Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 057

Thursday, June 7 2001

• [none]
• Re: Hashgacha
• Teshuvah vs Gehenom (was: Hashgacha)
• Rambam and Superstition
• Re: Teshuvah vs Gehenom (was: Hashgacha)
• Re: The Segula of Mezuza
• Re: The Segula of Mezuza
• Re: kedushei ketana
• secular studies for German Jews
• man vs G-d
• "tzushtel"
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Reward, punishment, hashgachah and teva
• Re: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Re: Forbidding the Permitted and Permitting the Forbidden.
• Re: Forbidding the Permitted and Permitting the Forbidden.
• Re: Forbidding the Permitted and Permitting the Forbidden.
• Re: Yiud

> I'm sure the Rambam was aware of these gemaras.  But what did he do with
> them? Did he just say that this is aggadata and he is not bound by it?

Marc Shapiro has recently published a very interesting and relevant study
on "Rambam and Superstition" in vol. 4 of *Maimonidean Studies* (YU
press) which should address your question. In addition, Marc has told me
that he has found much more evidence than he cited since the article's
publication.

Yisrael Dubitsky

The following is being bounced from private email with permission. This
discussion started with RGS's comment to Avodah.

On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 05:52:42PM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Not surprisingly, I have what to say on this topic. I'm trying to save
> it and write it up. However, see the Emunos VeDeyos ma'amar 5 perek 1
> where he talks about what we would call timtum halev. Yissurin serve to
> cleanse the neshamah of impurities. And it's not just Rav Saadia Gaon
> who says this.

To which I emailed him back:
MB> Hainu hach.  Cleaning timtum IS teshuvah.

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:52:02AM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
GS: If cleaning timtum is teshuvah then why are there any punishments in olam 
GS: haba (i.e. the first 12 months in gehinom)?

Author:  micha (micha@aishdas.org)
MB> I would think that I gave you enough to deduce my answer.

MB> Let's go the other direction: teshuvah is a person returning. Tikun after 
MB> petirah is a person being brought back.

MB> How is he brought back? Through bushah, which is how the Ikarim 4:3 
MB> defines the fires of gehenom.

MB> The way I see it, man exists to recieve HKBH's hatavah. Therefore, the 
MB> ideal person is a keli for shefa. One who "cooks on erev Shabbos" is
MB> a fit keli "to eat on Shabbos". (Alternatively, I could have refered to 
MB> banquet halls...) One who doesn't, ends up not recieving that shefa, 
MB> and therefore suffers.

MB> Gehenom, for most people, ends. Aparantly this bushah is mesakein keli.

MB> Here's a self-quote I recently sent [another chaveir]:
MB>> Yirmiyahu Hanavi writes, "From the 'Mouth' of the One Above, come neither 
MB>> the evil nor the good." [13] Rashi's interpretation of this verse is
MB>>  based on two quotes from Parashas Nitzavim. He explains that Yirmiyahu 
MB>> does not imply that what happens to us is by chance. "Chai gever al
MB>> chata'av -- a man lives on his sins." [14] The evil does not come from
MB>> Hashem as an imposed punishment, but because it is a natural consequence 
MB>> of the sin. R. Yochanan comments on the famous pasuk, "Behold I have
MB>> placed before you, the life and that which is good, and death and that 
MB>> which is evil. Choose life!" [15] Choosing between good and evil is not 
MB>> choosing how G-d will reciprocate. By choosing between good and evil,
MB>> one brings on oneself life or death. 
MB> ...
MB>> R. Chaim Vilozhiner [16] derives this idea from a Gemara in Eiruvin. "The
MB>> wicked deepen gehennom for themselves." [17] The deeds of the wicked
MB>> directly create the pain they feel in gehennom. R. Chaim then takes this
MB>> one step further. Each sin, he writes, causes a flaw in one's soul. By
MB>> feeling the pain associated with that flaw one comes to regret, to grow,
MB>> and to heal. Similarly his Rebbe, the Vilna Gaon, titles the first chapter
MB>> of Even Sh'leimah, "The Source of all Service of G-d: Shattering the
MB>> Evil Personality Traits".
..
MB>> The Sefer Ha'Ikkarim [20] describes the fires of gehennom are those of
MB>> shame. "Standing" before the "Bochein k'layos valeiv" [21] there are no
MB>> secrets, a person must face and come to terms with his own failings. In
MB>> this way, every aveirah carries with it its own "fire".

