Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 078

Friday, June 4 1999

• RE: kidushey ta'us
• Re: compelling argument
• Re: kidushey ta'us
• Re: kidushey ta'us
• Re: Mishnah B'rurah and humrah
• Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in metzius
• MB
• Re: Avodah V3 #77
• Re: Mishnah B'rurah and humrah
• Re: MB
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Yir'as shomayim and Psak
• Hypothesis, the Gemroro may err in Metizius
• Re: Mishnah B'rurah and humrah
• Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Ba'al Nefesh (redux; was Re: MB)
• Re: Mishnah B'rurah and humrah
• Chachamim hizahru b'divreichem!
• Re: Ba'al Nefesh (redux; was Re: MB)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe_feldman@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 1:26 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: RE: kidushey ta'us
> 
> 
> I agree that it's easier to undo nedarim than kiddushin (can you
> imagine a bunch of ba'alei batim on Erev Rosh Hashanah getting
> together to be mafkee'ah kiddushin?).  Nevertheless, the concept of
> unknown cumulative effects may apply, especially if I change the
> facts just a bit:
> 
> Suppose that the husband to be had never been previously married. 
> The wife marries him and within 6 months he starts to smack her
> around twice a week.  She does not know whether this will continue
> indefinitely and obviously hopes he will get over it.  The beatings
> continue and she gets more and more depressed from the cumulative
> impact (and assume that she had no prior experience with depression
> in her family and knew nothing about studies of abused women).  After
> 5 years, she seeks an annulment from the bet din.

How do we measure the cumulative effect? Is it total smacks to date? Average
smacks per week? Total number of times sunglasses had to be worn on a cloudy
day? Total number of times she had to endure her friends referring to her as
"you poor thing"? If the breaking point varies from woman to woman, don't we
get into d'varim sh'b'lev issues(e.g. most women would take a total of no
more than 3 trips to the emergency room, but your wife might be willing to
go up to 6. If she wants to annul at trip 5 is it too late?).

> 
> > 
> > (By the way, assuming the husband's net worth doesn't change over
> > the five
> > years, each smack is worth approximately $3,800. 
> 
> If she were to get divorced after 5 years she would get just 200 zuz
> (plus tosefet ketubah).  To get the full million, she would have to
> stay married her entire life.  So take 2 slaps times 52 weeks times
> the actuarial estimate of the husband's lifetime (if she dies first,
> she gets nothing other than a fancy funeral) and divide $1 million by
> the total.

I was thinking more along the lines of her getting a civil divorce and
taking her husband for everything he's worth.

Avi Pechman

<<
It's one thing to accept that the Beit Din shel Ma'alah cannot compel the 
Beit Din shel Matah to accept the opinion of the Beit Din shel Ma'alah.  See 
BM 59.  I must say, however, that I find it a bit strange to say that the 
Beit Din shel Matah can compel the Beit Din shel Ma'alah to accept the 
opinion of the Beit Din shel Matah. 
>>

But the case you quote is exactly BD shel Mata compelling BD shel Ma'ala.  
After all, HaShem has to punish those who do not follow our BD's p'sakim.  Is 
that not compelling Heaven to follow our decisions?

EDT

R' ED Teitz <EDTeitz@aol.com> writes:
: For a condition to even enter into the realm of ta'us it has to be something
: that is not tolerable by anyone. ...               But it must be a situation
: where if you asked a person to rationally consider entering into it, they
: would say no.  And yet, men accused of abuse get remarried, with their new
: partner knowing the situation.  This argues against using abuse as a blanket
: reason for ta'us.

Actually, one could ask if the second wife is behaving rationally. Also, does
"tav limeisiv" talk about the criterion for choosing a mate, or for staying with
one?

