Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 091

Monday, January 20 2003

• three characteristic middos of Jews - shared by males and females
• Re: Aishdas and Benjamin Franklin
• [Areivim] Re: saves a life, or a Jewish life?
• Chassidus and Misnagdus
• Re: Aishdas and Benjamin Franklin
• Re: saves a life, or a Jewish life?
• Benjamin Franklin and Mussar
• Chatam Sofer and work
• Re: disposable cup for kiddush
• re: working for a living
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question
• sanhedrin
• Re: sanhedrin
• Re: Animal Suffering
• Re: The Torah isn't Strict Enough
• Chasam Sofer on EY

From: T613K@aol.com [but not to Avodah -mi]
<<Last week at the Lunch & Learn I spoke on the topic (given to me by the
organizers) "Exploding the Myths: the Real Life of the Orthodox Woman."
It is a group of professionals, mostly lawyers, who meet every Tuesday
in downtown Miami at a posh legal firm.

<snip> 

A recent thread.....pursued this question: is the "Spiritual Superiority
of Women," taught in many Bais Yakovs, a myth? Or is there some basis
to it?

Here's the serious part. I always ask my students who is superior, angels
or human beings? Invariably I get conflicting answers. Some say angels are
superior, because they are perfect, spiritual, holy, never sin, always
do G-d's will. Others will argue vehemently that humans are superior,
the Torah was given to humans, humans do G-d's bidding of their own free
will, angels are just robots and so on.

The truth is that there is no right answer. Angels start off on a much
higher spiritual plane than humans. Humans have a base, animal nature
in addition to their G-dly souls. But a human can transform his animal
nature into something G-dly by doing mitzvos, and since he is doing it
by his own efforts, he can potentially rise much higher than an angel.
A person who achieves perfection is much higher than an angel who was
programmed to be perfect and has no choice.

This is an analogy to the difference between men and women. The bracha
that women say expresses appreciation for something real that we have
been given, namely a nature that is ab initio closer to what G-d wants
from all Jews.

The traits men strive to perfect through a lifetime of Torah observance,
the traits which Chazal consider quintessentially Jewish, are traits
that might be called typically "feminine"--rachmanim, bayshanim, gomlei
chasadim. It is already inherent in a woman's nature to be kind-hearted,
generous, giving, modest. Nursing mothers even have a hormone, prolactin,
that actually makes you love your baby! We are programmed to care for
helpless creatures who could not survive without us.

Men NEED more mitzvos, you might say, because they start lower and have
more work to do to perfect themselves. Women are closer to G-d in the
way that they were created. But men can potentially rise much higher
than women, because they achieve through their own efforts what women
have given to them.>>

Chaza"l say 'Gimmel middos yeish bo'umoh zu - rachmonim, bayshonim
vigomlei chasodim'. I always understood the word umoh (nation) in the
above maamar Chaza"l to the refer to the umoh of 'mi koamcho Yisroel,
goy echod bo'oretz' - not to the umoh of 'noshim umoh bifnei atzman'. So
Chaza"l seem to be saying that those three middos are naturally part
of Jews - males and females. So much so, that if one is conspicuously
lacking, Jewishness can be called into question.

Rebbetzin Katz seems to be saying that women naturally have these
three middos, while men must work on them. What is her source for such
a position ? Chaza"l say that those three middos are part of all
(legitimate) Jews - not only females. Chaza"l do not differentiate
between men and women in terms of when the three middos are incarnated
in Jews. Is she claiming that females have these traits from birth, as
opposed to males ? Are you telling me that there are no selfish little
(and big) Jewish girls ? Re Prolactin - it only kicks in for some,
and then only many years after birth.......

Did Rav Nachman Bulman z"l ever express an opinion on this matter ? As
someone who spoke on many different matters, worked with baalei teshuvoh,
etc. I would assume that his silence (if he indeed didn't address it)
on such a matter, might be very well be indicative of serious doubts he
harbored about it, if not full-fledged opposition.

Additionally, when trying to determine relative spiritual levels, one
should take into account other things as well - perhaps things like
'isha eina tzara be'orchin', for example.

Anyway, sof kol sof, I think that people in charge of chinuch should be
careful to make sure what they teach and believe is Toras Emes and not
inappropriately influenced by foreign ideas, no matter how popular they
may be in surrounding societies.

