Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 028

Monday, May 13 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:30:11 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Belief


Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> R'Elchonon Wasserman says in his maamar on emunah: "The Rambam writes in
> Sefer Hamitzvos that first mitzva is to know and to believe in G-d. It
> is necessary to understand how it is relevant to command belief?..If
> one believes it is not necessary to command and if he doesn't believe
> he doesn't have control to believe? It would appear that he has no free
> will since his heart forces him..." He answers his question by stating
> that emuna is something totally obvious and rational - except if one's
> lusts interfere. Thus the mitzva of emuna is to work on controlling one's
> lusts and purifying oneself to the degree that the normal intellect can
> express itself.

See R. Heller's note on Sefer HaMitvoth ad. loc. ("believe" is a bad
translation).  It doesn't preclude R. Wasserman's explanation, but it may
preclude the need for it.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:35:21 -0400
From: Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Night before day, or after day?


From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
>R' Gil Student wrote <<< Even from the time of Creation the day followed
>the night. See Berachos 26a that learns this from "Vayehi erev vayehi
>boker yom echad". >>>

>I never understood that to be the simple pshat of that pasuk.

But don't Chazal at Berachos 26a understand it to be the simple pshat of
that pasuk?  After it's established that teshlumim is muter, why else would
they even ask the question of whether one can daven teshlumin at ma'ariv?

-- Sholom


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:41:22 -0400
From: Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
Subject:
tzitzis


>My father, who roamed war-time Europe, just recently told me that indeed
>he never saw anyone (including Chassidim) wearing tsitsis out (just
>like the norm by chassidim was not to wear streimlach - only Rebbes -
>til after the war). That said . . .

>RSM, are you familiar with the S'mak (#28) who holds there IS a mitzva
>to look at the tsitsis?

And, also, I guess I need to read RSM's gevaldig post again, but I still
don't understand why we darshen that we don't have to wear it at night
and yet also that we don't have to see them during the day.

I must say, when I first read the MB on this, when he said "going out
among the goyim", I thought he was referring to a situation where it might
be dangerous to identify oneself as a Jew. (Why else would he write that?)

OK, I know I'm over my head. I'm not assuming anything, accusing anything
or anyone, merely asking a naive question: is it possible that we've
been doing it wrong all these centuries? I mean: we start with people
wearing a tallis _over_ one's garments, and then to tzitzis tucked in,
I still don't get it.

To bring another analogy (admittedly weak): for millenia we've have the
problem of people saying Shma and its brachas before tzeis, right?

Is it possible that an incorrect minhag developed? (if that's not an
oxymoron).

(Another weak example: women not davenning -- MB goes so far as to
say the women are not only obligated, but if they don't, they should
be reprimanded)

(Yes, I know that to even suggest "we've been doing it wrong all these
years" this leads to a whole host of negative implications... but
I'd rather look at the small instance rather than the big picture for
a moment).

-- Sholom

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|   Sholom Simon     | sholom@aishdas.org               |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:02:53 GMT
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes


R' Seth Mandel wrote <<< we know from pictures depicting Jews throughout
the medieval period that show all sorts of distinctive Jewish clothing --
but NO tztzis showing. NEVER. >>>

R' Carl Sherer commented <<< Of course if the pictures showed people
with a frock of some sort, you wouldn't see the tzitzis even if they
were out.... >>>

But that's exactly the point. If they wore it under their frock, why
shouldn't I wear it under my shirt?

R' Seth Mandell quoted <<< the Morekhai says "hanei talesos q'tannim
shelanu einam min hamuvhar" because you cannot cover yourself in them. The
Orhos Hayyim says that someone who makes a b'rokho of l'his'attef on them
"over b'lo tissa." The R'Mo in Darkhe Moshe says that the b'rokho is
'al mitzvas tzitzis "v'hata'am nir'eh li ki 'hash'shu l'divrei hposqim
she'ein yotz'in b'tales qoton kozeh v'lakhen lo m'var'khin l'hit'attef
d'az havei mashma' d'akhshav m'aqayy'min hamitzva." IOW, you are not
yotze the mitzva with a tales qoton. >>>

R' Carl Sherer asked <<< According to these Rishonim, how would someone
who is not yet married be yotzei mitzvas tzitzis? Did everyone wear
taleisim then? >>>

Please note the phrases "HANEI talesos q'tannim SHELANU" and "tales
qoton KOZEH". Is it possible that the objection was NOT to tallis katan
in general, but only to the too-small ones?