Aside from that, the question is whether "tav limeisiv" is a rov, in which case
if we could show it's untrue of 50+% of women we might argue it's b'ta'us, or if
it's a chazakah (i.e. a chazakah disvarah). I thought the point of Rav YB
Solovethik's statement that tl"m is an unchangable fact of human nature was that
the Rav was asserting the latter. On which case, it's a question of teva; teva
that the Rav also holds Chazal did /not/ get wrong.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

-- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R' ED Teitz <EDTeitz@aol.com> writes:
> : For a condition to even enter into the realm of ta'us it has to
> be something
> : that is not tolerable by anyone. ...               But it must be
> a situation
> : where if you asked a person to rationally consider entering into
> it, they
> : would say no.  And yet, men accused of abuse get remarried, with
> their new
> : partner knowing the situation.  This argues against using abuse
> as a blanket
> : reason for ta'us.
> 
> Actually, one could ask if the second wife is behaving rationally.

In fact, it is my impression that people who have studied battered
women's syndrome conclude that most women at the outset of an abusive
relationship do not truly understand what they have gotten themselves
into and do not comprehend the enormity of the psychological damage
which they will endure.  Also, most people are not psychologically
aware (for that matter, most Americans do not know the identity of
the Secretary of State---is it still George Shultz?).

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

It may be that the discussion about the Mishnah B'rurah is getting bogged down in semantic issues about p'sak, mussar and other terminology.  Can we perhaps agree that the Mishnah B'rurah was more concerned than were earlier outwardly halakhic works with exhortation towards what we would now call spiritual growth and that the method that the Mishnah B'rurah emphasized for achieving this growth was to accept the most stringent halakhic opinon ("u-va'al nefesh yahmir")?  If this is so, is there a relation between the increasing acceptance of the Mishnah B'rurah as the posek aharon as it is sometimes called and a general tendency toward humrah in p'sak?  And if this is so, i.e., the Hafetz Haim had a hashkafic predisposition to be mahmir, then what is the appropriate response towards the psakim of the Mishnah B'rurah and the Hafetz Haim by those who do not share that hashkafic predisposition?

Finally, on a somewhat different but related topic, how do those who are hashkaphically predisposed to be mahmir interpret the principle koah d'heteira adif?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

>>...
2) Excuse me, but is it arrogant to believe that the picture of the solar system
described by modern science is closer to the truth than the one (or ones) 
offered by Hazal?  I am willing to accept that science is no more infallible 
than Hazal, but if, considered on the merits, a factual assertion made by 
science appears to almost all reasonably intelligent beings to be more reliable,
plausible, sensible than a contrary factual assertion made by Hazal (and 
especially where there is evidence of internal disagreement among Hazal - how 
pray tell is that possible?), I see not even a trace of arrogance in accepting 
(provisionally, of course) the current weight of the factual evidence.  Ein 
l'dayan ela ma she'einav ro'ot.  A presumption (hazakah) is only a presumption, 
not an absolute conviction that can withstand any amount of contrary evidence.  
I don't want to sound too outraged, but can't we please stop using arguments 
like "well isn't that what the reformers said"?  If Orthodoxy!
!
!
 obligates one to be stupid, is it any wonder that there will be those who are 
disinclined to discharge that obligation?  There have been y'raim u-sh'lamim who
did not think that such an obligation, in fact, exists.  I cast my lot with 
them.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov<<

Is it equally "stupid" to hold onto the 51 year versin of the Persian era?
Rich wolpoe

RYGB:>>
Mussar works are not about "proper hanhogo and Yiras Shomayim". They are
about character improvement.<<

Zehirus, zerizus, (see Messila Yeshorim). are strictly character imporvements 
and do not crossinot hanhogo?

Please elaborate the distcintion betwen a "baal nefesh" and a "yerei shomayim" 
becaus it's not clear to me.

