Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 046

Monday, December 5 2005

• RE: What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• RE: What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• RE: On minds and brains
• RE: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Re: Shabbos candles
• Q on Parshas Shemos
• RSRH on Eisav's chinuch
• Re: On minds and brains
• RE: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• RE: Q on Parshas Shemos
• Re: On minds and brains
• Re: What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• Re: Being exposed to minus
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Re: Q on Parshas Shemos
• Shemoneh Perakim Chap. 6

> There is a halachic basis for believing that it's OK to embezzle the
> government. If it can be shown that the government taxes unfairly, or that
> its social programs don't properly take into account the needs of frum
> yidden, or that money is spent for purposes that it shouldn't be, or if the
> rules were written in a way that causes many or most people to ignore them,
> there are poskim who say that one should not lose money as a result.

Please supply sources for the very broad exception to dina dmalchuta to
include embezzlement. Is it up to each individual to define "unfairly",
"properly", "shouldn't be", "causes"? Can you give an example of a
current posek who has allowed this and explained the reasoning?

KT
Joel Rich

On December 2, 2005, Ezra Wax wrote:
> There is a halachic basis for believing that it's OK to embezzle the
> government. If it can be shown that the government taxes unfairly, or that
> its social programs don't properly take into account the needs of frum
> yidden, or that money is spent for purposes that it shouldn't be, or if
> the rules were written in a way that causes many or most people to ignore
> them, there are poskim who say that one should not lose money as a result.

This is a very dangerous doctrine. First of all, if a person doesn't like
what the government is spending its money on, he can always move and
pay taxes elsewhere. Second of all, where is there halachos regarding
a taxpayer being the final arbiter of what the government should or
shouldn't be spending its money on? Third, the overwhelming majority
of funds being disbursed by the governments of democratic countries
like Canada and the U.S. is unarguably for the benefit of all of
its citizens. Fourth, even if a portion is being allocated unfairly,
like the education money here in Ontario, Canada, (paskened by the
human rights commission of the U.N.) a person would then have to make a
precise mathematical calculation as to how much of his tax dollar goes to
education, take into account how much he is actually paying in tuitions,
and act accordingly. You can't just make a blanket statement and say
that it is mutar to be mavriach atzmo min hameches (an actual siman in
shulachan aruch) arbitrarily because of a partial indiscretion. (After
this speech, boy am I personally going to cook in the next...)

Incidentally, a lot of the frum that are sitting in jail relates to fraud,
not tax evasion. That is definitely assur (gezel akum).

Simcha Coffer

> However, I would like to suggest a different model of the mind-brain
> interaction, one that doesn't get involved in which is cause and which
> is effect.

> The individual is ne'etzal from HQBH. Thus, your neshamah is His Light,
> after it passes through a slide that blocks some of the Light to make
> a particular image. The gashmi is at a lower level, further from the
> Source of atzilus. Thus, a single beam of light, passing through different
> olamos, could be your neshamah at one level, and your brain at another.
> Brain activity would therefore be a physical "shadow", or perhaps, the
> image of the slide on the screen, of the very same light as the neshamah.
> The structure of the brain and its physical events is just the physical
> implimentation of the soul as it is manifest in olam ha'asiyah.

Fascinating but not kabbalistically sound. The brain and all of its
activity is considered the seat of the neshama and as such cannot be
ontologically identified with the neshama itself. Also, bechira occurs
at the level of ruach in the nefesh whereas the neshama itself, which
is joined to the nefesh at the level of yechida she'binefesh attached
to nefesh she'binishama remains entirely uninvolved in decision making
other than attempting to influence the outcome by means of the neshama
shebinefesh i.e. conscience. The id of a person is actually the ruach
shebinefesh which struggles between nefesh she'binefesh i.e. physical
instinct and neshama shebinefesh i.e. conscience. Neshama is a purely
spiritual entity that is only attached to us at its lowest level,
nefesh. Krisus means that we continue to exist and can also continue
to have bechira, like goyim, but we become detached from our neshama
chs'v. (culled from Drush Or haChaim of the Tiferes Yisrael, Tanya,
Ramchal, Gra, R' Chaim Volozhin and Rav Dessler)

Simcha Coffer

On December 3, 2005, RYGB wrote:
> I believe the letters need to be read carefully - they are very
> specific. They do not state that everything that RNS has written
> is incorrect. I will take RAS's nusach with RSK's endorsement as a
> springboard, but the all the letters yield the same message. They state
> that he has made mistakes.

