Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 014

Wednesday, August 5 1998

• Re: Rambam and Hashgachah
• Re: Avodah V1 #13
• Commentary on Pirkay Avoth Inspired by Monica Lewinsky
• Re: Avodah V1 #13
• Re: Rogatchover Gaon learning on 9th of Av
• re: Learning on 9th of Av
• Re: Nachem and Avelut b'parhesia
• Re: Avodah V1 #13 (fwd)

>>>Actually, the Rambam (M"N vol 3, numerous times in ch 17,18,51) clearly
disagrees. He writes that those who aren't sufficiently "human" to warrant
hashgachah are "left to teva". As I said when the Rambam was first quoted
-- this doesn't appear similar to what most frum Jews believe today.<<<

What happens when you are deserving of hashgacha? You attempted last time
to equate the Rambam with R' Dessler, who says a tzaddik is not subject to
the normal laws of nature/teva, meaning a tzaddik can burn vinegar and
acheive other miracles based on his belief. The Rambam would see hashgacha
as operating THROUGH natural means, not suspending teva.  I wrote last
time:

>>>Imagine a tzaddik whose car breaks down on the railroad tracks.
Proportional to his level of yediyat Hashem(as outlined by the Rambam) he
may merit being saved through special hashgacha.  His salvation may come
through the train being delyed (teva) or : his car flying through the air
(nes).<<<

Your response>>>My guess is that the Rambam had a deterministic physics.
Therefore, if someone is "left to teva", there isn't room for two
possibilities -- within teva, either the train is delayed, or it isn't.<<<

I specifically chose to deal with the case of the tzaddik - someone not
left to teva!  "Left to teva" in the Rambam means getting hit by the train
as nature would dictate; hashgacha means the train getting delayed
abnormally for some reason. Your either/or is correct even for the tzaddik.
R' Dessler, who you equated with the Rambam, holds a tzaddik lives above
and beyond the laws of teva, hence he may burn vinegar, etc.and have a
flying car - you are not trapped by nature's either/or.  The two positions
are quite different.

-Chaim B.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

As I was reviewing daf yomi, a Rashi caught my eye. On daf 62b in the
sugya dealing with not giving a ruling in the presence of ones rebbi, the
gemara asks what if the law is written in megillas taanis. which rashi
explains (d.h. kegoan) was the only written down set of laws at the time.
Since the question was asked to abaye it is clear that Rashi doen't hold
that Rebbi wrote the mishna (maybe he only compiled or organized it)
because if he did, surely the mishna would also be written down. Does any
one know other Rashi's which contradict this or agree with it. Do people
understand rashi differently then I do, I know this is a big dispute
(ie.when was the mishna actually written down) who knows more?
Elie Ginsparg

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

There is a tradition that every Jew has some halachah or aspect of
Torah (maybe only a letter) that is associated with their soul.

The recent proceedings on the Monica Lewinsky case brought the above
mystical idea to mind. The recent headlines on the "dress test" reminds
me of the explicit Mishnah in PirKay Avoth

        >>Know 3 things and you will not come to sin
        >>.....where you came from (A putrid drop)

In fact the whole Mishnah (if you look at all 3 things) has a sort
of poetic irony to it:

>>You want to stop sinning...Why just remember that God is watching you.
But we know that this is usually not enough.

>>OK You really want to stop sinning...Just remember that everything
>>is being recorded. It is being remembered and noticed. You will have
>>to stand justice some day.
But this too is usually not enough

>>OK You really want to stop sinning..just remember you might get caught!!
>>Everything leaves a trace

There is more than an ironic, nostalgic, or even mystical point here: There
is the point that no matter how horrible situations get we can learn from
mistakes and prevent future occurences (The papers have not picked up
on this).  There is also the point -- as mentioned by the mystical 
tradition--that every Jew *can* teach us something no matter where they are.

[Disclaimer] I hope the above leads people to further prevention of sin.
Needless to say, the above thoughts are independent of what any investigating
orginazation finds on the truth or falsity of various claims or people. 
Thus the above observations are purely moral.

