Avodah Mailing List
Volume 10 : Number 112
Tuesday, February 25 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:34:22 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of RSRH, and MM & Philosophy of Mitzvos
In a message dated 2/19/2003 3:54:44 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> : IIRC, Dayan Grunfeld's hakdamah to Horeb says something similar.
> : Jews need mitzvos as a Mamleches Kohanim v'goy kadosh
> : Gentiles need few mitzvos, just 7.
>
> AISI, it's very different. RSRH asserts that Jews have a higher calling,
> and this calling requires further educational experience. MM asserts that
> mitzvos are tools to get to the same truth everyone else is supposed to
> reach.
>
> Particularly since one of the issues under discussion is universalism
> vs particularism, the difference is significant.
I see your point.
However, there is a possible common denominator
There are 7 universal Mitzvos for bnai Noach at large
Bnai Ysrael are obligated to more becasue we are the kohanim within the
SAME system.
For exmple within the targy kohanim have mitzvos that ysirelim do not
{and vice versa} nevertheless we are all considered bnai yisrael and
subject the 613.
So let's re-parse waht you said above:
:AISI, it's very different. RSRH asserts that Jews have a higher calling,
:and this calling requires further educational experience.
IOW our higher calling is as Kohnim to the common system
:MM asserts that mitzvos are tools to get to the same truth everyone else is
:supposed to reach.
And MM is saying by being good Kohanim on our level, the universal truth
will trickle down to the entire category of banai Noach
IOW, they may both see Israel as the top of the Mitzvah hierarchy,
and that Israel is at the apex of a big, common pyramid.
And while being at the top we both have higher obligations towards
HKBH and yet also be aware that we are influencing those on the lower
strata....
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:04:54 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: poskim and Negiyos Avodah V10 #109
In a message dated 2/21/2003 10:21:45 AM EST, DFinchPC@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 2/20/2003 4:51:22 PM EST, Motya Gofman writes:
> >I refer you to the end of perek gimel of the Chazon
> >Ish's Emuna V'Bitachon. There he states that a person who accuses poskim
> >of being influenced by negiyos is considered a mevazeh talmid chacham,
> >and thereby, an apikores.
> But what if the posek was, in fact, influenced by personal negiyos?
I dont' know how the Chazon Ish meant his statement.
There is a simple way to re-state it:
"... a person who accuses poskim of being influenced CONSCIOUSLY by
negiyos is considered a mevazeh talmid chacham and thereby, an apikores."
However, I think that it is obvious that Poskim are influenced
unconsiously in many ways.
And there may be SOME negiyos that are even conscious. Certainly you
would expect the Mechabeir to lean towards Sephardic Psak and Rema to
lean towards Ashkenazi, though there are indeed some notable excpetoins
in both directions. But I do not construe communal affiliation as a
perjorative form of negiya.
E.G.: I think it is obvious that the MB as a Litvak leans towards the
Gra while the Kitzur {KSA} leans towards Hungarian Minhaggim, etc.
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:39:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> I believe Mohandus Gandhi said:
> Take Care of the Means and the Ends will take care of themselves or
> something to that effect. IOW:
> Take care of the Methods and the Goals will take care of themselves
> Sometimes people try to force a worthy goal down the throats of the
> people, and are not too fussy how they acomplish their means.
Yes. It was Hitler's goal to create a utopian society. His goal was OK
but his methods were questionable.
As it says in today's Daf Yomi, "Midvar Sheker Tirchak". The Gemmarah
then goes on to show several examples of what this means. One of those
examples is the essence of a noble goal that is preceded by a Sheker. The
example was where a Talmud Chacham and Chareid of the highest Calibre who
is impeccable in his honesty and integrity but has only an Eid Echad to
verify his calim of debt against an individual. Juctice it seems would
demand that the Talmud Chacham be given the opportunity to collect his
debt through a small white lie by the false testimony one of his Talmidim
posing as a second witness. After all, the lie itself is only a means to
acheive justice since it was well established through the reputation of
both the Talmud Chacham and the Eid Echad that there was indeed a debt.
