Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 121

Wednesday, March 6 2002

• Re: cosmetics on Pesach
• RE: Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: Cosmetics on Pesach
• RE: Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: Segulos
• Re: Nishama should have an aliya
• Subject: Work in Progress, from Purim onto Pesach III, AND An Important Question (at the end)
• Re: conflicting reports
• Re: Silk Screened Torah Scrolls
• RE: Silk Screened Torah Scrolls
• Re: Cosmetics on Pesach
• Keruvim, Cows and AZ
• Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: Segulos

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:01:12AM -0500, M. Press wrote:
: Micha's statement that nobody but the unnamed booklet regards cosmetics as
: chometz is totally misleading and thoroughly incorrect.  Cosmetics as a
: category includes an enormous range of products, some of which are
: unquestionably chometz gamur or taaruvas chometz that is fit to eat.  It is
: a long-standing machlokes haposkim, going back at least to the rishonim, as
: to the status of many of these items, and the debate continues up to the
: most recent poskim...

As this is Avodah, let's actually discuss the topics.

There are two issues WRT non-food being chameitz, AFAIK: achshevei and
restorable denatured grain alcohol.

Achshevei might be an issue for flavored medications or lipstick. Only.
That's what I was talking about.

For most items the real issue is whether restorable alcohol is chameitz
or not. I assume this is what RMP is discussing, we mentioned perfumes.
Historically, perfume / cologne, shaving lotion, deodorant (not
antiperspirant!), and hair spray often contained grain alcohol that
could be restored to edibility.

And yes, RMF (and RMP says RAS as well) is machmir.

However, my comment did not address this because frankly I doubt there
are any products that use incompletely denatured grain alcohol in mixture,
so that can be separated from the product.

So, to be less flippant with halachah:
The book does not distinguish between grain alcohols, nor between
products that contain it as an ingrediant in making a compound -- and
therefore inseprable -- from those that have it in mixture (e.g. to aid
in spraying and applying the product).

So, at least 99% of the cosmetics listed -- if not all of them -- are
no problem. As are the listed unflavored medications.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

From: Yitzchok Willroth [mailto:willroth@voicenet.com]
> I beleive it's R' Moshe who was offered the litmus test that
> in a moment of desperation a goy might boil them down to
> their base alcohols to drink, therefore rendering them
> problematic on Pesach.

I thought that R. Moshe just wrote about denatured alchohol and that
point was that some ingredients were added to it so that it wouldn't
be considered a liquor by governmental authorities, but it might still
be drunk by people who are desperate. If something is truly not ra'ui
l'achilas kelev but can become ra'ui l'achila by boiling, wouldn't we
nevertheless look at its current status as not ra'ui l'achila?

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

R' Yitzchok Willroth wrote: <<< I beleive it's R' Moshe who was offered
the litmus test that in a moment of desperation a goy might boil them
down to their base alcohols to drink, therefore rendering them problematic
on Pesach. >>>

The distinction and explanation that I learned (sorry, I don't remember
from who) is that solid chometz can become hard and stale and inherently
inedible. Alcohol, on the other hand, never spoils. You can add stuff
to it, so that the *mixture* becomes undrinkable, but the alcohol
*component* is still always drinkable, at least in theory, even if not in
practice. Thus, even if it is *not* possible to separate the alcohol from
the other stuff, given that the alcohol does still exist, it is still
considered chometz b'eyn. (At least according to whoever told me that,
whoever it was.)

Akiva Miller

From: Yitzchok Willroth [mailto:willroth@voicenet.com]
> Boiling down liquid cosmetics and perfume to their base
> alcohol & roiah l'achila:
> It seems this is another psak of R' Moshe's where, when it
> is mentioned, those who run to embrace every kula he ever
> poskened simply look around innocently whistling quietly to
> themselves...

I looked in Rav Eider's Halachos of Pesach p. 25 notes 90 + 92, and at
his cites of Igros Moshe OC 3:62 and Mikra'ei Kodesh siman 64. Both of
the latter psakim dealt with denatured alcohol (alcohol to which poison
was added). RMF says that it's assur because there are goyim who drink it
through "taarovos v'tikun ktzas." Rav Eider broadens this to any liquid,
including deoderants, and is mechalek between liquids and ointments
(because in that tshuvah RMF permitted ointments). It seems to me
that Rav Eider's understanding of RMF's psak is not muchrach. In the
case of denatured alcohol, the fact that it can either be drunk with
something else or through tikun ktzas indicates that it really isn't
nifsal me'achila (see also Mikra'ei Kodesh, which notes that boorish
people drank this straight, "bli tikkun". See also the Chavas Daas YD
103:1 that he quotes who differentiates between 1) adding something
bitter--where eating the mixture is she'lo k'derech ha'na'asan-- and 2)
something which is nifsal m'achila. In the former case, restoring the
food restores the issur, but not in the latter case). Deoderant OTOH is
clearly nifsal me'achilah.