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote: <<< He explained that the MB was simply against
stuffing the tzitzis in the reinforcement patch and was not advocating
wearing them outside. >>>

R' Carl Sherer commented <<< Maybe the CC spoke Hebrew differently than
we do, but the words he uses are "v'osom anashim ha'msimim ha'tzitzis
b'ha'MICHNASAYIM shelahem... u'ma she'omrin she'holchin bein ha'nochrim
la'zeh haya dai she'yasimu ha'tzitzis b'SOCH HA'KANAF." It sounds to me
like he regards stuffing your tzitzis into your pants as a bizayon, and
if you can't wear them out because you go among the goyim, you should
put them in the kanaf (what RDS described yesterday, which is what
I imagined, but have never actually seen in any tzitzis in my days),
but not stuff them in your pants. >>>

I was trying to think of why putting tzitzis in the corner is okay,
but not to put them in the pants. The only thing I can come up with is
that perhaps they did not wear undergarments. It is a bizayon for the
tzitzis to be where they might touch one's unmentionables, but there is
no requirement for the tzitzis to be visible outside the pants. If I am
correct, then the Chofetz Chaim would have no problem with someone who
was among non-Jews and wore underwear and did have the tzitzis inside
his pants.

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 00:43:12 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes


On 10 May 2002 at 18:02, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Carl Sherer commented <<< Of course if the pictures showed people
> with a frock of some sort, you wouldn't see the tzitzis even if they
> were out.... >>>
> 
> But that's exactly the point. If they wore it under their frock, why
> shouldn't I wear it under my shirt?

I'm not talking about the beged - I'm talking about the strings. If 
they're wearing a frock and the strings are outside their shirt, you 
still won't see them under the frock. If they remove the frock, you 
see the strings, even if the beged is under the shirt. 

> Please note the phrases "HANEI talesos q'tannim SHELANU" and "tales
> qoton KOZEH". Is it possible that the objection was NOT to tallis katan
> in general, but only to the too-small ones?

No. Because even what we call a "Chazon Ish shiur" talis katan would 
still be incapable of atifa. If you cannot be mekayem the mitzva of 
wearing tzitzis without atifa then what is a bachur to do? 

> I was trying to think of why putting tzitzis in the corner is okay,
> but not to put them in the pants. The only thing I can come up with is
> that perhaps they did not wear undergarments. It is a bizayon for the
> tzitzis to be where they might touch one's unmentionables, but there is
> no requirement for the tzitzis to be visible outside the pants. If I am
> correct, then the Chofetz Chaim would have no problem with someone who
> was among non-Jews and wore underwear and did have the tzitzis inside
> his pants.

Possibly. 

I think R. Seth Mandel's explanation (that the CC was mechadesh) is 
more likely.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:43:00 -0400
From: "yosef stern" <avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes


Seth Mandel writes:
> All of the references to it ( ... ) that the Beis Yosef and
> the R'Mo bring are from people like the Mordekhai, the T'rumas haDeshen,
> the Or Zarua', whereas the Ba'al ha'Ittur, who is the source of much of
> what the Tur writes, makes no mention of them.

> So where does this idea that tzitzis should be visible come from? You will
> look in vain in the rishonim for anybody who says that tzitzis must be
> visible. Those who question the talles koton do so on the basis of size
> and the way it is worn, not because it was worn underneath theclothes.

My search was not at all in vain, the Ba'al ha'Ittur DOES infact mention
it in Hilchos Tzitzis (shaar 2, Chelek 1 and Chelek 3): And our holy
teacher writes in the name of the Chochom R. Yitzchok b. Moron Levi that
those who wear their tzitzis under their garments are not fulfiling the
Mitzvah of Tzitzis....because the Torah says Asher Techase Boh (which
implies the outer most garment, this does not include an overcoat as in
Gemara Moed Katan 22:2 (Apikrotzuso = overcoat)).

kol tuv
yosef stern


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 11:07:58 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannys@atomica.com>
Subject:
Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes


RCS asked:
"According to these Rishonim, how would someone who is not yet married
be yotzei mitzvas tzitzis? Did everyone wear taleisim then?"