Without the Sheker, the goal could not be reached and a gross injustice
would result.
Never-the-less the Torah tell's us "Midvar Sheker Tirchak"... that
one must avoid questionable methods no matter how noble the goal.
Questionable means (the Torah tells us) are NEVER justified.
I think this principle is a basic foundation of the Torah and should
apply everywhere, including Kiruv. Unfortunately there are some movements
who presume that Kiruv is so important that it is better to lie and
win someone over than to let him slip through your fingers. The Torah
tells us, No! "Midvar Sheker Tirchok". If one is won over under false
pretences it is a house of cards. One cannot build a foundation of Torah
observance on a lie.
HM
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:19:15 +0200
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: dimensions of mizbeach nechoshet
Rabbiner Arie Folger stated:
>PS: watch my deveation from my usual transliteration scheme for the
>subject line. I have come to the conclusion that, for the sake of allowing
>us to efficiently search the Avodah archives, we should use commonly
>used Artscroll style transliteration, even though I find it horrible
>(and probably some other purists). Somehow, the benefit of easy indexing
>trumps the precision, at least for the subject line (but I'll stick to
>precision in the body).
Si I looked at the Subject line and saw that R' AF had written mizbeach
rather than mizbah (or mizbach).
And that left me puzzled. Was the intention that we use the nifrad
form rather than the nismakh form to simplify searches? Or was it a
declaration that the commonly used vocalization is erroneous?
Or some other statement?
-----------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:55:26 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Re: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
On 24 Feb 2003 at 8:39, Harry Maryles wrote:
> As it says in today's Daf Yomi, "Midvar Sheker Tirchak". The Gemmarah
> then goes on to show several examples of what this means. One of those
> examples is the essence of a noble goal that is preceded by a Sheker.
> The example was where a Talmud Chacham and Chareid of the highest
> Calibre who is impeccable in his honesty and integrity but has only an
> Eid Echad to verify his calim of debt against an individual. Juctice
> it seems would demand that the Talmud Chacham be given the opportunity
> to collect his debt through a small white lie by the false testimony
> one of his Talmidim posing as a second witness. After all, the lie
> itself is only a means to acheive justice since it was well
> established through the reputation of both the Talmud Chacham and the
> Eid Echad that there was indeed a debt. Without the Sheker, the goal
> could not be reached and a gross injustice would result.
Actually, if you look at Rashi, the Gemara is going even further than
that. For the eid to actually testify would be an issur of giving false
testimony. Midvar sheker tirchak means that the talmid cannot even
go to court and stand there without saying anything AS IF he were a
second witness.
-- Carl
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:24:39 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
--part1_1d3.388cddb.2b8bcb77_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/24/2003 1:06:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> Juctice it seems would
> demand that the Talmud Chacham be given the opportunity to collect his
> debt through a small white lie by the false testimony one of his Talmidim
> posing as a second witness. After all, the lie itself is only a means to
> acheive justice since it was well established through the reputation of
> both the Talmud Chacham and the Eid Echad that there was indeed a debt.
> Without the Sheker, the goal could not be reached and a gross injustice
> would result.
>
> Never-the-less the Torah tell's us "Midvar Sheker Tirchak"... that
> one must avoid questionable methods no matter how noble the goal.
> Questionable means (the Torah tells us) are NEVER justified.
>
>
Yasher Koa'ach Harry
Furthermore Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof. Why Tzedek twice? One anwer is that the
MEANS must be Tzedek as well as the ends. or IOW, one Tzedek is a description
of the other. According to this pshat, therefore it does not mean "Justice
Justice shalt thou pursue" - which is redundant, but rather "JUST Justice
shlatthou pursue" - i.e. Justice via Just means.
Warning, I'm stepping onto my sopa box --smile--.
