Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 022

Wednesday, June 4 2003

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:38:43 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Second Day of Yom Tov for a Ben Chu"l in EY


In a message dated 6/2/2003 9:55:01 AM EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> R' Hershel Schachter with some interesting pesakim on the second day
> of Yom Tov for a ben chu"l in EY.

If one is a "chochom shehigia lehoraah", then he is entitled and indeed
obligated to research each and every halachic issue and to follow his
own personal view on any matter. But, if one is not higia lehoraah
(as the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva would be
classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from amongst the
various opinions of the poskim. One must either always follow one posek
(as the mishna in Avos tells us) or follow the consensus from among the
group of poskim he looks up to as his rebeim (because of the fact that
that group left an impression on him).

This is certainly what we were always taught but is their a source in
the gemora(or poskim) that says one "must" always go to one posek? Also
without the "real smicha", how is higia lehoraah defined(e.g. what if
there is a very narrow issue that someone studies and fully understands
the positions etc.-without "real smicha" existing , is there a "chiyuv" to
ask someone with "ersatz smicha" who will not have any more information?)

KT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:08:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky - FAM" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Subject:
kosher tuna (was Re: Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?)


I finally looked into the tuna question.
The answer from the gadol in the field is:

Yes all scombrids have some scales. Some species, like skipjack and
frigate tunas, have the body mostly naked but there are some small scales
along the lateral line and there are the large scales that comprise
the corselet anteriorly. Most tunas have the entire body covered with
small scales.

hope this dispells that error.

ari




On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Arie Folger wrote:

> [Split from an email that lumped together two topics. -mi]
> 
> On a different note, regarding my question about the fishy gmara in
> Avodah Zarah:
> What bothers me is not that there seems to be scientifically inaccurate
> info there regarding the way marine animals procreate. What bothers
> me is that the gmara accepts certain proxies to the biblical signs
> of kosherness of fish. For instance, the gmara (supported by Rashi)
> states that the presence of a bony spine is a sign of kosherness. Not
> wanting to reopen the issue of teh sturgeon and his great defender,
> the Nodah biYehudah, I will merely ask whether all tuna is kosher, even
> as they all have spines (Rav Tendler junior says not, claims that 2 of
> the 4 major varieties of tuna are not kosher)
> 
> Arie
> 

-- 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:42:06 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
rasha ve ra lo


 From the chafetz chaim heritage foundation
    "The late Rabbi Shimon Schwab, revered Rav of the Washington Heights
    kehillah, made another observation: Those who resort to trickery,
    fraud or outright thievery to earn money show a basic lack of faith
    in Hashem. Do they truly believe that Hashem wants them to steal
    and cheat in order to make ends meet? Apparently they do not believe
    that each year on Rosh Hashanah, Hashem decrees our earnings for the
    coming year (Beitzah 16a), and that He has infinite means by which
    to ensure that we will earn whatever is meant for us."

I did not understand R. Schwab's point. If someone steals it seems
fairly obvious that he will indeed get more than Hashem intended. Is
there any source that says one cannot profit from crime? It is hard to
believe that poor man who successfully robs the bank would have gotten
his million dollars anyway. Even the tochechah the Torah "only" describes
the punishments it does not say that they won't get what they want.

The old question of rasha ve-tov lo implies that indeed the mafia can
live a very nice life based on rackateering.

--
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 02/06/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:10:12 +0200
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Subject:
Absolute Good


During a discussion the question of what is "absolute good" arose.
Prof. Friedman [BIU] raised the point that Socrates defined the "absolute
good" as "what the gods decree".

This sounds similar to the modern common custom of saying "what Hashem
decrees is good". Is this true or is this a simplification that allows
us to remove ourselves from taking responsibility for what happens?

Some food for thought:

Hashem created wheat and not bread trees. A well known question is:
If Hashem [who is the source of absolute good] made wheat -- how dare
we make bread with it?

Then answer is also known: Hashem wants us to be active in His world.
Therefore, he gave us wheat so that we too will have a hand in creation.
....

Can it be then that in actuality, "absolute good" is not an abstract "what
Hashem decrees" but rather if we ACT and DO what we are supposed to do --
THEN in conjunction with what Hashem decrees, we have "absolute good".

This would also address the differences between the various explanations
given for Bechira Chofshit vs. HaKol Ya'Du'a and the discussions on
Mikriyut in our lives.

But another question arises: Following the example of wheat and bread,
can it be that "what we are supposed to do" is beyond Kiyum Mitzvot and
Limud Torah -- and rather that it encompasses Yishuvo Shel Olam as part
of the things we are supposed to do in order for Hashem's "absolute good"
to appear in the world [what is known as Hit'Aruta Di'Letata"]?
There are indeed many sources that claim that humans have to act Kdei
Sheyihiye Al Ma SheTaxhul HaBracha!
--------------------------------

Conclusions? Comments?

Shoshana L. Boublil


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:20:51 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Persian Era


At 09:23 AM 6/2/03 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>> The mesorah PREdates the "missing years" - Sod Ha'Ibbur is from Mattan 
>> Torah.

>I know the rishonim are somewhat cagey about what sod haibbur is, but
>I had understood them to understand it as an explanation of how the
>moon moves, which is capable of generating an algorithm, rather than a
>particular algorithm.

And I though Kat Yab Tashtzag is a kabbalah reckoned from Molad Tohu.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:50:24 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
persian history


My aplogies for again stating some of the facts about Persian/Jewish
history which was discussed in the past. However, it seems to have 
been forgotten.

Before getting to the point a word about the present daf yomi.

The gemara in Horayot states that in the days of Ezra they brought
sacrifices to atone for their sins in the days of Zidkiyahu.
Furthermore, the gemara proves that the majority of the people
bringing the korban must have been chayav already.
Since one needs to be at 13 years old to be chayav and over 70
years had passed (actually a little more since Ezra came a year
after the Temple was rebuilt and the crimes were not all committed
immediately for the destruction) these people were at least 83-85 
years old. Hence, according to this gemara the majority of the 
residents of Jerusalem at this point were over 83 and had either 
remained in Israel during the Churban or else has gone to Bavel and 
in their 80s made the trek back to Jerusalem.
So when Ezra complains that very few people joined him on his return 
to Israel it is even worse as most that did come were in their 80s.

-----------
M. Levin writes

"Daniel 11:2 is not correct as he speaks of only 4 Persian kings"

Indeed this is the most difficult pasuk with the secular history.
However, even the standard commentaries struggle trying to identify
the four kings that Daniel is talking with various theories 
presented. In the end the pasuk is not clear as is much of the 
mysteries in Daniel

"It also makes interpreting Ezra6:14 more difficult."
On the contrary this is one of the main proofs for secular history
dates. The Pasuk clearly identifies 3 kings Karesh, Daryavesh AND
Artahshast which forces Rashi to identify the last two as the same
person. Note that Ibn Ezra identifies Artahshast as Achashverosh

"Granted the generations of Kohanim Gedolim in
Nehemia12:10-11 work out easier according to conventional chronology;
yet it is possible to expalin these verses sufficiently 
satisfactorily according to Seder Olan."

See my remarks later and please explain satisfactorily all these
generations within 52 years.

In summary:

    According to Chazal there were 52 years between the defeat of
the Babylonians by the Persian/Medes and the defeat of the Persians
by Alexander the Great. The Second Temple was built 18 years
after the Persian conquest and so stood for 34 years until Alexander
and 420 years in total. The Persian kings were (artscroll to Ezra)
Darius the Mede  1 year   371-370 BCE
Koresh (Cyrus)   3 years  370-367
Ahashverosh     14 years  367-353
Daryavesh (Darius son of Esther) 353-318

Some problems with Chazal's chronology

1. Ezra 4,5,7 describes Koresh, Daryavesh, Achasverosh, Artahshasta.
Rashi explains that Artahshasta is a "family name" similar to Pharoh
and not the name of an individual king. However, he is always 
referred to as the King Artahshasta (melech or malca) and some times 
even king of kings. Would be similar to saying King Pharoh a little 
redundant. Furthermore other kings are listed by their name. To make 
matters worse Rashi also identifies Korash in one pasuk as being 
Darius. In Ezra 6:14 the pasuk listed Korash AND Daryavush AND 
Artahshast. Rashi again ignores the vav and says that Daryavash is 
Artahshast.

However, the simple reading of Ezra/Nechemia is identical to
names found on a Persian column where Xerxes is called khshayarsha 
which is close to Achashverosh and Artahshasta appears as a
separate king. We are left with the strange situation in which the 
simple reading of Tanach and Persian writings are the same. However, 
we reinterpret both of them. In Tanach we re-identify kings from the 
formal name they are given and we ignore the Persian writings. I even 
saw one claim that the writings are forgeries by later Greeks who 
invented these writings simply to prove the Jews wrong for something 
they would write hundreds of years later! - the ultimate conspiracy 
theory.

However, Baal Hamaor in Rosh Hashana 3b and Ralbag quoted by Malbim 
does accept that Artahshast was a later and distinct king
As stated Rashi identifies Artahshast as Darius while Ibn Ezra
identifies Artahshast with Achashverosh.

2. Nehemia 12:10 lists 6 High Priests, son after son,  between 
Yehosua and Yadua. This is hard to explain if the whole period was on 
52 years. It is even worse if one assumes that Shimon haTzaddik was 
the high Priest at the time of Alexander as that adds at least one 
more high Priest in the 52 years. According to Ben Sira, Shimon was 
the son of Johanan which would make of total of at least 8 high 
priests in 52 years all presumably sons of the previous one.

To make matters even worse several rishonim and achronim assume that
Ezra was also a Cohen Gadol. Rambam in his introduction says
"he (Shimon haTzaddik) was Kohen Gadol after Ezra". Presumably this
implies that Ezra was the Kohen Gadol after the list in Nechemia
and that Shimon haTzaddik did not take over after his father.
In any case in adds one more Kohen Gadol to this already long list
within the 52 years.

3. Comparing Divrei Hayaim I: 3:19-24 with Ezra 8 and Nehemia 3:29 it
seems that Ezra and Nehemia lived many years after Zerubbavel.

4. According to Chazal the whole period seemed like a fast motion
movie. Zeubavel appears with Yehoshua Kohen Gadol. A short time later
he disappears from the scene and Ezra and Nechemia appear (though
according to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 38a Zerubavel is Nehemia!).
Mordecai leaves with the exile of Yechonya reappears with Zerubavel
in Israel and then isis in Persia some 70 years later with Esther.
Then Mordechai an old man by this time marries Esther who is 
obviously young as she is accepted as the queen after a beauty 
contest.

Rambam writes that Chaggai, Zerachia, Malachi, Daniel, Channiah, 
Mishael, Nehemia, Mordechai, Zerubavel and Shimon haTzaddik were all 
members of Ezra's bet din. However, Tanach almost never connects 
these people and each story is independent of the others. Names 
appear in Ezra of olim but it far from clear that this is THE 
Mordecai of fame. In any case neither he nor Daniel play any part in 
the rebuilding of the Temple. Even after Mordecai becomes "prime 
minister" he is not able to change the ruling and allow the 
continuation of the rebuilding of the Temple. Similarly, in is not 
clear where Ezra and Nechemia were during the story of Purim.

Note: According to Seder Olam Purim occured before the rebuilding of
the second Temple while according to the secular chronology 
Achashverosh  was the son of Darius and so the Temple was already in 
existence. Josephus (and secular historians) assumes that Purim 
happened  after the return to Zion in dispute with Chazal.

--
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 03/06/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University
  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:37:49 +0000
From: simchag@att.net
Subject:
location of Kever Rachel..controversial


From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> hat is the origin of the place of kever Rachel in Bethlehem?
> does that pre-date the Ari?
> That is also controversial.

there are two interesting papers writen by Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom on the 
location of Kever Rachel. 'The Northern Theory' and 'The Southern Theory'.

they can be found at

http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/br.html

Simcha G


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:02:29 -0400
From: HaLeviY@aol.com
Subject:
Kever Rachel


From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> hat is the origin of the place of kever Rachel in Bethlehem?
> does that pre-date the Ari?