Rich Wolpoe

> 
> 
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: L"H (and Newspapers?)
> 
> - --- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > > >[Zvi:]  All that we are really saying is that one has to ask a
> Rov
> > whether
> > > > a
> > > > matter is a case of to'eles rather than try to rationalize for
> > > > one's self
> > > > that communication with a spouse is *automatically* to be
> > > > considered
> > > > to'eles....
> > > 
> > >[Moshe:] I seem to recall quoting various rabbanim I asked this
> very
> > question.
> > 
> > ===> Then I misunderstood your quote.  I thought that the poskim
> > that you
> > had asked had determined that there was to'eles *in specific cases*
> > and
> > not as an "automatic" matter.  Please clarify.
> > 
> >
> I asked poskim specifically, in a situation where one has been yelled
> at or otherwise criticized by a boss, whether it is permissible to
> speak to one's wife in order to vent and come to psychological grips
> with the situation and thereby put one's mind more at ease.  The
> comparison I made was to what people often do when they see a
> psychologist about a particular interpersonal problem.  Those who are
> matir (R. Dovid Weinberger -- advisor to CCHF, and Rav Aharon
> Lichtenstein --quoted to me by Yossi Prager) believe that the
> psychological benefits constitute to'elet.
> 
> I separate said that (Yossi Prager in the name of) R. Aharon
> Lichteinstein said he is unsure whether it may permissible to
> communicate all information to one's wife, based on the concept of
> ishto k'gufo, presumably with the proviso that one is not making the
> communication with the specific goal of spreading negative
> information (cf. Rambam Hilchot De'ot 7:5, dealing with LH which was
> already said b'apei tlat).


There is a bigger question is there any toelet in venting.  Shortly after 
the Columbine shooting I attended a lecture by R. Leibl Wolff.   He spoke 
quite a bit that the American/Western viewpoing of  venting and not 
holding something in is a disirable thing.  He felt that on the contrary, 
venting just increased the anger and caused more harm then good.

Harry

> 
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:58:47 -0400 
> From: "Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com>
> Subject: RE: kidushey ta'us
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe_feldman@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 12:45 PM
> > To: avodah@aishdas.org
> > Subject: Re: kidushey ta'us
> > 
> > People are often unaware of their psychological limitations.  If I
> > tell a woman that her husband to be is a mulit-millionaire, a lamdan,
> > etc. and his only fault is that he smacked his former wife twice a
> > week, the woman may say, "for $1000 a smack--it's a good deal."  But
> > when she lives with the man for 5 years and gets utterly depressed,
> > withdrawn from life, etc. because her husband, through his repeated
> > slaps, has made her feel like a nothing, she will say, "had I known
> > of the cumulative impact of 2 slaps a week for 5 years, I would not
> > have married him."  This is the stuff that hatarat nedarim is built
> > on.  Why not apply the concept to kiddushei ta'ut?
> 
> I think Rav Schachter of RIETS once quoted Rav Soloveitchick that since
> kiddushin involves a formal maase kinyan and nedarim do not, it's easier
> (simpler?) to undo nedarim than kiddushin. A pesach for hataras nedarim
> wouldn't automatically be strong enough to create a kiddushei ta'us. Indeed,
> in your situation, it's savra v'kibla, unknown cumulative effects
> notwithstanding.
> 
> (By the way, assuming the husband's net worth doesn't change over the five
> years, each smack is worth approximately $3,800. Do professional boxers (not
> heavyweight contenders) make that much?)
> 
> Avi Pechman 

I think R.Teitz' comment and your quote of Rav Solevitchik is very 
relavent.  We can be matir a neder on something that happens unexpected 
in the future.  This can create a pesach.   

To be mafkia a kiddushin or any kinyan it has to be invalid Lechatchila.  
It has to be proven that the problem existed from the beginning and had 
it been known the kinyan would not have taken place.  If one could call a 
changed circumstance kiddushei taus, why would there ever be a need for a 
get.  If a person, lo aleinu, loses a limb or devlops cancer is that a 
kiddushei taus.

Unless the problem could be shown as a problem that was there in the 
beginning and unkown, I don't see how there could be any kiddushey taus.