Mordechai

> I am currently listening to a biography of Benjamin Franklin. The Mussar
> Movement's links to BF's ideas are far more significant than I hitherto
> realized.
>
> I think Aishdas should more consciously emulate BF's model.

The issue of BF is an interesting one - discussed in detail by Prof
Etkes in R' Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement

1) p 123 "While it is clear that Salanter knew thoroughly the Mussar
literature...and was impressed by it, one Mussar work may be singled
out for its decisive influence...Menahem Mendel Lefin's Sefer heshbon
hanefesh. R Lefin (1749-1826) was one of the outstandng pioneers of the
Haskalah movement in Eastern Europe.... Most of his secular education was
acquired during the four years he spent in Berlin...He likewise became
friendly with a circle of Jewish Maskilim in Berlin, including Solomon
Maimon and Moses Mendelson... Sefer heshbon hanefesh first published
in 1808 was to enjoy a number of further editions, one of which 1844
was published at Salanter's initiative...its reprinting in 1937 by the
Association of slobodka Students in Lithuania....Several of Lefin's
biographers have noted the relationship between Sefer heshbon hanefesh
and ...Benjamin Franklin...the essential fact that Lefin was influenced
by ...by Franklin's writings seems established beyond a doubt.

2) An alternative view of R' Lefin is presented in a kuntres which
discusses the historical background of the author and also the legitimcy
of using non Jewish sources to develop avodas HaShem. It was written
by R Yitzchok Borodiansky menahel of Yeshiva Kol Torah. and published
by the Kest Family in response to those who attacked the legitimacy
of the Sefer as being merely a translation of BF and the legitimacy of
the author who was denounced as a maskil. He asserts that Mendelssohn
did not have a significant influence on R' Lefin, and asserts that the
favorable description of him by gedolim proves that he wasn't a maskil
though he does acknowlege the influence of BF on Sefer Cheshbon Hanfesh.

An interesting historical note, Rabbi Bulman told me that early editions
of Sefer Cheshbon HaNefesh mention BF by name while later editions have
deleted mention of him.

Question:
If one wants to emulate Benjamin Franklin, why not incorporate some
material from Dr. John Gray or Zalman Shachter or Yushka. I once met
a rosh yeshiva who was inspired spiritually by Nietzche and Zorba the
Greek. What provides the guidelines for utilizing non Jewish or non Torah
sources for Avodas Hashem. As pointed out before, R Yisroel Salanter
experimented with everything to find a solution to the devastation
produced by the haskala - until he developed a frum haskala. I am not
sure what the hetair is for one of us to do genetic engineering on avodas
hashem today. R S R Hirsch had the students remove their kippas when
studying non Torah subjects so they would realize the distinction between
Torah and chochma. There also seems to be a halachic problem Devarim 7:3,
Avoda Zaraa (20a) Rambam (Avodas Kochovim 10:4) Mishna Berura 225:33

                                    Daniel Eidensohn

[Bounced from Areivim, where someone asked about the inaccuracy of
the translation "He who saved a single life, saved the world entire.
-mi]

The passage under question can be found in the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:1,
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer ch. 47, Eliyahu Rabbah ch. 11, and Yalkut Shimoni on
Shemos 166.

<http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/schindler.html>

Gil Student

[A section of private email, posted with permission. -mi]

Despite all claims to the contrary, I do not see Nefesh HaChayim as being
the antithesis of Tanya in particular or of Chabad Philosophy in general.
It seems to me that in only one (important) area do the two differ:
The concept of focusing on G-d as being Soveiv Kol Almin as well as
Memalei Kol Almin. (Imminent and transcendent.)

Chabad sees this as a necessary component of Avodas Hashem.

The Nefesh HaChayim sees this focus as detrimental. I believe that this
is behind the somewhat cryptic statement quoted in the GRA's name that
Chassidus would lead people to worshipping sticks and stones.

Hence the NH"Ch's critique that focussing on that concept would lead
to all sorts of erroneous conclusions, such as learning Torah in the
bathroom, etc., i.e., If you do not focus on the gradations of Kedusha
in the world, you would be bound to abandon halacha, which is all about
parameters and boundaries.

Chabad argues that a concentrating on the parameters and multiplicity of
realms and categories of halacha without a continuous focus on the Unity
of it all will lead a person to lead a physical-bound un-G0d-centered
existence, which will of course lead away from Halacha. (Kuntres Eitz
Hachayim by R' Sholom Dovber Schneersohn, Rebbe #5).

