Avodah: Volume 8, Number 26

Tuesday, October 23 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
  1. Re: neiros Shabbos
  2. Re: doing more than necessary
  3. Re: saying Vayichulu on Friday night after shmoneh esreih - 2
  4. Birkat haBanot
  5. Re: saying Vayichulu on Friday night after shmoneh esreih
  6. Re: Techeles
  7. Re: Of Arks and Rainbows
  8. Ba'al Nefesh (yet again)
  9. Re: Techeles
  10. Re: T'kheles
  11. Re: Birchas Habonim
  12. Re: Avodah V8 #25
  13. Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
  14. Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
  15. Re: rambam's iqqorim
  16. Re: Techeles

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:51:52 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: neiros Shabbos


On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 11:16:28AM -0400, MPopp...@kayescholer.com wrote:
: When my wife and I do stuff like turning extra lights on before Shabbos,
: we're thinking about oneg Shabbos, not nairos Shabbos.

Mah beinaihu? Isn't one the basis for the other?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:53:45 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: doing more than necessary


Yet another example: The Chassidishe minhag of using 2 pair of aravos
and three triples (9 total) of hadasim.

What about mirroring the number of words in the pasuk?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:20:10 +1000
From: "SBA" <s...@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Re: saying Vayichulu on Friday night after shmoneh esreih - 2


From: Phyllos...@aol.com
>> ..Vayichulu after shmoneh esreih on Friday
>> night must be said with someone else, as it is like eidus (testimony)....

> Also, R. Joshua Hoffman told me that the Chazon Ish writes about it in
> his sefer on Shabbos (anyone know exactly where?)

OC 38:10, dh Tur

Chaim G Steinmetz wrote:
> ..and in thre MB with comments from the Chazon Ish in the back he says there
> is no need.

The language seems even stronger: "Venireh d'ein l'hadder achar
shnayim...v'yesh lochush d'mechzi k'maamid eidim al maaseh breshis..."

Having looked through the main sforim about this, the only one I could find
who mentions  the need for 2 is the MB 268:18,
but he doesn't seem to bring a source for it.

The TZ 269:5 writes that a yochid shouldn't say it or only as 'k'koreh
betoarh'. He writes that it really needs an 'eidah shleimah' - d'heyno 10'..

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:02:21 +0200
From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <hen...@012.net.il>
Subject:
Birkat haBanot


Birkat haBanot

"Yesimeich Elokim k'Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel v'Leah," the blessing parents
give on Friday evenings to their daughters, first appeared in prayer
books in the 19th century. It is not found in earlier editions such as
R. Yaakov Emdin's "Siddur Beit Yaakov" of 1748, which says only that
"it is a custom of Israel to bless the children (hayeladim) on leil
Shabbat. Those who bless say, 'yesimcha Elokim k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh.' "
(Hanhagat Leil Shabbat, 7)

Either the girls were not blessed at all, or what is more probable, they
were blessed with "...k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh" just like the boys. After
all, the Priestly blessing "May haShem bless you and preserve you..." is
also stated in the masculine, but refers to both males and females.

At some point, however, the need was felt for a distinctive blessing for
daughters. But I have never been satisfied with the version "yesimeich
Elokim k'Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel v'Leah," for a number of reasons:

1) There is no source for it in Scripture or in the words of Chaza"l.

2) It is not parallel grammatically. It lacks the repeated 'kaf' of
"...k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh."

3) It is not parallel in content. We do not bless the boys that they
should be like the three Patriarchs; why, then, bless the girls that
they be like the four Matriarchs?

In Sanhedrin 105b the Sages expounded " 'minashim ba'ohel
tivorach'(Shoftim 5:24)=97who are they? Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and
Leah." But that just strengthens my argument. Were that the source
for the Friday night blessing, we would bless our daughters "minashim
ba'ohel tivorach," or "tivorach k'birkat Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel v'Leah,"
or at least "yivoracheich Elokim k'Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel v'Leah. Where
does the wording "yesimeich Elokim...." come from? Clearly, from Yaakov's
blessing of Efraim and Menasheh. The blessing of the daughters in general
use, then, is a hodgepodge.

For these reasons, I substitute a blessing based on Megillat Ruth 4:11,
"All the people who were at the gate said, with the elders as witnesses:
'May Elokim grant that the woman who enters your house be like Rachel
and like Leah, who both built the House of Israel." The blessing is,
"yesimeich (=yitein otach) Elokim k'Rachel u'ch'Leah, asher banu shteihen
et Beit Yisrael."