MB> --

MB>> NOTES:

MB>> 13 Eichah 3:38
MB>> 14 Ibid. 39
MB>> 15 Devarim 30:19
MB>> 16 Derech Hachaim 1:21
MB>> 17 Eiruvin 19a
MB> ...
MB>> 20 4:33
MB>> 21 Literally: One who inspects the kidneys and heart. The meaning of
MB>>    "k'layos" in this text is unclear: it might refer to the kidneys as 
MB>>    filters, and thereby symbolizes man's "wisdom to separate the nut
MB>>    from the shell". Or, perhaps, their meaning lies in their placement
MB>>    close to a person's center of gravity, and thereby represent the core 
MB>>    of his physical being.

To which RGS replied:
GS: Are you saying that both teshuvah and post-mortum cleansing remove timtum,
GS: the former being the painless way?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness, 
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom. 
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:30:53PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Are you saying that both teshuvah and post-mortum cleansing remove timtum,
: the former being the painless way?

The problem I'm having is that the word teshuvah is a little vague in
my mind -- does it refer to the act of trying to return, the process of
returning or the final return state? Technically, the second, but I am
used to hearing the word used for all three.

(A ba'al teshuvah is technically a master at returning, not one who has
returned. But we use the expression meaning the latter far more often.)

When I said that "Cleaning timtum IS teshuvah" what I more accurately
should have said is that the clean state is identical to the state one
returns to with teshuvah. Or, as I put it in my next email about the
processes, that teshuvah is a cleaning process.

To get back to your question: my focus was on who is doing the process,
not the amount of pain involved. As I said, teshuvah is something a soul
does to herself, gehenom is something that neshamah experiences.

The Ikarim I quoted defines the heat of gehenom as charatah.

So, calling gehenom an experience focuses on the role being in the
olam ha'emes, in the "presence" of ziv haShechinah, has on instigating
that regret.

I could equally well have focussed on the fact that the charatah is
something that, bottom line, the soul does to itself.

In which case, my original formulation (cleaning timtum is teshuvah)
was more accurate: Gehenom is the pain of charatah that is part of a
soul performing teshuvah post-mortem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU [mailto:yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU]
> Marc Shapiro has recently published a very interesting and relevant study
>    ... which should address your question. ...

Could someone please summarize Marc Shapiro's view?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

More philosophizing on sechar va'onesh, to tie what I said before into
my recurring theme of "spiritual health".

1- HKBH created the world in order to have recipients of His hatavah.
2- We are those recipients; which means that our reason for existance is
   -- as I put it before -- to be keilim for shefa.
3- HKBH is the Borei, therefore to be full recipients of His hatavah, we
   should be, beTzalmo, self-made keilim.

4- To be a full recipient of His hatavah, we also have to recieve His Will.
   To be avdicha ben amasecha.

(Note that #3 explains why HKBH created Adam I, while #4 explains Adam II.
Halachic Man creates halachah, IOW, finds his own path within ratzon haBorei,
thereby navigating both.)

5- Those acts which help us be better keilim were identified for us by the
   Av haRachaman. He then ordered us to do them -- both in the way a doctor
   orders a patient (from #3) and also because following an order is itself
   part of the regimen (from #4).
6- Therefore, doing a mitzvah will cause one to recieve more shefa -- this is
   what we call sechar. Vechein lehefech, r"l, aveiros cause a lack of shefa
   -- onesh.

7- To restate #1 in the negative: HKBH's goal wasn't to create beings who
   suffer from a lack of shefa. This implies that while sechar is a
   tachlis in itself, onesh is not.
8- If #1 is OUR ultimate tachlis, then it must give us the ultimate tachlis
   for onesh too -- onesh must also play a role in creating recipients of
   hatavah.

9- Obviously it will be more plesaant to take the mitzvah route rather than
   the onesh / yissurim root. (To repeat RGS's comment: teshuvah is a less
   painful choice than gehenom.) It is easier to go willingly than to be
   pushed.

10- One can suggest that kareis is the effect of so identifying with being
    a non-keli that there is no route back. To put it another way: that
    going back and maintaining "self" were made contradictory. Therefore
    even onesh is pointless.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>The mechabeir is clearly refering to the MITZVAH of mezuzah, not the
>cheftzah itself. The Tur (and therefore the Taz) is less obviously
>so -- unfortunately "mitzvah", "mezuzah", and "kevi'ah" (as in the berachah)
>are lashon nekeivah, so you can't tell what "al yadah" refers to.

                                                                         Bs"d
I'm sorry if I'm a little obtuse, but what is the significance of the 
chiluk you make here? In order to fulfill the MITZVAH of mezuzah, the 
cheftzeh itself has to be kosher, no?

Eli

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:56:14PM +0300, Eli Linas wrote:
:                                       what is the significance of the 
: chiluk you make here? In order to fulfill the MITZVAH of mezuzah, the 
: cheftzeh itself has to be kosher, no?

Actually, perhaps not. What if one does everything one is mechuyav to do
to insure the chezkas kashrus? Is he yotzei and does he get sechar even
if kelapei Shemaya galya that a pesul has since developed? And if yes,
wouldn't that sechar include the shemirah in question? It was around this
question that our discussion in volume 3 revolved.

But my point wasn't a nafka mina lihalachah, but a machshavah issue.
I'm not looking at mezuzah as a kemei'ah for which we have a chiyuv
de'Oraisa to hang on our doorposts.

Rather, mezuzah is a mitzvah that reminds us that HKBH is "shomeir dalsos
Yisrael", that one is safe in one's home because of Him, not the home.
Therefore, midah kineged midah, one obtains that shemirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
"Harry seems to still labor under the impression that a father has the
right to marry off his minor daughter without her consent. There were
times and places where such child marriages were practiced. However, that
has not been true for a long time. Perhaps the following citation from
the Aruch Hashulchan that was written by Harav Y.M. Epstein approximately
a hundred years ago will help..."

I'm am not laboring. I am not even pregnant. I realize this is not the
custom today and probably has not been for a couple centuries. I was
asking a philosophical question of whether there is an inherent moral
issue in a practice mandated by the Torah. Did G-d say to us that this
practice is moral and right? He did. Otherwise he would not have permitted
it. OTOH... MY merely human understanding of this makes it seem that it
is inherently wrong to remove FOREVER the possibility of control from
a woman about her ability to accept or reject living with a particular
man while she is still a minor, under age twelve. She is simply forced
to do so by her father, if HE so chooses. Not her, HIM! It matters not
if it was done for with the best of intentions. Nor does it matter that
it is no longer practiced today. The question is, why is this potential
"life sentence" moral at all? Yet... it must be.

[R' Isaac A Zlochower, in reply to] Micha then states:
"The bottom line is that the question lies not with kiddushei ketana,
but with a worldview that finds it untenable."

I disagree. It isn't just the worldview that is problematic. It is a
common sense view of right and wrong which I am unable to reconcile it to.

HM

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@bezeqint.net>
> Rav Avraham Yitzchok Bloch in response to Rav Shwab's question about
> secular studies 
> "This that you asked me to clarify the halacha concering secular studies
> and the nature of the curriculum of the German schools. However it
> is extremely difficult in these matters to provide a clear halachic
> response. Because these matters are largely built upon hashkofa and
> principles which are derived from aggada....
> are so strongly influenced in the specific nature of the people involved
> as well as the particular circumstances they are living in and other
> sociological and psychological issues..."

The Minchas Elozor z'l in his sefer Divrei Torah is also meikel
on the subject of secular studies  for German Jews.
SBA

RHM>Mankind has used his own, imperfect knowledge to override G-d's perfect
> mandated preference. It's as if we are saying "we know why G-d mandated
> this and we now have a better reason to forbid it".