Be well,
Raffy

"Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il> writes on Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:52:44 
+0200: 
> Question: 
> If one wants to emulate Benjamin Franklin, why not incorporate some 
> material from Dr. John Gray or Zalman Shachter or Yushka. I once met 
> a rosh yeshiva who was inspired spiritually by Nietzche and Zorba the 
> Greek. What provides the guidelines for utilizing non Jewish or non Torah 
> sources for Avodas Hashem...

I am not familiar with the mussar works of Zorba the Greek, but perhaps they 
are very deep. 

Learn from eveywhere! 

"Me'kol melamdai hiskalti" 

"chochma ba'goyim ta'amin." 

Hatzlacha! 
YGB 

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:54:29PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: The passage under question can be found in the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:1,
: Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer ch. 47, Eliyahu Rabbah ch. 11, and Yalkut Shimoni on
: Shemos 166.
: <http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/schindler.html>

Amitai Halivni posted the following to scj.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.95.961104220750.20090A-100000%40aluf.technion.ac.il>

-mi

The source for this saying is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. It appears
in several versions:

1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: "Whoever
destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam]
... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves
the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an
entire world".

2. In the Talmud Bavli, where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the
wording is the same, except for the substitution of "life of a single Jew"
[nefesh a`hat \mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".

3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections
(Halakhot). In my edition the saying appears in Halakhot 12-13.
Others divide Mishnah 5 differently: e.g. MTR locates it in Halakhah 9.
It reads "destroys a single life" [ma'abed nefesh a`hat] and "preserves
a single life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat]. There is no specific mention of
either "human being" or "Jew", though the former is clearly implied.

The question is: Which is the original version? Was the limitation
to Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a result
of Church censorship? This is suggested in the book of corrigenda,
Hesronot Ha-shas. Alternatively, was the universal formulation the
original one, and the limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at
some later date, perhaps in a period when particularly severe persecution
of Jews generated a justified feeling of xenophobia?

The answer would seem to be obvious from the context, which is the same
in all three versions. The citation is preceded by the words: "This is
why Adam was created alone. It is to teach us that ...". A bit father
down it reads: "When a man mints a number of coins from a single die,
they are all identical; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One
blessed be He, minted every human being from the die of the primal Adam,
and not one of them is like any other".

Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation of Jewish
lives alone, the reference would have been to Abraham at the earliest.
The repeated reference to Adam, progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear
that the original must have referred to the preservation of human life
in general.

This is aparently how the Rishonim (medieval commentators) understood it
as well. Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi version, (3.) slightly altered,
in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the Bavli version (2. above)
briefly in Hilkhot Rotzea`h 1:6. Hameiri too bases his commentary on
the Yerushalmi version, illustrating "the destruction of a whole world"
by pointing out that Cain's murder of Abel eliminated all of his victm's
descendents at one fell swoop. Abel, like Adam was not Jewish; he was
not even the ancestor of Jews.

The humanistic version was not universally accepted by the A`haronim
(later commentators). MaHaRSh"A, for example, in Hidushei Agadot on
Sanh.37a, stays with Version 2, and explains at some length why it is
only important to save Jewish lives, even though the Mishnah bases the
dictum on Adam's being the father of all mankind. I would be interested
in learning what present-day Orthodox Judaism regards as the authentic
reading.

(Posted and mailed)

Amitai

R. Mendel Satanovsky's Cheshbon Hanefesh is claimed to be a translation
of BF's work.

However, BF was far from a tsadik. In his house in Philadelphia you
will be shown an outside curved mirror that he invented to be able to
observe cuckolded husbands when they came to him after finding out his
affairs. He would then be able to escape unobserved. This is not how a
Jew percieves being a man of integrity. In musar terms a man who speaks
the talk but does not walk the walk is an abomination.

M. Levin

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> I believe that the recent critique (Avodah 10: 87, "working for a living")
> of my post on the Chatam Sofer (and work) is basically incorrect. It is
> maintained that the dispute between Rebbe Yishma'el and Rebbe Shimon in
> T.B. Berachot 35b on the advisability of doing necessary work in addition
> to the study of torah is not resolved.