This solves everything:

1) It has an explicit Scriptural source.

2) It is grammatically identical, "k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh," "k'Rachel
u'ch'Leah."

3) Remarkably, the two blessings, on sons and on daughters, are similar
in content. Scripture does not explain why it is such a blessing to
be like Efraim and Menasheh, but in all likelihood it is connected to
the fact that they lived together in brotherhood and harmony, unlike
Yaakov's sons. So, too, Rachel and Leah lived together in sisterhood,
according to the midrash that Rachel revealed her personal signs of
identification to Leah to enable her to be married first.

The blessing for my sons, then, is "yesimcha Elokim k'Efraim
u'ch'Menasheh," while for my daughters it is "'yesimeich Elokim k'Rachel
u'ch'Leah, asher banu shteihen et Beit Yisrael."

In the case of voluntary blessings such as this there is no Halachic
problem in changing the wording. However, if one is reluctant to do
away with the old version he can say them both, as R. Emdin wrote,
"everyone can add his own blessing, using his own formulation."

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin
(translated from "Hatzofeh')


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:38:11 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_stud...@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: saying Vayichulu on Friday night after shmoneh esreih


The gemara in Shabbos 119b says that even someone praying alone on
Friday night has to say Vayechulu because, as Rav Hamnuna said, whoever
says Vayechulu on Friday night is considered as if he were a partner in
the creation. Tosafos in Pesachim 106a sv zochrehu explain that this is
talking about the Vayechulu in the silent amidah. We also say it during
kiddush in order to be motzi our family members who did not daven and
we say it in shul after the amidah because of Yom Tov that falls out
on Shabbos when Vayechulu is not in the amidah. It was instituted to
say on every Shabbos because of when Shabbos falls out on Yom Tov.
This is also what the Rosh and Mordechai on Pesachim explain and how
the Tur and Shulchan rule (OC 268).

The Tzitz Eliezer 14:24 was asked whether someone who is still davening
quietly and reaches Vayechulu in the silent amidah while the tzibbur says
it out loud should also say it out loud with them. He says that he should,
and then continue with his silent amidah. He also quotes that Taz (268:5)
who says that Vayechulu must be said with a minyan.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:16:45 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbech...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Techeles


At 04:28 PM 10/22/01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>Since every time I've seen you, the tzitzis on your tallis qatan were worn
>outside, I'm not sure how that's less of a statement.

Most people do not see my TK since I normally wear a suit jacket
in public. Were I to generally remove it in public, I would wear my
tzitzis inside.

>In any case, are you arguing that techeiles today is a hiddur, a safeiq,
>or something else? Is this a question of not being chayav enough to warrant
>perishah min hatzibur?

I believe the precedent for my hanhogo is the Ba'al ha'Tanya, who,
IIRC, ruled that those who follow his psak should have two-holed TK's
but still maintain the one-holed TG.

Techeles can certainly be no more than a safek regardless, and would
therefore, under present circumstances, be *tantamount* to a hiddur at
best and therefore your last question can be answered quite simply "yes".

[In a 2nd email... -mi]

To expand on an earlier response to Micha, I think the wearing of techeles
and the keeping of yashan are similar (albeit one is a lav and one is
an aseh, and other variations - I am painting broad brushstrokes).

I.e., in both cases there was an overwhelming mesorah one way and recently
trends - based on evidence - have risen to the contrary.

I therefore classify both as chumros or hiddurim.

I wear techeles because it has no ripple effect - keeping yashan would
require me to compel a lot of people who come into contact with me to
go to greater extents of hassle. Techeles only concerns me, myself, and I.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
y...@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:14:53 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Of Arks and Rainbows


Many thanks to R' HG Schild for finding that it was the Chizquni who tries
to be meyasheiv the two shitos for "tzohar" cited by Rashi.

Interestingly, the version of the machloqes in Bereishis Raba, and
therefore the one referred to by Rashi, stops at "avanim tovos" and does
not continue (as does the Bavli) "umargolios". This saves the Chizquni
from my question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:33:21 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Ba'al Nefesh (yet again)


I found a definition for "ba'al nefesh" (a topic that for a while was an
Avodah mainstay) in Ru'ach haChaim 3:1.

