Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 9

Wed, 27 Jan 2016

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: via Avodah
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:19:17 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] free will




 
From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>>BTW, Cognitive Behavioral  Therapy, which is quite popular among 
practicing
O therapists -- at least  here in the States -- assumes there is an
unconscious.<<

--  
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         




>>>>
I believe I can prove there is an unconscious although I can't prove  
there's a "deep unconscious" that influences our conscious behavior.  I can  
prove that there is at the very least a "shallow unconscious" that goes on  
working without our awareness.  My proof is logical, experiential:
 
This is a common occurrence that all of us humans have experienced.   You 
are talking to a friend and trying to remember the name of a book you once  
read or the name of a certain person or a word that exactly describes what  
you're trying to say, but even though it's "on the tip of your tongue" you 
just  can't remember it.  You say to your friend, "Never mind, I just can't  
remember it" and you go on talking about something else.  Suddenly, a  little 
while later, the name you were trying to remember or the word you just  
couldn't dredge up suddenly pops into your head right in the middle of a  
sentence about something else entirely.  Or the forgotten name or word may  pop 
into your head later that day while you're shopping or reading  something 
unrelated.  It is obvious that while you were consciously doing  whatever you 
were doing, some unconscious process in your brain continued to  search for 
the missing word.
 
For many years I had a certain mental image of what was going on when this  
kind of thing happens.  I pictured stacks and stacks in a library and a  
little mental librarian running up and down the aisles and searching the  
stacks.  When she finds what she's looking for (what you're looking for)  she 
flags it, bursts into your consciousness and shouts, "I found it, here it  is!"
 
In recent years I have formed a different image:  not a librarian in  your 
brain but a computer process going on in the background, searching the  
files on your computer while you are sending emails and watching videos of  
laughing babies.  When the program finds what you were searching for, a  pop-up 
literally pops up on your screen -- the screen of your brain -- and  
announces, "Here it is, what you were looking for!"
 
Librarian or computer search process -- whatever it is, it is obviously  
operating in the background without your conscious awareness.  So your  brain 
certainly has an unconscious.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160126/0c2dceec/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:42:54 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] free will


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:19:17PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: I believe I can prove there is an unconscious although I can't prove  
: there's a "deep unconscious" that influences our conscious behavior...
: This is a common occurrence that all of us humans have experienced.   You 
: are talking to a friend and trying to remember the name of a book you once  
: read or the name of a certain person or a word that exactly describes what  
: you're trying to say, but even though it's "on the tip of your tongue" you 
: just  can't remember it.  You say to your friend, "Never mind, I just can't  
: remember it" and you go on talking about something else.  Suddenly, a  little 
: while later, the name you were trying to remember or the word you just  
: couldn't dredge up suddenly pops into your head right in the middle of a  
: sentence about something else entirely...

R Aryeh Kaplan discusses something similar in Jewish Meditation.

And REED says that bechirah chafshi is only involved in those decisions
where the conflicting desires are at a battle-front, the nequdas
habechirah. Which implies the existence of a preconscious or some other
non-conscious system doing most of the decision making. (Like when you go
to Target and "decide" not to shoplift that watch.)

But then RYS wrote about der dunkl, so we can assume REED would believe
in some such.

And RSWolbe
(original <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=28406&;pgnum=60>,
my translation <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/RWolbesWorld.pdf>):

    In the Mussar Movement, too, emotion occupies a central
    position. Rabbi Yisrael Salanter emphasized that a person could
    not reach sheleimus (wholeness) if he doesnt straighten out his
    subconscious forces. He calls these dark forces.6 (Rav Yitzchak
    Blazers Or Yisrael, ch. 6) His classical example:

        A man has a wild son whom he hates because of [the childs]
        belligerence, and an excellent and very beloved student. The son
        and the student live in the same room. A fire breaks out in the
        house and the father-teacher rushes to rescue the two youths. He
        runs to their room, and who does he save first? His son, even
        though he hates him. His love for [the son] was suppressed into
        the subconscious, but in the chaos of the danger it overcomes
        the love of the student that was in his conscious. (Even Yisrael,
        Jerusalem 1954, p. 62) (These things were written some 60 years
        before Freud!)

