Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 152

Tuesday, November 23 1999

• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Retraction, etc.
• 1) Daat Torah; 2) Bible criticism
• Re: Avos (was Retraction)
• Re: Simplicity (Aliah)
• Re[2]: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Re: Re[2]: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149)
• Re[2]: Retraction, etc.
• Re: smells
• Re: Pixels in G-d's Imagination
• Re: Tzelem Elokim and Women
• corrections
• re: Simplicity
• Tzelem Elokim
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Bechira
• Re: Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin>
• Re: Pixels in G-d's Imagination
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Pixels in G-d's Imagination

R' Yehudah Henkin (via RMSD) writes in v4n148:
: The prophets grappled with this. Yishayah complained:

Perhaps one of the reasons we don't study enough Nach is that the issues
they complain about hit too close to home. Particularly Yeshaiah, and his
discussion of people who use bein adam laMakom to try to paper over their
lack of bein adam lachaveiro, the whole Frum From Habit or Frum From Peer
Pressure mentality, etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> mentions an idea he does NOT agree with:
:                                               And it leads me to believe that 
: a 2nd strartificaiton is at play:

: 1) Ramban is a Rishon he can critizce Avrohom
: 2) RSR Hirsch is a Gaodl of the 19th century he can criticse Yitzchok
: 3) R. Avi Weiss is a MO rabbi and he has the chutzpa even to tangentially 
: suggest that Yitachok Ovinu has the slightest defect in his mental acuit, he 
: ought to be attacked.

In less absolutist terms, wouldn't it be correct to say that in order for
criticism of the Avos to be credible, the greater the criticism, the greater
gedulah you expect to see behind it. By which, #3 has the greatest criticism
-- by much -- and the least gedulah (RAW obviously doesn't pretend to be a
Ramban or even an RSRH) backing it. As such, the claim would be the most
outrageous. Except for the fact that it wasn't made; at least, not by RAW.

The use of absolute terms goes back to the gadol vs gedulah discussion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

> 3. And most definitely -since it tends to get quoted a lot by those in
> violent agreement or disagreement with its aggressively posed perspective -
> Larry Kaplan's (in?)famous article on "Da'at Torah" and some of the

In M. Sokol, ed Orthodox Forum volume on Autonomy

> However, RYBS describes one of the better known examples of where E and J
> documents were supposedly included, and explains the differences in terms

P and J, le-shittatam!

> 
> The periodical "Jewish Thought" (I lost my copy, so I can't give you author
> or edition) carried an article showing that the two supposed versions that
> were allegedly merged to create a single Noah story also reflects this
> dialectic.

Author is Joel Wolowelsky

*Ahem* 
RYGB - we've established in a previous post that one need not say "you're an 
idiot" to insult someone. Perhaps we can be a bit more careful with 
insinuations and how other readers maybe interpreting them? I'm sure you 
didn't mean this how it sounded...
    : (quoted by RYGB) As for me, I sing Mah Tovu ddspite it being utterd by    
    : Bil'am.  I think there is a point to be learned there.
    : (the response to the quote) That when sanctioned by HKB"H b'yad Moshe     
    : avdo, even the words of resha'im become Torah, right?

--- ben waxman <benwaxman55@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> The reason one should move to Israel (if you beleive
> that) is that one should move to Israel.  It is hard
> to believe that the spiritual level here is higher
> if
> you are living in a city filled with avoda zara. 

Which city are you refering to when you say "a city
filled with avoda zara"?

HM 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Isn't this indeed congruent with Hakol bidei shomayim chutz miyiras shomayim?

and in effect events and circumstances are really neutral, it is the yiras 
shomayim quotient that counts!

so all events that trigger greater Yir'as shomayim, greater shermias mitzvos are
"good"....