Also, if Rav Eider is right, why should ointments be OK in the case
that one could use some process to extract the alcohol? Where in RMF's
language does he see the chiluk between liquids and non-liquids?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I still don't understand your opinion, but I think we're closer to
isolating a test case.

Micha Berger wrote:
>: 1. When my son has strep (luckily not often) his doctor tells us "he
>: will be infectious for n days" ...
>: 2. When I was young my mother used to tell me that if I went out in the
>: rain without a raincoat I would get sick.

> If these two things tend to happen often enough for you to believe thse
> rules to be true then what happened? You gained trust in the existance of
> germs, and perhaps of a correlation between getting wet an immunity.

>: 3. The Holy Babylonian Talmud (I think it's Chullin 105b but I haven't
>: looked it up) says that if I spill foam from date beer onto the dirt
>: floor I will become impoverished.

> Here, however, why would the person become impoverished? Either this
> is a law of teva, and it's no different than 1 and 2. I would have no
> objection, because I have no problem with teva.

> Or, it's a segulah (in the broad sense coined for this discussion). In
> which case it argues in favor of higher olamos, and that people exist
> in these higher olamos not only this one. So much for the balance between
> mammal and angel from which bechirah must choose.

Now, if you could write, in gory detail,

i. what would distinguish between 3 as teva and 3 as segula

ii. a proof that 3-as-segula proves the existence of a soul, which does
not apply for 3-as-teva

iii. do this for the baby in RAM's post who just obseves that spilling
date beer will make him poor without knowing any theory

I think I'll be closer to understanding your position.

In the mean time I'll make some comments. I think that your distinction
between nature and segulos is artificial. You seem to have divided
phenomena into two groups, those which you studied in graduate school
and those which you studied in yeshiva, and call one teva and the other
segulos. I suggest that you find the one group to support disbelief and
the other to support belief not because of the phenomena, and not even
because of what causes the phenomena, but because of the social setting
in which you studied them.

You were trained in graduate school to accept explanations for
phenomena only if they make no reference to God's will, and to accept
explanations in yeshiva only if they do make reference to God's will.
Why, for example, do you not view the existence of a law of gravity as
a segula? I'm sure you can write the field equations, but can you tell
me why they work? Maybe they require the intervention of sheidim? You
haven't defined segula, but you've rejected the suggestion several times.
My guess is because your rebbeim didn't discuss gravity, you learned
about it only from your professors.

I strongly suggest that you look up that gemara (I'll try to get the
exact citation tonight). Abbaye considers and then rejects the idea that
it's a natural phenomenon.

David Riceman

"Stein, Aryeh" wrote:
> As for making a tikkun instead of fasting, I believe R' Yaakov Kaminetzky,
> zecher/zaicher tzadik livracha, used to explain as follows: Really, one
> should fast on the yahrtzeit. However, given our relatively weak state
> of health, the minhag evolved to make a siyum on the yahrtzeit, thereby
> allowing the person to eat and make a seudas siyum instead of fasting.
> As time went on, people forgot about the siyim part of the whole thing
> and instead just remembered that people make a seudah on a yahrtzeit.

I'm somewhat puzzled by this explanation. I had thought that giving
tzedaka was for the neshama of the deceased, and that fasting was because
the day was dangerous for the mourner (not the deceased). If so, the
siyum replacing the fast makes sense, but the wishes (for an aliyah of
the neshama) at the seudah (or even at the siyum) do not.

David Riceman

In discussing the middos of the Aron, we wrote:

Why three times 150? This we shall leave for the moment. More on this
when we get to Pesach.