    Rav Yisrael Salanter further found that the subconscious forces are
    not influenced by intellectual persuasion alone, but specifically
    by hispaalus [working on oneself experientially and emotionally]
    (Or Yisrael, ch. 30).
...
    Subconscious and Super-Conscious

    There is one last question for us to discuss: Does the Torah
    recognize the [existence of a] subconscious? The answer is in
    the affirmative. In the Tanakh we find that Hashem [Tzevakos is
    a righteous judge] who examines the kidneys and heart (Yirmiyahu
    11:20). And the Talmud establishes, the kidneys advise, the heart
    understands (Berakhos 61a). The heart is the seat of the conscious,
    the kidneys an idiom for the subconscious.

    However, the subconscious known to Torah scholars is not that of
    Freud, which is created by the suppression of desires or unpleasant
    experiences. It is also not the unconscious of Jung, who believes in
    archetypes which reside in a collective unconscious. We must turn to
    the words of the Gra, the Vilna Gaon: All of a persons ways follow
    the original desire; the original desire as it initially arises is
    correct in his eyes. (Commentary on Mishlei 16:1-2) As if to say, the
    desire is formed in such depths that our conscious has no dominion
    over them. The I4 that is known to us is only a very small part of
    the essence of a person. Hidden desire directs our ways they are
    the advising kidneys in the idiom of Tanakh and our Sages, which we
    dont directly feel in our activities. For the sake of brevity, we
    will have to refrain here from bringing examples from the Torah about
    how this original desire acts. Suffice it here to say that the hidden
    desire has the ability to strive for things of the body or the spirit.

    From the Torahs perspective, we would have to speak of a subconscious
    and also of a super-conscious. There are lofty desires which originate
    in the godly soul within us. They push us to ethical elevation and
    closeness to God, and they bring us to more lofty emotions. This
    spiritual original desire is appropriately called super-conscious,
    and we must leave the term subconscious for original desires
    that draw one to satisfy physical indulgences. The desires of our
    super-conscious are certainly no less strong than the desires of the
    subconscious. This understanding of super and subconscious does not
    invalidate the mechanisms of repression. We already saw above that it
    was already known to Rabbi Yisrael Salanter 60 years before Freud. But
    the Torah understanding does contradict Freud in a sharp way in that
    he only finds the Libido in the subconscious, and in dreams which are
    the window into the subconscious, only sexual matters. (Cf. [Victor]
    Frankls writings, Das Menschenbild der Seelenheilkunde, Stuttgart
    1959, and Der Unbewusste Gott Psychotherapie und Religion.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:50:29 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm




However the SA OC 293:2 limits this to someone who is anoos, such as he
needs to end Shabbos at the edge of techum to do some mitzvah. And the SA
is clear, this is even "kesha'ah vereva LIFNEI sheqi'as hachamah"!

--------------------------
Yes, he says "yachol"(one could), my question was is it preferable(or must
one) if one is davening that early maariv, to add atah chonantanu or leave
it out?  Also is it preferable to stay	home to
:daven byichidut at the normal time rather than btzibbur earlier?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:18:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm


R' Joel Rich asked:

> Our local shul had 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm.
> The regular motzai Shabbat minyan and one right after
> shkiah so people could walk home on a major artery before
> it was pitch black.  Would you have said atah chonantanu
> at the shkia minyan? Why?

Yes, of course. Why not? As R' Micha Berger posted, one can even make
havdala al hakos after plag hamincha, so atah chonantanu would seem to be a
kal vachomer.

On the other hand, I can very easily imagine an LOR who might fear that
this could be a michshol, tempting people to be less careful about Shabbos
than otherwise. I can easily see him telling people to omit atah chonantanu
for this reason, or even to daven maariv at home after Shabbos.

> Would you have stayed home to daven at the normal time
> rather than btzibbur earlier?

I'd stay home if my LOR instructed me to do so for Public Policy Reasons
such as I suggested above. But otherwise, why not? All week long the
mincha/maariv minyan gets to maariv before tzeis. If maariv-after-tzeis
trumped minyan, then we might as well abandon the whole concept of
mincha/maariv.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160126/b0eb5c0e/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Allan Engel
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:15:58 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm


Why don't we make Havdala on a Kos after Plag Hamincha when Tisha B'Av
falls on Motzoei Shabbos? Isn't that preferable to waiting till Sunday
night?



On 27 January 2016 at 00:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, of course. Why not? As R' Micha Berger posted, one can even make
> havdala al hakos after plag hamincha, so atah chonantanu would seem to be a
> kal vachomer.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160127/76c04840/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Michael Orr
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:49:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:
[Avodah] Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews


I floated some thoughts on this last year on Avodah, and your feedback
helped me to refine those thoughts, as set out below.

I dedicate this to the memory of my father who left this world 27 years
ago today, when I was 27. His sense of decency and goodwill continues
to inspire me.