See Ramban al haTorah 35:16, where he deals with the issue,a nd with
the impicationb in Navi that it is in Ramah. He says he was taken to
KR in Beis Lechem. For a discussion of the Tanachi evidence as to the
location of KR,
see: www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/br/KeverRachelN.pdf
www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/br/KeverRachelS.pdf

Daniel Yolkut


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:28:56 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: eggs - yom tov


>People still donate blood which is (functionally) equivalent
>to a blood letting. Around here bllod drives are usually
>several days, so one can schedule around inconvenient
>times. I don't know how that works in Israel. If a blood
>drive is exclusively on Erev Yom Tov I wonder whether
>donating blood is safek pikuach nefesh (for the potential
>recipient), in which case I imagine it's mutar.

I once saw a teshuvah about whether it is mutar to donate blood on Erev
Yom Tov. The pesak was le-kula but I can't remember where I saw it.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:32:31 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: yom tov


Eli Turkel wrote:
>3. One should wear nicer clothing on yom tov than shabbat.
>Does anyone really have a special suit or even tie for yomtov
>and not shabbat?

Yes. For Yom Tov I reserve my wedding suit (I'm young enough that it
still fits, more or less) and a fancy suit my parents got me for my
sister's wedding. On Shabbos I wear the cheaper suits that I buy myself.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:53:42 EDT
From: RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Second Day of Yom Tov for a Ben Chu"l in EY


In a message dated 6/3/03 10:26:02 AM EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> This is certainly what we were always taught but is their a source in
> the gemora(or poskim) that says one "must" always go to one posek? Also
> without the "real smicha", how is higia lehoraah defined(e.g. what if
> there is a very narrow issue that someone studies and fully understands
> the positions etc.-without "real smicha" existing , is there a "chiyuv" to
> ask someone with "ersatz smicha" who will not have any more information?)

This is a problem I have had, re: Y"T Sheini:  having gone through the entire 
shakla v'taria of the centuries, I am in complete agreement with the Chacham 
Tzvi and would feel extremely uncomfortable saying brochos, tefillos etc. that 
do not apply according to him.  Would I be obligated to follow the two day 
shitta regardless?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:23:17 -0400
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
Sefirah and Shehechiyanu


I vaguely remember once hearing the following question and answer,
and I'm wondering if it sounds familiar to anyone:

Q: Why don't we say Shehechiyanu on the mitzva of counting sefiras
haomer? A: You can be yotzay that when you say the shehechiyanu at
Kiddush on Shavuos.

If anyone might know the source for this please let me know.

Thanks
Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:36:37 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Persian Era


On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 11:20:51AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
:> I know the rishonim are somewhat cagey about what sod haibbur is, but
:> I had understood them to understand it as an explanation of how the
:> moon moves, which is capable of generating an algorithm, rather than a
:> particular algorithm.

: And I though Kat Yab Tashtzag is a kabbalah reckoned from Molad Tohu.

I too was under the impression sod ha'ibbur referred to the results,
not the algorithm used.

It's pretty simple to take any molad and add multiples of 
29d 12h 44m 1ch'. Take any molad and you can create the
rest.

How is one more "sod ha'ibbur" than the other?

That said, it's so simple, I don't see how it's a "sod" of any sort.
The length of the month is actually quite hard to measure to the
nearest cheileq. Actual months differ by quite a bit. That duration
had to have been miSinai, there weren't enough months to get an average
that accurate. So perhaps that's the sod. But again, it's a simple fact
easilly committed to memory. Not some complex art.

Which is why I asked if the term "sod ha'ibbur" did not primarily include
shanos me'ubaros, and the length of Cheshvan and Kislev.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   unity-how does it draw out one's soul?


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:41:06 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: BSD


In a message dated 5/31/2003 10:19:31 PM EST, Ggntor@aol.com writes:
> Minchat Yitzchak 1:17 holds that when the name of God is used in a
> language other than Hebrew, although there is no technical prohibition
> of erasing it, it is still improper to dispose of this material in an
> undignified manner or take such reading material into the bathroom.

> This ruling applies equally to the writing of "G-d" or "BSD"....

R' Elazar Teitz wrote:
> Is there a written source for this claim? *All* references to Hashem? Does
> that mean that the terms Ribbono Shel Olam and Hakadosh Boruch Hu
> cannot be discarded? Certainly they are closer to sheim Shomayim than
> "with the help of Heaven." How about Borei Olam? Rachum v'Chanun?
> Shochein bam'romim? If this attribution is accurate, there are many
> more than seven sheimos sheinam nimchakim!

A few points:

1) there is a letter from the L. Rebbe (printed in Vol. 21 of the
Igros Kodesh) to the Ragitchover Gaon in which he asks him about the
permissibility of writing B"H or BEZ"H and he brings Rayos against, OTOH
it is known that he himself used B"H and was Makpid that other Lubavitcher
institutions should too, likewise he was Midayeik to write G-d.

2) See Migdal Oiz from the Yavetz Even Bochein Pinah 2 ois 46 (page 65)
where he writes: Yesh mee shemachmir sheloi limchok afilu kishekosuv
roshei teivos kozeh HKB"H vchein bkinui Rachum (l'daas horavad bhilchos
krias shma) lfi sheloi nimtza dugmosoi litoar ben odom vkach roui liyirei
Hashem ulchoshvei Shmoi".

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: rasha ve ra lo


Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
>  From the chafetz chaim heritage foundation
>     "The late Rabbi Shimon Schwab, revered Rav of the Washington Heights
>     kehillah, made another observation: Those who resort to trickery,
>     fraud or outright thievery to earn money show a basic lack of faith
>     in Hashem. Do they truly believe that Hashem wants them to steal
>     and cheat in order to make ends meet? Apparently they do not believe
>     that each year on Rosh Hashanah, Hashem decrees our earnings for the
>     coming year (Beitzah 16a), and that He has infinite means by which
>     to ensure that we will earn whatever is meant for us."

> I did not understand R. Schwab's point. If someone steals it seems
> fairly obvious that he will indeed get more than Hashem intended.

This is the way I undersand it and it seems Pashut.

To God, it's a zero sum game. What each one of us will get in our life
times and when we will get it and how is indeed up to God. Never-the-less
it is up to us to follow His dictates and suffer the consequences if
we don't. Someone who steals a million dollars may indeed profit but
he is liable for his methods in attaining it. If he violated Halacha by
stealing he will suffer the consequences of violating God's law. It was
not his right to steal it. "Hashem decrees our earnings for the coming
year (Beitzah 16a), and He has infinite means by which to ensure that
we will earn whatever is meant for us." The Ganef could have used his
"Gneiva" skills or other skills to make the same amount of money in a
Halchicly permissible way.

> The old question of rasha ve-tov lo implies that indeed the mafia can
> live a very nice life based on rackateering.

Yes, but it all comes out in the wash. At some point perhaps in the
world to come, the Mafioso will pay the price. To paraphrase the famous
"Maude", "God will get him for this."

HM


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:58:46 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: R and G Are Dead


[From an Areivim discussion about counting non-observant Jews
toward a minyan. -mi]

I wrote:
>Yes.  However, in general every Jew has a chezkas kashrus
>unless they do something to detract from that chazakah.

Saul Guberman wrote:
>Technically doesn't "detract" require "b'farhesia"?
>and "b'farhesia" require two valid witnesses to see
>the actual act?

Does a rei'usa on a chazakah require eidim? It seems to me that even a
"kol" would be sufficient.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 03:02:50 +0300
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?


[MB: -mi]
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:52:59AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> : The Lubavitsher Rebbe has a very interesting discussion of this tension
> : in the Sichos vol 36 Shemos also found in Shaarei Emuna page 109-134...

> And for those of us who own neither, the LR says...?

Bitachon itself brings about manifest good

1. Bitachon is not just faith that G-d has the ability to do good for him
and to save him from problems but that it means that he trusts that G-d will
actually do it. In fact he is so certain that G-d will be good to him that
he has total serenity without the slightest worry as we see in Chovas
Halevavos "The essence of bitachon is serenity..." It is necessary, however,
to explain what the basis of the certainty. Because even if he has a
specific promise it is possible that it won't be fulfilled because he might
sin and surely this is true if there is no specific promise. Furthermore we
know there is no one who hasn't sinned and we see that even Yaakov was
worried that he might sin and thus not get what was promised.
2. Bitachon is based on the faith that everything is determined by G-d. Thus
when he finds himself in trouble he knows that every detail is from Heaven
and thus he remains in complete tranquility. That is because if he in fact
doesn't deserve the bad than surely G-d will save him even if there is no
natural means of salvation... And even if he doesn't deserve this chesed -
and he deserves the suffering, he still retains his tranquility because he
knows it was not an accident but that all is from G-d. He thus fears only
G-d and besides he knows that the suffering is for his own good since it is
known that even the punishments of the Torah are G-d's kindness to purify
him from sin.
Thus there is no internal inconsistency and he can have total trust in G-d
even though he knows that his sin might prevent him from being saved from
his troubles. The tranquility is the result of knowing that all is from
G-d...
3. However the above analysis is not sufficient because bitachon means more
than just having a tranquil mind. Bitachon also means trusting that things
will be good in a way which is obviously good and not just that he
understands intellectually that everything that happens must be for his own
good. According to the previous understanding it would mean that bitachon is
not relevant for most Jews since even the righteous sin. Thus only the most
perfect tzadikim who do not need to worry that sin will prevent their
salvation would be able to genuinely trust that only manifest good will
happen to them!
But this limitation of bitachon for manifest good to only pure tzadikim can
not be since Chovas HaLevavos says that bitachon applies to those who
deserve the good and those who don't. But how could that possibly be since
it is to be expected that a person will be punished for his bad deeds?
So we return back to the question: What is the concept of bitachon that a
person trusts that he will receive good even though he is not worthy?
4. The resolution of the nature of bitachon can be understood from the
Tzemach Tzedek who had been requested to pray for a critically ill person.
He answered: "Think good and it will be good". This implies that the good
thoughts i.e., bitachon itself brings about the good consequences which are
manifestly good.
The obligation of bitachon is not simply an aspect of the faith that
everything is from Heaven and that G-d is merciful - because there is no
need for a specific obligation for this. In fact the unique obligation of
bitachon is that a person relies totally on G-d. This is described by the
Chovas HaLevavos as viewing oneself as a servant who has been imprisoned and
he is totally at the mercy of his master and thus he has no one to turn to
except his master. Bitachon in G-d from this perspective is not limited by
the physical reality at all - since G-d is obviously not restricted by
nature.
Therefore Bitachon means that a person trusts totally in G-d to provide
manifest good even though he is not deserving. Bitachon does not mean that
he believes that since G-d's kindness is unlimited both to those deserving
and those not that he too will receive mercy without any efforts on his
part. If so there is no such thing as reward and punishment. Bitachon itself
therefore is a form of Divine avodah which requires great effort. That
effort to have bitachon is what brings the Divine kindness. By working on
oneself to truly rely on G-d alone from the depths of his soul - until he
has no worries at all - this brings about that G-d provides manifest good
for him even though he is not otherwise deserving. This is also expressed in
Sefer Ikkarim (4:47) and Kad HaKemach and the Maharal (Nesiv HaBitachon)...
Thus the Tzemach Tzedek meant that bitachon itself brings about the good and
not as a consequences of other factors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two aspects of Bitachon
Future: To expect manifest good and Past: Accepting bad which happens

#34 Bitachon is not inconsistent with the faith that everything is good.
Bitachon is to trust that everything will be manifestly good as is
obvious from many places in the gemora and medrashim and in great detail
in Chovas HaLevavos besides the many sources in Chassidus... This trust
is even in circumstances which seem hopeless - one should not give
up but should strengthen his bitachon (especially by prayer and good
deeds) that the bad will reverse to manifest good...On the other hand
when something bad does happen c.v. - afterwards a person is obligated
to say a beracha on bad the same as on good...and also accept it with
joy. .... In other words even though a Jew must have bitachon in G-d and
to ask from Him everything he needs in the manifest sense, nevertheless
when it happens that his prayers are not effective c.v. - he must realize
that everything is determined by G-d and that this that he got must be
good - even though it is not manifestly good.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:50:58 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: bitachon - RAL


CI and REED:
"" """ """""

- Both REED and CI seem to assume hashgachah peratis applies to all. They
may argue if positive hashgachah is necessarily what one wants or if
it's what one ought to receive. Neither consider the Rambam's position
that there are humans who do not merit HP.