I am a little bit anxious over writing on this, and am only going to use
Kabbalistic concepts very superficially, so please don't skip the rest
of this discourse because of the next three paragraphs, but ad heichan
she'yadeinu maseges:

The Mekkubalim understand the tzirufei sheimios with which the universe
is created and sustained to be divided into four major emantions linked
with the permutations of spellings of the shem Hashem. Based on the
gematri'os of the various permutations, they are called 72, 63, 45 and
52, and they correspond to he divisions of the sefiros and olomos - 72
to Chochmo/Atzilus, 63 to Binah/Beri'ah, 45 to the Six Middle Sefiros
that culminate with Yesod/Yetzirah and 52 to Malchus/Asiyah.

The 45 permutation is attained by spelling the last three letters of
the Shem Havaya"h with Alephs. Transliterated: YVD-HA-VAV-HA. The four
divisions also correspond to the Te'amim (Trop) = 72; Nekudos = 63,
Tagin = 45; and, Osi'os = 52.

(As an aside, the number 130 is associated with 45 because the Arizal
makes "squares", i.e., Yud-Yud Keh-Yud Keh Vav-Yud Keh Vav Keh, which
equals 130 - the number that the Sidduro shel Shabbos associates with
Chasadim.)

Reb Tzadok at the beginning of Machsheves Charutz notes that Chochmo is
equivalent to "Ko'ach M"H" - and, in fact, M"h is in gimatriya Adam. A
person's Chochmo is measured by his connection to his perception of HKB"H
- "Reishis Chochmo Yiras Hashem," not just raw knowledge. "Hen yiras
Hashem he Chochmo" (Iyov 28:28) - Yiras Hashem is all that there is,
the reishis and the tachlis of Chochmo.

This is alluded to by the tagin - the tagin represent that which is
perceptible (unlike the te'amim and nekudos that are not written in the
Torah), yet higher and deeper than the simple meaning - it is the lishma
in Torah Lishma.

While there are, of course, higher levels of Chochmo associated with
the sefirah of Chochmo itself, the way sefiros align into levels
of relationship with the lower worlds, our lives are generally led
on the levels of Asiyah and Yetzirah. Daily existence is Asiyah, and
transcendence is Yetzirah (creativity - which is, of course, essential
in being doresh tagin - like Rabbi Akiva did - more on this momentarily
- is a transcendent phenomenon, which is one of the reason we stress
Chiddush in Torah).

With this insight we can understand that Moshe Rabbeinu was amazed at
Rabbi Akiva's derashos of tagin: Rabbi Akiva was working from the bottom
up, from Asiyah to Yetzirah (and beyond). Moshe Rabbainu, to whom all
of Torah was given b'matanah, was looking from the top down - he had no
need to be doresh tagin because he did not need to peel back concealment.

Adam (45) is judged by his capacity to reach into his Koach Mah ("*Mah*
Hashem Elokecho sho'el mei'imach").

Matzo & Kahal are thrice 45. As Reb Tzadok notes, in any connection
there is the beginning, middle and end (IIRC the Maharal dwells on this
as well). Heaven and Earth must be united. There must be a tool by which
that unity is accomplished. We are on one side and HKB"H and the Olamos
Elyonim on the other, and the union between them is via Matzo. That is
why the Ba'alei Machashava say that Matzo is the tikkun for the Achila
from the Eitz Ha'Da'as - the severance of the relationship - and, of
course, there is the opinion that the Eitz was a "wheat tree" - which
came via eating, is rectified via eating. And, of course, the first time
we find matzos consumed in the Torah they are fed by Avrohom Avinu to
Malachim - a chibbur of elyonim and tachtonim. Alternately, of course,
the union is forged by the Kahal - as the "*Kehal* Adas Yisroel" does
the Korbon Peasch, and as Moshe Rabbeinu in Devarim calls Mattan Torah
"Yom Ha'Kahal".

Of course, a tzaddik is twice 45. Perhaps this is because a tzaddik is not
an entity unto himself - a tzaddik's merit is a zechus for both himself
and another - otherwise that person is not a tzaddik! Other reasons
may be given :-) - I would like to note that tzaddik in gimatriya is
the same as mayim, which is the pre-eminent flowing substance - as a
tzaddik impacts on the flow from the elyonim to the tachtonim.

So 45 is connected to 450 - and the connection between the the two 250's
in the aron.