I don't pretend to scholarship, but I can perhaps offer a point of
view that has value in helping people see things from a different
perspective. I welcome any further feedback and discussion. I apologize
for any formatting issues in sending this out to the list. I am happy
to send it in PDF format to anyone who requests it. Feel free to share
it with anyone who may be interested or who might benefit from it.

YISRO AND DISPARAGING NON-JEWS

Parshas Yisro is named for Moshe Rabbenu's father-in-law, Yisro. After a
long career as a priest to idolatry, Yisro made a radical life change and
became one of the first converts to Judaism. After Moshe married Yisro's
daughter Tzippora, they lived with Yisro for many years in Midian, until
Moshe returned to Mitzrayim on a divine mission to free the Jewish people.

Immediately following the liberation of the Jewish people from Mitzrayim,
Yisro came out to meet Moshe in the wilderness. After they were reunited,
Moshe recounted to his father-in-law the good that Hashem had done for
the Jewish people, including causing the death of Paroh's entire army
at the sea.

What was Yisro's reaction? The Torah tells us (Shemos, 18:9): "vayichad
Yisro". The simple meaning is "Yisro rejoiced", on hearing this good news.

Rashi brings another interpretation of "vayichad Yisro" from the gemara
(Sanhedrin 94a) where Shmuel says it means that Yisro's flesh "pricked
up" in discomfort, with goosebumps, on hearing of the suffering and
destruction of the Egyptians. The gemara, as quoted by Rashi, immediately
explains and extends this idea: "As Rav [or more likely Rav Pappa --
per Gra and Torah Temimah] stated, this is as the popular saying has it:
'Do not disparage a non-Jew [Aramai] before a ger [convert] unto the
tenth generation'."

The Torah Temimah discusses other places in the gemara and halachah
where the status of a ger continues to the tenth generation of the ger's
descendants, and concludes: "If so, since the status of a ger continues
until the tenth generation, it is prohibited to disparage a non-Jew in
front of him [and his descendants during this time, i.e. to the tenth
generation]."

Rav Steinsaltz in his notes on Sanhedrin 94a cites the Gra who explains
that only after the tenth generation of descendants is the non-Jewish
blood less than a one thousandth, which is the most stringent standard for
bitul/nullification. Alternatively, "ten generations" may be specified
simply to set a very long time frame that would almost always cover
anyone who had a non-Jewish ancestor in living memory.

Whatever the explanation, the reference to ten generations suggests the
need for stringency. Furthermore, the fact that this saying is quoted by
Chazal, and repeated by Rashi, and its precise parameters discussed by
halachic authorities, seems like a good indication that it is teaching
a mussar principle that we are meant to apply in our lives, and is not
to be simply dismissed as an ancient folk saying.

Nowadays, almost any Jewish audience of a significant size, (whether
at a shiur or lecture, in a shul, or any class in a Jewish school)
is quite likely to have gerim or children or grandchildren of gerim
among it. Certainly when we extend those who we must be concerned not
to offend to include all who have any ger forebear within the previous
ten generations, it would have to be assumed that this principle should
be applied when addressing virtually any Jewish setting.

The clearest rationale for this mussar principle is that it is teaching
us to be sensitive to those who have come from outside, and their
descendants, so as to avoid hurting their feelings. At this level it
may perhaps be considered as part of the prohibition of onas devarim
(oppressing with words). This would apply whether or not the offending
statements were true, or partially true. At least we can say with
confidence that this principle, that requires taking into account the
sensitivities of people one is addressing, is part of derech eretz.

But speaking disparagingly about non-Jews is not just likely to hurt the
feelings of gerim and their descendants. Making negative generalizations
about a large class of people (in this case almost the entire human
race!) is also unlikely to be true, and likely to sound crude, not just to
gerim and their descendants, but also to anyone who is uncomfortable with
painting all non-Jews with the same negative brush. Unfortunately, though,
some speakers who have important and insightful messages to deliver to
Jewish audiences, seem sometimes to be unaware what a negative distraction
it is for some people in their audience when they start talking about
"the goyim" in disparaging terms as if non-Jews were a monolithic and
subhuman entity.

Gerim and their descendants who are close enough to real-life non-Jews may
be simply best placed to be able to recognize the falseness and crudeness
of simplistic caricatures and broad-brush negative generalizations. It
is noteworthy that gerim themselves have been on both sides of the line,
so to speak, so they have direct experiential knowledge of what it is
to be a non-Jew and what it is to be a Jew, so they know firsthand the
difference between the two states.

Furthermore, even if there is some truth in certain negative
generalizations, gerim and their descendants may still maintain relations
of hakaras hatov and/or responsibility to non-Jews like their non-Jewish
relatives and community, so as to make total rejection and lack of
concern for them inappropriate and likely to cause offence. And those
bonds of responsibility and hakaras hatov certainly deserve respect,
as part of a Torah-based derech eretz.

Nothing here should be taken to suggest that it is offensive to speak of
the special relationship of the Jewish people to G-d, and the particular
responsibilities of the Jewish people under the Torah, including our
responsibility as Jews (whether Jewish by birth or by conversion)
to maintain our distinctiveness and separateness in accordance with
all the specific requirements of halachah. In the Torah, Hashem says
"Israel is my firstborn son". It should not be offensive to refer to
such distinctness, though of course it must always be expressed in a
sensitive way. Indeed in recent years, even several Popes have referred
to the Jewish people as the "elder brother" of the Christian peoples.

What is problematic is when acknowledgement of proper distinctiveness
and separateness turns into the demonizing or dehumanizing of non-Jews
as a broad class.

This kind of exaggerated negative presentation of non-Jews when it
occurs is often prompted by pure motivations, of encouraging young
Jews to maintain an appropriate separateness and distinctiveness. But
ultimately such a caricaturization of non-Jews, as a way of trying to
protect our children and community, by building psychological walls of
fear and animosity, will likely be counter-productive and undermine the
strengthening of Torah, in at least two ways.

First, if and when our children find out that negative caricatures contain
falsehood, and that there are actually significant numbers of non-Jews
who do not fit the exaggerated negative images, there is a danger that
they will lose trust and rebel against what they see as false teaching,
throwing away much that is true in the process. This is comparable with
the midrash of Chavah being induced to sin as a result of Adam's false
but well-intentioned warning to her that Hashem had forbidden them even
to touch the tree whose fruit was forbidden. When she came in contact
with the tree and nothing happened, she concluded that even eating from
the tree would likewise cause no harm. Exaggerations undermine trust,
and the results are often not good.

Second, the demonization of non-Jews undermines our ability as individuals
and as a community to connect with the uplifting global vision and central
mission of the Jewish people based on the Torah. Avraham was told "all
the nations of the earth shall be blessed through you" (Ber. 22:18). This
was repeated to both Yitzchok (26:3-4) and Yaakov (28:13-14). Our Neviim
teach that the way the Jewish people will bless the world is by being
"a light to the nations". But it is difficult to see how this can come
about, and why Hashem would even want it to come about, if it were
correct that non-Jews are by their nature irredeemable, (incapable of
participating fully in the ge'ula to come). Teaching negative stereotypes
and caricatures about non-Jews as a whole tends to suggest that they are
indeed beyond redemption, and in so doing undermines our will and ability
to fulfill the mission that we have been given to do our part, through
Torah-based conduct, to bring Hashem's ge'ula/redemption to the world.

One further angle is worth mentioning. The way we relate to non-Jews is
part of how we relate to the rest of Hashem's creation. As the Maharal
wrote in Nesivos Olam, 2:50: "A person who loves someone, loves all of
the things which he does. Thus when one loves Hashem it is impossible not
to love his creations. And if a person hates mankind, it is impossible
that he feels love for Hashem who created them."

With all of the above in mind, we can conclude that the Torah's principle
against disparaging non-Jews in any setting where there are gerim or
descendants of gerim, which we learn from the gemara that Rashi cites
in this week's parasha, has at least two purposes. First and foremost,
following this principle will help us to be appropriately sensitive to
the feelings of converts and their families. Secondly, a major benefit
of implementing this principle is to help to inoculate us as Torah
observant Jews from falling into the temptations of crude xenophobia
(fear of outsiders) which would establish in us a mindset inconsistent
with the Torah's noble vision of the role of the Jewish people as a
distinct and separate nation whose refined way of life, and Torah ideas,
will lead to the blessing from Hashem uplifting and redeeming all of
human-kind in a magnificent culmination of creation.

michael...@rogers.com



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:52:25 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews


On 01/27/2016 10:49 AM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:
> Rav Steinsaltz in his notes on Sanhedrin 94a cites the Gra who explains
> that only after the tenth generation of descendants is the non-Jewish
> blood less than a one thousandth, which is the most stringent standard for
> bitul/nullification.