Can Mankind presume to do this? If he can, (and as demonstrated, he does
in The case of Yivum) what are the implications of it? Can Man over-ride
G-d's will?

Yes!  That's part of lo bashamayim.  See Makkos 22b: Fools stand for a Sefer
Torah and not a Chacham.  The Torah requires "forty lashes"  and the Sages
rule 39.

There is much discussion if a kinyan drabannan is acknowledged by the Torah.
The Machaneh Efraim asks can a kinyan meshichah make "lachem" of lulav.

Poskim use a phrase, 'the verse was handed to the Chachamim for definition
of the Torah's parameters.'

Shlomo Goldstein

Rabbi Yehoshua noticed (today's daf yomi) that his questioner was used
to crying and thought he might be a yasom. I believe Rabbi Yehoshua was
involved similarly in the episode of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah becoming
nasi: along the lines of "mikoselei vesecha nikar shepechami ata".
Can someone fill in the details and, if appropriate, comment?

Gershon

I wrote:
> ...my impression is that Rabbi Carmy was criticizing all forms of theodicy,
> even the Rambam's rationalistic version.  
     
Moshe Feldman wrote:
> It seemed to me that Rabbi Carmy's criticisms were much stronger when applied
> to the hashgacha-pratis-only school.

> I definitely got the impression that Rabbi Carmy favors the Rambam/Ramban
> approach.

Upon rereading, I agree.

Gil Student

I think this topic has largely run its course. I just wanted to share
a statement I saw this morning from the Ramban. This is in reference to
the gemara in Berachos 5a that if one sees suffering coming to oneself,
one should look for one's aveiros. Someone had pointed out in a private
e-mail that this only applies to looking at oneself. The Ramban evidently
disagrees.

Ramban, Sha'ar HeGemul, Kol Kisvei HaRamban vol. 2 pp. 280-281
    "If one sees a righteous person suffering in his righteousness, one
    should initially attribute this to the few sins that he committed."

Gil Student

On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 03:54:54PM -0400, R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
: I actually used to believe not like the Rambam (partially because I used to
: think that he was a daas yachid) but now believe like Rambam (really Ramban)
: because I think that philosophically the questions on the non-Rambam
: position are overwhelming (see Rabbi Carmy's article).  Also, I find it
: difficult to believe that nature is really a farce (as per Rav Dessler),
: especially as modern-day science has uncovered so many more of the laws of
: the nature than were known in the time of the gemara.

Actually, Rav Dessler does not say nature is a farce. He acknowledges
that there are rules of behavior for science to discover.

REED argueed that there is no beryah called teva, rather that HKBH
chooses to allow the impact of His actions to follow certain rules. And
that bi'etzem those actions that do follow those rules are no different in
kind than those that do not (nissim). However, there is a reason for these
patterns of events, and as a group, we can call these patterns "teva".

It's the flipside of the Ramban saying that every neis was written into
ma'aseh bereishis when teva was created. One is saying that all nissim
are really special cases written into the rules, the other that nature
is really nissim that happen to follow rules -- but both are equating
the teva and nissim. IMHO, only the lashon differs.

Second, modern-day science has proven that the Rambam was dealing with a
false dichotomy. Teva and hashgachah aren't mutually exclusive. Teva isn't
deterministic. The same experiment can yeild two different results without
neis being involved. Physics can only make statistical predictions.

In the normal scale of things, we don't notice this. This is the law of
large numbers. Just like a coin that is flipped a few million times is
going to come out heads roughly 500,000 times of them. With billions of
particles, the statistical prediction is essentially a sure thing.

But when it comes to complex systems where one thing can effect another
which effects a third, with feedback loops and sensitivity to fine
details in the initial conditions, you can't just deal with averages.

To put it another way: an actuary may be able to predict how many people
of a certain very large group will die within a year. But to a member
of that group and his family, life is radically different whether or
not he is one of the luckier half.

What is true for individuals vs actuarial tables is also true with G-d
tweaking reality -- within the rules of nature -- and their impact on
the longevity of my spark plugs, how quickly I run out of gas, and other
things that may change my life story.