Back to Matzo - more on this in a later post - but Matzo and Meitzar are
obviously connected - the Reish has become a Heh? How so? By adding Yud -
which is, of course, 210 - the number of year of Innui Mitzrayim. The
Matzo was part of Chishev es ha'Ketz - the deduction of 190 years. I
think this is related to the unique status of Matzo as a mitzva that
is prospective: They ate Matzo prior to the event symbolized by the
Matzo! I.e., they ate with their Korbonos Pesach matzo although the
reason to eat Matzo would not materialize until they left Mitzrayim in
haste the next morning. Furthermore, even Avrohom and Lot ate Matzo
prospectively long before Yetzi'as Mitzrayim on Pesach. The original
"Na'aseh v'Nishma." We will IY"H understand thus why the Zohar calls Matzo
"Meichla d'Meheimnusa."

I will bl"n expand on this last point further in the next post, for now
I want to end with two questions that perplex me, one to which I think
I have an answer and one to which I do not:

1. Why are the words for evil and friend spelled the same (Reish-Ayin)?
2. How does "agol" come to mean round? I am sure it has to do with
"ugah" - but that just begs the same question. "saviv" I understand -
it has the samech - circular - but agol?

> Agreed
> BUT
> What about cultural biases? Wouldn't it make sense for a Litvak to see
> RYBS as a Litvak and a Yekke see RYBS as more Hirschian?

I am not sure what you mean by bias especially cultural ones. If all the
Jews I know wear hats - is my judgment that some one without a hat is not
Jewish - is that a cultural bias? Or do you mean where things concerning
RYBS are unclear I would have a bias to assume it is litvishe? Or do
you mean where things are clear to an objective academic - but because
of my ethnocentric training I fail to see things as they really are?

To illustrate the latter - I recently came across a fascinating article
by Alan Nadler in Modern Judaism v 13 1993 pp 119-147 where he asserts
that Rav Soleveitchik's writings are far from being characteristic of
litvische values! Would the failure to see this obvious fact be a result
of cultural bias or simply an ignorance of what a true litvak is?

> There are a number of passages in MB re: Birchas Hatorah in which it
> appears to me that he does not quite "get" the old Minhag as preserved
> today in Breuer's re saying slichos before birchas Hatorah. an example
> is in SA Ordach Chaim 46:9 the Rmea there and the MB's take on the Rema.
> I went over this with a a friend of mine who is both a Yekke and gives a
> MB shiur and I showed him that the MB seems to feel the Rema's placing
> of Bircas Hatorah after asher Yatazr to contradict his own heter to
> say slichos first. It's IMHO a mis-read of the Rema. I guess it is
> probably due to lack of familiarity of how it used to be done in the
> Old Minhag. (more on this subject someday BEH

This is also not clear. A purported disparity between the Mishna Berura
and his sources can be the result of a number of ways. 1) there might be
a number of alternative genuine minhagim that the Rema could have chosen
from. Furthermore the Rema did not feel bound by "true" ashkenaz minhagim
and thus the MB might have known from other sources what the Rema meant 2)
There is an ancient and unresolved question whether the Mishna Berura is
primarily a collection of different views or whether he uses his sources
to produce his own position. An example of this concerns Rav Wosner's
first tshuva which criticizes the MB for misreading his sources. A
simple solution is that the psak in the mishna berura is merely based
upon concepts found in those sources but in fact is his own psak. 3)
the MB might have erred in his understanding - but not necessarily due
to a cultural bias.

> W/O getting overly analyitical it just seems obvious that people expect
> a person or text to conform to their pre-existing maps of reality...

In sum: the mere observation of an apparent disparity does not justify
a reflexed interpretation of psycholgical bias or cultural bias. While
it is obvious that people have biases or reflexive use of schemata but I
don't see the value of assuming them as "the explanation" in a particular
case without clear evidence.

                            Daniel Eidensohn

Reb Yitzchok Willroth wrote:
> Does anyone know for certain whether the silk screening will ultimately
> serve as the text, or will it merely be a guideline that will later be
> traced over by a sofer?

I don't have any more information than what RMF posted, but AIUI from
his post, a computer would modify a silk screen such that ink passes
through it only where letters are to be written, while blanking out
the rest. This is a well known method in the printing industry, and
indeed this is how some of the earliest printed books were reproduced,
especially the colourful, decorated pages.

AIUI, there would be no need afterwards to fil in the letters, as complete
letters will have been produced. Ostensibly, this connects to the ktav
Ashurit/lu'hot thread, because one may wonder how the system will produce
samkhim and final memmim? I guess what really happens is that there
are no holes in the silk screen, just permeable and impermeable areas,
so that there would be no problem holding up the middle of a samakh with
permeable silk all around.