Russell Jay Hendel Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs Drexel edu
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

In regard to refraining from using the Eicha trop on Shabbos Chazon because of
aveilus befarhesia, Rav Ahron Soloveichek said that his father felt using this
trop is aveilus befarhesia. Rav Ahron is against singing Lecho Dodi to the
tune of Eli Tzion for the same reason.However, when  Rav Yoshe Ber's grandson
told him about this objection, he said there's no problem because the tunes do
not constitute aveilus.
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The reason that I have heard  behind the story of the Ragotchover is that  we
find that by avelut and also by Yom Kippur that Chazal only prohibited washing
for tanug (pleasure) but to remove suffering it is permitted. (Look in Yorah
Deah 381)  So to by the Ragotchover for him not to learn Torah would of given
him tremendous suffering - so therefore he was allowed to learn not for
pleasure - simcha, but to remove his suffering.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga

Saul J Weinreb wrote:

> Joel wrote:
>
> My father (Rav Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Baltimore, MD) tells this story
> of the Rogatchover Gaon with an added explanation. He quotes a yerushalmi,
> and bli neder I will ask him where it is, that if a Talmid Chochom
> is "lahut Acharei Toraso" that it is mutar for him to learn even bavailus.
> He used to respond that the Rogatchover apparently paskened like the
> yerushalmi for there is no indication that the Bavli disagrees with this
> heter.  His comment about having the olam habba... is not really even a
> joke if you look into it deeper.  I certainly would not mind having the
> olam habba of one who is "lahut acharei Toraso"
> Shaul Weinreb



[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I just want to add one potential source concerning is there a chiyuv to
learn on the 9th of Av. In the sefer Pnei Baruch siman 16 note 5 he
quotes a sefer Shevet Yehudah that states  that an avel is totally patur
from learning Torah and is not obligated but rather just permitted to
learn the 'sad'  topics. While he is talking about avelut perhaps it
logically should extend to the 9th of Av.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Nachem on 9th of Av:
The Rosh at the end of mesechet Taanit says he wondered all his years why only
by mincha.  The Beit Yosef quotes a Rav Saddia Gaon ( the basis of the Remah in
siman 557) who explains because that is when the fire was set so that is when
we ask for nechama.  According to this reason, only when the fire was lit
should we say nachem - not necessarily the whole time of its burning.  And
since  chazal were mtaken it in mincha of the 9th so to when we observe the
tanit on the 10th the minhag (takana) is the same.
The Aruch Hashulchan (557:3) quotes a Bach that says the whole day we can't say
nachem as it has the status of mato mutal lefanav, however by mincha that
status has changed and we can now accept tanchumin.

Avelut b'parhesia:
In the beginning of siman 551 the Remah says that one shouldn't wear bigdei
shabbat while the mishnah brura says the Gra felt that one should wear bigdei
shabbat.  The Aruch Hashulchan (551:11) explains the opinion of the Gra as
based on the problem of avelut b'pharesia.  He then says that even the Remah
holds of the problem of avelut b'pharesia, just that in the time of the Remah
the clothes worn on shabbat and weekdays were very similar so  the act of
avelut wasn't noticeable.
That explanation may explain the machloket about clothes but would not explain
the different opinions about using the Eicha nigun on shabbat.
A number of years ago  I heard an explanation from Rav Kelemer Shlita that
while every one agrees that there is an issur of avelut b'pharesia, the Remah
holds that it  only applies to avelut of a yachid who can't publicly do
differently than the tzibbur.  But by avelut drabbim - like by the  9th of Av -
when the whole tzibbur is observing avelut  then there is no problem of avelut
b'pharesia. Therefore, some of the public minhagim  of avelut can be kept on
the shabbat  of the 9 days. (I believe that was the basic gist of his svara if
I remember correctly).

Kol Tuv,
Shraga



cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> Magen Avraham suggests the reason we normally say Nachem only at Mincha is
> because the fire was lit at that time.  L'shitaso, he says when we fast on
> 10 av we should say Nachem in all our tefillot.  Since that (I think) is
> not the common practice, any have a hesber as to why we add it at mincha
> only?
>
> Was wondering about the parameters of aveilut b'parhesia on Shabbos.  Rama
> cites the minhag of not wearing bigdei shabbos on Shabbos Chazon, yet I saw
> R' Shternbruch in Moadim U'Zmain quote practice of the Chazon Ish not to
> lein the haftora of chazon with the Eicha trup becasue of avoiding aveilus
> on Shabbos.  Quite a spectrum!
>
> -Chaim B.



[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

As I was reviewing daf yomi, a Rashi caught my eye. On daf 62b in the
sugya dealing with not giving a ruling in the presence of ones rebbi, the
gemara asks what if the law is written in megillas taanis. which rashi
explains (d.h. kegoan) was the only written down set of laws at the time.
Since the question was asked to abaye it is clear that Rashi doen't hold
that Rebbi wrote the mishna (maybe he only compiled or organized it)
because if he did, surely the mishna would also be written down. Does any
one know other Rashi's which contradict this or agree with it. Do people
understand rashi differently then I do, I know this is a big dispute
(ie.when was the mishna actually written down) who knows more?
Elie Ginsparg


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]