beri'ah is also the makor of da'as tachton with which we try to comprehend
the beri'ah.

This difference of perspective between you and I came into our discussion of
da'as Torah, which I defined as bringing one's da'as (i.e. da'as tachton) in
congruance with da'as elyon via limud Torah. This then provides the channel
through which one recieves ruach hakodesh; or, in more rationalistic terms,
by having HKBH's perspective one is more likely to hear what He is saying.

According to the way I understood the Gr"a, conscious thought is the ruach,
or a faculty thereof. (I'm unsure which the Gaon is means.) Awareness of
"elyon" is the neshamah, or a faculty of the neshamah. Therefore in this
model of a ben adam, the union of da'as tachton and da'as elyon requires
bringing one's ruach together with one's neshamah. The "mechanics" are all
internal to the self. Self-perfection leads to perception of HKBH's "yad" --
d'veikus is a product of sheleimus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Jun-00: Levi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 20b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

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


[ 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         ]