Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 059

Wednesday, May 31 2006

• Tsimtsum kepshuto
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• al naharot bavel
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: al naharot bavel
• RE: geirut
• Re: Leshem Tzitzum k'Peshuto.pdf
• Haftorah
• Re: geirut
• RE: geirut
• RE: Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re:Calling a Spade a Spade

[RSC:]
> On May 28, 2006, YGB wrote:
> I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
> it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto. 

> This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. 
> To explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is
> heretical no less than saying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by
> anything else. "Leis machashavah tefeesah bei klal" means that nothing
> *at all* can be said about the essence of the Boreh (we refer to Him as
> Boreh as pertains to his kesher to our world as Creator but this term
> is not a modification of his essence chs'v) and thus, to state that his
> "Atzmus" was contracted chs'v is the most fundamental kefira in our
> understanding of Hashem. The only reason RYGB qualified his words is
> because Rishonim like the Ra'avad toned down the Rambam's condemnation
> of one who corporealizes Hashem but essentially RYGB is correct regarding
> the crux of the matter.

I would suggest approaching the concept of literal tsimtsum with
the thought experimental of an infinite hotel. Imagine a hotel with
an infinite number of rooms and all of them are occupied. 10 guests
arrive. To make splace, the proprietor asks everyone to move up by 10
rooms so as to evacuate 10 rooms for the new guests. These 10 rooms
are certainly real and yet a aprt of teh infinite hotel. This shows us
that it is possible to isolate a finite set from an infinite set without
detracting from the infinite in any fashion. F.e any set of numbers is
a part of the infinity of numbers but nonetheless finite and independent.

  M. Levin

On May 30, 2006, YGB wrote:
> The exact source is in Likutei Sichos vol. 2 p. 511. If you look
> there, beginning the previous page with Os #40 you will find a very
> interesting - and IMHO dubious - chiddush, that since a Rebbe is a
> "memutzeh ha'mechaber" instead of a "memutzeh ha'mafsik," one may make
> requests of a deceased Rebbe, even though it is normally heretical to
> make requests of the dead, and even of malachim.

IMHO, dubious is an insufficient adjective to describe the above-noted
doctrine. It bothers me almost as much as the atzmus u'mahus thing. AFAIC,
there is no such thing as a memutzah for a Jew (as described in this
sicha), michaber or otherwise, but this is an entirely different thread
(not really...they both "rear ohn" the issue of AZ) and if it gets off
the ground I will bl'n post. I'll just take the opportunity to say a
little bit now. IIRC, the LR 'shtelt-zach' on the pasuk "anochi omed
bein Hashem u'veineichem" (Devarim 5:5) to illustrate his point however
pashut pshat has nothing to do with this interpretation and the Ramban,
who regularly adopts pirushim which explicate the penimius of the verse
has something entirely different to say regarding this pasuk... ayin sham.

Incidentally, I do not wish to come across as disrespectful towards one
of the previous gedoley haDor; IMO, much of what was recorded in this
sicha is taken out of context including, IMO, the aforementioned two
doctrines i.e. atzmus u'mahus (which Rav Shach was eminently unhappy
with) and memutza himichaber (which RYGB and I are unhappy with). The LR
was exceedingly enamoured with his shver (in a spiritual way...when his
wife died he was distressed over what he perceived as a termination, at
least partially, of his connection to his father in law and discussed the
ramifications with the local Rabbanim in an attempt to re-establish the
connection within the parameters of halacha) and perhaps said certain
things that were somewhat exaggerated...this is the way I choose to
relate to what I see as questionable doctrines in this sicha.

As an aside, you almost can't blame the meshechistin for believing that
the LR is Mashiach...after all, the LR stated this very same belief
regarding his shver in this very sicha and several others.

> But this specific expression has never bothered me as much as it
> has others. It is supported by the citation (in the Sicha, not in the
> notes!) of the Zohar that states "Man pnei ha'Adon - zeh Rashbi;" and the
> fact that a malach is called b'shem Havayah when speaking b'shem Hashem,
> and that Moshe spoke of Hashem's commandments in first person.