R' Chaim Vilozhiner, as I've mentioned recently (from what I'm learning
in Nefesh haChaim), sees the iqar of bechirah being between chomer and
ruchnius. Tov vara is a complication Adam brought upon us on top of the
primary issue.

    To this our Rabbis intended (Chagiga 12a): man was as tall as from
    the earth to the raqi'a. And when he sinnes, HQBH places His "Hand"
    on him and reduced him, standing him on two levels.

    If he wants, like at the time when he has a neshamh, even though he
    has feet on the ground, his body and essence is planted beginzei
    meromim. And when he sins, HQBH places His "Hand" on him and
    reduces him etc... to two levels -- it means to say two steps:
    nefesh and ru'ach.

    And here the bechirah chafshi in man, by his will turns his tangible
    chomer into ruchani, and similarly in reverse ch"v -- damages the
    ru'ach and it returns like his flesh. And in the dor hamabul, they
    did evil, and damaged the ru'ach and returned it like flesh. And to
    this the pasuq says (Ber 6) "lo yadon ruchi"...

    People who turn over the basar and it becomes ru'ach are called
    "ba'alei hanefesh".

    However, because of avanoseinu harabim, they are few these people
    who have within them the ru'ach. However, at a time when they have
    some zechus, they lower it down into their bodies. This is what
    is written (Iyov 32) "And so it is ru'ach in man, and nishmas
    Sha-dai will understand them." The ru'ach at times is in man --
    in him mamash! -- and the neshamah isn't in him. Rather, it sends
    to him from on high a response to the ru'ach, the "Ru'ach Hashem,
    ru'ach chochmah ubinah ..."

Note that while RCV didn't give the same hesber as my guess, I was right
in assuming that "ba'al nefesh" refers to nefesh bedavka and not the
soul in general.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:10:59 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmshe...@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Techeles


On 23 Oct 2001, at 5:16, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
>> Since every time I've seen you, the tzitzis on your tallis qatan were worn
>> outside, I'm not sure how that's less of a statement.

> Most people do not see my TK since I normally wear a suit jacket
> in public. Were I to generally remove it in public, I would wear my
> tzitzis inside.

Why would you wear your tzitzis inside if you removed your jacket? 
If you were not "bein ha'goyim" (MB 8:15), would you wear them 
out? 

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:44:05 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: T'kheles


I want to clear up what seems to be conflicting claims.

The first is RSM's statement (v8n14) that:
: Incontravertible facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g'dolim
: at the time of the Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t'kheles.

Compare this to R' Mendel Singer's (v8n23):
: According to Rabbi Borstein's excellent sefer HaTecheiles, the Lev
: HaIvri, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger...

Subsequent iscussion of who he was, noted.

: The Meharsham, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron did not rule it was
: techeiles, but was very favorable and publicly wore a Tallis with
: techeiles (and was buried in it in accord with his will). Rabbi Chaim
: Ozer Grodzinsky and Rabbi Chaim Berlin also wore techeiles, but privately
...
: The Maggid of Kovno, Rabbi Yitchak Elchonon Spektor also was favorably
: inclined but was unable to take a public stance in favor due to certain
: matters of pikuach nefesh he was involved in. The Chofetz Chaim was
: m'supek....

The Maharsham, RCOG, and RYES aren't "none of the gedolim". The latter
two were viewed by many to be THE poseqim of the generation. No?

(My father and I have differing memories as to whether my grandfather
saw the C"C wearing techeiles on his talis qatan. I didn't mention this
until now, because my memory is poor enough to wonder if I dreamed up
this memory. But it is consistant with R' Borstein's quote.)

Do we have anything other than skepticism about Radziner sources,
to deny this claim?

Otherwise, it would seem that RYGB's approach was that of some of the
greatest gedolim of that dor.

(It would also seem to me that today, perishah min hatzibbur lacks the
same oomf. We live in a society where no one is going to be clamoring
to have my tallis pulled off my back over this issue.)

On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 06:36:42PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
: You claim that the contemporaries of the Radzyner raised problems with
: his t'kheles which are do not apply to the Murex t'kheles. The specific
: issues they addressed indeed do not apply. But you are missing the
: major thrust of my argument.