There is therefore no problem anymore of hashgachah vs teva. The natural
hashgachah is that which determines which of the possible responses
within teva actually occurs. One can therefore be perpetually subject
to both. The rishonim, dealing with the Aristotilian world, and certainly
those acharonim who lived with Newtonian clockwork physics weren't
presented with this option.



On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 05:46:25PM -0400, R' Gershon Dubin wrote:
:                              What were the people supposed to learn from
: something even the nevi'im could not explain?  General teshuva?

Why not?

Also, there are many causes that converge to produce any event. If this
is true when it comes to physical causes, why not for the non-physical
ones as well? In which case, not being able to find /the/ lesson may not
rule out being able to find /a/ lesson.

As I said, I'm convinced that any suffering or unhappiness anyone
experiences has some lesson that that person ba'asher hu sham is capable
of taking away from it. Otherwise, how is it an opportunity to advance
in that person's tafkid? This is a slightly stronger formulation than
the one you wrote appeared valid. I don't know if you'd still agree.

I'm not as happy with the terminology of learning as much as that of
responding. Which, looking over Kol Dodi Dofeik, is closer to RYBS's
lashon. How are we expected to respond to a particular experience is a
much more innate notion, learning has more formal connotations.



On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:55:12AM -0400, R' Gil Student wrote:
: Rabbi Carmy was criticizing all forms of theodicy, even the Rambam's
: rationalistic version. He argued that it was arrogant to try to understand
: why things happen - to essentially judge Hashem - particularly when it
: is done nonchalantly and dispassionately. Rather we should focus on how
: to react to events.

Speaking of Kol Dodi Dofeik, this is a major part of RYBS's thesis about
the holocaust. The Jewish question isn't "Why?" but "How should I respond?"
Because G-d's reason isn't comprehensible. (As He tells Iyov at the end
of the seifer.)

I do not understand how that doesn't suggest an answer to the question it's
avoiding. Why? Because G-d is calling you to respond!


On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:17:02PM -0400, RMF wrote:
: But the point is that if suffering occurs to people because they experience
: hashgacha klalis, then there is no reason to be judging Hashem.

Why not? Isn't "Keili Keili lama azavtani?" a gripe against HKBH for
choosing hesteir panim?

We're back to my astute co worker's observation: Hashem's abandoning
one to teva is itself a "choice" on His part. Particularly since hakol
tzafui -- it's not like Hashem was letting you play your odds. From His
"angle" there are no odds, just certainties.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:55:12AM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
: I'm sure the Rambam was aware of these gemaras. But what did he do with
: them?  
: Did he just say that this is aggadata and he is not bound by it?

I assume he would prove that it was a machlokes tana'im and/or amora'im,
and show that some other ma'amer proves there is al mi lismoch for concluding
otherwise.

I suggested one that seems to imply it.

I bring this up for a different reason. We (I know I do) tend to forget
that these truisms of hashkafah we all throw around are also subject to
chilukei dei'os.

-mi

On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:46:56PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> There isn't a "Torah Mandated" obligation to do it -- so there isn't a
:> problem to *not* do it.

: Let's take the Mitzvah of Yivum, as an example. There is a specific
: Mitzvas Aseh to do it, mandated by G-d for the benefit of Klal Israel.

No, the chiyuv is to do either yibbum or chalitzah. As you put it,
chalitzah is only an "out", but yes that out exists.  We Ashkenazim
switched the preference, not the chiyuv.

Nor was the Rama the first to suggest that chalitzah was better than
yibbum motivated by carnal desire. We Ashkenazim are "merely" in
the unique position of holding like Abba Shaul over the Chachamim
(see Yevamos 39b). A pesak of a yachid over the rabbim is odd, but
not a rewrite of the Torah's motive.

: Mankind cannot know the Tammei HaMitzvos. We can only speculate as to
: G-d's intent. Some of our guesses, (educated and otherwise) may or may
: not be correct, We have no way of knowing which reasons were guessed
: at correctly.

Except in many cases HKBH helps out. For example "ur'isam oso uzchartem
es kol mitzvos Hashem va'asisem osam". We may wonder about the details,
but for tzitzis we know the ikkar of the reason.