Well, here's were I diverge from RYGB. The Zohar of "Man pnei ha'Adon -
zeh Rashbi;" can in no way be used to justify lishonos such as atzmus
u'mahus. That Zohar is referring to kabbalas pinei haShechina (Shechina
is not Atzmus) and since RSBY was, at the time, the closest individual
to the Shechina (the Shechina rests on tzadikkim as everyone knows), R'
Chiya and R' Yossi were attempting to be mikayem a 'virtual' re'eyah in
lieu of the Beis haMikdash. The term 'Havya' in the pasuk "el pinei haAdon
Havaya" al pi sod is referring to the bechina of Malchus as explained in
haKdamas haZohar (2a) and applies to the Beis haMikdash, and on a lower
level, to RSBY, and really, to the greatest tzadikim of each generation
(which is why, al pi penimius, there is a mitzvah to visit ones Rebbi
during the shalosh rigalim). This IN NO WAY has any bearing on the issue
of atzmus u'mahus.

As far as RYGB'S point that "Moshe spoke of Hashem's commandments in
first person" this too is brought down in Chabad chassidus (v'nasati
mitar artzechem...Moshe is speaking) but is, as usual, misunderstood,
misrepresented, and has nothing to do with the idea of atzmus u'mahus
chs'v. The Ramban (Vayikra 18:2) explains that the nation was so aware
that Moshe was speaking in the name of Hashem that often times Moshe
spoke in first person to facilitate communication. In Divarim (5:12 -
pg. 366 in Shevel) the Ramban has a pinimiusdic priush (the first four
chumashim were bi'geder zachor, Mishneh Torah was bi'geder shamor) but,
once again, this has nothing to do with atzmus u'mahus.

> I am cc'ing one of our greater Chabad scholars to ask for additional
> marei-mekomos.

What's wrong with your uncle? Are you as afraid of him as I am? :-)
Actually, I'm afraid of all of your uncles but I think this is a good
mida. The Gemara says that one who fears talmeeday chachamim will become
a talmid chacham. It hasn't worked for me yet but I'm trying...

Simcha Coffer

[RZL:]
> And before we get into whether p'sak
> is relevant on this perhaps non-halachic issue, let me just point out
> that all the meforshim (Radak, Ibn Ezra, Seforno) state the Talmud's
> version and not this Midrash's, and based on that declare that David
> wrote "Al Naharos Bavel" in prophetic/ruach hakodesh vision

In my mikraot gedolot of Tehilim 137:1 the Radak says that it was said
by the Leviim in galut in Bavel. The Ibn Ezra uses similar words.
The Malbim is more explicit and says it was written in the first year of
Corash.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:41:57AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>: Yes we do. The bracha vesen tal umatar livracha, beginning each year
>: on December 4th (or 5th). 

> That's based on tequfas Shemu'el, which assumes a pretty inaccurate
> solar year of 365 day, 6 hr. My guess: It's a derabbanan, and accuracy
> was therefore less of an issue than ease of use.

Not even a derabbannan; it's pure minhag, developed for a particular
place and era, and not intended to apply anywhere or anywhen else.

> The year, and therefore the ibbur of Adar, is based on tequfas R' Ada,
> 365 days, 5 hrs, 55 min, and 25 sec. Which fits my idea that we went
> with greater accuracy for de'Oraisos.

I don't think it has anything directly to do with de'orata/derabbanan.
It's more a matter of who was intended to use each system. Tal Umatar
is up to each person. The siddur said to switch at Maariv on the 21st
of Novemeber (Old Style), so all a person had to do was ask a goy for
the date. Calculating a calendar, though, wasn't usually up to each
person; only one person per town needed to do it, and the result of
his calculations could be announced in shul before each Rosh Chodesh
and fast day. Such a person could be expected to handle addition and
subtraction, and even perhaps some simple multiplication, so it was
feasible to base a simplified calendar on the mean length of a month
and the Metonic cycle. IIRC the Rambam in Kiddush Hachodesh says that
a bright child should be capable of this task.

Were Chazal aware that the Metonic cycle was so inaccurate? I don't know.
Perhaps they were, but decided that the calculations necessary for a
more accurate calendar were beyond what they could expect even community
rabbanim to handle.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>On May 28, 2006, YGB wrote:
>> I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
>> it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto.

>This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. To
>explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is heretical
>no less than saying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by anything
>else. "Leis machashavah tefeesah bei klal" means that nothing *at all*
>can be said about the essence of the Boreh (we refer to Him as Boreh
>as pertains to his kesher to our world as Creator but this term is
>not a modification of his essence chs'v) and thus, to state that his
>"Atzmus" was contracted chs'v is the most fundamental kefira in our
>understanding of Hashem. The only reason RYGB qualified his words is
>because Rishonim like the Ra'avad toned down the Rambam's condemnation
>of one who corporealizes Hashem but essentially RYGB is correct regarding
>the crux of the matter.

I have avoided any discussion of the subject as I feel that it is
inappropriate to discuss Kaballah on the Internet. However since the
person made the above comment and at best it is a sign of ignorance,
I wish to make few comments which reveal a tefach and hid a thousand
tefachim. First, the first thing that the Ari does in Eitz Chaim is
ask a few questions. Unless one understands what the questions are
one cannot understand the answer. Second, Tzimtzum is a mashal, the
question is about the nimshal. Third atzmus is not a divar gashmi,
chas v'shalom. To imagine that is kafirah.

I would like to state that unless you have learned seforim like Shomer
Emunim HaKadmon, Shefah Tal and others like which explain the yesodus
AND had a Rebbe who instructed you, it is best to refrain from discussion
of subjects that were not meant to be discussed openly.

As to why it probably is not kefirah to hold tzimtzim b'pashtus (while
it is incorrect) I suggest looking at Amek HaMelech on his discussion
of tzimtzum. Just remember we are not talking about gashmiyus here.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

> Professor (Rav?) Eli Merzbach [...] claims that the great knowledge of
> 'Hazal is not apparent in their awareness of the mean lunar month, for -
> contrary to what has been claimed here - that is quite easy to calculate:
> just divide the length of time between two successive eclipses (don't
> recall if he meant lunar or solar, probably the former) and divide by
> the number of months.

Actually two successive eclipses won't do it. Due to my interest in a
previous thread about the length of Elul, I checked in an Ephemerides
(published 1993) I have (for years 1900-2050) that reports the time of the
lunar conjunction (new moon) based on data from the US Naval Observatory,
so I presume fairly accurately. I randomly picked data starting in Jan
1924 thru April 1928 [52 months, it filled one page ... ;)] and calculated
the length of each month (conjunction to conjunction) to see what the
variation looked like from month to month relative to the average length
of the synodic month. I then calculated the mean value for the 52 months
expecting a value close to the accepted length of the synodic month. Too
my surprise my value (assuming my arithmetic was all correct - there was
a lot of it) was quite a bit larger (29 d 13 h 7 m to the nearest minute).

Thus I must assume you need an average over a much longer period of
months than I took, i.e. considerably longer than just one eclipse to
get a good value for the synodic month. You would also need a good value
for the time of day when the actual conjunction occurred not just the
number of months that passed.

In that thread RMB wrote:
"The 3 Body Problem is a chaotic system, and the mean is a "strange
attractor". IOW, in order to know the length of any given month, you
need to know the orbit of the moon to a great precision. More precision
to project forward to a second month, etc... IOW, "erratic all over
the place".

And worse, the average length is growing by a rate that can only be
approximated polynomially. It's almost linear with time, growing about
3sec/century but there is a slight upward drift from the line from a
component that grows by time^2, etc..."

What I found, however, that the data is not quite as erratic as RMB
assumed. While of course RMB is correct that "The 3 Body Problem
is a chaotic system, and the mean is a "strange attractor" and that
your predictions are greatly limited by the precision of your data,
nevertheless the short term prediction was not so erratic so as to be
unable to see the direction of the change from month to month. Much like
the weather (so much more complicated) is essentially an unpredictable
system but forecasts are nonetheless possible for just several days
hence. Unfortunately, I think that the variation does not lead to anything
consistent wrt to the length of Elul (which I suspected was the case)
which prompted my question in the previous thread on the length of Elul.

Also, the miniscule "3sec/century" is not the magnitude of variation I
had in mind, but variations on the order of up to several hours/month
is what I was thinking of.

ZL:
> And before we get into whether p'sak
> is relevant on this perhaps non-halachic issue, let me just point out
> that all the meforshim (Radak, Ibn Ezra, Seforno) state the Talmud's
> version and not this Midrash's, and based on that declare that David
> wrote "Al Naharos Bavel" in prophetic/ruach hakodesh vision

R. Eli Turkel:
> In my mikraot gedolot of Tehilim 137:1 the Radak says that it was said
> by the Leviim in galut in Bavel. The Ibn Ezra uses similar words.

The Malbim is more explicit and says it was written in the first year of Corash.

Please reread my posts on this subject. And regarding the Malbim
specifically, DID YOU READ THE MALBIM'S WORDS I WROTE IN CAPITAL LETTERS
IN THE POST TO WHICH YOU ARE COMMENTING?

	Zvi Lampel

> Is anyone aware of a katan shenitgayer who renounced the geirut at bar/bat
> mitzvah (or when they found out if later)?  

Yes -- a friend in Yeshiva found out when he started going on shidduchim,
and the R.Y. advised him to get his ancestry records to save time
later. (He had been adopted and converted as a baby).

> IIRC according to some (Rambam?) opinions even an adult ger could have a 
> similar issue if the original geirut were not "complete" (i.e. bet
> din watches the individual after the fact to determine the status of
> the original kabbalah)

An interesting question -- under what conditions can we say an original
geirus (of an adult) is retroactively null and void? How long after the
fact, and what conditions would have to arise?

Akiva

====
There are two kinds of speeches and two kinds of silences. Speech is either
truth or a falsification, and silence is either fruition or heedlessness. If
one speaks the truth, his words are better than his silence, but he who
invents falsifications, his silence is better than his speech.

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> It would seem that according to your analysis the Leshem is a kofer -
> chav v'shalom. He in fact rejects your distinction between Ohr and
> Atzmuso. I am attaching the pdf of the Leshem's assertion [os hey]...

The pdf you attached to your email does not download, so I searched the
Leshem myself and found that he _**does**_ distinguish between AES (or
"Ohr Pnimi") and OES. The pdf to that effect is attached to this email,
I hope Micha can post it.

[I got the faxes directory working again. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/leshemTzimtzum.pdf> for RDE's text,
and <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/leshemTzimtzum2.pdf> for RYGB's.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
    -mi]


YGB

Yes, R' Akiva, true that the ten Shabosim have their own haftorah. Yet
they follow the various Sidrot. The three I mentioned may come out on
different Shabosim, yet one has to look, either at the back of Sefer
Shemos, or at different Sidrot in Devarim.

But I admit that its true thast not all rules are hard and fast.

Chag Someach.
Ben

> Yes -- a friend in Yeshiva found out when he started going on shidduchim,
> and the R.Y. advised him to get his ancestry records to save time
> later. (He had been adopted and converted as a baby).

What actually happened in this case? Did he renounce the geirut? redo it?
Is this the famous story (which i always wondered if it was an urban
legend) where a Yeshiva bachur decided he didn't want to be Jewish?

I was involved with a preBat mitzva girl who was deliberating the issue.
We spent a summer learning hilchot giyur and discussing her feelings
(she had converted with her mother as a child) In the end she came out
strengthened with the feeling that she had made the choice herself,
but there was some time where the mother was not sure how it would go.

menucha

On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:47:15 +0300, <akiva.atwood@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Is anyone aware of a katan shenitgayer who renounced the geirut at 
>>bar/bat mitzvah (or when they found out if later)?

>Yes -- a friend in Yeshiva found out when he started going on 
>shidduchim, and the R.Y. advised him to get his ancestry records to 
>save time later. (He had been adopted and converted as a baby).

And he renounced it then and there?

>>IIRC according to some (Rambam?) opinions even an adult ger could 
>>have a similar issue if the original geirut were not "complete" 
>>(i.e. bet din watches the individual after the fact to determine 
>>the status of the original kabbalah)

>An interesting question -- under what conditions can we say an 
>original geirus (of an adult) is retroactively null and void? How 
>long after the fact, and what conditions would have to arise?

I had a friend in Israel whose father was Jewish and converted either in
her late teens or early twenties. She'd thought at one time of becoming
a nun (her mother had been Catholic), but decided against it. And she
was very Jewishly knowledgable. But over the time that I knew her,
she gradually started hanging out with Christian friends in Jerusalem,
and then started going to Mass with them, and wound up taking communion.
I spoke with my rav at the time about the options available to nullifying
her conversion (she knew I was talking to him about it). He said there
was a concept of "chozer l'suro", where an idolater converts and then
goes back to idolatry, but that it didn't apply in her case.

There were numerous reasons why not. One was the length of time.
She'd been seriously frum and committed for a long time. There was no
question about her sincerity at the time of the conversion. There's also
an issue of the grey area of shituf. Yes, Christianity is avodah zarah
mamash for Jews, but it's apparently a machloket as to whether it is
for goyim.

I don't know all the parameters of chozer l'suro, but it's the only
thing I've ever heard of which can nullify an adult conversion (other
than Rav Goren's "giyur al tnai").

Lisa 

On May 30, 2006, at 20:38:54 -0400GMT, R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
> R. D. Riceman:
>> Didn't the Rambam write this in Arabic?

> Good point. Are there any Hebrew translations that translate differently;
> or better yet, anyone out there who knows Arabic?

I know some Arabic, but I don't know the Arabic original of the text
you are discussing.

 -Stephen (Steg) Belsky
   "what makes us human is that we care --
    and because we care, we never stop trying."
      ~ jms, b5 (sinclair)

Tue, 30 May 2006 from:  R. Meir Shinnar <chidekel@gmail.com>: 
> It [salaries, stipends and public financial support of rabbanim and
> students of Torah] is called midas chassidus rather than lecatchila
> because it is difficult to call the practice of so many kehillot
> lecatchilla.

I'm afraid RMS is misunderstanding the sources. The kehillos which
supported their lomdei Torah had this practice predating the Rambam
as well as during his time and antedating him, and as he himself says,
they considered it a mitzva.

The objections against the Rambam's shitta are real, and are spelled out
clearly in the Kessef MIshneh. In a previous post (for example, Tue,
14 Feb 2006 RE: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel), RMS gave
his version of the Kessef Mishneh. I would like to address this now.

RMS:
> The Kesef mishne, after a long explanation of why he
> thinks the rambam is wrong [in requiring a talmid chacham to provide
> his own financial support and refuse it from others] ... goes on for
> two more attempts. ... This
> is proof that the kesef mishne himself found his primary refutation of
> the rambam to be problematic." ... (and the reason the rambam brings so many proof texts in his perush hamishnayot is because he knows how radical his position is going to be deemed)

This is simply incorrect (as I will show), and in addition there is a
clear bias expressed here. RMS, as in previous posts, characterizes the
Kessef Mishneh's kushyos against the Rambam's proofs as merely "attempts,"
and only Rambam's view of his proof-texts as well-grounded. He claimed
that the Kessef Mishneh's multiplicity of proofs somehow demonstrate
that each one alone has a weakness, and when it was pointed out that
they are but point-by-point replies to Rambam's multitude of proofs,
he replies that "the reason the rambam brings so many proof texts in
his perush hamishnayot is because he knows how radical his position is
going to be deemed."

RMS elaborates:
> After going through the proof texts, and offering an alternative
> explanation for the proof texts - he [the Kessef Mishneh] then tries
> for a different explanation of the entire sugya - not for a different
> proof text.

(Sigh) Again: "tries for" an alternative explanation. If I were to use
this kind of language to describe the machlokess, I would come up with
the following: After effectively dismantling the first seven, and before
dismantling the last two of the Rambam's nine "attempts" to prove his
point (often by showing that those very sources clearly indicate that
those Tannaim and Amoraim who refused public support were distinctly
rare execeptions to the rule) and showing that they are actually proofs
against the Rambam,* the Kessef Mishneh /does/ "try for" other proof
texts which disprove the Rambam's shitta -- Sota 21 (re: Rebbi Yochonon,
who accepted support), Chullin 134b (re: public monies donated to the
b'nay HaYeshiva including Rebbi Ami) and Tanach.

*A typical example: The Rambam's ninth proof, from Bava Basra 8a: In a
year of famine Rabbeynu HaKadosh opened his storehouses, but would only
feed talmidei chachamim. Someone came and, upon questioning, claimed to
be an Am HaAretz, but begged him for the food. Rebbi gave in, but later
regretted doing so, until others suggested that perhaps this person was
his talmid, Rebbi Yonason ben Amram, who was known to refuse gaining
any benefit from Torah honor. The Rambam concludes, "All these stories
teach us that it is improper for cdhachamim to make use of the croen of
Torah for their honor or their sustenance."

The weakness of this proof, as the Kessef Mishneh points out, is
glaring. It actually proves the opposite: Rebbi Yehudah HaNassi supported
/only/ talmidei chachamim; if it were prohibited for talmidei chachamim
to accept such support, how could he have been machshil them to commit
an issur?! And all of Rebbi's other talmidim, the Tannaim whom he did
recognize, and/or the talmidei chachamim who were willing to declare
their Torah expertise, did accept that support. The episode is clearly
depicting Rebbi Yonason ben Amram as the only talmid chacham to act this
way, a talmid chacham taking upon himself a middas chassidus that no
others did. There is no proof from here that standard practice was for
talmidei chachamim to refuse outside support, and only indication that
standard practice was for them to accept it. One might try to defend the
Rambam by saying that things are different in a year of famine, but then
the burden of proof rests on him; the proof the Rambam tries to bri!
ng falls away.

RMS:
> It is the fact that he has to bring an alternative explanation that
> is proof that he is aware that there are problems with the previous
> explanation.

By an "alternative explanation," does RMS mean (a)--an alternative to
Rambam's payrush of the mishneh, or (b)--an alternative way to explain
why the halacha does not follow the Rambam?

If the former, I find this unfathomable. The Kessef Mishneh offers only
one explanation of the "sugya," i.e., the payrush of the mishneh, in
opposition to the Rambam's. It is only natural, and it's to be expected,
that the Kessef Mishneh in disagreeing with the Rambam's understanding
of "the entire sugya" -- a mishnah in Ahvos -- would expand on his
own understanding of the mishnah. The "previous explanation" he found
"problems with" was the Rambam's! How could this be seen as a weakness
in his argument?

If by an "alternative explanation," RMS means an alternative way to
explain why the accepted halacha does not follow the Rambam, I find this
unfathomable as well. This is what the Kessef MIshneh says:

"The bottom line ("ha-k'lal ha-oleh) from all this [i.e., the sources
brought by both the Rambam, despite the conclusion Rambam himself draws
from them, and those of the Kessef Mishneh -- ZL], is that someone
who has no other source of income is permiited to accept payment for
teaching, whether from the talmidim themselves or from the public. And it
is likewise permitted for a dayan to accept payment from the litigigants
or the public as long as the quallifictions listed in the gemora Sanhedrin
are met."

And the Kessef Mishneh then makes the following points:

1. The Rambam's "proofs" to his position are so weak, and the proofs
to the opposing view (that it is lechitchila permissable for talmidei
chachamim to be supported by public funds) are so strong, that the Rambam
cannot possibly have meant what he seems to say. He must have meant, as
can be inferred from his words, "kol ha-maisim al leebo," that someone
who already has a source of income that does not hinder his learning,
should not abandon it and throw himself on the public dole.

2. Even if the Rambam does mean what he seems to say, the minhag does not
follow his position. The fact is that, from before the Rambam's time to
the present, all the chochmei hador accepted public support. Regarding
halacha l'maaseh, this makes the Rambam's daas yachid opinion precarious.

3. Even if the above two facts were denied, it is imperative today, for
the sake of keeping Torah study alive, that public support of talmidei
chachamim is encouraged.

How RMS sees in this a weakness of position on the Kessef Mishneh's part
is beyond me. It is a classic "afilu im timtsa lomar," stating that even
if one adamantly refuses to admit the weakness of the Rambam's proofs,
and even if the Rambam were correct in his time, the bottom line is
that today his p'sak is invalid. It is an ideal only for a select few,
not because the poskim reluctantly agree to a fait accompli, but because
it was never mekubal by klall Yisroel, and the sources for such a shitta
for the klall are lacking.

[Email #2. -mi]

Tue, 30 May 2006 from: "Meir Shinnar" <chidekel@gmail.com>
> RZL ...tries to suggest that the rambam allows familial support -
> but there is nothing in the rambam to suggest that ....

In RMS's own words (Avodah V. 17 #55, Mon, 29 May, Re: Doctor's fees),
"at the heart of the rambam's position...is the equating of studying
and teaching torah to any other profession that is problematic - because
then torah will be judged by the same criteria as any other profession.

"...It is human nature to succumb to temptation ...The real implication
is that if one puts torah study into the general marketplace - they
[talmidei chachamim --ZL] too can succumb - and that becomes a real
(and far greater) hillul hashem...."

As I've pointed out before, this concern does not apply to family
support. Financial support by parents and siblings is understood by
all not to be a business relationship. It does not constitute putting
Torah study "into the general marketplace," and does not open the door
to the types of temptations to which the Rambam is concerned one might
succumb. Combined with the fact that the Rambam accepted his brother's
support (and the baselessness of saying it was contingent upon the Rambam
paying into his brother's business), there certainly is something to
suggest, and prove, that the Rambam allows familial support.

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         ]