Seeing this thread reminded me of something I posted nearly 3 years ago 
(shucks have I really spent that much time here...?) - a vort
from the CS z'l.


Subject:        Efes Ki Lo Yihye Becho Evyon
   Date:        Thu, 24 Aug 2000 05:51:06 +1000

An interesting Chasam Sofer on this weeks Parsha, which, lechoreh, shows
that one should go out and make a Parnosso - rather than stay learning
in Kollel under conditions of poverty.

It is based on the Gemoro in Taanis (21.) which tells the story of Ilfa
and Reb Yochonon who, due to need - left the Yeshiva, to seek a Parnoso -
and be mekayem "Efes Ki Lo Yihyeh Becho Evyon".

During their journey, they rested for a meal under an unsafe wall.
2 Malachei Hashores arrived upon the scene and RY heard one say to the
other: "Let's kill them by throwing down this wall - as they have forsaken
Chayei Olom Hab'oh (Torah study) for Cheyei Sh'oh (Olam Hazeh/trade)".

The second Maloch replied: "Let them be, as one of them is destined to
become great".

RY asked Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" Ilfa replied: "No".

RY said: "Seeing that I heard (the Malochim) and Ilfa didn't - Shmah
Minoh - that I am intended for greatness...", and he returned to
his studies. Meanwhile Ilfa continued on his way into the world of
Mis'char... Ayin Shom.

The Chasam Sofer uses this Gemoro to explain the Psukim.

"Efess Ki Lo Yihyeh Becho Evyon" - You should ensure that you are not
poor - by - "Ki Vorech Yevorechecho Hashem Bo'oretz", by trading the land
(as did Ilfa).

"Rak" - however - "Im Shomo'ah Tishma B'kol Hashem Elokecho..." - if
you hear (to the contrary) - the voice of Hashem (by a Bas Kol or via
Malochim) "Lishmor V'laasos Es Kol Hamitzvoh..." that you are to be a
guardian of the Torah and Mitzvos (eg a Rosh Yeshiva like Reb Yochonon)
- *then* - you stay in Yeshiva and learn...

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> <<I was at a kiddush once in Yerushalyaim and was told that when using
> a plastic cup to make kiddush - it is preferable to use 2 (one inside
> the other).>>

> And you're not going to explain why?

I think because it gives it more strength and a feeling a permanency.

SBA

In response to your points.

1. Regarding the Chatam Sofer. The entire piece was meant to explain
Rava who distinguishes between israel and bavel. Rava is l'shitaso in
Brachos when he told his students not to come during harvest season.
However, this is only Rava's opinion. The Chatam Sofer is not poskening
on the issue.

2. One of the sources that you did not mention in your reply was the
Nefesh Hachayim. R' Chaim Volozhner poskens that even those who pursue
the path of R Yishmael must constanly be thinking in learning while at
work. This psak creates a halachic crisis for all working people who
are doing neither R Yishmael nor R Shimon.

3.While it is true that the end of the sugya in Brachos does imply that
the halacha is like R Yishmael, we can assume that the Rif and the Rosh
could have also made that conclusion, yet they do not posken that gemara.

4. Regarding the Rambam. While it is true that the Rambam blasts someone
who throws himself on to the tzibbur, he is refering to a person who has
no means of providing for his financial needs and chooses to rely on
the public purse. The Rambam is NOT referring to a person who makes a
financial arrangement with a partner to support his Torah study. Would
the Rambam invalidate a Zevulun- Yisachar relationship (Note: consider
the fact that the Rambam himself was supported by his brother while
writing the Yad. He only took his position as physician in the royal
court after his brother's tragic death at sea).

Furthermore, there are a number of other quotations from Yad that must
be weighed together with this one. Consider talmud torah 1:12 where the
Rambam's example of a "working" man is a person who works for three hours
daily and then learns for nine hours. What would the Rambam say about a
person who barely has time to go to a daf yomi shiur? Another Rambam that
must be quoted is at the end of hilchos shmita v'yovel where the Rambam
calls a person who devotes himself entirely to learning kodesh k'doshim.