Our reactions are ours alone, and how they manifest is in "the change to the 
people"

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>

R' Chaim Vilozhiner (Nefesh haChaim 1:6) appears to present the idea I asserted 
earlier, that metaphysical effects are caused by the change in people, not
by the deed itself. This may reopen my question of whether mezuzos themselves 
protect, or whether the kiyum hamitzvah of mezuzah which does.
<SNIP>

-mi

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> 
> > As for me, I sing Mah Tovu ddspite it being utterd
> by Bil'am.  I think
> there is
> > a point to be learned there.
> >
> 
> That when sanctioned by HKB"H b'yad Moshe avdo, even
> the words of resha'im
> become Torah, right?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Wow, I did not realize soem of the implications of my own draft!

I was focusing NOT on Ramban's criticms of Avrohom nor upon RSR Hirsch'es 
criticms of Yitachok.

I simply intended to focus on our acceptance of the Ramban and Rsr Hirsch 
despite the fact that - out of context - they might be accused of (no doubt 
unfarily) of Avos Bashing.

So Avos criticism is not always off-limits, it really all depends.  

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Retraction, etc.  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/23/1999 3:09 PM


Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> mentions an idea he does NOT agree with:
:                                               And it leads me to believe that 
: a 2nd strartificaiton is at play:

: 1) Ramban is a Rishon he can critizce Avrohom
: 2) RSR Hirsch is a Gaodl of the 19th century he can criticse Yitzchok
: 3) R. Avi Weiss is a MO rabbi and he has the chutzpa even to tangentially 
: suggest that Yitachok Ovinu has the slightest defect in his mental acuit, he 
: ought to be attacked.

In less absolutist terms, wouldn't it be correct to say that in order for 
criticism of the Avos to be credible, the greater the criticism, the greater 
gedulah you expect to see behind it. By which, #3 has the greatest criticism 
-- by much -- and the least gedulah (RAW obviously doesn't pretend to be a 
Ramban or even an RSRH) backing it. As such, the claim would be the most 
outrageous. Except for the fact that it wasn't made; at least, not by RAW.

The use of absolute terms goes back to the gadol vs gedulah discussion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> writes in v4n150:
::: 2.  My impression is that smells were common in Jewish practice (and not
::: only in the Beith HaMikdash) before the churban habayith....

:: [Me:] How did you form that impression?

: (a) in the Beith HaMikdash - from the sheep in Yericho.

Well, the avodah often involved the concept of "rei'ach nicho'ach", it was
outside the Beis Hamikdash that I was asking about.

: (b) elsewhere - "v'hu yitein eth hamugmar"; the discussion in Beitza
: about perfuming clothes on Yom Tov.

Actually, I think perfuming clothing has more to do with deodorants than
with religion. I'm sorry to bring this up, but people didn't bathe as often
back then, nor did antiperspirants exist yet. Sewers were open. People
needed something to mask foul odors. For example, the ascot was invented
(well after churban Bayis Sheini or even Mes. Beitza) to hold perfume,
so that the wearer could hold it up to his nose.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Gila Atwood's <gatwood@netvision.net.il> signature file reads:
: We are pixels in G-d's imagination.

R Jack Love, an LOR in Passaic, believes this quite literally: that all of
beri'ah is HKBH's "dream". This might be associated with an idea mentioned
in the Aryeh Kaplan Reader (vol 1) that people exist in Binah while alive, and
in Da'as after petirah.

He therefore subscribes to the Multi-Universe Theory. This is a theory divised
to resolve a philosophical problem in quantum mechanics. The basic idea is that
any event that physics can only dictate the outcome probabilistically actually
occurs in every possible way. The universe "branches", one version for each
possible outcome.

The connection to the notion that "existance" means being "imagined" by the
Borei is that HKBH couldn't possibly be contemplating only one version of
reality. After all, we think in the subjunctive all the time -- of course
Omniscience would include every subjunctive as well. Therefore, HKBH is
equally "contemplating" all these other possibilities, and they are all
equally real.

I have no idea what he does with bechirah chafshi.

Either way, I find the idea entertaining to play with, although I don't
subscribe to it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

MSDratch@aol.com writes:
: While we're on the subject of Tzelem Elokim, note Abravanel's comment on p.
: 69 of Vol. 1(5724 edition).  ...                                     Tzelem
: Elokim refers only to ADAM, the male, not Chava, the FEMALE.  He, after all,
: was the purpose (hakavanah ve-hatachlik ha-atzma-it) and the ikkar
: ha-beriyah.  Woman was created only to be an ezer ke-negdo and for
: procreative purposes and as keli tashmisho...

I would understand Abarbanel to be comparing the creation of a human in general
vs. the creation of a woman. IOW, had there been no need for an eizer kinegdo,
procreation, etc... there would have been no reason for two genders. Tzelem
E-lokim has nothing to do with gender, and therefore is relegated to the
pre-gender Adam, not to Chava (or the post-Chava version of Adam).

And even if that's not (okay, even though it isn't) what the Abarbanel meant,
it's certainly a version of his lesson usable from within dirachim that
would appeal to 58th century Jews. Of course, it concludes the exact opposite
of the original from the same diyuk in the pasuk. Which makes you wonder -- if
you can prove two opposites, you've really shown you can't prove anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

1.  The correct citation is "vhu m'varech al hamugmar" (it's a mishna in
keitzad mevarchin).

2.  I recall two cases in Mishna where the cohanim are said to have a
divergent psak (Rosh HaShana and Sheqalim).  Is that relevant to my
query about shvatim?

David Riceman

R' Micha Berger recently wrote <<< My problem with a takanah is that I
don't believe that simchos are the core of the problem, and I can't
figure out how to legislate expenditure on luxuries in general. For that
matter, the line between luxury and necessity is blurry anyway. >>>

Several other people have made similar comments. I would like to remind
everyone that a main part of Dr. Twerski's article centered on the idea
that simchas are indeed NOT the core problem. They are, however, a
significant part of the problem, and just as importantly, they are a part
that is most easily modified, at least when compared to the other parts.
The following section is copied from Digest 4:136 --

<<<<<

Before offering any suggestions for reducing the tension, a disclaimer is
in order. My proposals will not deal with the issues of parnassa in
general or the problems of increasing the earning power of members of our
community. That is a topic worthy of serious discussion, in and of
itself. But the problems outlined above will not be alleviated by
marginal increases in wealth. And truly significant increases in earning
power are not in the offing. We cannot and should not expect to produce a
middle class with an average earning power of $150,000 per year.

What can be done is to find ways to reduce expenditures. We have
established that one area that cannot be cut is tuition. We are already
operating our yeshivos on shoestring budgets. General modesty in
lifestyle is certainly to be encouraged. But, to be fair to our middle
class, the general lifestyle is relatively modest. The cost of housing is
determined by the market. Unless we are to open up broad new
neighborhoods in areas where housing costs are demonstrably less, we face
fairly stable fixed costs. One area of our lifestyle must, however,
undergo serious reevaluation. The cost of simchos of all kinds must
undergo sharp and significant downsizing.

The reasons are many. First, it is the one area of our lives where we can
realize significant savings without impinging on basic lifestyle. Second,
with the increased size of frum families, the total financial and psychic
burden is crushing both for those who make the simchos and for family and
friends who participate in them. Third, we can no longer close our eyes
to the opulent Jewish simchos that constitute such obvious conspicuous
consumption that they disgrace us all.

>>>>>
Ad kan Dr. Aaron Twerski

..
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I've been sort of half following this thread and I
thought I might half try to give you my thoughts on
the subject.  

I've always understood Tzelem Elokim to mean being
created in the image of G-d.  Maimonides points out
that G-d is pure Form whereas everything else is a
combination of Matter and Form.  It is difficult for
us to grasp the concept of pure form,  so this limits
our ability to understand the Nature of G-d and
therefore, how to define "image" of G-d.  So the best
we mere mortals can come up with is finite version of
what Tzelem Elokim.  We must use finite means to
define an infinite characteristic.   

By way of understanding the unique way in which Man
differs from Animal, we can begin to understand G-d's
creation of Man - B'Tzelem Elokim. The difference is
rational thought, the ability to distinguish and
discern, deduce and learn, and communicate and teach,
and ultimately build up the world. Further and perhaps
most importantly the ability to learn the difference
between right and wrong;  good and evil. Man is then
given Bechirah Chafshis, freedom of choice between
good and evil,  as way of earning Divine acceptance by
choosing good over evil, and refine his Tzelem Elokim.


As I understood it, this is the essence of the Rav's
great essay, "The Lonely Man of Faith". Man's creative
capacity (Adam I) comes into play.  His mandate from
G-d to control his environment which entails necessary
social interaction, combined with the paradoxical Homo
Religiosus (Adam II) who's faith, by definition, must
ultimately be "alone", disconnected and otherworldly
directed to his personal inwardly convictions, becomes
the paradigm for Man's perfection through the
fulfilment of G-d's word.  

Adam I, the socio-political Man's goal of control and
conquest is, by itself, selfish in nature and counters
G-d's will.  Adam II, Homo Religiosus, by himself, is
too otherworldly.  He rejects the real world for the
ethereal. It is the melding of Adam I with Adam II
that creates the potential that every human being has,
for the ultimate perfection of our Tzelem Elokim,
which we are given in unimproved form at birth.

The debate over how much intellect one must have in
order to be considered B'Tzelem Elokim is there fore,
IMHO, moot. It is not the level of intelligence that
we have that makes us B'Tzelem Elokim, One can have
Downs Syndrome, and still be B'Tzelem Elokim.  It's
not one's level of knowledge or deeds measured against
someone else's that G-d judges,  but the level of
knowledge or deeds measured against one's own
potential.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/22/99 4:59:42 PM US Central
> Standard Time, 
> hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> << A hot tempered individual is waiting at a stop
> light
>  in his 1994 Chevy Cavalier.  To his right, a brand
> new
>  shiney Porsche Boxter pulls up and when the light
>  changes to green the sports car floors it and
> leaves
>  the Cavelier to bite his dust.  A chase ensues and
> the
>  Cavelier pulls up to the Porsche.  He pulls out his
>  Magnum 35 and blows the head off the guy in sports
>  car.
>  
>  Who is at fault here...  the murderer or the
> victim? >>
> 
> Neither. It is the Porsche's fault. A shiny new
> Porsche Boxster develops 201 
> hp at 6000 rpm, and 180 lbs./ft. of torque at 4500
> rpm, all reachable with 
> the 5-speed manual, which is standard equipment. It
> costs around $45,000, 
> minimally equipped. So how did the '94 Cavalier,
> which has a weaker engine 
> than my Kawasaki, manage to pull up to the Porsche?
> Because the Porsche 
> screwed up. It just didn't perform as promised. Of
> course, there's the issue 
> of the "Magnum 35." Colt manufactures a "Magnum"
> revolver that takes 
> special-load .44 ammunition and a few close
> variations thereof. Thus a 
> "Magnum 35," whatever it is, must be a very special
> weapon. A first-cousin to 
> an Uzi, perhaps?
> 
> On the other hand, you could simply blame the
> murderer. Envy over another's 
> material possessions is not, as I recall from
> Sanhedrin or Taanis, a defense 
> or other halachic excuse for snuffing out the
> possessor's life with a lethal 
> weapon. The question whether one legislates
> ownership of exotic possessions 
> (the Porsche, not the Cavalier) is immaterial to
> this point. Whatever reasons 
> might or might not exist within our community to
> restrict the the flashy 
> flaunting of material wealth have nothing whatever
> to do with the right to 
> personal reprisal. This is elemental. As much as I
> admire Reb Maryles, his 
> mashal makes little sense.
> 
> (Personally, if it were entirely up to me, I'd blame
> the owner of the 
> Porsche. Anyone who wants to flash around the
> Porsche nameplate (in reality, 
> a souped-up VW) for less than half the price of the
> real deal (the 911 Targa) 
> is an egotistical parvenu with a taste for
> second-rate German machinery with 
> a very nasty lineage. It would serve him right that
> someone driving a rusting 
> Cavalier would blow him away. Buy American, Be
> American, Be A Mensch.)
> 
> David Finch 
 
I'm sorry I should have realized that Magnum takes a
..44 caliber clip.  Now I know why my Magnum doesn't
work.