> I wonder (with _either_ approach)
> about the requirement to write each letter _from_ a kosher scroll.

No problem, as the requirement is to copy from a kosher text, for which
a tikkun qualifies. (a 'humash would probably also, but then the sofer
would not be able to 'cheat' and copy the lay out, consequently the
sofer would have to guess the proper spacing between the letters.) In
our case, the screen will act as the tikkun (eyn lekha tikkun tov mizeh,
as the sofer really can't make any mistake).

What I wonder about is whether there would be a problem with writing
the Names. I am no expert in this matter, most of my bekiut coming
from being a sofer apprentice's 'havrutah for reviewing H. tefillin,
etc. in preparation of his Va'ad mishmeret S.T.T.uM. exam. However, I
can conceive of a requirement to write the letters of the Tetragrammaton
in order. There will probably still be a need for caligraphy skills to
write the Names, which will probably be missing from the screen so that
they may be written lishmah and with al hidurim. This solution for the
Shemot problem is, however, in no way based on any material I may have
gleaned from the Abadi website; I made it up.

Also, somebody, I believe RYW, raised the question as to whether the
screen would be removed. If I am right about the technique, then the
screen would remain on the klaf merely for the application of the ink,
after which it would either be discarded or washed and reused.

Arie Folger

>> about the requirement to write each letter _from_ a kosher scroll.

> You don't have to copy a kosher scroll -- sofrim usually copy a printed
> tikkun.

IIRC, if you are copying form a posul Sefer (e.g. printed) then you have
to enunciate every word before writing it.

How that's done with "The Sofer then puts ink on the screen, and applies
the ink by hand passing a squeegee across the Klaf. In a matter of
seconds this Klaf has a full page written perfectly" is a mystery to me.

- Danny

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:33:24PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: I looked in Rav Eider's Halachos of Pesach p. 25 notes 90 + 92, and at
: his cites of Igros Moshe OC 3:62 and Mikra'ei Kodesh siman 64. Both of
: the latter psakim dealt with denatured alcohol (alcohol to which poison
: was added). RMF says that it's assur because there are goyim who drink it
: through "taarovos v'tikun ktzas." Rav Eider broadens this to any liquid...

Whether or not R' Eider's peshat in the IM is muchrach, there is a
chaqirah that is being ignored.

There are two kinds of denatured alcohol, completely denatured alcohol
(CDA) and incompletely denatured. By, definition, CDA can not be restored.
The IM is not describing CDA, nor does his sevara lehachmir apply.

CDA is increasingly the denatured alcohol of choice, due to legal and
marketing pressures, as well as the lowering cost differential between
CDA and other denaturing.

Of those that still use partially denatured alcohol, we can exclude
chametz concerns from non-liquids and from the few cases where the alcohol
is an ingrediant rather than the medium of dilution or a dispersal agent.
(It evaporates quickly, making it a good base for perfumes and sprays.)

Besach haqol, my informal survey showed that the overwhelming majority --
all or nearly all -- of the cosmetics listed ought not be an issue.

To state the obvious: THIS IS NOT A PESAQ!

The problem is that there is nothing on an contents label that will
differentiate CDA from other alcohol. However, since the problem is
whether or not a chumrah not found in the SA applies, I'd think that
determining it at most applies to a mi'ut should be enough for most
poseqim.

Someone more qualified ought to check into it.

I would normally be reluctant to post my theorizing in face of a published
text, however the same text lists other things I wonder about the need
to assur. In particular, unflavored pills (see IM O"Ch 2:92, RSZA quoted
in Shemiras Shabbos keHilchaso 40:74).

Particularly odd is that in most years' editions these lists are prefaced
with a chapter on the need not to follow chumros or kullos, or this
hechsher or that, but simply the straight SA. And then the majority of
the things assured in the list are things the macheber would permit.
Admittedly, the notion of "si,ply holding like the SA" is an idiom,
and doesn't actually imply anything about the actual SA. But it still
reads weird.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

First, to get the shmutz out of the way...

The Mitzriyim had a god called Apis. Apis was represented as a bull,
or a person with the head of a bull. It was their god responsible
for bringing prayers up to the other gods, and blessings down to man.
The bull was the animal most middle easterners harnessed for work and
for pulling carts, including the Mitzriyim and BY during bayis rishon.