Rather than focusing on that very weak method, we need to focus much more 
on how to insure that sanctions against Mesarvei gittin are strong enough 
and enforced throughout the community.  This should include devlopment of 
secondary sanctions against the communities that  do not cooperate.

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> It may be that the discussion about the Mishnah B'rurah is getting
> bogged down in semantic issues about p'sak, mussar and other
> terminology.  Can we perhaps agree that the Mishnah B'rurah was more
> concerned than were earlier outwardly halakhic works with exhortation
> towards what we would now call spiritual growth and that the method that

No, can you prove that?

> the Mishnah B'rurah emphasized for achieving this growth was to accept
> the most stringent halakhic opinon ("u-va'al nefesh yahmir")?  If this

No, the MB uses BNY in all about two dozen times throughout the entire
work. That does not constitue an overriding philosophy.

> is so, is there a relation between the increasing acceptance of the
> Mishnah B'rurah as the posek aharon as it is sometimes called and a
> general tendency toward humrah in p'sak?  And if this is so, i.e., the
> Hafetz Haim had a hashkafic predisposition to be mahmir, then what is
> the appropriate response towards the psakim of the Mishnah B'rurah and
> the Hafetz Haim by those who do not share that hashkafic predisposition?
> 

The appropriate response is to accept the CC regardless, unless some great
Posek takes issue with him :-).

> Finally, on a somewhat different but related topic, how do those who are
> hashkaphically predisposed to be mahmir interpret the principle koah
> d'heteira adif?
>

While I am not predisposed to be machmir, the quote is out of context. It
is specific to the preferred style of editing a Mishna, not an Hashkafic
viewpoint. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Zehirus, zerizus, (see Messila Yeshorim). are strictly character
> imporvements and do not crossinot hanhogo? 
> 

Absolutely. It happems that the character traits are manifest in behavior.

> Please elaborate the distcintion betwen a "baal nefesh" and a "yerei
> shomayim" becaus it's not clear to me. 
> 

As used by the MB, Ba'al Nefesh is an halachic term that pertains
specifically to one who would like to fulfill an halachic position that is
more solidly based, albeit more machmir, and feels he is able to curtail
his lifestyle in that pursuit. A YS is someone who does everything out of
Awe of Heaven, and may well feel that some lifestyle "indulgence" - such
as using an eruv - will add to his awe of Heaven, not detract therefrom.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

-- Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com> wrote:
> > From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> > I asked poskim specifically, in a situation where one has been
> yelled
> > at or otherwise criticized by a boss, whether it is permissible
> to
> > speak to one's wife in order to vent and come to psychological
> grips
> > with the situation and thereby put one's mind more at ease.  The
> > comparison I made was to what people often do when they see a
> > psychologist about a particular interpersonal problem.  Those who
> are
> > matir (R. Dovid Weinberger -- advisor to CCHF, and Rav Aharon
> > Lichtenstein --quoted to me by Yossi Prager) believe that the
> > psychological benefits constitute to'elet.
> > 
> > I separate said that (Yossi Prager in the name of) R. Aharon
> > Lichteinstein said he is unsure whether it may permissible to
> > communicate all information to one's wife, based on the concept
> of
> > ishto k'gufo, presumably with the proviso that one is not making
> the
> > communication with the specific goal of spreading negative
> > information (cf. Rambam Hilchot De'ot 7:5, dealing with LH which
> was
> > already said b'apei tlat).
> 
> 
> There is a bigger question is there any toelet in venting.  Shortly
> after 
> the Columbine shooting I attended a lecture by R. Leibl Wolff.   He
> spoke 
> quite a bit that the American/Western viewpoing of  venting and not
> 
> holding something in is a disirable thing.  He felt that on the
> contrary, 
> venting just increased the anger and caused more harm then good.
>

I would not emphasize the "venting" aspect as much as the benefit of 
understanding what happened and coming to psychological grips with
it.  

