Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 168

Tuesday, March 28 2006

• Gilgulim
• Re: Gilgulim
• Ze'aqah v Tze'aqah
• torah and morality
• Beracha Acharona
• RE: Anavah (modesty), Happiness, and Purim
• Re: Anavah (modesty), Happiness, and Purim
• RE: torah and morality
• Re: Torah and morality
• Re: Kipah
• RE: Anavah (modesty), Happiness, and Purim
• Re: jewish identification

I've been listening to R' Brill's lecture on prayer, the soul, and
gilgulim. In fact, it's cued up on my MP3 player right now, so let me
take some notes:

Gilgul was opposed by the philosophical, and affirmed (in various ways)
by the kabbalists.

Gilgul was held by many Jews, but it's not in Gemara, not in Tanach.
  Some Rashis can be interpreted that way.

Rambam says no, Saadia says no, etc.  Rashba and other Sephardim of 
  a philosophical bent say no.  But Ramban says yes, based on a Bahir
  of "hador sheba hu hador she'avar" (which can also be interpreted to
  say that all neshamos come from, and return to Binah, so there's no
  actual transmigration of specific neshamos).   Special rebirth, not
  intact transmigration.  See Shaar Hagemul.

Ramban 1260s.  Debated into 14th century.  Crescas/Albo accept it
  because some people accept it, but "we don't know".

Which comes first, Gehennom or Gilgul?  

Rabbenu Bechaye al haTorah: first Gehennom, there purified, then gilgul
  in rare cases of yibum or tzadik vera lo, where soul needs to accomplish
  something
Raya Mehemna (Zohar corpus, c. 1300-1310) rare cases, gilgul then 
  gehennom

A number of 14th-C. texts make gilgul universal: Sod haSholeach, Masoret
  Habrit - for all Jews, nonJews, rocks, plants, animals, angels are forever
  being reincarnated with their soul-energies.  NOT mainstream opinions.
  Prev opinions (rare cases) WAS mainstream.

16th-C.  In Tzfat (all post-1492 Sepharadi culture, including Mediterranean
  rim, Tzfat just an example), gilgul seen as universal.  R' Yosef Caro:
  everybody has 2 lives, some have 3.  (Maggid Meisharim).

Ari (via Chaim Vital): Adam HaRishon was One Big Soul; chet broke it down
  into 600,000 5-part (naran-cha"i) souls, existing in 5 partzufim, in
  10 sefirot each including 10 sefirot - 1.5 billion souls.  People can
  have compound souls from various antecedents: the nefesh of abba of 
  malchus of tiferes of Serach bas Asher, plus the ruach of imma of netzach
  of bina of Calev ben Yefuneh, plus other parts.  So nobody is actually
  a reincarnation of a particular person.  In life, one perfects parts of
  the soul.  Non-perfected parts, after death, are tossed back into the 
  hopper to be reincarnated and worked on.  Our goal is to rectify all parts
  of our souls.  Ari's claim to fame was that he could read your forehead,
  hand-lines, auras, etc. and tell the parts of your soul and tell you what
  you need.

  Much of Kayin's energies came back as Moshe, but sometimes if you sin
  you can come back as an animal.

  Ibur - temporary impregnation of soul-energy from another person.  
  Talmidei chachamim all have iburim from previous scholars.  Ari held that
  women & non-Jews do not have souls, except in rare cases, which offends
  many people.  Avoids usual kabbalistic male/female pairings by having
  female aspects ascend/reintegrate into male aspects.

  Bugs R' Brill that so many Americans confuse the Ari's concept with
  reincarnation.  Parents have nothing to do with children WRT souls,
  all energy comes out of the soul-hopper. 

  See Shaar haGilgulim ch.2 or ch.3

Maggidim and Dibbukim

Maggidim 

  From 16th century on, some held one can have angelic visitors, or past 
teachers come to you as a persona you meet & speak to.  R' Yosef Caro
met a Magid who was either the Shechina, or a spirit of a Tana and the
Mishna.  Ibn Makir, Ramchal, Gra, all had maggidim.  Pretty much all 
great scholars 1530-1830 had them.

Dybbukim

  R' Chaim Vital had a bunch of women followers, one of whom, Bat Refael,
was possessed and was channeling the dead scholar Pizo, and RHV had to
do an exorcism.  16-17 C. greater sense of spirit possession, dybbukim,
exorcisms.

  Separate thing: E. Eur. folk culture of 18-20th C. that one can be
possessed by a full personal identity, to accomplish some great act.
which has more to do with Ashkenaz 17th-C. thought than technical 
Kabbalah.