Actually, if they address specific issues, the implication is that the
overall problem of lack of mesorah was NOT sufficient to dismiss Radziner
techeiles. Who discusses peratim when the kelal is flawed?

: seen it. Micha had written earlier, quoting R. Sterman that "Equating
: tekhelet with purpura and the color of purpura: The Chavot Ya'ir in his
: M'kor Chayim... The Shiltei haGiborim... The Musaf la'Aruch... Midrash
: haGadol from Yemen..., and the Aruch..." The idea that techeiles and
: royal purple have the same source recurs throughout the period in which
: techeiles wasn't worn. One could argue that at least a theoretical,
: if not practical, mesorah did exist.>

: That is scarcely the case. Masoros about identification of objects are
: lost far more quickly...

You are arguing against allegation of fact with theory. I'm saying that
since there is a shalsheles tracable at least to the Aruch, one could
argue that this is luckily a venue in which the identification was not
lost as quickly as usual. Or at least, that some echo of the identification
existed amongst some theorists, even if we lost certainty that they
are right.

Alternatively, you have to explain why every couple of centuries
people make the same false identification without even making
the dye.

BTW, what is "usual"? We didn't forget what "devash" is, or "ari", or
"par"...

: Qal vahomer regarding t'kheles, which was lost in the time of the
: g'onim....

Actually, it is unclear whether the Rambam never had access to techeiles.
The Radziner argues otherwise, that after Peirush haMishnayos he did get
his hands on some.

: So then we go to a), the statements in the g'moro about the hillazon.

As I said, irrelevent.

It's like going to the Medrash Rabba on the four minim, and trying to
reconstruct what an esrog is. Knowing that it has both ta'am varei'ach,
a pitom, an ukitz, a migdal (without being sure what thoser things are),
and rows of bumps wouldn't be enough to identify an esrog. And how does
the word "tower" really refer to the top part of a citron?

If we're going to consistantly address my suggestion, then the question
the gemara is asking is why do we want sky-blue wool colored by a
chilazon rather than kaleh ilan or some other dye? 

Instead, you're reverting back to the assumption that the gemara was
discussing zoology rather than trying to find aggadic significance
to the choice of chilazon.

:                                             So the g'moro is saying
: that the hillazon is a sea creature that may be camouflaged (or not) and
: can be overfished and spawns. Rabbosai, what does that not include? Yes,
: it excludes giant sea turtles, because they lay eggs. Yes, it excludes
: brightly colored fish. But it includes almost everything else. Starfish,
: octopodes, all molluscs, gastropods and cephalopods, oysters and clams,
: sharks, manta rays, crabs, flounder and hundreds of other kinds of
: fish....

But not all dyes come from fish.

If it's not identification, than part of the question is "Why an
underwater invertibrate?" and not necessarily "Which underwater
invertebrate?"

:                                                  R. Singer has written
: that R. Chayim Ozer and R. Hayyim Berlin wore t'kheles privately. I
: do not believe that to be the case. Menahem Borshtein brings just that
: "it is a tradition among Radzyne chasidim" that these figures, as well
: as R. Hertzog, wore the Radzyner t'kheles secretly. If they felt that
: there was nothing wrong with being yotze the sofeq by wearing it, why not
: publicly?

This was addressed. In light of the vitriol later mentioned, wearing
it publicly raises halachic problems.

You also jump from the "I don't believe" to using their lack of wearing
it as a ra'ayah. To wit:
: Only if we had clear and convincing evidence would we go against the
: practice of R. Yitzchoq Elhonon and the others, and there is none as
: of now.
...
: For afficionados of this subject, I will b'n post something quite short
: addressing some other of R. Micha's points and the question of the color.

Question? How can there be a question? Assuming kalah ilan = indigo, we
know the color exactly. Are you suggesting that the kalah ilan dye wasn't
purely kalah ilan? I await that later post.



On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:10:55PM -0400, Mendel Singer replied to
Ari Greenspan:
: >So you see even he' who was interested in the topic, while the dying
: >continued in Byzantium, was familiar intimately with kala ilan and knew
: >the plant on a technical level was both unfamiliar with murex despite
: >his assertion that it might exist. Yet he never bothered to look for it
: >and he lived near the ocean!

: Hmmm...the Radvaz wrote about the chilazon, knew about k'la ilan, was
: near where they dyed with murex and yet doesn't mention murex at all.
: Isn't the obvious answer that he *knew* that murex was NOT the chilazon?