Except for RSM letter. He attacks him regarding MB specifically and
calls it the K word. I don't know if it is or not but that leads me to
my next comment

> As the conclusion notes, it is incumbent upon us to invest "a maximum
> of one's intellectual and spiritual powers to grow in the knowledge of
> their words and the appreciation thereof." Koh yiten Hashem v'koh yosif!

Which is that people who focus on whether his views are technically
kefira or not are IMHO, extracting the wrong conclusions from the bans
(possibly because they are being misled by the ban's verbiage) and thus
focusing on the wrong thing. The fact that some of the material in his
books tend to undermine the authority of Chazal (and thus our messorah)
is really the issue AFAIC and as RYGB has stated above.

Simcha Coffer

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:10:32AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Which is that people who focus on whether his views are technically
: kefira or not are IMHO, extracting the wrong conclusions from the bans
: (possibly because they are being misled by the ban's verbiage) and thus
: focusing on the wrong thing. The fact that some of the material in his
: books tend to undermine the authority of Chazal (and thus our messorah)
: is really the issue AFAIC and as RYGB has stated above.

While that's true of the recent round of letters, that is not at all
what's said in the original. The original ban used the words "melei'ei
kefirah", "meenus", "kechol sifrei minim", "divrei kefirah uminus",
etc.... R' Moshe Shapiro: "sifrei minim heim" and "avodah zarah". R'
Shternbuch's letter is entirely about ma'aseh bereishis. And then the
back-and-forth with R' Elyashiv too was about whether R' Hirsch's and the
Tif'eres Yisra'el's approaches to creationism are still withinn the pale.

In short, there is very strong reason for the reader to extract the
"wrong conclusions".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nachman of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507      	     Likutei Tefilos 94:964

RSBA wrote:
> Thus encouraging an irreligious woman to light candles Erev Shabbos -
> should lechoreh also be accompanied with the warnings about
>  issurei Shabbos and then if she ignores that, can this be seen as
> Botze'a beirech??

What's the connection between the issur of melacha on Shabbos, and the
chiyuv to light candles, or to make kiddush/havdalah? Would you suggest
that if someone is going to eat chametz on Pesach, he is patur from the
mitzvot of haggadah, matzah, marror, 4 kosot, hallel, etc? Or that
performing them would be "botze'a berech"? If someone has a mamzer,
is he patur from giving him a brit and a pidyon haben? If he steals a
bird and shechts it, is he patur from kisuy hadam?

"Botzea berech" is to say a bracha *on an avera*. Essentially, the
sinner is thumbing his nose at Hashem, ch"v. Imagine if Adam and Chavah
had dared to say a "borei peri ha'etz"! The situations above, like the
one we are discussing, are not similar.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

My daughter is now learning Parshas Shmos and stumped her teacher with
this one.

The teacher told them that Moshe Rabbeinu spent 7 days debating with
HKB"H before agreeing to go to Par'oh (I presume it's a medrash).

She asks, "Who was watching his sheep?"

There's was a typical mixed marriage -- Yitzchak and Rivka -- of an
FFB with a BT. Each brought their own strengths to the marriage. He was
utterly pure, no cynicism, no suspicion of others. She was more aware of
the dark side of human nature -- she recognized the Eisav type because
he was so much like her brother Lavan. Yitzchak grew up among people
who were honest and sincere, and he was therefore not able to spot a
sociopath, but that doesn't mean there was any chisaron in Yitzchak.
The quality of seeing only good in other people is, in general, a very
good midah. You see here that you need two parents. Each brings something
to the table that the other lacks.