I do not see anywhere in SA that unmarried people don't wear a tallis. On
the contrary, hilchos tefillin (OC 25:1) starts with "after putting
on your fringed Tallis, put on your tefillin.". The MB ibid discusses
somebody so poor that he cannot afford both.

Not to mention that both Sefardim and Yekkes wear a tallis from bar
mitzva and even before.

BTW: The Oruch Hashulchon paskens that a tallis koton has no minimum
shiur.

Gut Chodesh
- Danny


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:42:16 +0000
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Subject:
Re: tzitzis outside


Re: Wearing tzitzis outside of clothing.

As is customary, I'll make an unimportant 0.2-cent addition to R' Seth's
excellent posting on one of the many modern reforms in "frozen" orthodoxy.

In the book on the Maharam mi-Rottenberg and his customs (Mosad Harav
Kook, long out of print), the Maharam complains how badly he feels that
he cannot wear his tallit on the morning of Tish'a b'Av and if he did,
it would cause shock in the kehilla.

He takes comfort that at least he can wear his tallit katan because,
after all, nobody can see it.

On the same subject: To those who maintain that one must never go out
during the day without tzitzit, it is noted in the book that the Maharam
did not believe one could make a b'rakha on a tallit katan and didn't want
to put it on without a b'rakha. So, he went to shul without tzitzit,
put on his tallit gadol there. including kavana also on tallit katan
when making the b'rakha. He put on his tallit katan upon his return home.

I know nothing of distances involved or the length of the Maharam's
jacket.

The list has already discussed the Briskers who do not wear a talllit
katan on Shabbat because of its small size and their unwillingness to
be somekh on an eiruv.

K"T, 
David


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 02:08:24 -0400
From: "Joseph Mosseri" <JMosseri@msn.com>
Subject:
Shabou'ot, Yom Tob, Meat or Dairy


Dear Rabbis, Professors, Friends, and Family,

This is a subject that I wrote about last year and although I haven't
had much time to write for the last 6 months many of you have asked me
to send out my findings on this topic.

I have updated and corrected many items in it and I humbly ask for your
comments and suggestions on any and all facets of this topic.

Joseph Mosseri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been perplexed by this issue for very long and I was wondering if
someone could shed some light on this issue.

What is the origin of eating dairy on Shabou'ot?

It seems as if the Rama is the 1st one to mention it, but I've heard
of references to the KolBo. Can anyone date the earliest source for
this custom?

Those that do eat a dairy meal on Shabou'ot, how do they deal with the
obligation of eating a meat meal on YomTob?

Is this dairy custom universal, or did it spread out slowly from certain
Eastern European communities to the rest of the Jewish world??

According to HaRambam, the meals of YomTob must be joyous ones and as
he says prescribed by the Torah and therefore all holiday meals must
consist of meat and wine.

How can people belittle this important holiday by intentionally doing
away with meat?????????

The only time we intentionally forego meat is prior to Tisha'ah Be'Ab
as a sign of mourning for the loss of the Bet HaMiqdash.

What is the origin of this custom?

For many years I've searched into the source of this custom. I found
plenty of reasons explaining why dairy is eaten by some or how it is
connected to Matan Torah. But all these seem to be after the fact,
basically trying to "kosher" this custom.

The earliest source I have for this custom is the Kol Bo.
{Kol Bo, anonymous work on Jewish Law, probably by Rabbi Aharon ben
Ya'aqob HaKohen of Lunel (1262-1325) first printed in Naples, 1490}
There it states: "There is an established custom to eat honey and milk
on the festival of Shabou'ot since the Torah is compared to honey and
milk as it is written Honey and Milk beneath your tongue"
We next find this custom mentioned by the Rama (1525-1572) in his hagahot
to Shoulhan 'Aroukh at the very end of siman 494.
He states: "And there is the custom in some places to eat dairy foods on
the 1st day of Shabou'ot and it seems to me that the reason is........."

After that all we find are different reasons throughout the last few
centuries by the commentators.

All the Sefardic sources I have searched make no reference to this being
the custom in their lands or communities.

To eat a complete dairy meal seems to be completely unknown and unheard
of.