- The mussar position seems to say "sechar mitzvos behai alma leika"
applies to mitzvos, but sechar bitachon is present in this world?

- The CI (as did RCSherer) complains about the straight evidence of our
senses. This is the same problem as understanding "Na'ar hayisi... velo
ra'isi tzadiq ne'ezav vezar'o mevakeish lechem". I have met poor
tzaddiqim, a number of chazal were poor tzadiqim, etc...

Do we question the claim, or invoke the question of tzadiq vera lo and
live with the question? Why is this claim any different?

Putting it another way:

Newton proposed the law of conservation of momentum. From his day until
space travel is was never actually experienced or demonstrated in
experience. Gravity and friction always got in the way; moving things
did not continue moving forever.

However, with the other effects, we saw the component attributed to
momentum, and were able to explain how it was leached away.

Perhaps rules like these also apply, but since HQBH's plan for man is
so complex, there are always other issues added to the equation.

Admittedly it's a dochak. However, any treatment of tzadiq vera lo
would be.

RAL's position:
""""" """""""""

See also the three part series from YHE on RAL and bitachon. We reposted
is on Avodah at:

    <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n036.shtml#12>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n041.shtml#18>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n043.shtml#18>

Lo zachisi lehavin RAL's position.

First, medical intervention is possibly its own subject. There is a
pasuq "verapo yerapei", but no parallel WRT other forms of hishtadlus.
Similarly, I wonder about using the war against Amaleik as a potential
source for a general rule.

Second, note the shift here. We started with two models of bitachon,
one considered "serenity", the other "dialectic tension". Now we
find RAL propose that the true dialectic is between these kinds,
not within one of them. Therefore he considers one "expectant"
and the other "steadfast and yearning".

Third, and a point I don't understand RAL seems to lump this together with
a different distinction, and our other topic of discussion: bitachon as
believing that H' will aid one to accomplish the goal one is aiming for
(mussar) vs the belief that all that befalls one is an intentional part
of H's plan.

RET summarized:
: who trusts and relies on G-d. The main definition of trust is that ones
: heart should believe that the one who relied upon will fulfill what he
: had promised and do good on his behalf (shaar habitachon chapter 1)

Sha'ar haBitachon ad loc does /not/ give mussar's definition, but
the CI's. Rather, RBiP stresses the yishuv hada'as that comes from such
bitachon. One can live with suffering if one realizes it's for a purpose.
He describes a non-expectant yet serene bitachon.

Last, I would quibble with RAL's (or perhaps the summarizer's) choice of
terms. Emunah and bitachon are not interchangable. And bitachon is not an
act, but a mental state. Emunah is birchas ge'ulah. Beleief in yetzi'as
Mitzrayim and H's role in history. Bitachon is based on emunah. Given
that, we then start Shemonah Esrei, bringing this down to a personal
level. Thus the semichus ge'ulah letefillah.

Rabbeinu Yona:
"""""""" """""

I am even further from understanding this position than RAL's. How can
he expect people to have faith in something that he in the same sentence
notes may not come to past. (RY tells us to at least have the zechus
of bitachon even if it doesn't work out.) How is it psychologically
possible to both trust that HQBH will assure success and admit to one
self that He doesn't?

RMMS:
"""""

He seems to have elements of all of the above.

RMMS asks us to accept the avar with serenity as being ratzon haborei (CI)
as part of bitachon as well as being expectant (REED) about the asid. As
opposed to RAL who asks for a dialectic, RMMS assigns different roles for
each.

When speaking in future tense, RMMS speaks in mussar's terms, a bitachon
that all will go as desired. However, he does this by making the
fulfilment of this trust a straight sechar ve'onesh issue -- the reward
for bitachon is having it met. This may be related to Rabbeinu Yona's
shitah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   unity-how does it draw out one's soul?


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         ]

< Previous Next >