(Harness technology didn't get to the point that they could get a horse
to pull something that heavy without choking.)

Is this why "eigel" is so similar to "agalah"?

The Chaldeans also had a bull-torsoed god, but they called him Kirub.

OTOH, Assyrian "karibu" were bearded sphinx-like things with the wings
of eagles.

Now, for the home-grown AZ...

RSRH suggests that the eigel was Apis worship. After all, they were
looking for a replacement for Moshe, not HQBH. A middleman to bring
their words before G-d, and His down to us.

Then we get to Yerov'am's two bulls. The pasuq clearly relates them to the
eigel. Aaron challenges BY with "Eileh Elohecha Yisrael asher he'elucha
mei'eretz Mizrayim." (Shemos 32:4) Yerov'am proclaims identically,
except he opens with "Hinei" rather than "Eileh". (Melachim I 12:28)
However, as the quote opens with "You've traveled enough to Y'laim",
stressing that worship could be done in that location would be enough
to explain the choice of "hinei".

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 63a notes on Shemos that Aharon was accusing
them of polytheism. While "Elohecha" could refer to one god, "hee'elicha"
is lashon rabim. This word appears in Melachim as well, although "hinei"
makes the point less forcefully than "eileh".

The Malbim notes the similarity between Yerov'am's religion and that of
the Mitzriyim of his day. They had a bull at their temples at Memphis and
Heliopolis -- a representation of Apis, the patron god of Memphis. The
holiday of this cult was in the 8th month, just as Yerov'am did away
with Succos and made a holiday in the 8th month.

All of which makes the expression "ha'ish Mosheh" very significant, as the
dor hamidbar and later Yerov'am replace him with a minor deity, not a man.

It is also unclear to me if Yerov'am is quoted by the navi verbatum or
if this is the navi's paraphrase intended to stress the similarity to
the eigel.

FWIW, Yerov'am also names his children after Aharon's. This argues
somewhat that the connection is Yerov'am's, and not part of the navi's
condemnation of Yerov'am.

If he was intentionally copying the eigal, why? Did the pro-eigel
mentality not get fully wiped out in Ki Sisa? Or did Yerov'am think he
somehow avoided some subtle issue around which centers the issur?

Ma'alim beqodesh...

Yechezel saw a connection between the bull and the kiruv.

In 1:10, the chayos are described as having four faces: man, lion, ox
and eagle. In 1014 the faces are keruv, man, lion eagle. Apparantly the
face of a keruv is that of a bull. In 10:20, Yechezkel tells us that
keruvim are chayos.

... aval moridin?

Given the eigel - Kirub connection, we can suggest that Yerov'am was
trying to create keruvim. That he felt he found the distinction between
the keruvim and AZ, and thought he was on the right side of the line.

In which case he really was saying "*Here* are your gods..." He put his
keruvim on opposite sides of his country, making the correspondant to
the location of the amud ha'anan the entire malchus!

Yerov'am also had a touch of the Korach about him, wanting to do away with
class distinctions by making non-leviim the priests in his temple. This
too fits the notion of making the whole country his house of G-d.

This also suggests a very dor-Enosh lefi haRambam idolatry. The Chaldean
Kirub and the Mitzri Apis actually were forms of worship of mesharsei
haMelech.

Note also that when Anshei Kenesses haGdolah trap the yeitzer hara for AZ
it emerges from the qodesh haqdashim. It was Yerov'am's misunderstanding
of the role of the qeruvim that brought the overwhelming majority of AZ
to BY.

But what does this tell us about THE keruvim?

Note that they are a reinforcement of "ha'ish Mosheh". While these are
keruvim, they have human faces. They had to be of the same peice as
"hakapores asher al ha'aron". The only middleman a Jew needs is a Moshe
Rabbeinu, a teacher of Torah.

A passive and externalized conduit is the first step to AZ.

This is perhaps another sevara to R' Chaim Soloveitchik's famous chiddush
on the difference between the first and 2nd luchos. The first luchos
lacked any need for a Torah sheb'al peh. No need for ba'alei mesorah.
The Torah is an external thing that someone could look up.

And Klal Yisrael couldn't handle that, which lead to the eigel.

The 2nd luchos did not contain kol haTorah kulah. Some was left to be
written in the 5 chumashim, and some became TSBP. BY became the "klaf",
ameilus became necessary -- Torah became an internalized thing. And
Mosheh *Rabbeinu* (or Yiftach bedoro) could assume his proper role.