R. Wolff is entitled to his opinion and psychologists are entitled to
theirs.  I would think that in order to prove "to'elet" one need not
prove the efficacy of a treatment but merely that one truly believes
it be beneficial.  Compare to chilul Shabbat for a medical procedure:
I don't have to prove that the entire medical community is in favor
of a certain treatment but that the doctor at hand believes it to be
efficacious.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>>But yiras YS is an essential preconsdition for prowess and
acceptance as a Posek.

YGB<<

Granted. And voice lessons might be pre-condition for a good singing voice but I
would not wnat my chazan to perform vocal excercises while davening!

Rich Wolpoe 

>>Skeptical of chazal? Not in the slightest.  I think this goes back to an old 
issue of whether chazal received a "mesora" of all "scientific" fact. How 
could tosfot ever answer nishtaneh hateva under your scenario? I agree with 
your comments on digging - we may differ on what we have the right to dig on 
(but I love you anyway:-)

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich<<

Maase shhoyo.

I had touble with tekios several years ago.  A friend (the same one who 
concurred thattheMB was a mussar sefer <smile>) told me to clean the shofar out 
with vinegar. Based upon my facial experessoin of skpeticism he challenged my 
emunas chachchomim so I went and soaked the shofar. Voila!  The Tekias were 
vastly improved (no I did not soak it on YT).

On a simlar vein, I would recommend the haftoro of Sazria were Naaman taane'd 
that the rivers of Damosek etc. were superior to those of the Yarden so why 
should he listen to Elisha (hypothesis, a Nvoi can err wrt metzuis) and use the 
Yarden?  (IOW naaman is catogrized as arrogant) When he humbly listened to 
hiservants, who in turn recommnede listening to the Nove, presto, metzoraas 
gone!    

Pray tell you scintists out there, what chemical was found in the Yarden that 
was missing in the other rivers?

Rich Wolpoe

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" > 
> > Finally, on a somewhat different but related topic, how do those
> who are
> > hashkaphically predisposed to be mahmir interpret the principle
> koah
> > d'heteira adif?
> >
> 
> While I am not predisposed to be machmir, the quote is out of
> context. It
> is specific to the preferred style of editing a Mishna, not an
> Hashkafic
> viewpoint. 
>

Are you suggesting that there is no concept of "ko'ach d'heteira
adif?"  Funny, the director of the Beth Din of America recently used
the concept in a halachic conversation with me.  Am I missing
something?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I wrote a paper on this issue 11 years ago (for Dr. Hyman) dealing
with the opinions of R. Elchan Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim, the
Chazon Ish's response, and the opinion of Prof. Shlomo Yosef Havlin. 
Personally, I thought Havlin's position made the most sense--he
viewed this as a sociological issue rather than a halachic one.  In
his opinion there is no reason not to argue on the gemara, just that
klal yisrael, as generations passed, felt that the Talmud was
binding (even though this feeling has no halachic status). ..
Kol tuv,
Moshe<<

Distinction:
One may argue on somebody w/o claiming that the other person erred.

A given Gemor may be supercede lhalcoho, especially in the case where a sepcific
mesora tells us so.  That does not necessarily imply an error on the Gemor's 
part.  

When I follow the Remo over the Mechaber, it's not because I consider the Remo 
superior, nor because I assume the BY to be in error, it is a matter of 
following Ashkenazi practice over Sefardi practice. (And I would expect a 
Sefardi to favor the BY over the Remo fro the same reason!)

Rich Wolpoe

R' YGB writes:
: As used by the MB, Ba'al Nefesh is an halachic term ...

I'm not sure what you mean by "halachic term". Are there any halachos that
are different in how I treat a B"N?

:                                                      ... pertains
: specifically to one who would like to fulfill an halachic position that is
: more solidly based, albeit more machmir, and feels he is able to curtail
: his lifestyle in that pursuit.