This is another aspect of HOW Lashon hara can be so bad. It is wrong to
judge anyone w/o the other person at least being able to defend himself.
This Jewish passion for Justice and Fairness is unique throughout time and
space. It really is one of the most defining aspects of what it means to be
a Jew.
Our leaders must be "fair judges". Hashivah Shofteinu Kevarishona.
Tziyon bemishpat tipadeh, v'shaveha bitzdekah. Justice is the essential and
primary fore-runner of Moshiach - may he come speedily in our days
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
--part1_1d3.388cddb.2b8bcb77_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/24/2003 1:06:31 PM Eastern Standa
rd Time, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Juctice it seems would<BR>
demand that the Talmud Chacham be given the opportunity to collect his<BR>
debt through a small white lie by the false testimony one of his Talmidim<BR
>
posing as a second witness. After all, the lie itself is only a means to<BR>
acheive justice since it was well established through the reputation of<BR>
both the Talmud Chacham and the Eid Echad that there was indeed a debt.<BR>
Without the Sheker, the goal could not be reached and a gross injustice<BR>
would result.<BR>
<BR>
Never-the-less the Torah tell's us "Midvar Sheker Tirchak"... that<BR>
one must avoid questionable methods no matter how noble the goal.<BR>
Questionable means (the Torah tells us) are NEVER justified.<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Yasher Koa'ach Harry<BR>
Furthermore Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof. Why Tzedek twice? One anwer is
that the MEANS must be Tzedek as well as the ends. or IOW, one Tzedek is a
description of the other. According to this pshat, therefore it does n
ot mean "Justice Justice shalt thou pursue" - which is redundant, but rather
"JUST Justice shlatthou pursue" - i.e. Justice via Just means.<BR>
<BR>
Warning, I'm stepping onto my sopa box --smile--. <BR>
<BR>
This is another aspect of HOW Lashon hara can be so bad. I
t is wrong to judge anyone w/o the other person at least being able to defen
d himself.<BR>
<BR>
This Jewish passion for Justice and Fairness is unique throughout time and s
pace. It really is one of the most defining aspects of what it m
eans to be a Jew.<BR>
<BR>
Our leaders must be "fair judges". Hashivah Shofteinu Kevarishona.&nbs
p; <BR>
<BR>
Tziyon bemishpat tipadeh, v'shaveha bitzdekah. Justice is the essentia
l and primary fore-runner of Moshiach - may he come speedily in our days<BR>
<BR>
Kol Tuv - Best Regards<BR>
Richard Wolpoe<BR>
<A HREF=3D"RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A></FONT></HTML
>
--part1_1d3.388cddb.2b8bcb77_boundary--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:46:31 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: poskim and Negiyos Avodah V10 #109
--part1_1c6.59c23a6.2b8bd097_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:27:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> However, I think that it is obvious that Poskim are influenced
> unconsiously in many ways.
>
> And there may be SOME negiyos that are even conscious. Certainly you
> would expect the Mechabeir to lean towards Sephardic Psak and Rema to
> lean towards Ashkenazi, though there are indeed some notable excpetoins
> in both directions. But I do not construe communal affiliation as a
> perjorative form of negiya.
>
> E.G.: I think it is obvious that the MB as a Litvak leans towards the
> Gra while the Kitzur {KSA} leans towards Hungarian Minhaggim, etc.
>
> Kol Tuv - Best Regards
> Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
>
Here is a reply to my own post based on a ma'aseh this morning...
Background: Cong. Beth Aaron in Teaneck has a strict Minhag to have the
Shatz say the Ga'al Yisrael in Shacharis out loud.
There is a chiyyuv who refuses to abide by this decision because he claims
that Rav Elyashiva paskend therwise and he is the Poseik hador. More on that
thread later bli neder
I showed him that this goes aginst the Shulchan Aruch etc. Source is SA
66:7.
Mechabeir: One does NOT say Amen after Ga'al Yisrael because it is a hefsek
Rema: and some say you do say Amen - and it is the custom do do so after the
Shatz... but while daveing alone oen does NOT answer Amen.
NB: it is TEMPTING to interpret the Mechabeir as meaning don't say Amen
after the Shatz. But this is Unlikely {though it is possible, see below}.
The Mechabeir is most likely referring to saying an Amen to his own brachah
and this can be shown in the Sephardic practice of saying Amen after Shomer
Amo Yisrael la'ad during Ma'ariv. While all Sephardim do this, conversely
they do NOT say it after Ga'al Yisrael. Furthermore, this fits better into
the way the Rema responds.
** note MB argues, please see below **
At any rate it beomes clear that if you follow many of the arguments and
biurim that people say on this issue, it appears they base it upon their own
personal model and not upon the context of the original. I.E. the
BY/Mechabeir comes from the paradigm that one usually ansnwers an Amen afterr
one's own brachah that ends a series, whereas, Ashkenazim generally do not
{excpet during birkas hamazon} . Therefore the temptation is to presume that
the context of the BY is the same as the Ashkenazic practice, whereas in
reality it is not quite the same. This is another example of unconscious
negiyos, i.e. being unaware of the parameters of the different paradigms.
** NB: the MB based upon the BY holds that SA is referring to birchas
Hashatz, too IOW one should not say Amen. While I concede that the BY might
indeed hold that to be the case, it is IMHO NOT implicit in the context of
this din as the Mechabeir has stated it in SA, as I haved argued above. **
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
--part1_1c6.59c23a6.2b8bd097_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:27:10 AM Eastern Stand
ard Time, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">However, I think that it is obv
ious that Poskim are influenced<BR>
unconsiously in many ways.<BR>
<BR>
And there may be SOME negiyos that are even conscious. Certainly you<BR>
would expect the Mechabeir to lean towards Sephardic Psak and Rema to<BR>
lean towards Ashkenazi, though there are indeed some notable excpetoins<BR>
in both directions. But I do not construe communal affiliation as a<BR>
perjorative form of negiya.<BR>
<BR>
E.G.: I think it is obvious that the MB as a Litvak leans towards the<BR>
Gra while the Kitzur {KSA} leans towards Hungarian Minhaggim, etc.<BR>
<BR>
Kol Tuv - Best Regards<BR>
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com><BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Here is a reply to my own post based on a ma'aseh this morning...<BR>
<BR>
Background: Cong. Beth Aaron in Teaneck has a strict Minhag to have th
e Shatz say the Ga'al Yisrael in Shacharis out loud.<BR>
<BR>
There is a chiyyuv who refuses to abide by this decision because he claims t
hat Rav Elyashiva paskend therwise and he is the Poseik hador. More on
that thread later bli neder<BR>
<BR>
I showed him that this goes aginst the Shulchan Aruch etc. Source is S
A 66:7.<BR>
Mechabeir: One does NOT say Amen after Ga'al Yisrael because it is a hefsek<
BR>
Rema: and some say you do say Amen - and it is the custom do do so after the
Shatz... but while daveing alone oen does NOT answer Amen.<BR>
<BR>
NB: it is TEMPTING to interpret the Mechabeir as meaning don't say Ame
n after the Shatz. But this is Unlikely {though it is possible, see be
low}. The Mechabeir is most likely referring to saying an Amen to his own br
achah and this can be shown in the Sephardic practice of saying Amen after S
homer Amo Yisrael la'ad during Ma'ariv. While all Sephardim do this, c
onversely they do NOT say it after Ga'al Yisrael. Furthermore, t
his fits better into the way the Rema responds. <BR>
<BR>
** note MB argues, please see below **<BR>
<BR>
At any rate it beomes clear that if you follow many of the arguments and biu
rim that people say on this issue, it appears they base it upon their
own personal model and not upon the context of the original. I.E. the
BY/Mechabeir comes from the paradigm that one usually ansnwers an Amen after
r one's own brachah that ends a series, whereas, Ashkenazim generally do not
{excpet during birkas hamazon} . Therefore the temptation is to presu
me that the context of the BY is the same as the Ashkenazic practice, wherea
s in reality it is not quite the same. This is another example of unco
nscious negiyos, i.e. being unaware of the parameters of the different parad
igms. <BR>
<BR>
** NB: the MB based upon the BY holds that SA is referring to birchas
Hashatz, too IOW one should not say Amen. While I concede that the BY
might indeed hold that to be the case, it is IMHO NOT implicit in the contex
t of this din as the Mechabeir has stated it in SA, as I haved argued above.