This doesn't seem tenable to me, because if his non-Jewish "blood"
is less than 100% then he is no longer a ger.  The proverb must refer
to a tenth-generation ger, i.e. all of his ancestors for the last
ten generations were gerim.  In that case why only 10 generations?
Perhaps because by then the knowledge that his remote ancestors were
not gerim but goyim is only intellectual, and he doesn't relate to it
in any way, any more than we relate to the fact that *our* remote
ancestors were idolaters.  I would imagine that this actually takes
significantly less than 10 generations, and that "10 generations" is
merely an expression meaning a very long time, taken from the pesukim
about Mamzerim, Amonim, and Moavim, which says that these may never
enter Kehal Hashem, even after a very long time.


> Nowadays, almost any Jewish audience of a significant size, (whether
> at a shiur or lecture, in a shul, or any class in a Jewish school)
> is quite likely to have gerim or children or grandchildren of gerim
> among it. Certainly when we extend those who we must be concerned not
> to offend to include all who have any ger forebear within the previous
> ten generations, it would have to be assumed that this principle should
> be applied when addressing virtually any Jewish setting.

If this is the case today then surely it must have been even more so
in Chazal's day, when giyur was so popular that historians tell us at
one point 10% of the Roman empire was Jewish.  And yet they limited the
proverb to the presence of a known ger.  Kal vachomer nowadays.


> But speaking disparagingly about non-Jews is not just likely to hurt the
> feelings of gerim and their descendants. Making negative generalizations
> about a large class of people (in this case almost the entire human
> race!) is also unlikely to be true, and likely to sound crude, not just to
> gerim and their descendants, but also to anyone who is uncomfortable with
> painting all non-Jews with the same negative brush.

And yet Chazal had no problem with doing so, and did so all the time.
They didn't worry that there might be a ger in the audience.  It also
seems to me that it doesn't apply at all to divrei torah, i.e. passing
on Chazal's worldview, because gerim need to hear that too.  Nor did
it apply to a conversation such as Moshe's with Yisro; he must have
known that Yisro would not rejoice at hearing what happened, but he
didn't refrain from telling him.

So when does it apply?  Perhaps only to a casual conversation with no
to'eles, i.e. when one wouldn't be allowed to say loshon hora about a Jew.
In such a case, if one is talking to a ger, then the rules of loshon hora
should be extended to goyim as well, in deference not to their reputations
but to his feelings.


> But it is difficult to see how this can come about, and why Hashem
> would even want it to come about, if it were correct that non-Jews
> are by their nature irredeemable, (incapable of participating fully
> in the ge'ula to come).

What do you mean by "participate fully"?   The nevi'inm tell us what
the goyim's role will be in the geulah: "And strangers will rise and
tend your sheep", "And kings will be your nannies and their princesses
your wetnurses".   Their role in the geulah will be as support staff
so that we can learn Torah all day.  And giyur will no longer be
available to them.  I don't know if that fits your definition of
"full participation".



-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:03:13 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm


Yes, of course. Why not? As R' Micha Berger posted, one can even make havdala al hakos after plag hamincha, so atah chonantanu would seem to be a kal vachomer.

On the other hand, I can very easily imagine an LOR who might fear that
this could be a michshol, tempting people to be less careful about Shabbos
than otherwise. I can easily see him telling people to omit atah chonantanu
for this reason, or even to daven maariv at home after Shabbos.
=========================================
Me-exactly my question!
=============================================

> Would you have stayed home to daven at the normal time
> rather than btzibbur earlier?

I'd stay home if my LOR instructed me to do so for Public Policy Reasons
such as I suggested above. But otherwise, why not? All week long the
mincha/maariv minyan gets to maariv before tzeis. If maariv-after-tzeis
trumped minyan, then we might as well abandon the whole concept of
mincha/maariv.
=============================================================
Not everyone accepts the  ?whole concept of mincha/maariv.? And would advise during the year as well to daven byichidut in that situation
=======================================================

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160127/dc446e9a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Isaac Balbin
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:24:35 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Inifinite Value of Human Life


I would like to point to the wonderful Chiddush on this matter, as
explained in the Shulchan Aruch HoRav, Siman Shin Vov: Chof Tes. This can
be compared to the approach of the Mishna Brura, and also the Childush
of the Levush. See also Nefesh HoRav where R' Chaim Brisker held the
same Psak as the Alter Rebbe as attested by the Rav, Rav Soloveitchik
(see Nefesh HoRav, page 88, number 2, and the Shakla V'Tarya from Rav
Schachter there in footnote 29). Read the words of the Shulchan Aruch
HoRav carefully.



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



_______________________________________________
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.)


< Previous Next >