Rabbi Shem Tob Gaguine in his Keter Shem Tob only mentions that there
is a custom to eat some cheese within the breakfast meal the morning
of Shabou'ot. Basically after you get home (from being up all night
and reading
the Tiqoun Leil Shabou'ot) have a dairy breakfast.
(Which actually isn't much different than the custom among all Jews of
the former Ottoman empire. Shabbat and holiday shahrit prayers were held
no later than 7:00 A.M. and commenced by about 9:30 A.M. Everyone then
went home for qidoush and breakfast. Minhah was always Minhah Gedolah,
by 1:00 P.M. the latest, then everyone returned home for the larger
meat meal of the day. This time frame and schedule is still adhered to
in the majority of traditional Sephardic synagogues in Israel.).

After consulting with Sephardic Jews from many communities and countries
it seems that this custom of eating dairy was virtually unknown until
reaching North America, Europe, & Australia and intermingling with
the Ashkenazim.

The only group which seems to have a definite dairy custom is that
of Aleppo, Syria. According to elderly informants referring to the
customs of their parents (over a century ago) "the custom in Halab was
to eat a light dairy meal specifically on the first night of Shabou'ot,
to facilitate staying up all night and reading"

Every other group said that some of the pastries eaten towards the end
of the all night reading are dairy and sweet, so that's more than enough
to fulfill the custom by those who mention it.

I was never satisfied with just this information and finally I found
some startling history.

The following is from the very well documented book by John Cooper
entitled Eat and be Satisfied: A Social History of Jewish Food page 119:

"According to the testimony of Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, the Jews of
Provence at the beginning of the 14th century used to eat a specially
prepared honey cake in the shape of a ladder on Shavuot. Later in Germany
the cake was made with 7 rungs, symbolizing the 7 spheres rent by the
Almighty when He descended to give the Law. So, too, the earlier 13th
century Provencel philosopher Jacob ben Abba Mari Antoli asserted that it
was customary for Jews to partake of milk and honey on Shavuot, as these
foods were compared with the sustenance derived from the Torah. Among
the Christian community, during Lent honey cakes shaped like ladders
were consumed, and no doubt the Shavuot cake was modeled on a Christian
example, even if the Jews' neighbors ate their cake a month or 2 earlier"

If that wasn't enough....he continues and says:

"In central and eastern Europe dairy foods replaced the honey cake of
Provence on Shavuot, partly because there was an abundance of milk at this
time of the year and partly because dairy dishes were the standard festive
food at Whitsun in several parts of Germany, and the Scots celebrated
the festival of Beltane on May 1, when many dairy dishes were consumed."

He then goes on to describe certain pies and cakes and how they were
prepared.

For those of you who don't know:

Whitsun is white Sunday, the custom of wearing white robes by the newly
baptized who were numerous at this season.

Beltane is the first day of May in the old Scottish calendar and the
Celtic May Day festival.

This was very startling indeed and I'm glad that I do not have a custom
to eat a dairy meal on Shabou'ot.

This of course leads us to a very important question. What exactly are
the parameters of the law forbidding us from following the statutes
of the goyim, i.e. oubhouqotehem lo telekhou? Hakham Yisrael Mosheh
Hazan addresses this issue in the first chapter of his Responsa Kerakh
Shel Romi.

Incidentally, the custom among Egyptian Jewry, both The Rabbinate and
Karaite communities was to eat on the day of Shabou'ot, Goose and a
local herb soup called Molokheya. I've yet to discover the reasoning
behind this custom.

By now I'm sure many of you are finding this subject eye opening but
you would like to see how Rabbi Obadiah Yosef and family deal with
this subject.

Rabbi Obadiah Yosef in the Torah Journal, Qol Sinai, sivan 1964, page
258, states:
There is a custom to eat dairy items on Shabou'ot and some of the reasons
given are.......and our custom is to eat some dairy and after rinsing
out our mouths we eat meat.
And it is a missvah to eat meat on Yom Tob in order to fulfill the
obligation of being happy on the holiday, because there is no happiness
unless there is meat! (As a source for this he quotes Talmoud Babli,
Masekhet Hagigah 8b).

 From this we understand that a dairy meal is not eaten. Rather just
some dairy to fulfill the custom, immediately thereafter a true festive
meat meal is consumed. His son Rabbi Yisshaq Yosef has written the same
thing in his famous Yalqout Yosef.

I just got a new book by Rabbi Obadiah Melamed on Halakhot and Minhagim
of the Jewish nation and particularly of the Yemenite communities. He
states that the custom of dairy has never been known to them and they
do not follow it. It's Yom Tob and they eat meat.