**<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Kol Tuv - Best Regards<BR>
Richard Wolpoe<BR>
<A HREF=3D"RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A></FONT></HTML
>
--part1_1c6.59c23a6.2b8bd097_boundary--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:43:16 -0600 (CST)
From: sholom@aishdas.org
Subject: Why is Torah written so cryptically?
I'm sure this has come up a gazillion times before . . . it happened to
come up at our shabbos table two shabboses ago -- and I posited a short
answer that is, in part, a mixture of something I think RMB wrote, with
something that I heard in a shiur once.
From the shiur:
Ritva writes, explaining why "Eilu v'eilu..." (i.e., how can both Beis
Hillel and Beis Shammai be correct if everything was received at Sinai):
"When Moshe went up, he learned 49 arguments to show it's allowed, and 49
that it's not. Moshe asked, 'which one', and HaShem answered, let the
rabbis decide when the question arises."
From (I think) RMB (a rough approximation by memory):
For certain halachic questions, the decision is analogous to a "quantum
state" where different outcomes are possible, but there is no outcome at
all until it is observed. Similarly, in halacha there may be multiple
answers, but until the case comes up and someone rules on it (and it is
accepted, etc.) there are multiple answers.
Me putting it together in a sudden flash:
Torah, therefore, needed to be written in a way so that all 98 answers to
the question (referring to the Ritva) can be supported.
===========
Thoughts?
-- Sholom
P.S. RMB, if you think this is worthy, bounce to Avodah? But if you do,
still, tell me if the above makes sense?
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:52:17 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Torah written so cryptically?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:43:16PM -0600, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
: From (I think) RMB (a rough approximation by memory):
: For certain halachic questions, the decision is analogous to a "quantum
: state" where different outcomes are possible, but there is no outcome at
: all until it is observed. Similarly, in halacha there may be multiple
: answers, but until the case comes up and someone rules on it (and it is
: accepted, etc.) there are multiple answers.
I don't think I've used a quantum model. Rather, paradox (or dialectic,
as the Rav would put it) is an inherent part of the human condition.
Therefore, depending upon which conflicting aspect needs development,
the ruling could go either way.
I believe it's also a requirement of Torah being Goedel complete. Any
system advanced enough for Goedel's theorem to apply must be incomplete
or inconsistant. TSBP is inconsistant, so the problem doesn't apply.
There are also people who address the rules of safeiq using a QM model,
but there too I prefer to speak of the superposition of mental
states.
: Torah, therefore, needed to be written in a way so that all 98 answers to
: the question (referring to the Ritva) can be supported.
Wouldn't this be necessary to support TSBP even if plurality didn't
edit.
-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:52:17 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Torah written so cryptically?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:43:16PM -0600, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
: From (I think) RMB (a rough approximation by memory):
: For certain halachic questions, the decision is analogous to a "quantum
: state" where different outcomes are possible, but there is no outcome at
: all until it is observed. Similarly, in halacha there may be multiple
: answers, but until the case comes up and someone rules on it (and it is
: accepted, etc.) there are multiple answers.
I don't think I've used a quantum model. Rather, paradox (or dialectic,
as the Rav would put it) is an inherent part of the human condition.
Therefore, depending upon which conflicting aspect needs development,
the ruling could go either way.