5. In terms of applying R Yishmael to modern day, we must analyze the
gemara in Brachos again. Rava, the one person who seems to posken like
R Yishmael, gives a very specific reason why a person can not learn
full-time.He recommended taking two months off so that his students
would not have to be involved in parnasa the entire year. Rava was
essentially being pragmatic. He told his students that it is better to
work two months out of the year rather than eventually having to work
twelve months of the year. Rava did not say that working is an ideal
of any sort. Consequently, anyone being supported to learn- thereby,
not being at risk of bittul torah- is not violating R Yishmael.

motya

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:25:25PM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
: My reply was then:
: >: How about hamal'akh hogo'el oti?
: 
: R'MB's reply to my remark was then:
: >"The angel who is the one who redeemed me". The noun clause of the
: >sentence, telling you who Ya'akov wishes would bless the children.

: I don't think so. "The angel is the one who redeemed me" would have to
: be "hamal'akh hu shega'al oti." The extra "who" is not clear. And the
: change of tense seems uncalled for.

No, that would be "the angel is the one who redeemed me". Not, "who is
the one". The former is a complete statement, identifying the angel with
the redeemter. But not here. The verb of the sentence is "yevareich",
not part of the clause given.

As for the extra "who", it's like the English word "is" for which there
is no Hebrew equivalent. Eg: Barukh Gozeir uMqayeim - Blessed is He
Who legislates and He Who fulfils.

Perhaps "the angel, the one who redeemed me, ..." which conveys the
same notion as the translation I gave earlier, would have been a better
choice. Better than either would be to use "redeem" belashon hoveh. So,
let me correct it to:
    The angel, the one who redeems me from all evil, he will bless
    the children...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

Akivah writes
> Fine. Then we can categorize the actions of such a Sanhedrin into 
> (a) decisions which will affect only the people of that particular 
> time and place, and (b) decisions which future or distant people are 
> also expected to obey. And my question would then be whether they 
> expected us today to follow those decisions.

We don't know much of any specific piskei dinim of the Sanhedrin in 
the days of Bayit sheni. However, theoretically if we find a record 
that a Saducee dominated sanhedrin "paskened" that Shavuot is always 
on a shabbat seven weeks after Pesach it obviously would be 
meaningless for halakha.

> RET wrote:
>> More basically there is a misconception of Saducees as
>> being non-religious. On the contrary many of them were very religious 
>> they "just"  had different beliefs than the phrarisees. Today many
>> scholars believe they had their own TSP.  In any case they had their 
>> own chumrot. Questions like when Shavuot occurs have nothing to do 
>> with being more or less religious but of a mesorah.

> Many Karaites and Reform are also very religious; they simply have
> their own traditions. What's your point? Are you saying that the
> traditions of the Saduccees are legitimate traditions from a Torah 
> perspective? Or are you saying that they are kofrim, but that they 
> are kofrim of a type whose opinions are valid on questions like when 
> Shavuot occurs?

The question I was addressing was not whther we should follow the ways of
all these groups but rather what were they doing on a Sanhedrin if they
disagreed with the Pharisees. My answer was from the viewpoint of people
in that time there were 2 approaches (again I am not discussing rights
and wrongs) and so each group thought they belonged on the sanhedrin
to the exclusion of the other probably like labor and likud in Israel
each believing that the other is destroying the country. But of course
we know who is right and wrong.

I would distinguish this from reform "rabbis" sitting on a kashrut board
when they don't believe in kashrut. This is different that Sefard and
ashkenaz rabbis who have different standards of kashrut.

> But allowing such a person to act as Kohen Gadol cannot be a precedent
> for future generations, can it?. If a kofer is pasul for duchaning (which
> he is, according to M"B 128:134), I presume he's also pasul for avodah.

The gemara at the beginning of Yoma implies that the pharisees determined
the avodah on yom kippur even when the cohen gadol was a saducee. Whether
that was true only near the end of bayit sheni or even in the days of
Hashmanoim kings like Yannai is unknown. We do know of Cohanim gedolim
who tried to avoid Nisuch Hamayim.

What would happen to the kapparah of klal Yisrael if the Cohen Gadol
brought the kapporet on Yom Kippur according the Saducee tradition is
a good question which I leave to others on this list

kol tuv,

 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 01/19/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< We don't know much of any specific piskei dinim
of the Sanhedrin in the days of Bayit sheni. However, theoretically if we
find a record that a Saducee dominated sanhedrin "paskened" that Shavuot
is always on a shabbat seven weeks after Pesach it obviously would be
meaningless for halakha. >>>

I don't see any difference between establishing a date for Shavuos and
establishing a date for Rosh Chodesh. Let's remember that this thread
began in Avodah 10:84, when R' Eli Turkel asked <<< we know that in the
days of Shimon Ben Shetach that the Saducees took over the Sanhedrin.
What happened to kiddush hachodesh at that time? >>>

My questions have simply been extensions of that one. Kiddush Hachodesh
is a religious question (even if it also has political aspects to it).
Did the Pharisees and Saducees cooperate on this issue or not?

Is it possible that the Pharisees refused to sit on a Sanhedrin which had
ANY Saducee members, and therefore established a separate Beis Din to
declare Rosh Chodesh for the Pharisee communities? If they chose to
remain in a united organization, why don't we sit together with Reform?

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< The question I was addressing was ... what were
they doing on a Sanhedrin if they disagreed with the Pharisees.  My
answer was from the viewpoint of people in that time there were 2
approaches ... and so each group thought they belonged on the sanhedrin
to the exclusion of the other probably like labor and likud in Israel
each believing that the other is destroying the country. ... >>>

We have the same question, but I don't follow your answer. If <<< each
group thought they belonged on the sanhedrin to the exclusion of the
other >>>, then why didn't they establish separate systems for the
adjudication of religious questions? I suspect that the answer will have
something to do with there being only one Beis Hamikdash, thus they were
forced into sorts of compromising politics. We can avoid having to enter
such politics with Reforms because there is no Beis Hamikdash which we
are forced to share.

But there were plenty of other questions that the Saducees and Pharisees
could have disagreed on. If they disagreed about when to bring the
korbanos of Shavuos, they could just as easily (or just as difficultly)
have disagreed about when to bring the korbanos of Rosh Chodesh. Or at
the very least, even if the Saducees are in total control of the Beis
Hamikdash, the Pharisees could have held different days for Yom Tov
regarding melacha, chometz, etc.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:04:16PM -0500, rothmanfamily@juno.com wrote:
: Even if the pain of animals is less terrible than human suffering,
: I think it still needs an explanation.

I'm not as sure. It depends on whether animals have a sense of "self",
an "I" that can actually feel pain. Or, do animals have no psychological
life, and their pain can only be understood behaviorally, a stimulus
they are wired to avoid for survival reasons.

In the Gra's version of Naran, it would seem that self-identity is a
function of the ru'ach, and animals posess only nefashos, not ruchos
or beyond.

A computer program designed to yelp in response to anyone clicking a
given button, and to avoid repeating that situation in which it occured
may seem to feel pain. But as it has no awareness, can it?

Pain is a form of suffering, but only if there is a "someone" to suffer.

This would have no impact on the meaning of dinim of tza'ar ba'alei
chaim. For reasons similar to Moshe's need to show hakaras hatov to
inanimate objects. Being cruel to something that seems to suffer leads
to becoming a callous person.

Anyone understand Shemoneh Peraqim well enough to comment on what
the Rambam ascribes the neshamos of ba'alei chai? Or those of more
kabbalah-based shitos?

I would assume that those who believe a human can acheive tikkun by being
nisgalgeil as an animal believe that animals - minimally those that are
gilgulim of people - do suffer. But the question of why wouldn't apply
to these gilgulim.

Does a chai have a self to suffer, or only us medaberim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0500, Ari B Berdy wrote:
: Would that be like saying, "I know the Torah permits it (even taking
: into account gedarim), but I am more frum than the Torah anyway?"

Couldn't one ask the same about every gezeirah?

Going lifnim mishuras hadin is training oneself to keep din, or avoiding
nisyonos you know you're not ready for yet. It's not saying that halachah
is insufficient for me, but rather that I'm insufficient to tow the line
of halachah without assistance.

Gezeiros are the product of a beis din determining that the same is true
for enough of the tzibbur to warrant a general policy.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

The Chasam Sofer writes in Tshuva 1:203 "it is well-known... that today
those living in the Holy Land are... ONLY learning Toras Hashem... and
it is our duty to support them"

See also YD 234 where he says there must be a mitzva and preference
of living in Jerusalem vs the rest of Eretz Yisrael because of the din
that one can force a spouse to live there. Therefore the residents of
Jerusalem receive a preferred status with regards to receiving charity,
since they are mkayem also this mitzva.

Shlomo Goldstein

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


[ 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         ]