The celebrated Rabbi Yosef Qafih (of blessed memory) in his Halikhot
Teman, says the same thing. He also adds that not only is it YomTob and
only meat meals are eaten but when they first heard of the custom of
eating dairy meals they laughed and made fun of it!

The Hakhamim have made a statement:
En Simhah Ella BeBasar VeYayin. There is no happiness except with meat
and wine. Is this a halakhic dictate or a statement based upon the
social mores of society at their place and time. Any ideas? That of
course translates into the following:

How about personal preference? Should that be dictated by halakhah as
well? What about those who say the following: "well for me dairy is much
more festive, meat is not."

I'd like to ask those people what do they eat on the days prior to
Tish'ah BeAb, meat or cheese?I'm sure they all eat dairy!! It seems
to me that we have certain guidelines that the Hakhamim throughout the
generations have put in place, and they have dictated that meat is a
symbol of true happiness.

I hope I do not come across the wrong way with this but the Torah is
not a free for all, we can not make up our own rules and laws because
it is more comfortable or convenient for us. There are guidelines to be
used when determining halakhic ruling otherwise we may end up making a
mockery of the Torah. What a shame that would be, especially on Shabou'ot,
the holiday on which we celebrate the giving of the Torah to the Jewish
nation.

I'm not telling anyone to forego their customs but if they are not
grounded in Halakhah it can be problematic.

Please check the sources and discuss all aspects and consequences with
your Rabbi/Poseq.

To reiterate, from what I can make out the best time to fulfill the custom
of eating dairy would be for breakfast on the 1st morning of Shabou'ot.
After being out all night reading then praying return home recite qidoush
and have a light dairy breakfast, go to sleep, wake up refreshed and
ready for a festive meat lunch like any other YomTob.

At this point I want to thank Bore Olam for directing me to this piece
of Gemara. Not only does it not mention dairy but it specifically refers
to meat. Pesahim 68b: Rab Yosef would order on the day of Shabou'ot
"Prepare me a third-born calf" That is he ordered the calf that was born
third to its mother which was considered the best.

Please, I'm looking for more information so please do not hesitate to
write back. Tell me what else you can find on the origins of this custom
or what you know about specific communities.

Tizkou Leshanim Rabot, Ne'imot VeTobot,
Mo'adim LeSimhah, Hagim Ouzmanim LeSason,
Joseph Mosseri
I am not a Rabbi or a Poseq.
I am just interested in discussing Halakhot & Minhagim, laws and customs.
I invite your insights, comments, criticisms, etc..

Please let me know if you would like me to forward the same to my list.
If you would like to be removed from this list or know of someone who
would benefit from it just let me know by including, first name, last
name, & e-mail.

Joseph Mosseri


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:39:35 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Shavuos Divrei Torah


New reason struck me tonight for the minhag to eat Ma'achalei Chalav (milk 
dishes) on Shavuos. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the first 
appearance of "chem'ah v'chalav" in Tanach is where Avraham gave the 
Malachim these substances to eat.

IIRC, Chazal say the Malachim, who normally did not eat, were compelled to 
eat in order to comply with Avraham Avinu's ardent desire to be machnis orchim.

We know that the Malachim had a ta'anah on HKB"H, kavyachol, how he was 
giving his "Chemda Genuza" to human beings.

This is part of our response: You are subordinate to us, and the proof is 
that our forefather Avraham Avinu compelled you to eat Chalav in order for 
him to fulfill his role in this world.

(This is very similar to the dialogue between R' Pinchas ben Yair and Nahar 
Gina'i in Chullin 7b!)

We also know from Reb Tzadok that the first place where a concept appears 
in Torah is linked to the essence of that concept. The concept of milk is 
inherently connected to the significance of Man over Malach. Milk 
represents the chiddush of paradox: That from the flesh flows its 
antithesis. Not only that, but the red (according to R' Meir that the blood 
becomes milk) becomes white.

This is in essence the response Moshe Rabbeinu gives to the Malachim (in 
Sukkah, IIRC): The Torah has all sorts of physical mitzvos, mitzvos that 
pertain to the conquest of the yetzer ho'ra - do you, asks Moshe Rabbeinu, 
have such traits amongst yourselves? What Moshe is really saying is that 
the idea of the Torah is to be the tavlin to the yetzer ho'ra, to take the 
red and convert to white, "l'hishapocho" as the Mekkuballim put it. As the 
Medrash says at the beginning of Chukkas, that is the concept of "me yiten 
tahor *me*'tameh.

Chalav is doubtless linked to "Chalaf". the Mlabim says the difference 
between "Shinui" and "Chilluf" is that Shinui is a a change in the thing 
itself while Chilluf is substituting another thing for what was there 
before (a la kinyan challifin). Thus, Chalav is obviously a substitution: 
Milchig for Fleishig. Even the related "Chelev", The Malbim differentiates 
from "Shuman" in that fats of the Shuman type are generally interwoven with 
the flesh ('fatty meat") while the Chelev is generally separate and 
distinct in the animal from the flesh.

Were Torah just to change individuals a la Shinui, the Malachim would have 
had a legitimate ta'anah - but Torah changes and individual a la Chilluf - 
it exchanges us into altogether different types of people than those who 
lack Torah - explaining Rav Yosef's intense joy in Pesachim 68 on how Torah 
differentiated him from the Yossi's in the Shuk.

V'yesh l'hosif... (perhaps we will!)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Belief


Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> R'Elchonon Wasserman says in his maamar on emunah: "The Rambam writes in
> Sefer Hamitzvos that first mitzva is to know and to believe in G-d. It
> is necessary to understand how it is relevant to command belief?..If
> one believes it is not necessary to command and if he doesn't believe
> he doesn't have control to believe? It would appear that he has no free
> will since his heart forces him..." He answers his question by stating
> that emuna is something totally obvious and rational - except if one's
> lusts interfere. Thus the mitzva of emuna is to work on controlling one's
> lusts and purifying oneself to the degree that the normal intellect can
> express itself.

That's fascinating. R. Wasserman then belives that belief must be
rational and that and that any previously held beleif must be discarded
if rationality disproves it. It also seems obvious that his own belief
was based on rationality. I think I understand what "controlling one's
lusts" means. It probably means that if one lusts after Issur whether
it be Gashmius or Ruchnius in nature, than he will blind himself to the
rational truth of that Issur. But what does he mean by "purifying oneself
to the degree that the normal intellect can express itself."? Does he
mean to rid oneself of lusting after Gashmius would mean to see the
pristinly rational nature of the Truth of G-d and His Torah?

This does not seem to me to be the nature of rational thinking. To me,
rational thinking is a mathematical enterprise impervious to the bias
of being spiritually "impure".

HM


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:02:11 -0500
From: "Jay S. Lapidus" <jlapidus@snet.net>
Subject:
Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael


In yesterday's sedra, the count of the bechorim above the age of a
month was 22,273. Count of non-Levite males above the age of 20 was,
of course, over 600,000. Presumably, that would put the total number
of B'nei Yisrael at about 2 million.

My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK,
including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate
of bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

I'm posing the question here because I'm interested in traditional
answers only. (I believe that one can be found.)
--
Jay S. Lapidus     http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to, 
       as long as you're ashamed of it." 
            - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:40:31 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
RYBS and zionism


Rav Lichtenstein spoke (in Hebrew) for about an hour on 
Erev Yom Yerushalayim (5762) on the topic of R. Soloveitchik (RYBS)
and zionism. I shall give a short summary of the talk and as usual
all mistakes are mine.
My private comments will be in parentheses

1. He poinys out that many people discuss this topic and each one
wants to show how RYBS agrees with his viewpoint. (I assume he means
R. Meiselman and L. Kaplan). While this is flattering to the Rav
that everyone wants to co-opt to him it nevertheless distorts
history. Hence, he will try his best to present an objective
description without introducing his own viewpoints.

2. Whether the Rav said Hallel on yom ha-azmaut is irrelevant to his
position on zionism. It is clear that his minyan did say Hallel
on yon haazmaut (I have checked that this was said without a beracha
and as part of tehiilim with other chapters recited beforehand).
Since his minyan would not do anything that the Rav really objected 
to
it shows that the Rav had no major complaint about the practice.
Whether he personally said hallel is not clear.

The question of Hallel is a halachic question and not one of haskafa.
Ramban indicates that adding a new holiday involves a prohibition of
Bal Tosif. The Yerushalmi says that those who opposed introduced
introducing Purim were distressed (mitzaarim). It is obvious that
there distress was not because of the opposition of Mordechai.
Rgather they recognized the miracle of Purim but couldn't find a
halachic way to thank Hashem until Mordechai found a hint in the
Torah. Obviously their opposition to establishing Purim as a
halachic holiday did not in any way diminish their thankfulness to
G-d of the miracles that occured.

3. 3 Shevuot-
Some interpret this gemara that the Jewish people must remain passive
in the presence of events.
RYBS strongly oposed this view in every venue.
He strongly advocated an active approach to life in every aspect
being chiddusjei torah, finding new inventions or establishing a
state. The Rav defined teshuva as a process of turning oneself into
a new human being. His viewpoint was influenced by Kant and also
chabad who stressed the importance of the Jewish people crowning G-d.

The Rav pointed out that two places were holy Mount Sinai and the
Mount Moriah. Why was Har Sinai only temprorary while Jerusalem is
forever. The difference is that on Har Sinai G-d came to the people
while in Jerusalem the people came to G-d!

When Sputnik appeared some rabbis commented that the Heavens
belong to Hashem. RYBS strongly opposed such viewpoints.
Aloh ve-Naaleh ve-yerasnu otoh - basis of zionism

Again in the 5 derashot he emphasized the importance of
yetzirah

4. The destination is important both in private and public affairs.
The Rav (in contrast to R. Kook) always stressed the private over
the public - not to the exclusion but in primacy.
This world has kedusha and this is a positive factor.
There is a tension between the world of Torah and the world of deeds.
However, participating in the deeds of this world (yishuvo shel olam)
is lechatchila not a dieved.

5. The Rav recognized the importance of national goals though his
approval of zionism was different than R. Kook. The Rav did not
stress the political aspects of the state. He also recognized the
community aspect and the social portions of a group but that was
not the center of his thought (as an aside RAL mentioned that in 
English "community" can also be two people but its translation 
into Hebrew as "tzibbur" usually would not include a group of two).

For the Rav redemption (geula) is primarily spiritual and religious.
The main part of the state is not the planes and even economic gains,
political matters or strength. These are all means towards a
spiritual goal.

"Man does not exist for the State" (forgot the author).

He recognized the importance of the political state and what it
could accomplish physically. He very much followed developments in
the building of the land. When RAL's sons entered Hesder and later 
the army he was very proud of his grandsons. However, that was never
his primary goal for the state.

The Rav could not understand how his uncle - the Brisker Rav- could
oppose zionism. Hence, he defended him (in his famous hesped) that
his uncle could not acept the state since it did not fit into any
Halachic category (RAL noted that follwers of the Griz did not feel
they needed any defense for their antizionism). Nevertheless, the
Rav disagreed with this approach and felt that halacha applied to 
everything and there was nothing that wasn't a halachic category.
The Rav presents this approach as his anti-thesis to
his thesis. (note that R. Meiselman takes part of theis statement 
and somehow assumes that the Rav accepts this premise even though 
he explicitly rejects it).
Therefore the state is important but the political and "kingly" 
portions are secondary.

6. In his appreciation of EY he disagrees with R. Kook. He does
not stress the physical side of the country.

Chilonim - he recognized their contribution to the physical building
of the country shile strongly disagreeing with their approach.
He defended the kedusha of the entire Jewish people and so was
willing to work with everyone for the common good.

Once in a meeting he quoted Melachim bet that Yeravam ben Yoash
did all the evils (va-yaas harah be-enei hashem) that his 
predecessor Yeravam did (leading astray the people). Nevertheless,
the prophet praises him for extending the boundaries of the country.
The Rav banged on the table and said that David ben Gurion is no
worse than Yeravam and so also deserves praise for his contributions
to the state. We are willing to be partners up to a certain level
where we must state our opposition.

In general the Rav stressed the individual while R. Kook stressed
the community. However, in the thought of both neither was to the
exclusion of the other.

The Rav was in favor of Aliyah and sought the position of chief
rabbi of Tel Aviv as way of living in Israel (see the beautiful
letter of the Rav in Mipenei haRav apologizing for not having
made aliyah). Once the Rav received a prize and donated the money
to the hesder yeshiva in Israel (presumably RAL's yeshiva).

Of course RAL ended by quoting kol dodi dofek and especially stressed
the very end of the speech (yom haazmaut 5716). Again he included
the necessity of the physical state but stressed the spiritual 
portion.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 05/13/2002


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >