Volume 33: Number 114
Wed, 19 Aug 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote:
:> Which is a different statement than the subject line.
:
:> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah
:> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who
:> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah
:> than the parshanim...
:
: I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan
: Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the
: Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam,
: we would not have the Shulchan Aruch.
:
: Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the
: Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!?
Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my
understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora
ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about
cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones.
IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it
couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle
any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always
determine which are the new cases.
In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was
more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we
could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses
how the conclusions are reached.
Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of
the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a
snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi
I wrote:
: I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan
: Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the
: Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam,
: we would not have the Shulchan Aruch.
:
: Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the
: Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!?
And RMB replied:
<<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my
understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora
ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about
cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones.
>IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't
survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that
isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the
new cases.>>
Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't
think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the
Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across
areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore
inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the
Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases
more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically.
>In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more
important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have
limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the
conclusions are reached.
So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no
Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between
the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the
Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would
of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent
than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the
Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that
RGS is so vehemently against.
Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the
moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the
postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in
general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic
movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within
the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position
as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the
more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation
and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a
general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The
codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual
process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and
then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations
where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even
more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a
Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan
Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread
is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in
the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate
precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line
as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh.
Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of
the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing
remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or
indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to
prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together?
Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on
another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many,
many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square
within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the
codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in
the light of common practice.
>Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the
Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The
parshan connects the past to the now.
That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation.
Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation
handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in
accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances
(with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the
Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia
with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah
regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is
it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only
that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread
becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable
the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the
elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic
conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything
like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The
Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage
without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying,
and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the
true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's
view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood
use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be
spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term
yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within
Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging
with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence.
But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of
"the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by
RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the
Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent.
>-Micha
Shavuah tov
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Shui Haber
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim
Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where?
[image: --]
Shui Haber
<https://about.me/shuihaber?promo=email_sig>
[image: https://]about.me/shuihaber
<https://about.me/shuihaber?promo=email_sig>
*"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is
knowing that you always are."*
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150815/0bcbf3d5/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim
On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote:
> Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where?
Devarim 6:13, 10:20.
Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Noam Stadlan
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair
R. Micha offered the following critiques:
> Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but
> not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also,
> how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a
> mimetic argument?)
If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones
saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no
reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were
unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta
existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I
think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul.
>: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of
>: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is...
>: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered
>: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated.
> But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed,
> that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could
> mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you
> may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem,
> it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah.
I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down
and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated
for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is
necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who
permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go
back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote.
>: Here is a list of easily accessable sources:
>: Rabbi Marc Angel...
> He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare
> shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.)
> But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees.
He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah
> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And
> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient.
There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that
not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed
by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for
the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be
following it.
...
>: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and
>: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair.
>: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and
>: everyone can come to their own conclusion.
> ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah
> dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka
> and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources.
>: Rav Yosef Haim...
> So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair
> uncovered?
Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a
Sephardi shita.
> And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah?
Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some
Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality)
hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition?
...
>: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony
>: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg.
>: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply:
>: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did
>: not cover her hair? ...
>: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in
>: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)."
>: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the
>: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with
>: uncovered hair.
>: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat
>: common...
> And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic
> tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or
> buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb.
I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear
long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long
thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover
her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest
do not speak for everyone.
>: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his
>: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable.
> He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of
> "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean
> it's allowed.
It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going
out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your
pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and
obvious rationale.
kol tuv. Noam
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair
: I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down
: and another rationale surfaces...
You gave two counterarguments:
1- Ashkenazi mimeticism
2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely
Sepharadi.
I therefore gave a teo part reply:
1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS
who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the
ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din.
He also says it's not ervah.
So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason
to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out
ervah with permissability.
2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their
community as well.
But at the end of the day, I did write:
:> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And
:> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient.
(And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about
hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at
tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat
http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-can
dles
Snippet:
Torah Musings
Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik
Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles
By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions
...
... Those who have family customs and if their
minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own
candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom-
"Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"...
...
.... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik
suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off
the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric
lights and then recite the Beracha.
Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the
practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav
practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit
their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit
candles with a Beracha.
Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice
of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when
they were single and still living with their parents.
Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of
electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah
on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Copyright
On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason,
decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined
> that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed
> specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some
> animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule.
This isn't true.
> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
> obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment,
> it is impossible that the Torah is less moral.
This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have
been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires
racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to
"prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism.
> Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a
> tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to
> someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur,
> I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one.
Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against
giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it.
Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have
bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers,
and have no rights to them.
> Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would
> each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued
> that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft,
Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally
theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*,
which is an entirely different matter.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes
From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/
Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is
more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the
United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me,
would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the
way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the
Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu.
See the above URL for more. YL
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote:
: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where?
While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's
halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe
rabbeinu's list:
Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im
- leyir'ah es H' Elokekha
- lalekhes bekhol derakhav
- ule'avah oso
- vela'avod es H' Elokekha...
- lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav...
It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of
mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory.
Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS
Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more
like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah,
yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin
: sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle...
: Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ...
: The Tosefta
: (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the
: President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the
: center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin
: seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban
: Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right,
: and all the others sat to his left....
My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended
topic, but he got me thinking about something else...
To quote myself from 2010
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n146.shtml#04>:
> REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan
> calls the short version of the IE:
> Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle
> ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste
> from REMT's post)
> And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the
> reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear.
Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern
as seen from above.
Continuing:
> The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side
> of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21:
> Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh.
Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout
of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah.
Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also
parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume
it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of
the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader,
"hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros".
From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq")
concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row.
So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But...
IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was
westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions.
A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north
to south.
The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from
west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second
from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost
candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east.
But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern?
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference
: who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or
: advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the
: family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general?
Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client
serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only
therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we
tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake
of the family, community or society, we will lose that.
So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater
extent, it might not change things all that much.
(After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That
reason needn't reflect a different set of values.)
There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the
opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them
up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy.
Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things
----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar <baishamus...@gmail.com> -----
Bais Hamussar
Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l
Shoftim - Elul
Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba
2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both
the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is
not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem
saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions
of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked."
What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem
prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous?
Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation.
Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their
good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the
world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give
their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous
focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's
good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those
performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem
prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of
the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that
for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small
donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to
a single big action.
Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must
be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced
with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to
stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah"
they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is
teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot
entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly
reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at
the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If
they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there,
they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva.
With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement
becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me
a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that
wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically
is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on
the small actions.
"Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain
from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five
minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth
is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand
to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul
Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will
reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance,
as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva!
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)