Similarly, we know the reason for chalitzah is lekayeim shemo biYisrael.

: So for you to say there isn't a problem is not accurate. The Rama
: has in effect overruled the preferred method of the Torah. Why?
: Probably because societal evolution.

Because of Ashkenazi cultural devolution. We can assume that the meyaveim
has a taint of improper motive. Given that change in metzi'us, the Torah 
behind the pesak pre-existed.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In message , Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
>                 Yivum is preferred. Never-the-less, fast forward
>to today and the Rama Paskins that we ONLY do Chalitza. IOW, societal
>conditions have changed and we now eliminate the clearly preferred way of
>handling Hakamas Shem Achiv....
>So for you to say there isn't a problem is not accurate. The Rama
>has in effect overruled the preferred method of the Torah. Why?

>Probably 

... The reason doesn't need a "probably". It comes directly from the the
mishna in bechoros 13a - the Mishna there explains that to do the mitzva
of yibum properly, you need the correct intent. Originally, when the
correct intent was there, yibum was preferable to chalitza, but "now that
they do not intend it "l'shem mitzvah" chalitza is preferable to yibum".

Ashkenazim not only pasken like this mishna (including giving it the
fullest reading, ie that we are, today, not on a level on which we are
capable of doing the mitzvah truly l'shem shamayim), but, following Rashi,
hold that if you do not have the correct intent, ie it is not done l'shem
mitzvah, the yavam is in fact over on the issur of eshes ach!

It is all quite explicit in the sources. Which is why where somebody asked
the question - but how could the mitzvah of yibum be done by way of rape -
the answer would seem to be, at least according the Ashkenazim, that it
couldn't - because there is an even higher standard to ever performing
the mitzvah properly that of it being done completely and totally l'shem
shamayim without even a hint of personal desire.

Regards
Chana
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: It is all quite explicit in the sources. Which is why where somebody asked
: the question - but how could the mitzvah of yibum be done by way of rape -
: the answer would seem to be, at least according the Ashkenazim, that it
: couldn't...

There is a step here missing. We hold he should not do it, you're saying
he could not do it. I think you're right, but I needed a sevarah.

Here's what I came up with: if it were possible to be mekayeim yibum that
way, then asei docheh lav and there would be no issur to justify the "should
not" either.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>Why is a father's power to marry off a ketanah without her permission
>different than his authority to make other life-changing decisions?
...
>"Parents make permanent decisions for their kids. Thiis is merely one
>of them."

In message , Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
>I'm not convinced by your example. Are you saying Kedushei Ketana is
>like a Pikuach Nefesh situation? 

I didn't read Micha this way. The way I read Micha was that being born
into a particular family, for good or ill, in some many ways makes the
kid who and what they are.

To take a more trivial example. If the parents decide not to give the kid
a Jewish education, the kid may well struggle, especially with Hebrew
language skills and hence learning when they grow up (overcomable,
but not always so easy).

To take a more fundamental example. There are sociological studies
that suggest that if a baby isn't cuddled and cared for and allowed to
bond with one or a number of carers during the first few months of its
life, it may never be able to fall in love and establish a loving adult
relationship (most of this evidence, I believe, comes from studies of
infants abandoned at birth who were brought up in orphanages in the
'40s in which all their physical needs were attended to but they were
in long hospital like wards where they never got any love and attention.
The kids were then tracked down in later life and various psychological
responses measured). Now, today, in most Western Countries, the state
will step in if it believes there is fundamental neglect on this level
going on. However, there are lots and lots of variables and positions
between an extreme of neglect on the level of these orphanages and perhaps
the other extreme of total and complete overindulgence and catering to
every whim (for which I believe the state would probably not interfere
- although some may argue that the psychological damage is as great).
We delegate to parents to make the decision where on that spectrum they
choose to position themselves - and yet it may well be that a fair portion
of a person's ability to function as a successful adult, and the manner
in which they so function, may be dictated by the choices that are made
by the parents in this regard.

Regards
Chana

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


[ 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         ]