Last, the parah adumah's role in cleaning up after her son. This is
actually doable, but requires a detour into the meaning of parah adumah
lefi RSRH. Beqitzur nimratz, the parah is the gashmi qua work animal. The
person's own vehicle for avodas Hashem. The "parah asher lo ala aleiha ol"
is turned into something new, a "sereifas haparah". Taharah is acheived
by seeing the gashmi as a vehicle for avodah, that it is to assume the
"ol malchus shamayim". (Connection to this phrase, mine.)

If I may suggest -- not an external Apis, but the person himself must
be oveid and omeil.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

While I am not disagreeing C"V, but I have a question: If a Tzaddik Gomur
has no Yetzer Hora at all, how is it that Moshe Rabbeinu (which we all
agree he was a Tzaddik Gomur) went against HaShem's will and hit the rock?
Any & all Limud Zechus etc. etc. does not take away from the fact that a
Tzaddik Gomur went against Rotzon Hoelyon B"H
This is besides Hirhur Achrei HaShichina 1) Loma Hareioso 2) Hatzon
U'vokor Yishocheit.

Question #2. The Gemara (shabbos 55b) says: 4 have died because of the
Nochosh. Which would imply that *everybody* else died because of their
own failure. So how can they have a failure/sin without a Yetzer Hora?

kol tuv
yosef stern

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:35:30PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: >: 3. The Holy Babylonian Talmud (I think it's Chullin 105b but I haven't
: >: looked it up) says that if I spill foam from date beer onto the dirt
: >: floor I will become impoverished.

:> Here, however, why would the person become impoverished? Either this
:> is a law of teva, and it's no different than 1 and 2....

: I strongly suggest that you look up that gemara (I'll try to get the
: exact citation tonight). Abbaye considers and then rejects the idea that
: it's a natural phenomenon.

Fine, so this hupothetical is laid to rest. I didn't bother looking up
the gemara as I didn't think the particular segulah on question was
significant. It's just the example chosen, there are plenty of others.

Jumping back a bit:
:> Or, it's a segulah (in the broad sense coined for this discussion). In
:> which case it argues in favor of higher olamos, and that people exist
:> in these higher olamos not only this one. So much for the balance between
:> mammal and angel from which bechirah must choose.

: Now, if you could write, in gory detail,

: i. what would distinguish between 3 as teva and 3 as segula

I believe I did already, back on Wed Feb 20th. Now that you have a clearer
idea of where I'm coming from, maybe it'll make more sense:
} It is actually non-trivial to define the line between physical
} and non-physical law. After all, one never witnesses a magnetic or
} graviational field, one only witnesses their effects on a magnet or
} object (respectively). If one could do a study of non-physical laws,
} wouldn't one also be studying the effects of something they can't directly
} witness? IOW, what is non-physical law if what we're talking about are
} physical events?

....

} Here we're talking about forces that are outside Olam ha'Asiyah having
} effects within it. In order to even have that dicussion there needs to
} be a belief in other olamos (or "higher realms" or whatever) which in
} turn presumes a modicum of emunah.

: ii. a proof that 3-as-segula proves the existence of a soul, which does
: not apply for 3-as-teva

Definitionally, 3-as-segulah assumes the existance of another,
non-physical, realm. Add to that the fact that our actions have impact
in that realm, and concluding that we extend into the non-physical is
a logical conclusion.

: iii. do this for the baby in RAM's post who just obseves that spilling
: date beer will make him poor without knowing any theory

But he won't. As I said, there are no and can be no Sammy Sosas who have
a gut instinctive mastery of the laws of segulah. But that was my other
issue with the existance of segulos, that it does not add to bechirah
because one does not develop a native sense of cause and effect with
it. Ignoring that issue for the moment...

So it proves nothing to someone who observes the law without understanding
the reason. OTOH, it gives the metaphysicist something to study that
for him -- and for anyone who is subsequently exposed his works -- it is
a ra'ayah. Why leave ra'ayos laying around, regardless of whether only
some people will see them?

: In the mean time I'll make some comments. I think that your distinction
: between nature and segulos is artificial....

I'm not sure how to address this conjecture, coming on the heels of an
admission that you do not know how I draw the line. Perhaps now that I
reiterated my definition, the question is moot.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]