  11-13th C. many had angelic visitors, some forms of nevuah, see
Scholem, "Origins of the Kabbalah", also R' Reuven Margoliot, intro
to Shu"t min Hashamayim.  Twersky plays down the Ibn Ezra's nevuah
for various Modern-Orthodox halacha reasons.

  Exorcism is coming back, even though the famous one 5 years ago
turned out to be phony.  Recently, this kind of spiritualism is 
coming back.  Little mussar book currently circulating, Bilvovi
Mishkan Evneh, about decline of the self.  Getting away from psycho-
therapy and pharmacopsychology as cure-alls, externalizing problems
again.

  Someone should write a book about why maggidim and dybbukim only 
were part of Jewish culture during that brief period, how the idea
arose, why they died out.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:36:09AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: For mareh mekomos on gilgul, see R. Yitzchak Blau's article in the Torah
: U-Madda Journal 10: <http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm?shiurID=703961>

I had problems with two points in the article.

First (and this was said here several times too), the issue of gilgul not
being mentioned in Tanakh: Olam haba is only barely hinted in Tanakh too!
Silence in Tanakh on escotological issues is not much of a ra'ayah.

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:43:31AM -0800, Mark Levin wrote:
: I have to check these sources but the Ramchal in Likkutei Ramchal clearly
: says that there are many parts to what we call a soul and only the parts
: that require tikkun are reincarnated - sometimes different parts are
: reincarnated in different objects or individuals. That is very different
: than the Eastern concept, whatever little I know of that.

Which brings me to point #2, R' Saadia Gaon and arguments from silence in
general: He discusses the machloqes about whether the Rambam's silence
on gilgul implies he rejected it, implies it was a given not worth
discussing, or neither. Since the Rambam does discuss the afterlife at
length in a number of places, the same argument that I gave for Tanakh
does not hold. It would seem clear that if he believed in it, the Rambam
would have included it in his laying out of his position. The Rambam
tries to be encyclopedic.

Similarly, how can one understand RSG as rejecting Eastern-style
reincarnation, and yet accept Ramchal-style gilgul? The entire section
is about othe afterlife and it's not mentiuoned. And would he make a
subtle distinction about what kind og reincarnation is rejected and not
mention that there is a form of gilgul which /is/ in our mesorah? Instead,
it reads as a blanket, "There is nothing like this in Chazal."

BTW, I almost get to make a barukh shekivanti on the Ramchal's chiluq. I
suggest on scjm that "gilgul neshamah" is quite notably about neshamos,
and is a term used by people who often spoke of Naran. Metamsychoses
woudl be a reuse of the same psyche, which would be gilgul haru'ach (Gra)
or gilgul hanefesh (Ramchal). So, I too thought that even full gilgul,
rather than gilgul of a nitzotz, wasn't reincarnation, but I may have
been too specific about it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Ze'aqah is a more primal scream of pain than tze'aqah. As RYBS notes,
> "vayitz'aq" and the like are used to introduce a quote. A ze'aqah is
> when the pain gets so bad that words fail you.

How does this work in Tehillim 107, where they are used twice each?
People who get lost in the desert, and sailors in a storm, use tze'aqah,
while prisoners and sick people use ze'aqah.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> I have no answers but I think this is a classic example of what IIRC
> R'YBS called heroic withdrawal(submission) - the example he dealt with
> IIRC is the young woman (divorcee) who helped bring a young man back
> to his yiddishkeit only for them to find out shortly prior to their
> marriage that he was a kohain.
> The shchina cries with us but the halacha remains unchanged.

I agree that the halacha is unchanged. However, the RY I spoke with said
that if his wife were raped (he is a Cohen) he could not see divorcing
his wife of many years especially after such a trauma. I again stress
he was talking theoretically and not that a practical way might be found
to avoid the halacha.

That comes to the second point. Many of us find technical ways to avoid
the "morality" of the Torah. As one private example (but only one such
example) I have arranged to a halachically valid will that splits my
property between all my children including the girls (there is no bechor
since the eldest is a girl). Though halachically valid is certainly goes
against the spirit of the Torah. Nevertheless, on a personal basis I
could not see leaving money only to the sons.

I am curious if in most Charedi houses (that have money - ie businessman)
they really leave the money only to the sons or also find some way
around it.
I know that my extremely charedi uncle left all his money to his wife.
I am sure that somehow things were joint or some other such arrangement.
Nevertheless the spirit of the Torah seems to be that the inheritance
goes to the sons and the wife gets the ketubah.

 --
Eli Turkel

The halacha is that we don't make a beracha me'ein shalosh after kiddush
at the Seder. The reason given by the Mishna Berura is that we say
birchas hamazon on the second kos, and this takes care of the first
as well.

What about the significant time span between the kosos?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
>> While I now agree that Sha'ul himself may have had no personal issue 
>> with Mehiyas Amalek as per the Tzivuy, it is worth noting that a 
>> significant portion of Klal Yisroel did have the issue, otherwise 
>> there would not have been the political pressure.

> Isn't the simple pshat in the pasuk that the people were motivated not by
> morality, but by venality -- and that was the cause of the "political
> pressure"?

Is there any reason to assume that the reason that Shaul gives for his
actions bears any relation to the reality of why he acted as he did?

Stuart

On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:33:31PM -0500, Stuart Feldhamer wrote:
: Is there any reason to assume that the reason that Shaul gives for his
: actions bears any relation to the reality of why he acted as he did?

In general, a good thing to keep in mind when conducting a cheshbon
hanefesh.

However, in this case, it pays to go to the pasuq I pointed to in the
blog entry and Avodah post. Shemu'el I 15:17, "Vayomer Shemu'el, 'Halo
im qaton atah be'einekha...'" The assessment isn't Sha'ul's, it's the
message Hashem gives Shemu'el to give him.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org   			-Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[R Eli Turkel:]
> I know that my extremely charedi uncle left all his money to his wife.
> I am sure that somehow things were joint or some other such arrangement.
> Nevertheless the spirit of the Torah seems to be that the inheritance goes
> to the sons and the wife gets the ketubah.

And I remember hearing a shiur (I don't remember where or who) where the
suggestion was made that the halachically valid will should still leave
"some" amount to be divvied up according to the original halacha.

KT
Joel Rich

>> While I now agree that Sha'ul himself may have had no personal issue with
>> Mehiyas Amalek as per the Tzivuy, it is worth noting that a significant
>> portion of Klal Yisroel did have the issue, otherwise there would not
>> have been the political pressure.

REMT wrote:
> Isn't the simple pshat in the pasuk that the people were motivated not
> by morality, but by venality -- and that was the cause of the "political
> pressure"?

Pashut P'shat does indicate that the people were not moral per se,
but were seeking to salvage the bounty, as we see in Sh'Muel 15:9,
Va'Yahmol Sha'ul V'Ho'Om...V'Al Kol Hatov...V'Khol Hamlakhah N'Mivzah
V'Names Osah Heherimu. Had they been motivated only by moral reasons,
they would not have destroyed the latter.

In a later post, I mentioned that the Gemoro in Yoma 22b says a Drasha
on the Pasuk V'Yorev B'Nahal [Shmuel I 16:5] which suggests that Sha'ul
himself had concerns about the Tzivuy as well. Sha'ul is quoted as
saying "...V'Im Adam Hatah B'heimah Ma Hatah V'Im Gedolim Hat'u K'Tanim
Mah Hat'u..."

Very often, having seen Drashos in Hazal WRT to a particular topic in
Tanakh, I then view that incident in that light, to the detriment of
overlooking the Pashtus HaMiqra. This exchange WRT Mehiyas Amaleik is
"Exhibit A." My memory remembered Sha'ul as being classically benevolent
and hesitant to destroy all of Amaleik, this was surely due to my previous
exposure to that Gemara in Yoma, and/or Shiurim or Seforim that may have
mentioned it to discuss that aspect of Sha'ul's hesitance. I do see clear
evidence of a different possibility now that I have carefully reviewed
the text of Shmuel 15 in a different light.

K'Shem Sheqibalti S'khar Al HaDrisha...

Jacob Farkas

T613K@aol.com wrote [on Areivim -mi]:
>>>Yes, like a yarmulka is supposed to be about yarei Malka.  <<

>> Although I agree that that is the purpose of wearing a yarmulka, I read
>> somewhere that "yarei Malka" was folk etymology and that the word "yarmulka"
>> is actually Turkish for "dome."

RMB Wrote:
> You may have been remembering my Avodah post. However, that's not
> exactly what I wrote (so, maybe not!).
> Kippah means dome, as in the domed prisons of Sanhedrin, or the current
> yarmulka design.

Rashi in Hulin 138a defines Kipah as a small hat...
The Gemara discusses what the P'Sil T'Kheles was WRT the Tzitz the
Kohen Gadol wore, and says "Kipah Shel Tzemer Hoysah Munahas B'Rosh
Kohen Gadol..." and Rashi says "Kipah - Kova Katon..."

Jacob Farkas

On March 23, 2006, Stuart Feldhamer wrote:
>>> While I now agree that Sha'ul himself may have had no personal issue
>>> with Mehiyas Amalek as per the Tzivuy, it is worth noting that a
>>> significant portion of Klal Yisroel did have the issue, otherwise
>>> there would not have been the political pressure.
 
> From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
>> Isn't the simple pshat in the pasuk that the people were motivated not by
>> morality, but by venality -- and that was the cause of the "political
>> pressure"?
 
> Is there any reason to assume that the reason that Shaul gives for his
> actions bears any relation to the reality of why he acted as he did?

I haven't been following this thread so someone may have made already
made this comment but Chazal say that Shaul did indeed have a personal
issue with michiyas Amalek. See Rashi on the words "va'yarev ba'nachal" -
Shmuel 15:5. Incidentally, R' Avigdor Miller claims that this Chazal is
the key to understanding the whole story of Shaul's error. The meriva
she'asa Shaul im kono" (Rashi has a slightly different nusach) was on
a deeply subconscious level but nonetheless it was there. Chazal with
their refined abilities are able to distinguish this nekuda. This, says
Rabbi Miller, is why Shaul is not referred to as an eved Hashem and Dovid
is. Dovid was entirely dedicated (avdus) to HKBH without any reservation,
even on the most fundamental levels of the subconscious.

Despite all this, Shaul still had the opportunity to save
himself. However, because he compounded his sin inestimably by initially
denying and subsequently excusing it, he lost out (kara Hashem es
mamlichus Yisrael may'alecha). This too was a siman of the difference
between Shaul and Dovid who, when approached by Nosson haNavi regarding
the chet of Bas Sheva, immediately admitted his sin (see Malbim offen
ort) and thus Nosson immediately responded "gam Hashem he'evir chatascha,
lo samus".

One final note: Shaul was a tzadik of inestimable greatness. Essentially,
this was the only error he ever committed in his lifetime (incl. Nov
ir haKohanim which he almost can't be blamed for because the spirit of
Hashem had left him and he was in a state of dire depression. Besides, he
'danned' them lemisa because they were mored b'malchus. We find too that
his depression led him to do something that he would have considered
unconscionable in his better days. He sought out the assistance of a
ba'a'las ov (to raise Shmuel's spirit and ask him about the outcome of
the Philistine battle. He could have asked the urim v'tumim but he was
obviously too embarrassed to approach the Kohen Gadol) whilst, in his
better days, he would have never countenanced such behaviour. In fact,
he was the one who was single-handedly responsible for wiping out all
of the ba'a'lei ov off the Israeli map!) It is only when we compare him
to Dovid that his failing is able to be discerned.

Simcha Coffer    

On 3 Mar 2006 11:31:13 -0500, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 09:42:15PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>>You mean like Haman haAGAGI?

>>Why would you think that Haman was not a descendent of Agag? Certainly he
>>would have been called Amaleki, had that been the intent.

>The Da'as Miqra on Esther offers three peshatim for "Haman haAgagi":
>1- That he came from Agag
>2- That he came from a Persian family named Agag. (2 more cents: 
>There was an Agag, Persia. So maybe that's the homonym.)
>3- That he was a conceptioal, not physical, descendent of Agag.

I assume you're talking about the Da'at Mikra edition of Nach? That's
pretty late. I don't think I'm willing to accept a conjecture of such
recent vintage on a point like this, particularly in the face of the many
statements in Chazal that say Haman was a literal descendent of Agag,
king of Amalek. Not unless he's citing older sources himself.

>He leans toward the latter. Why then was he called "Agagi" rather 
>than "Amaleiqi"? R' Chakham writes that this is because of Haman's 
>fate -- to be killed by a daughter of Sha'ul haMelekh's house.

>Also, the Yerushalmi in Yevamos 4a says that Hamedasa, who lived 
>well before Haman, was not his biological father, but his conceptual one.

Could you provide more details on this? I was looking at the Yerushalmi
in Yevamot 4a, and I didn't see anything that even remotely referred
to Haman or Hamdata. I wondered if perhaps you meant Megillah, so I
checked Yerushalmi Megillah 4a as well and came up equally blank. Is this
something you've seen inside? If so, could you please be more specific?
Maybe I'm looking right at it and not understanding what I'm seeing.

Thanks,
Lisa

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


[ 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         ]