The reason for my mistake, as I'm sure you realize by
now is based on the Gematria of the word "Magnum" when
transliterated into Cyrilic Script equals the number
52.  This equals the number of weeks in a solar year. 
By dividing the numerical value of the word
"prothesis" into 52. you get an irrational number:
1.048563878590234623678533333333333333 etc. However if
reduced to theory of relativity which contradicts
quantum mechanics you end up with a feeling of total
insecurity which requires psychotropic interdiction
and ultimately Paris, France. You see my dilema?

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--------------B762966B382E493659FB91F6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A wise old liberal once said to me , as he was drinking heavily, that
the only people who have freedom of choice (bechira) in matters of
religion are people who were indoctrinated in a religion as children.
Leon Wieseltier in the "Kadish"

--------------B762966B382E493659FB91F6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
A wise old liberal once said to me , as he was drinking heavily, that the
only people who have freedom of choice (<i>bechira</i>) in matters of religion
are people who were indoctrinated in a religion as children.
<br>Leon Wieseltier in the "Kadish"</html>

--------------B762966B382E493659FB91F6--

In a message dated 11/23/99 10:30:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:

<< 
 2. Also another volume in the Orthodox Forum series (can't remember who
 edited it) was devoted to the same topic of rabbinic authority and doubtless
 has material relevant to your interest.  These volumes tend to contain
 somewhat longer essays than the Tradition norm. >>


Rabbinic Tradition and Personal Authority- edited by Moshe Sokol


Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

In a message dated 11/23/99 5:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 He therefore subscribes to the Multi-Universe Theory. This is a theory 
divised
 to resolve a philosophical problem in quantum mechanics. The basic idea is 
that
 any event that physics can only dictate the outcome probabilistically 
actually
 occurs in every possible way. The universe "branches", one version for each
 possible outcome.
  >>

Which came first - the multi-universe theory or its counterpart in Jewish 
philosophy?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 11/23/99 5:37:27 PM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< However if
 reduced to theory of relativity which contradicts
 quantum mechanics you end up with a feeling of total
 insecurity which requires psychotropic interdiction
 and ultimately Paris, France. You see my dilema? >>


I attended college in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and am quite familiar 
with psychotropic interdiction of various types. 

There's nothing wrong with Paris, either. I can imagine zooming down the 
Champs Elysees in that sporty Porsche Boxster with which you illustrated your 
moral tale. I cannot, however, imagine doing such a thing in the '94 
Cavalier, not even to obtain material righteousness.

(By the way, the Magnum is a revolver. It doesn't take a clip, which is 
inserted in an automatic pistol. There are other magnums brought out more 
properly at simchas, with which I suspect you are more familiar.)

David Finch

In a message dated 11/23/99 6:10:26 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Joelirich@aol.com writes:

<< << 
  He therefore subscribes to the Multi-Universe Theory. This is a theory 
 divised
  to resolve a philosophical problem in quantum mechanics. The basic idea is 
 that
  any event that physics can only dictate the outcome probabilistically 
 actually
  occurs in every possible way. The universe "branches", one version for each
  possible outcome.
   >>
 
 Which came first - the multi-universe theory or its counterpart in Jewish 
 philosophy?
  >>

The multi-universe theory (one for each possible outcome) actually has a 
history along the edges of medieval mystical thought, Christian for sure, 
maybe Jewish as well. A modern fictional depiction of the theory can be found 
in the title story in "The Garden of Forking Paths," by the Argentine writer 
Jorge Luis Borges (1941). In an interview published some years ago, Borges 
attributed some of his thinking in this area to Kabbalah.

I am told that some contemporary astrophysicists like to play around with 
this theory as a sort of game of possibility, although, not knowing anything 
about physics, I cannot image what their playing is like.

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]