Apparantly people didn't know how to turn the purple dye into a usable
blue one. Otherwise, the question exists either way. If you know what
kalah ilan is, you would also address why the murex is NOT techeiles
(if you knew it weren't). After all, the problem raised what that murex's
indigo is too similar, not dissimilar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:27:21 -0400
From: MPopp...@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Birchas Habonim


In Avodah V8 #25, Akiva Miller wrote:
> When my children are away for Shabbos, either at a friend or yeshiva
> or camp or whatever, I try to reach them by phone and give them their
> bracha on Erev Shabbos afternoon....I'm not sure how well this option
> would work for those who give these brachos silently.

Insofar as we've noted the special nature of this hands-on Friday-night
practice, that it should be said aloud vs. silently while on the phone
sometime before Friday night IMHO doesn't seem relevant.

> (No, I have no sources for this practice. I think I came up with it
> on my own. It just seemed natural. If other people do this, I'd like to
> hear about it.)

My mother shetichyeh l'y't'a' nowadays (when we can't come to her
for YhK and she doesn't want to daven anywhere other than "Breuer's")
blesses me erev YhK _silently_ by phone -- that she does so while we're
on the phone with each other is incidental to the fact that she says
the p'sukim and the Y'hi Ratzon silently.

If I may quickly get back to an earlier point, Gil Student wrote:
> Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
> bakashos.

We've already addressed some of the instances he brought up, but I'd like
to now address his point. Birchas HaBonim ("BhB") on erev YhK does indeed
include [for-the-individual] bakashos (the "Y'hi Ratzon" mentioned above)
after some p'sukim; the BhB my parents gave me and I give my children on
Friday night only includes those p'sukim...and who says they're "bakashos"
in the sense of what we shouldn't be wishing an individual on Shabbos?

In Avodah V8 #23, Joel Rich wrote:
> I believe the bakashos reason is brought down in the Yerushalmi.

I've privately asked, and am still waiting, for confirmation. One of
the members of this list couldn't find any such ma'amar in the TY...
if anyone does know of such a sugya, please quote perek&mishna (and, if
you're really nice, the words themselves, as I don't have a TY at home);
if anyone is sure no such sugya exists, please let us all know. Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:44:56 +0300
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@zahav.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V8 #25


From: kennethgmil...@juno.com
> My wife does as well. She saw this at the home of one of her
> rabbi-teachers. Also, FWIW, the Artscroll siddur uses the word "parents"
> in the instructions there.

Well, I have to say that I also bless my daughters every Shabbat night
as I learned from my MIL. The minhag mentioned here concerning Erev YK
is also familiar from my in-laws (Sephardi).

There is a Teshuva of Rav Ovadia Yosef (sorry, I don't have the source
at hand) that discusses the issue of Birkat Hedyot and mentions that
(to paraphrase) Hashem approves of people blessing each other.

Shoshana L. Boublil


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:52:55 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <Ch...@KolSassoon.net>
Subject:
Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories


In message , Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes
>:        Is not our obligation to have hakaras hatov itself rooted in our
>: imitation of the midos of Hashem?

>Search Avodah's archives for previous discussion of Euthyphro's Dilemma.
>Bekitzur: Does Hashem want us to do good, or is it good because Hashem
>wants us to do it? The former would imply that HKBH is subject to some
>notion of "good" that He did not create. The latter, that "good" is arbitrary;
>subject to divine whim with no extranal definition.

I am aware of the dilemma.  But it seems to me that on both sides we
assume that good is associated with Hashem whether of his creation or
not (you seem to be saying that much even in your formulation as you
state in both sides that he wants us to do good).  If you hold otherwise
would you not have to say that the gemorra in Sotah (14a) requiring us
to follow after the midos of HKBH was taking a position on the dilemma?

What seems to be postulated regarding a malevolent god though is
something different.  You are focussing on the problem as to how we can
have a god who is malevolent ie:

>I proposed my own resolution in
><http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n099.shtml#17>.
>But underlying what I wrote is the assumption that "evil creator" is
>an oxymoron.

While I do not disagree, that was only part of my objection.  Even
assuming that such an evil creator could exist - surely the obligation
on us would be such that we would then be required to be evil  - on one
side of the dilemma, because that was the definition of appropriate
behaviour as propagated by this creator, or on the other, because while
there might be an objective definition of good, how could we have
hakaras hatov for evil?

>:                                   What does it mean to suggest that we
>: should be "better" than Hashem (which seems to be what you are saying of
>: you say that Hashem is malevolent but yet we must have hakaras hatov)?

>Interestingly, just last week it was suggested to me that yes, we are
>expected to be better than Hashem. After all, when He does chessed,
>He is in no way diminished by giving what He does. When a person does
>chessed, that person often has to subsequently do without. (If nothing
>else, do without the time and energy it took to do it.)

That of course discounts things such as the schar in olam haba (and any
in olam hazeh), not to mention the psychological changes (assuming these
are different from the rewards mentioned before) engendered by the chessed
(including mitzvah gorem mitzvah etc). Is it not assumed throughout that
we actually get more than we give.

>BTW, I don't say this, R' Yeruchim did. It's not a shitah I'm personally
>convinced of.

Understood.  It is R' Yeruchim that I don't understand.

Kind Regards
Chana


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:21:42 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories


On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 07:52:55PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I am aware of [Euthyphro's] dilemma.  But it seems to me that on both sides
: we assume that good is associated with Hashem whether of his creation or
: not...

Not really. If we define "good" as being "that which the Creator wants"
then a hypothetical malevalent creator would generate a definition of
"good" that includes murder, theft, and assault and excludes kindness,
mercy, and generosity. Being associated with such a "good" isn't really
being associated with good as it's really defined.

:> But underlying what I wrote is the assumption that "evil creator" is
:> an oxymoron.

: While I do not disagree, that was only part of my objection.  Even
: assuming that such an evil creator could exist - surely the obligation
: on us would be such that we would then be required to be evil  - on one
: side of the dilemma, because that was the definition of appropriate
: behaviour as propagated by this creator, or on the other, because while
: there might be an objective definition of good, how could we have
: hakaras hatov for evil?

I think the nequdah your raising is whether a malevelent deity would
consider others being bad to him, rather than serving him, to be a
good thing or bad one. One thinks of Ba'al Pe'or. If he wants to be
abused, than that would be the way to be maqir him. Most evil people
do not, though -- they only want evil to be done to others.

I don't know how well I answered this question. If you speak of "hakaras
hatov" then you're speaking of "tov", including the tovah of being
created. The fact that being created is a tovah is the point underlying
the paradox of "malevelent creator". R' Yeruchim is saying we need to
serve H' out of haqaras hatov. A malevelent deity wouldn't have created
us since that's not a malevelent thing to do. This hypothetical deity
wouldn't have done the tov, there'd be nothing to makir.

You're asking me to think of a situation where I accept some of the
consequences of an idea but not all of them. I don't work well in such
inconsistant scenerios.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:37:55 EDT
From: RabbiRichWol...@aol.com
Subject:
Re: rambam's iqqorim


In a message dated 10/22/2001 9:51:47am EDT, yadmo...@bezeqint.net writes:
> While we are discussing methodological points and not just the facts,
> I'd just like to toss in a comment of the Rambam in his famous letter
> regarding the validity of astrology
> 
> "I know of course that it is possible to search and find isolated opinions
> of some of the sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose views contradict
> [what I have said]... These statements should not trouble you because
> one doesn't simply discard a clearly established halacha and revert back
> to the initial analysis.... "

AISI we can re-phrase thius simply
It's not what the Torah {or the Talmud for taht matter} SAYS that counts
It's what it MEANS that counts.

There  are several ways of determining the divergence of meaning over 
literalism, including:
1) Analysis
2) Tradition

Bottom line: it might be OK to understand a passage literally at times, but 
to take it the literal meaning as normative - over and above how it has been 
implemented in practice - would be to betray the thrust of the statement.

As R. Gorelick would admonish us, "The problem is when you say Ashrey you 
sit!"  
Translation:  Yoshvei vei'secha is not about sitting but about residing or 
dwelling.  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsi...@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:55:55 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbech...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Techeles


At 05:10 PM 10/23/01 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>Why would you wear your tzitzis inside if you removed your jacket?
>If you were not "bein ha'goyim" (MB 8:15), would you wear them
>out?

In order to avoid statements (see previous posts).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
y...@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avo...@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majord...@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majord...@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >