Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 042

Friday, May 18 2001

• Was re: VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98; Now: Rov's
• Re: VIDC #10: MC vol. 1p. 116
• Re: VIDC #10
• Re: VIDC #10: MC vol. 1p. 116
• Re: Sheirut Le'umi
• Shevi'is and Tefilah
• hishtadlus and shmitta
• yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• RE: yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• RE: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• RE: yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Lishma by Mitzvos
• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Re: Mekatreig
• RE: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Mesdaer Kidushin
• Re: Mesdaer Kidushin
• SL and sl
• Derech Hashem on the hashkafic fork
• Sfas Emes (Zechuso Tagein Aleinu), Be'Chukosai, 5632

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> Second, they are both leisa likaman....

I am glad you brought these points up. Since I believe you possess a
Bigdei Shesh (if not, why not?), you may be me'ayein in siman 29 "B'Inyan
Rubba d'Isa Kamman v'Rubba d'Leisa Kamman", where all thes issues are
addressed.

If there is an interested Oilem here besides the two of us, unfortunates
that do not possess a Bigdei Shesh, then I will be happy to expand, in
digestible packets, on the topic, here on Avodah.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Micha Berger wrote:
> Shim'on is moseir hamonei'ah that would otherwise prevent damage. He is
> not a sibah for the damage. The sibah is Re'uvein's throwing it.

If someone removes the kisui of a bor (when it was mechuseh properly), is
he not also being meisir a monei'ah? Yet he is chayav. Likely because of
"Shnei devarim etc." So, VIDC?
 
> R' Amiel argued that being married was a monei'ah to kinyan, therefore
> getting a get is hasoras hamonei'ah, which is different in kind than a
> sibah. Since it's not a sibah for the mesoveiv of minyan, it needn't come
> earlier in time. Which is why gito viyado ba'im ki'echad. (You probably
> need to see the original post; I realize I was being very terse.)

Huh?

Is he saying kiddushin is just b'mikreh, not b'etzem?

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> Chamor velo kelim?  (Sefaradi derech here <g>)
> 
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
> 

Not bad! Will keep this in mind for the summary.

KT,
YGB

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

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:50:33PM -0500, R' Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
:> Shim'on is moseir hamonei'ah that would otherwise prevent damage. He is
:> not a sibah for the damage. The sibah is Re'uvein's throwing it.

: If someone removes the kisui of a bor (when it was mechuseh properly), is
: he not also being meisir a monei'ah? Yet he is chayav. Likely because of
: "Shnei devarim etc." So, VIDC?

If someone removes the kisui of a bor BEFORE the person started falling,
he caused the person to fall. He is therefore a sibah. If he did it
after, then I am arguing it would be like our case, and it would be
hasoras hamonei'ah.

:> R' Amiel argued that being married was a monei'ah to kinyan, therefore
:> getting a get is hasoras hamonei'ah, which is different in kind than a
:> sibah. Since it's not a sibah for the mesoveiv of minyan, it needn't come
:> earlier in time. Which is why gito viyado ba'im ki'echad. (You probably
:> need to see the original post; I realize I was being very terse.)

: Huh?

: Is he saying kiddushin is just b'mikreh, not b'etzem?

I must have been very unclear (or you didn't take my advice to check
the earlier post), because I don't see how your question has anything
to do with that was said.

R Amiel is saying that being a nesu'ah or being an eved are monei'os to 
having a yad. Therefore ending the state through a get is hasaras
hamonei'ah (HH), thereby allowing them to make a kinyan. The get is related
to the kinyan via HH, not in a sibah relationship.

Sibos need to precede the mesoveiv in time. Since this is not a sibah,
though, it lacks that requirement.


I only used the idea that HH isn't a sibah. Which I suggest changes
his culpability.

If there is interest, I think I found a tzad litareitz why HH isn't
a sibah. But it requires getting philosophical so I won't bore people
unless I get a request for it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
(973) 916-0287                                   reliable person?

As I receive Avodah in digest format, I found here a few letters on
Sheirut Le'umi, so I'll be cutting and pasting all of them into one
post with my remarks.

Rav Bechhoffer stated:
> The bottom line is that the Chazon Ish paskened that Sherut Leumi is
> a form of "lo yilbash" and worse. With his extraordinary Torah acumen,
> he proposed that any "misgeret" that is regimented by the State or other
> Governmental Authority is Avizryhu d'Arayos.

and in another post he stated:
> My argument is that the Chazon Ish's statement must be taken in context -
> that means, not as public policy announcement based on
> socio-politco-economic circumstances, a "Charedi Zeitgeist" as it were, but
> as a Psak Halacha, based on the Ko'ach ha'Sevoro of a Gadol b'Torah.

The first thing is to find out "what was the question that the CI was
addressing?"  What is the context of the question, and context does
mean whether there were socio-politico-economic circumstances that
need to be considered -- as perhaps they are what created the question
in the first place:

So what was the question?  To answer this, we need to know some
history of the issue.  There are socialogical issues here that are
unique to living in Israel, and which I will not address at this
point.  The bottom line here is that there was  a push at that time
(and again later) to have Sheirut Le'umi come under Government
Authority.

This has never come to pass, it was voted down (I won't go into the
history of how and why, it's too long and too many side issues were
involved).  So, Sheirut Leumi is NOT and never was "regimented by the
State or other Goverment Authority".  So, de-facto, the psak of the
Chazon Ish has been kept.

So, this issue is closed.  Therefore, there is no need to discuss how
people relate or don't relate to this psak of the Chazon Ish when the
conditions don't match the psak in question.

In another post Rav Bechhofer stated:
> I feel slightly bewildered, front the vantage point of a chaver in the
> AishDas Society, as to the concept of Sherut Leumi as discussed here in
> general. We, of the AishDas Society, are of the opinion that our entire
> lives, lifetimes, goals, apsirations, and function, are to be a sherut
> leumi - a service to the entire Jewish nation, the focus of our efforts the
> advancement of Yahadus and Yehudim, the merit of our Avodah to be accrued
> to the collective merit of Am Yisroel and Kol ha'Olam Kullo

I quite understand your bewilderment.  You live in Galut and you can't
possibly truly envision the factors involved in creating One nation in
Israel.  Am Yisrael in Israel has to reach a point of Achdut,
preferrably through Kiyum Mitzvot, but we do know from sources (TN"Ch,
G'mara, Machshava) that Hashem appreciates (for lack of a better word)
when Am Yisrael have Shalom between them, even when they keep less
then they should in Bein Adam La'Makom.  Rav Waldenberg writes about
this in a few of his shu"t. (I think I quoted from them in the past
here).

What is the connection with Sheirut Le'umi?  This comes under the
heading of Lo Yotzi Et Atzmo MeiHaKelal to paraphrase.  In Israel, for
reasons too complex and numerous to count here, women serve in the
army.  For 2 years.  They have to delay their personal lives in order
to give to the State and those who live here.  This is fact, not
ideology.

Religious women found themselves in a catch-22 situation.  While the
men were going to the army (in the Dati Le'umi camp), the women were
not.  We believe that marriage and raising children and Chesed and
Tzedaka are a lifelong matters indeed.  But our neighbours, who also
marry and raise children etc., just without the ideological
understanding coming from Torah, couldn't comprehend why they have to
serve -- and religious women don't.  Sounds familiar?  (clue: Kollel
and Army).

After much discussion and history, Sheirut Le'umi as we know it today
evolved.  The young women are NOT under any kind of governmental
authority.  They can get up and leave whenever they want, with no
penalties of any kind.  There is no uniform of any kind (except for
wearing Tzniusdik clothing <g>).

But there are organizations.  Beit Ya'akov has one.  There are 2
others now and there were a few more in the past.  What these
organizations do (they are non-profit organizations) is to assist in
the logistics for these young women:  They rent the housing necessary,
check out the volunteer-sites to make sure they are appropriate,
provide Shi'urei Torah, they provide councelors (women) who are there
for the women should they need assistance or advice.

I think it is just one more example of the way Jewish women work to
assist the Nation of Israel in reaching Hashem.

> The army, for men, is a specific type of service that need be rendered to
> the Am ha'Yoshev b'Tziyon. This is clear.
> But, the issue of a specific allocation of time for a specific form of
> service for women?

I hope this is clearer now.

> As Rabbanit Boublil has stated here several times, women need to think of
> their entire life and all of their life as SL (as do men!)...

Thank you for the quote.  The result of this view, for me at least,
was that I did only 1 year of SL, as I have the rest of my life to
"give".

But on another note.  This year of Sheirut Le'umi apparently does have
some advantages.  It gives young women a chance to leave school (and
sometimes home) and go out into the workplace and world -- and yet
they are not left to their own devices as they will be later in life
when they go out to work (le'ts face it -- most women do work outside
the home nowadays).   When we come up against people in the workplace
who abuse their fellow workers (verbally or otherwise), when our
bosses take credit for what we did and other problems -- we are left
on our own and we have to develop our own tools to cope.  These girls
have someone to turn to should such a problem arise -- and they are
given support and tools that are extremely important.   That is
besides the enormous value of getting used to actually taking up
Ko'Ach HaNetinna.

Throughout our lives we are supposed to learn this.  But as much as
girls help their mothers (boys too <g>), and they do chesed at
hospitals and old age homes etc., as long as the kids are in school,
their thought are mostly about themselves.  The chesed they do is
short term:  1 hour twice a week or whatever other arrangement there
is.  Helping mom becomes a routine (like doing dishes) and people
forget that there is a Jewish value to this.  Sheirut Le'umi focuses
this idea into a full year of giving.  It is a bridge between a life
of self interest and a life of giving (through marriage etc.).

Shoshana L. Boublil

All work that is done, should be done out of love.
Then it ceases to be difficult, or boring, or embarrassing.
Even a cup or a plate can be washed with devotion until they shine,
out of aspiration for  perfection and completion.
                                                Rav A.Y. HaCohen Kook

It recently occurred to me that there are, to the best of my knoweldge,
no references to Shemittah in davening (like, theoretically, chadesh alenu
be-shana ha-shevi'is ha-zeh es ha chodesh ha-zeh or the like,) nor
davening-type minhagim for shemittah. Can anyone account for this, or know
of minhagim/nuscha'os that did acknoweldge shemitah, or of piyutim
specifically for shemiitah?

Daniel 

in light of this dvar tora of the connection of these two, one wonders why
in many communities they will do a different hishtadlus this shabbat, when
they will collect money for those who are shomer shvi'it, rather than
allowing the ribono shel olam to suport them....

[Bounced over from Areivim. -mi]

A few people have said that the main motivation for doing mitzvahs should
be because HKBH said so, and not because doing Mitzvahs help bring Moshiach.

I, frankly, don't see the distinction very well.

Some folks are moved more by yiras HaShem, others by ahavas HaShem.  Might
there be a bit of an analogy here?

What about the following scenario?

At one time our Day Camp had children bringing their own lunches. Then
the rabbi decided to raise the cost of the camp, and serve everyond lunch.

_Part_ of his motivation was that now 300 kids (probably 280 of whom were
not bringing kosher food for lunch) would at least get one kosher meal per
day.

And part of that motivation was: (a) it was spiritually healthier for the
kids; and (b) it would help, in a small way, to bring Moshiach.

Is this motivation out-of-whack?  Does halacha require that the camp charge
more so that kids have to eat kosher food?  Does HaShem require going out
of our way to get _others_ to engage in mitzvahs?

Another example: the sukkah-mobiles that Chabad uses.  Put a sukkah on the
back of a pickup truck, and drive around, looking for non-O Jews, and see
if you can get them to shake the lulav, or have a meal, in the sukkah.

Same question: does halacha require those actions?  (I presume not, because
I don't see anyone else doing it).

So, if now, doesn't the idea of: "if we do this we will hasten the coming
of Moshiach" provide a good, and proper, motivation?

-- Eric

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Eric Simon     | erics@radix.net                      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

From: Eric Simon [mailto:erics@radix.net]
> A few people have said that the main motivation for doing mitzvahs should
> be because HKBH said so, and not because doing Mitzvahs help bring Moshiach.
...

You give two options: (1) do something because Hashem *requires* it, or (2)
do something in order to bring Moshiach.  You then reason that if option #1
does not apply (i.e., something is not an absolute mitzvah), then it is
reasonable to be doing something for reason #2.

I believe that there is a third reason to be doing positive things: even if
not required, certain actions may be considered meritorious by Hashem.
These actions fall under the rubric of "v'asesa hayashar v'hatov"--doing
things beyond the letter of law (lifnim m'shuras hadin).  I.e., I may not be
required to cause non-religious Jews to perform a mitzvah, but I do it
anyway because this a good thing to do.

The Ramban on "Kedoshim t'h'yu" and "v'asesa hayashar v'hatov" explains that
going "beyond the letter of the law" is actually a mitzvah itself--Hashem
could not detail every action that we should do every minute of the day, so
He gave us 612 mitzvos and 1 general mitzvah which asks us to use the other
612 mitzvos as a paradigm for the types of things we should be doing.  See
the Ramban--it's beautiful.

Bringing Moshiach is no doubt positive, but I view it as a kind of prize for
performing mitzvos.  Don't we do mitzvos she'lo al m'nas l'kabel pras?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Newman,Saul Z [mailto:Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org]
> in light of this dvar tora of the connection of these two, one wonders why
> in many communities they will do a different hishtadlus this shabbat, when
> they will collect money for those who are shomer shvi'it, rather than
> allowing the ribono shel olam to suport them....

Given that according to most poskim, shmitta bizman hazeh is drabbanan, is
it so pashut that Hashem will fulfill his bracha "v'tzivisi es birchasi
lachem bashanah hashishis...?"  

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:26:54PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Given that according to most poskim, shmitta bizman hazeh is drabbanan, is
: it so pashut that Hashem will fulfill his bracha "v'tzivisi es birchasi
: lachem bashanah hashishis...?"  

I am reminded of a vort from the S"A haRav.

The ikkar of Pesach is lima'alah min hazeman. However, HKBH gave us
an opportunity to connect to that shoresh on a particular day. Chazal,
through Y"T sheini shel galios made a connection on a second day. It's
the connection that is derabbanan, that the shoresh being connected
to. The Pesachness of the last day is the same as on the seventh.

(Vechein for the other Yamim Tovim.)

So, can we say that shemittah biz'man hazeh even if derabbanan (which
is the shitah of Rashi and Tosafos, but not the Ramban), is still a
connection to the same supernal Shemittah.

(Sounds almost like saying there's a Platonic Shemittah Ideal
corresponding to our real shemittos...)

BTW, leshitas haMe'iri, we do hold like Rebbe that shemittah was
derabbanan. However, that was only during the time that there was a
yoveil derbanan. Now he holds that shemittah is only a minhag chassidus.

This brings up an interesting twist on the "is a lost shitas rishonim
treated like a shitas rishonim". Because the question wasn't lima'aseh,
and there was no history of pesak, between the time the Me'iri was lost
and the time it was found again.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
(973) 916-0287                                   reliable person?

From: Eric Simon [mailto:erics@radix.net]
> HaShem can ask you to plow a field and also tell you that the reason you
> are plowing it is because then it will be sowed, and then reaped, etc etc
> and then people are going to eat bread.

> It is human nature for the person in the latter scenario to plow the field
> with more enthusiasm, no?
> 
> Moshiach is part of HaShem's plan, right?  What's wrong with increasing our
> closeness with HaShem by getting excited about the plan?

To add to this point: instead of viewing moshiach as a schar for
the mitzvos (as I had done in a previous post), one may take the
perspective that we are doing mitzvos to be mesaken olam b'malchus Shakai
(kabbalistically, be mesaken the shviras hakelim). This is not a selfish
motive but an altruistic one. One aspect of a world that is mesukan is
that it is under the rulership of moshiach.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

So far as I remember, most sources hold that lishma by mitzvos is either
to be machri'a the world and Am Yisroel l'kaf zechus, or to acieve dveykus
in HKB"H (both of which constitute a nachas ruach to HKB"H).

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Perhaps the point can still be learned from the 'poshut pshat' - I assume
some learn the gemara 'kipshuto'. I was commenting on the methodology
used (non-mystical) - not the specific facts and whether they accord
with contemporary herpetology.

Mordechai

jjbaker@panix.com wrote in Avodah V7 #41:
>> Interestingly, there are lots of examples of that phenomenon in modern
>> Hebrew as well.  One that comes to mind at the moment is l'khatleig

That's leqatleg, of corse, with a qof.

>But what I was intrigued by was the letter-shift. ...
>k-t-g-r  becomes m-k-t-r-g, not m-k-t-g-r.

This is a well-known phenomenon, known as metathesis, which occurs in many 
languages.  The examples that come to mind immediately are kevess-kessev 
and adrikhal-ardikhal.  The latter is probably more applicable to your 
question, because of its clear foreign source.

(I hope I beat R' Seth to this one.)

         Ira L. Jacobson

In a message dated Thu, 17 May 2001 1:27:49pm EDT, "Feldman, Mark"
<MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
> Given that according to most poskim, shmitta bizman hazeh is drabbanan, is
> it so pashut that Hashem will fulfill his bracha "v'tzivisi es birchasi
> lachem bashanah hashishis...?"  

It may not be so pashut, in my research on kavod av after mitah I found
a shailah that was posed as to whether this was duraita or drabanan -
the nafka mina being whether the reward for it would be the arichut
yamim promised in the torah! I would've reasoned kol dtakun drabanan
kein duraita would apply to HKB"H as well (based on sevara:-) but....

KT
Joel

From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> I heard from R. Hershel Schachter, and I think it is in a 1985 Beis Yitzchak
> article, that the birkas eirusin might be a chiyuv on everyone attending the
> chasunah and therefore (I'm pretty sure this was left out of the article) 
> everyone attending should take a vote on whom they want to say the beracha.

While the Sheva Brachos under the Chuppah is public and requires a minyan,
eirussin requires ONLY 1 chosson, 1 kallah and 2 kosher eidim

In fact, we designate two eidim EXCLSUIVE of the entire crowd. Bepahtus
that leaves ONLY 5 candidates for this bracha: Chosson, Kallah, 2 Eidim,
and the Mesader kiddushin (assuming he is none of the above).

Therefore to paraphrase the song, "what's the crowd got to do with it?" -
unless of course they are ALL eidim and therefore a party to the wedding
party. <smile>

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> While the Sheva Brachos under the Chuppah is public and requires a minyan, 
> eirussin requires ONLY 1 chosson, 1 kallah\and 2 kosher eidim

Birkas eirussin may not require a minyan, but it is a birkas hashevach
which is shayach to everyone there.

> In fact, we designate two eidim EXCLSUIVE of the entire crowd.

That is a Brisker chumra and has to do with a kas of eidim in which there
are kerovim or pessulim. According to the Ritva, this could passul all
of the eidim and therefore nullify the eirussin (Tosafos is cholek).

> Therefore to paraphrase the song, "what's the crowd got to do with it?" - 
> unless of course they are ALL eidim and therefore a party to the wedding 
> party.

I think some Briskers designate the two eidim in exclusion of all *passul*
eidim. As I told a friend who attended my wedding, I was mechabed him
and most of the guests with being a eid kiddushin.

Gil Student

To the best of my understanding, Rabbanit Boubllil stated that SL (caps)
is the preferred form of sl (lower case) because of public policy reasons,
not for inherent ones. If that is the case, then public policy is a
relative thing, and subject to shikkul ha'da'as.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From R' Yaakov Feldman <feldman@torah.org>'s email list, discussin Derech
Hashem 1:2, third paragraph:
: Accordingly, tzaddikim sometimes grow benignly impatient in their quest, and
: yearn for a short-cut, if you will. That's the issue Ramchal is addressing
: here.

: The short-cut comes to this: As we've explained, G-d's Being is utterly
: perfect. And all other instances of perfection are thus "offshoots" of 
: G-d's actual perfection, much the way a tree's branches are smaller yet
: corresponding offshoots of the tree itself.

: Now, just as one holds onto the tree itself in a certain sense when he holds
: onto its branch, one "holds onto" G-d's perfection *and His very Being* in a
: certain sense by taking hold of and pursuing self-perfection (which is a
: branch of G-d's perfection). Much the way a drowning person who takes hold
: of a life-preserver is in a certain sense safely aboard the rescue ship 
: already.

: Thus, engaging in the process of perfecting oneself, and the process of
: drawing close to G-d are one and the same, for all intents and purposes. Thus
: the greatest short-cut to closeness to G-d is starting out to draw close to
: G-d!

This directly reflects on RYB's Fork in the road (often discussed in
the past; newer members, see <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/forks.htm>).
The Ramchal recognizes that both goals -- Chassidish deveikus and Litvisher
temimus -- are the aspects of the same thing.

However, he does define temimus as the true tachlis, and deveikus as a
means to that end.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 40th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
(973) 916-0287               reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?

[On turning our everyday activities into Avodas Hashem. Has an interesting
bit about why the universe follows logical rules. -mi]

Sfas-Emes
R' Dr. Nathaniel H. Leff

Note: Before he begins this Ma'amar, the SE warns us that he wrote it
'BeKitzur, Ki Shachachti'; that is, when he sat down to record what he had
said on Shabbos, he found that he had forgotten parts of his discourse.
Hence, we should be aware that these notes present only an abbreviated
version of his talk.

The SE starts by alluding to the first paragraph of Medrash Rabba of
Parshas Behar. The Medrash, in turn, quotes a famous Pasuk in Mishlei
(18, 21): 'Maves VeChayim BeYad HaLashon' (ArtScroll: 'Death and life
are in the power of the tongue.')

You may wonder : why does the Medrash discuss the power of speech here, in
Parashas BeHar? The formal reason is straightforward. Later in the Parasha
(25, 17), the Torah admonishes us to refrain from 'Ona'as Devarim'. That
is, HaShem commands us not to hurt people with the words we utter with our
mouths. Still, the question persists. The Torah mentions 'Ona'as Devarim'
well into the Parsha. Why does the Medrash give this topic star billing
by discussing it in the very first paragraph?

I suggest that Chazal chose to focus on the potential good or potential
harm that we can do with what we say because, in fact, 'maves vechaim
beyad halashon. ' That is, the words that we utter can do much good
or much harm. A (partial) list of harmful speech would include : foul
language ; citing the name of gentile gods ; saying things that cause
tza'ar (pain) to the listener; and of course, Old Faithful -- leshon hara.

The Pasuk, quoted above, in Mishlei tells us in stark terms that our
speech can have either harmful or beneficial consequences. To drive this
point home, the Medrash provides a number of metaphors. One such metaphor
involves a 'gacheles' -- i.e., a burning coal. If a person breathes on
this ember, he can revive its fire. By contrast, if the person uses his
mouth to spit on the coal, he will extinguish its fire.

Mention of the burning coal leads the SE to enter the discussion. He
begins with a comment that 'Bevadai' (i.e., 'for sure') HaShem's Vibrancy
(Chiyus) is present EVERYWHERE, throughout Creation. What is the SE's
source for this powerful and all-encompassing statement? The SE tells
us that he can make this statement for the following reason.

When HaShem created the world, he did so using the Torah; and we know
that the Torah is compared to fire. Hence, the force of fire permeates
all Creation. However, HaShem created the world in such a manner that
the fire is hidden -- latent covered -- as in the burning coal. Further,
the metaphor of the burning coal brings with it a major responsibility
for the way we live our lives. For, continues the SE, we are charged
with the mission of searching for (and finding!) the illumination of
the Torah that is present everywhere.

This sounds good. But the SE always provides real-world relevance rather
than rhetoric. Hence, we must ask: what does the SE really have in mind
when he says that we are enjoined to find the Torah's illumination in
every thing ? We need some help here. I emphasize that what comes next
is only Le'Ani'us Da'ati -- i. e. from my very limited knowledge. But
the issues involved here are so basic and so crucial that I will venture
and take the risk.

I suggest that we can get the necessary help from the Breslover
(Z.T.A.) -- in fact, from the very first page of his Likutei Moharan. I
quote: 'Ki Ish HaYisre'eli Tzarich Tamid LeHistakeil BaSeichel Shel Kol
Davar ; U'lekasher Atzmo El HaChochma Ve'HaSeichel SheYeish BeChol Davar,
Kedei SheYa'ir Lo Ha'Seichel SheYeish BeChol Davar LeHiskareiv LeHaShem,
Yisborach, Al Yedei Oso HaDavar.'

That is: 'For a Jew must always look for the seichel
(intelligence/rationality/logic) that is present in all things. Further,
he/she should bind himself/herself to that rationality (which, as noted,
is present in every thing). By connecting to that intelligence, its
rationality will provide him with light, and thus all of Creation will
enable him to come closer to HaShem.'

I suggest that what R' Nachman (and the SE) are saying is : HaShem built
rationality -- i.e., Cause/Effect, as distinct from randomness or chaos
or an impulse to self-destruction) into the world. Hence, by observing
things and discovering how they work, we can see HaShem's handiwork. Thus,
every thing that we understand can bring us closer to HaShem!

We can immediately put to work the illumination that comes from these
ideas. That is, with this understanding, we can come closer to HaShem on
a key thought of the SE that may previously have been obscure: namely,
the SE's dictum that what we do in our work during the weekdays -- i,e.,
our Ma'aseh -- can become a form of Avoda (service/worship).

The possibilities for Avoda (worship) in the course of our Avoda (weekday
work) are many. One obvious example is the scientist who marvels at the
uncanny way that mathematics fits the world of physics. But the potential
for Avoda also applies in more humble occupations.

For example, consider the case of a salesperson that sells
shoes. Rationality here would require that he find the shoe that truly
fits a customer's feet. By searching until he finds the right shoe, that
salesperson can bring to light the presence of rationality -- and hence,
HaShem -- in his world. (You may find this example farfetched. If so,
it probably means that you have never encountered the irrationality of
buying and wearing a pair of shoes that did not fit.)

Likewise, consider a bond trader who detects a possibility for profitable
arbitrage. That opportunity reflects irrationality -- i.e, momentary
disequilibria in the market. Hence, by executing trades that correct
the disequilibria, the bond trader is bringing about rationality, and
thus revealing HaShem's presence in his weekday activity.

More generally, the same possibility for Avoda is open in any context
where a person solves problems. By 'figuring things out', a person can
find the rationality that HaShem built into the situation, but which
-- like the fire in the ember -- cannot be perceived unless we make
an effort. If a person makes the effort to understand the logic of a
phenomenon or of a situation, they can bring him/her closer to HaShem.

As we approach Shavu'os, one last question comes to mind. How does the
Torah that we received at Har Sinai fit into this intellectual framework
-- i.e., that HaShem built rationality into the world, and that by
working to perceive that logic, a person can come closer to HaShem? It
fits very neatly once we recognize that the Torah is a divinely given
User's Manual for living!

When I presented an earlier version of this Shiur, a professional bond
trader posed a basic objection. I had mentioned the case of a trader in
the bond market who detects a possibility for profitable arbitrage. That
opportunity reflects irrationality -- disequilibrium in the market. By
executing the trades that correct this disequilibrium, the bond trader
is bringing about rationality, and thus revealing HaShem's Presence in
this trader's weekday activity.

To which the professional bond trader reacted as follows. He has had
much experience in buying and selling financial assets. But he has never
felt that by executing trades for profitable arbitrage, he was revealing
HaShem's Presence!

This comment reminds me of the following story. One day, Shelomo HaMelech
(King Solomon) was traveling. On the road, he encountered two men who
were transporting a heavy stone. Shelomo HaMelech stopped and asked them
what they were doing. One man replied: I am carrying a heavy stone. The
second man answered: I am building the Beis HaMikdash!

The moral of the story: it is important to see oneself in accurate
metaphysical context.

Another thought on this general topic. The SE tells us that we can
transform our Avoda (work, labor) into Avoda (worship, Service of
HaShem). It is also important that we transform our Avoda ('worship')
into Avoda (Worship!).

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


[ 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         ]