Esav was heavily influenced by Yitzchak -- not to the extent of
significantly modifying his behavior -- but he did at least respect a
tzaddik, couldn't help loving and revering his father. This betokens
a future for Klal Yisrael in which Esav's descendants, even when evil,
do respect a tzaddik -- despite themselves.

According to Hirsch, Rivka was always telling Yitzchak the kid was
fooling him, but he didn't believe her. When she pulled off a ridiculously
simple hoax -- which was bound to be exposed very soon, with the imminent
arrival of Esav -- Yitzchak "veyecherad charadah gedolah" -- became very
frightened and emotional -- as he realized in that instant how easily
he COULD be fooled, and that Rivka must be right about Esav -- therefore
he immediately said "gam baruch yiheyeh" -- he could have withdrawn the
bracha given shelo mida'as, but instead he reaffirmed it now mida'as.

Yitzchak was not /totally/ naive -- it was obvious from the get-go
that the twins had very different personalities. He knew that Esav
was an outdoorsy active person and that Yakov was a quiet, scholarly,
indoor type. But he couldn't see that Esav was a rasha (even though he
knew his daughters-in-law were idol worshippers, but hey -- kids make
mistakes). He thought that Yakov and Esav were going to be a Yissachar -
Zevulun kind of pair, Esav becoming a prosperous businessman who would
support his brother in kollel. That's why he intended to bentsh his
son Esav with material blessings. Yakov's bracha was supposed to be
"May you be successful in your learning, may you grow up to be a great
talmid chacham" etc. -- spiritual and intellectual blessings.

Rivka kept saying, "You have to bensh Yakov with material AND spiritual
blessings because Esav will NOT support his brother and Yakov will be
left destitute." A ben Torah needs material AND spiritual blessings --
classic Hirsch TIDE -- because you can't rely on reshaim to sustain Torah.

So she maneuvered things in such a way that Yakov got the bracha Esav
was supposed to get, and then when Esav said so poignantly, "Abba, don't
you have another bracha left for me?" -- the answer was no, there wasn't
another bracha for him, becuause he couldn't very well just swap the
brachos and give him Yakov's intended bracha now, could he? Esav simply
wasn't a kli that could be mekabel such a bracha. "Zoltzt oisvaksen
ah talmid chacham" -- what kind of a bracha is that for an Esav?!

But the thing that leaves me not entirely satisfied about this parsha
is the real humanity and sympathy that the Torah gives to Esav.
That spark he has -- of love and yearning -- "Abba don't you have a
bracha for me?" -- your heart goes out to him. This is not an accident.
This is how the Torah is written. It makes me wonder if after all,
after thousands of years of Esav sonei leYakov -- will there come a
time when Esav's plea will be answered for good?

PS. What an amazing Torah we have -- if I may be so bold -- that grants
so much human sympathy to our bitterest enemies!

How dare the NY Times talk about "Muslim fundamentalism" and "Orthodox
fundamentalism" in the same breath! The day the Muslims recognize the
humanity of the Jew is the day Moshiach comes.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In Avodah V16 #45 dated 12/4/2005 RMB writes:
> However, Everett's Multi-Universe theory is  gaining
> popularity. It also fits string theories well. In the  Multi-Universe
> theory, there is no collapse into a single state, and the  event goes
> in different ways in different universes. The observer too  splits into
> different versions in each universe. And therefore, each version
> only sees its reality. See
> <http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae179.cfm>

IMO this paragraph about multiverses has nothing to do with the rest
of your excellent posting about minds, brains and souls. This stuff
about multiverses is simply what physicists do for fun. There is no
evidence for it except some kind of highly abstract mathematics that
physicists really get a big kick out of.

There IS a philosophical reason for them to WANT multiverses, of course:
if there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number
of possibilites of how things can work out, then our universe, with its
mysterious intelligent life, looks less like a miracle and more like
an inevitibility. Scientists really really hate miracles.

[Note to logical literalists: if you personally are, or know, a
scientist who does not hate miracles, do not waste your time "proving"
that I'm wrong based on anecdotal exceptions.]

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On December 4, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
...
> In short, there is very strong reason for the reader to extract the
> "wrong conclusions".

Sounds very compelling. Therefore, allow me to restate. *I* personally
think that the kefira and minus issue is not nearly as problematic as
the undermining of the authority of Chazal.

Simcha Coffer

On December 4, 2005, Rivka S asked,
> The teacher told them that Moshe Rabbeinu spent 7 days debating with
> HKB"H before agreeing to go to Par'oh (I presume it's a medrash).

> She asks, "Who was watching his sheep?"

The same people who watched them for the next 40 years. When Moshe didn't
return to the sheep, I'm sure his father-in-law hired new sheppards.

Simcha Coffer

On 12/4/05, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> IMO this paragraph about multiverses has nothing to do with the rest
> of your excellent posting about minds, brains and souls. This stuff
> about multiverses is simply what physicists do for fun. There is no
> evidence for it except some kind of highly abstract mathematics that
> physicists really get a big kick out of.

I think that it is more than that. Quantum theory says that you can
have a superposition of all possible states at the same time, and an
observer collapses all of those states into one specific state. The
problems is that it is not clear where to draw the line between
observer and observed, and that just like microscopic particles can have
superpositions, macroscopic particles should too. i.e. when somebody
observes Schroedinger's cat, then instead of deciding whether the cat
is alive or dead, we have a superposition of people, one who saw a live
cat and one who saw a dead one.

Kol Tuv,
Ezra

On 12/4/05, S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Incidentally, a lot of the frum that are sitting in jail relates to fraud,
> not tax evasion. That is definitely assur (gezel akum).

Shmuel (the amora) said that it's OK to mislead an Akum in certain
circumstances.

Kol Tuv,
Ezra

At 02:23 PM 12/04/2005, Ezra Wax wrote:
>There is a halachic basis for believing that it's OK to embezzle the
>government. If it can be shown that the government taxes unfairly, or that
>its social programs don't properly take into account the needs of frum
>yidden, or that money is spent for purposes that it shouldn't be, or if
>the rules were written in a way that causes many or most people to ignore
>them, there are poskim who say that one should not lose money as a result.

I recall reading in a book written by a woman whose family immigrated from
Russia to the US during the early part of the 20th century that the Jews
in Russia had to pay double the taxes of the non-Jews on sales of taxable
items. She said that deceiving the government and the gentiles was the
only way to survive. What was amazing, she wrote, was that despite the
difficult economic times, Jews did not cheat other Jews. (Unfortunately,
I cannot readily recall the name and author of this book.)

However, this is certainly not the case here in the US today. BH, there
are no specific "Jew taxes" here anymore.

Yitzchok Levine

S & R Coffer wrote:
>>And don't we freely say Baal Pe'or?

>That's because the halacha is that any AZ that is written in the Tanach
>is permissible to say and any AZ that is not written in Tanach is assur
>to say as per your pasuk above.

We find the term Yeshu mentioned in the rishonim. The Gra poskens that a
person who became an AZ and died - it is permissible to mention his name.

Daniel Eidensohn

On 12/4/05, S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Sounds very compelling. Therefore, allow me to restate. *I* personally
> think that the kefira and minus issue is not nearly as problematic as
> the undermining of the authority of Chazal.

I think that it is the same thing. It is by allowing oneself to disregard
the words of chazal that one comes to kefirah. It degenerates into saying
that "ki sheshes yomim osoh Hashem es hashomayim ve'es..." is lav davka.

Kol Tuv,
Ezra

>My daughter is now learning Parshas Shmos and stumped her teacher with
>this one.

>The teacher told them that Moshe Rabbeinu spent 7 days debating with
>HKB"H before agreeing to go to Par'oh (I presume it's a medrash).
>She asks, "Who was watching his sheep?"

Why couldn't Moshe Rabbeinu have been talking to Hashem while watching
his sheep? He came upon the burning bush while shepherding his sheep;
why couldn't he debate with Hashem while watching them?

 --Rena

Mon, 3 Oct 2005. "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> (RE: Shemona
Perakim) posted:
> The main implication for being classified as a hok is that a ta'ava for
> transgressing a hok is not viewed as a deficiency in the individual. I
> would argue that this gradation should reflect how we treat those who
> succumb to their ta'ava.

 From previous posts[1] I understand that RMS is here referring to incest,
homosexuality, and bestiality. But WADR, regardless of whether sexually
perverse behaviors are "chukim" or "mefursamim," I fail to understand
RMS's meaning in the excerpt above. In what way, specifically, should
the gradation he sees reflect how we treat those who, in the end, do
succumb to their ta'ava for arayos? After all, their treatment by Bes
Din and by individuals is prescribed by halachah.[2]

If what is at issue is not our actions, but our sense of repugnance,
the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim III:49, citing Chazal and "the philosphers")
even considers natural sexual activity (as well as all sensual pleasure,
including eating) to be a necessary evil, shameful and repugnant; and
only all the more shameful and repugnant does he consider activities
that are outside the realm of the natural:

"The [reason behind the] prohibition of homosexuality (Lev. xviii. 22)
and carnal intercourse with beasts (ibid. 73) is very simple: If in
the natural way the act is /too abominable/repugnant [Kaphih: metu-av]/
to be performed except when needed, how much more /abominable/repugnant
[Kepach: me-tu-av] is it if performed in an unnatural manner, for the
pursuit of pure pleasure."

And in III:41 he stated:

"The arayos that incur execution by Bes Din are those that are
[either] more possible to commit [easily, because the participants
are relatives constantly in irreproachable proximity to each other] or
unnatural/abnormal/weird [Kepach: muzarim, such as with the same gender
or with a beast].

If whatever societies for whatever periods have succeeded to whatever
extent in imbibing within themselves the disgust Hashem has intended
we internalize regarding unnatural sexual behavior, it would seem
counterproductive to advocate suppressing that feeling.

And even if Rambam's shitta in Shemoneh Perakim were at odds with that
in Moreh Nevuchim (i.e., that in contrast to Moreh Nevuchim passages
I quoted, in Shemoneh Perakim Rambam holds that one should not feel
repugnance against any acts of sexual perversion or deviancy), on what
basis does one conclude that we should follow l'ma'aseh this shitta over
the other -- especially since I sense even RMS realizes his take on the
Shemoneh Perakim is counterintuitive? And all this, of course, is only
working with the unclear premise that final hashkafic consensus follows
the Ramam in either work (especially in Shemoneh Perakim if taken in
the counterintuitive sense) regarding this issue altogether?
-------------------------------------
Notes 

[1] In Avodah, Volume 14, Number 041 (RE: Torah and Science, posted
Monday, December 13 2004) RMS commented, "in the shmona prakim, the
rambam seems to classify hilchot arayot as falling more in the category
of religious rather than rational mitzvot - and therefore having a ta'ava
for them is not a character defect, unlike having a ta'ava for murder -
and therefore, there isn't even a torah mandated reason to think that
these averot are intrinsically unhealthy or unnatural."

This was in response my noting that some scientists have recommended
"premarital sex, masturbation and adultery" as healthy. -- as I clarified
in another post, I should have phrased it that they have declared lives
lacking these wonderful features as unhealthy, relegating the Torah's
teachings to the domain of the unhealthy.

In another post (dated Dec 16, 2004 [RE: Torah and Science]), RMS
expressed ambivalence over whether Rambam holds it's a character defect
to desire unnatural forms of arayos: "[Rambam] clearly includes some
cases of giluy arayot - (I don't know if he would include all (eg incest,
mishkav zachar, mishkav behema), but many clearly are.)" In a previous
post (Thu, 9 Dec 2004 RE: Torah and Science), he had been surer about
the issue: "it is pshat in the Shmona prakim, as well as elsewhere, that
the rambam viewed most of hilchot arayot (whether this also applied to
MZ can be debated, but I think is also true) as hukkim - comparable to
not eating hazir."

[2] Whether the Rambam would consider kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs,
etc., as constituting a new category, and whether he would hold that
homosexuality, etc., may in some cases be similar manias, and in such a
case have different halachic consequences, is another issue. Of course,
I wouldn't raise the issue with a militant homosexual, but on Avodah I
can be straight....

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]