I believe it's also a requirement of Torah being Goedel complete. Any
system advanced enough for Goedel's theorem to apply must be incomplete
or inconsistant. TSBP is inconsistant, so the problem doesn't apply.
There are also people who address the rules of safeiq using a QM model,
but there too I prefer to speak of the superposition of mental
states.
: Torah, therefore, needed to be written in a way so that all 98 answers to
: the question (referring to the Ritva) can be supported.
Wouldn't this be necessary to support TSBP even if plurality didn't
edit.
-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:27 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: apikorsus
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:19:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ddcohen@seas.upenn.edu writes:
> While I would certainly agree that issues of belief are quite different
> from other issues, my reason for saying this is different from RML's.
> One could advocate being machmir in one's actions in certain situations
> in order to avoid the possibility of a severe transgression.
>
> How, though, does one force a certain set of beliefs upon oneself?
> If one is actually intellectually convinced of the truth of a certain
> position, but when questioned, says that he believes in a different,
> "more machmir" position, is he then okay?
Setting aside apikorsus for a moment, how about honesty and consistency.
Do we REALLY believe it when we recite:
Chanun v'Rachum Hashem
and
Tov Hashem Lakkol v'racham v'RAchamav al kol Ma'asav?
I know many times during the day when I question how that can be true, after
all there is so much suffering.
OTOH, I do realize that David Hamelech did see these as the Emes. And I also
realize that if I were to approach his madreiga, this would become my reality
also. This I do know myself because as I grow into greater realization of
HKBH, it makes more and more sense over time.
Bottom Line: such affirmations are not to be discounted even though we have
our doubts or reservations. Rather these become golas or targets to be
acheived.
Returning to those of us stuggling with ikkarim... We can still affirm them
while having our reservatoins. In order to minimzie my own conflicts I prefer
Yigdal to Ani Ma'amin davka because Yigdal being a bit vaguer, it triggers
less intellectual resistance. We are not asked to affirm that every OS is
MiSinai, just that the Torah is Emes and given to us at Sinai. Leaving these
details just a bit fuzzy yields a lot less cognitive dissonance.
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:19:47 AM Eastern Stand
ard Time, ddcohen@seas.upenn.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While I would certainly agree t
hat issues of belief are quite different<BR>
from other issues, my reason for saying this is different from RML's.<BR>
One could advocate being machmir in one's actions in certain situations<BR>
in order to avoid the possibility of a severe transgression.<BR>
<BR>
How, though, does one force a certain set of beliefs upon oneself?<BR>
If one is actually intellectually convinced of the truth of a certain<BR>
position, but when questioned, says that he believes in a different,<BR>
"more machmir" position, is he then okay? </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Setting aside apikorsus for a moment, how about honesty and consistency.<BR>
<BR>
Do we REALLY believe it when we recite: <BR>
Chanun v'Rachum Hashem <BR>
and <BR>
Tov Hashem Lakkol v'racham v'RAchamav al kol Ma'asav?<BR>
<BR>
I know many times during the day when I question how that can be true, after
all there is so much suffering.<BR>
<BR>
OTOH, I do realize that David Hamelech did see these as the Emes. And
I also realize that if I were to approach his madreiga, this would become my
reality also. This I do know myself because as I grow into greater re
alization of HKBH, it makes more and more sense over time.<BR>
<BR>
Bottom Line: such affirmations are not to be discounted even though we have
our doubts or reservations. Rather these become golas or targets to be
acheived.<BR>
<BR>
Returning to those of us stuggling with ikkarim... We can still affirm
them while having our reservatoins. In order to minimzie my own conflicts I
prefer Yigdal to Ani Ma'amin davka because Yigdal being a bit vaguer,
it triggers less intellectual resistance. We are not asked to affirm that e
very OS is MiSinai, just that the Torah is Emes and given to us at Sinai.&nb
sp; Leaving these details just a bit fuzzy yields a lot less cognitive disso
nance. <BR>
<BR>
Kol Tuv - Best Regards<BR>
Richard Wolpoe<BR>
<A HREF=3D"RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A></FONT></HTML
>
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary--
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:27 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: apikorsus
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:19:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ddcohen@seas.upenn.edu writes:
> While I would certainly agree that issues of belief are quite different
> from other issues, my reason for saying this is different from RML's.
> One could advocate being machmir in one's actions in certain situations
> in order to avoid the possibility of a severe transgression.
>
> How, though, does one force a certain set of beliefs upon oneself?
> If one is actually intellectually convinced of the truth of a certain
> position, but when questioned, says that he believes in a different,
> "more machmir" position, is he then okay?
Setting aside apikorsus for a moment, how about honesty and consistency.
Do we REALLY believe it when we recite:
Chanun v'Rachum Hashem
and
Tov Hashem Lakkol v'racham v'RAchamav al kol Ma'asav?
I know many times during the day when I question how that can be true, after
all there is so much suffering.
OTOH, I do realize that David Hamelech did see these as the Emes. And I also
realize that if I were to approach his madreiga, this would become my reality
also. This I do know myself because as I grow into greater realization of
HKBH, it makes more and more sense over time.
Bottom Line: such affirmations are not to be discounted even though we have
our doubts or reservations. Rather these become golas or targets to be
acheived.
Returning to those of us stuggling with ikkarim... We can still affirm them
while having our reservatoins. In order to minimzie my own conflicts I prefer
Yigdal to Ani Ma'amin davka because Yigdal being a bit vaguer, it triggers
less intellectual resistance. We are not asked to affirm that every OS is
MiSinai, just that the Torah is Emes and given to us at Sinai. Leaving these
details just a bit fuzzy yields a lot less cognitive dissonance.
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/24/2003 10:19:47 AM Eastern Stand
ard Time, ddcohen@seas.upenn.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While I would certainly agree t
hat issues of belief are quite different<BR>
from other issues, my reason for saying this is different from RML's.<BR>
One could advocate being machmir in one's actions in certain situations<BR>
in order to avoid the possibility of a severe transgression.<BR>
<BR>
How, though, does one force a certain set of beliefs upon oneself?<BR>
If one is actually intellectually convinced of the truth of a certain<BR>
position, but when questioned, says that he believes in a different,<BR>
"more machmir" position, is he then okay? </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Setting aside apikorsus for a moment, how about honesty and consistency.<BR>
<BR>
Do we REALLY believe it when we recite: <BR>
Chanun v'Rachum Hashem <BR>
and <BR>
Tov Hashem Lakkol v'racham v'RAchamav al kol Ma'asav?<BR>
<BR>
I know many times during the day when I question how that can be true, after
all there is so much suffering.<BR>
<BR>
OTOH, I do realize that David Hamelech did see these as the Emes. And
I also realize that if I were to approach his madreiga, this would become my
reality also. This I do know myself because as I grow into greater re
alization of HKBH, it makes more and more sense over time.<BR>
<BR>
Bottom Line: such affirmations are not to be discounted even though we have
our doubts or reservations. Rather these become golas or targets to be
acheived.<BR>
<BR>
Returning to those of us stuggling with ikkarim... We can still affirm
them while having our reservatoins. In order to minimzie my own conflicts I
prefer Yigdal to Ani Ma'amin davka because Yigdal being a bit vaguer,
it triggers less intellectual resistance. We are not asked to affirm that e
very OS is MiSinai, just that the Torah is Emes and given to us at Sinai.&nb
sp; Leaving these details just a bit fuzzy yields a lot less cognitive disso
nance. <BR>
<BR>
Kol Tuv - Best Regards<BR>
Richard Wolpoe<BR>
<A HREF=3D"RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A></FONT></HTML
>
--part1_155.1c3ec50f.2b8bd5bb_boundary--
Go to top.
**********************
[ 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 ]