I would deduce from the use of the word "nefesh" that a B"N curtails his
/gashmiyus/ in particular. The nefesh is the guf-oriented aspect of the soul,
where all the ta'avos we share with animals reside. At least, according to
the Maharal and Gra. The Ramchal and R' Chaim Vilozhiner appear to use a
different definition. From what I've seen of sifrei mussar (e.g. the
introduction to Cheshbon ha*Nefesh*) the nefesh is very much an animal, to
be trained the way a rider would train an elephant. So, I'd assume the CC
sides with this definition.

:                                A YS is someone who does everything out of
: Awe of Heaven, and may well feel that some lifestyle "indulgence" - such
: as using an eruv - will add to his awe of Heaven, not detract therefrom.

Are you saying that a B"N is interested in sur meira and a Y"S is working on
asei tov?

I'd say something similar, but that a Y"S is trying to become a ba'al neshamah
-- trying to gain mastery of that part of himself that is permanently connected
to shamayim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

 
> Are you suggesting that there is no concept of "ko'ach d'heteira adif?" 
> Funny, the director of the Beth Din of America recently used the concept
> in a halachic conversation with me.  Am I missing something? 
>

I think that is what I suggested :-).

There are other adages that pertain to specific situations, such as
"halacha k'divrei ha'meikel b'eruvin" or "safek d'rabbanan l'kulla" - but
"ko'ach d'heteira adif" is here used out of context (as any Daf Yomi-ite
will recall from a recent Gemoro Reish Beityza). 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Chachamim hizaharu b'divreichem!  

I appreciate the open nature of the discussion re: abuse and kiddushei ta-ut. 
 It is necessary if the issues are to be aired properly and understood.  But 
the flip nature of some of the language and the monetary accounting of 
"slaps" and punches is disconcerting, to say the least.  I've had the 
unfortunate "honor" in my rabbinate of working with abused women, as well as 
writing and speaking on the topic.  It is not pretty!  And there is a mi-ut 
ha-nikkar even in our circles (across the Orthodox spectrum) in which abuse 
is found.  The denial of the problem, by rabbanim and baalei battim alike, is 
a serious issue-- and has dangerous consequences for the safety of women and 
children.  Likewise, lack of understanding, sensitivity and compassion is 
rampant.  Let's continue the discussion, but with greater discretion and 
respect.  Who knows who else reads these posts and what opinions they may 
form of this group of lamdanim?  Who knows what effect our loose language may 
have on our sensitivities and perspectives?

Sorry for the mussar.  I feel that the high level of discussion of this 
group-- intellectually and morally-- needs to be maintained.

Mark Dratch

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by "halachic term". Are there any halachos
> that are different in how I treat a B"N? 
> 

No. What I mean is that, while I agree with the thoughts you present below
on the matter, i think you have over machshovo-ized the term, i.e., the
Poskim did not necessarily mean to stress "Nefesh" over "Neshomo"
(although I seem to recall that on the term as used in the Gemoro R' Chaim
Volozhiner makes a similar observation to yours), and that it is not a
value judgment of character and piety - as is the term YS.

> I would deduce from the use of the word "nefesh" that a B"N curtails his
> /gashmiyus/ in particular. The nefesh is the guf-oriented aspect of the
> soul, where all the ta'avos we share with animals reside. At least,
> according to the Maharal and Gra. The Ramchal and R' Chaim Vilozhiner
> appear to use a different definition. From what I've seen of sifrei
> mussar (e.g. the introduction to Cheshbon ha*Nefesh*) the nefesh is very
> much an animal, to be trained the way a rider would train an elephant.
> So, I'd assume the CC sides with this definition. 
> 
> Are you saying that a B"N is interested in sur meira and a Y"S is
> working on asei tov? 
> 

No. because the terms are not exclusionary. A BN may be a YS, or not, and
vice versa.

> I'd say something similar, but that a Y"S is trying to become a ba'al
> neshamah -- trying to gain mastery of that part of himself that is
> permanently connected to shamayim. 
> 

I like it!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

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


[ 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         ]