Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 119

Monday, November 8 1999

• Re: Organ donation
• Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, Now Chassidim, and Now RAYHK
• Re: Historiography, repost
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid
• Re: Rambam and asceticism chassidus subthread
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid
• Re: Rambam and asceticism chassidus subthread
• Re[2]: Rambam and asceticism
• Brain Death
• Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, now Torah uMadda
• Re: Shabbos Guests
• Re: Avodah V4 #114
• Re[2]: Request not to Crack Jokes about G-d
• Brain Death
• Re: cholam=choilem=cheilem=chaulem=melo-foom
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid
• Re: Rav Moshe

> >Brain death: until September 1998, doctors were all so complacent
> about
> >accepting a flat EEG trace as indicating brain death and *death*
> in general.
> >Then cama a startling paper in one of the neurology journals that
> stunned
> >the medical community: people being in a coma on a respirator for
> more
> >than a year suddenly waking up. This tremendously complicates the
> >situation for heart transplants.

How does this impact R. Moshe Tendler's position re brain *stem*
death?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

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

----- Original Message -----
From: harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, Now Chassidim, and Now RAYHK


> There is a distinct chapter entitled:
> The Mystical Model: Abraham Isaac Hakoen Kook on the
> Sacred and the Profane.
>
> The other one is titled:
> The Hasidic Model: Mada as Worship.
>
> The Kookian model is based on the relationship of
> Torah (the sacred) and Mada (the profane) and the fact
> that  everything that is profane (not yet holy) is to
> be found in and sanctified through the Torah.  "The
> Kookian version of Torah Umadda is the very antithesis
> of secularism which recognizes the sacred only in it's
> insularity." Kodesh is so overpoweing it never gets
> the chance to be independant because of it's automatic
> encounter with Kodesh.
>
> The Chasidic model is entirely different as it does
> not take into account the mysticism of the Kookian
> model.  It is Avodah B'Gasshmiut. "serving G-d with
> and through our very corporeality, worshiping Him in
> our material, physical situations."
>

Memory has, then failed me. What is the precedent for serving Hashem
"b'gashmiyus" independent of Ha'alo'as Nitzotzos, that is to be foumd in
Chassidus?

If I am to discern a distinction between RAYHK and the standard Chassidic
model, it is that RAYHK is concerned with "Kiddush *Ha*'Chomer" while
Chassidus is concerned with "Kiddush *Al Yedei* Chomer". But it seems, then,
that R' Lamm is proposing that "Chomer" is a valid form of Avodah without
"Kiddush".

> The idea expressed by RYGB in an earlier post about
> Nitzotzos not being universally available to man to be
> exploited is one that I do not understand.  He states
> that there are certain activities or items wich are
> beyond the perameters of permissiblity and hence
> cannot be accessed.  I can understand this point if it
> reffers to what is actually forbidden by the Torah. Mo
> one would accept that one can be Oveid Hashem by being
> mechallel Shabbos, no matter how sincere the act my be
> in one's devotion to Hashem.  But Divrei Reshus is
> another matter entirely. RYGB asserts that Chasidus
> defines Divrei Reshus as a more limited area, and can
> therefore "outlaw" more traditional reshus areas.  In
> this way Limudei chol is conveniatly eliminated as
> being exploitable for Nitzotzos.  Well this is just
> TOO convienient.
>

I do not think Chassidus would accept your critique. Just as Chassidus holds
one can be mechaddesh in darchei avodah b'kum va'aseh so too it holds one
can be mechaddesh b'shev v'al ta'aseh.

But, even if not, there is already, of course, ambivalence in Chazal and the
Rishonim towards Chochmo Yevonis. And, in Chassidus, it seems that the
mental process requires a special approach not necessarily congruent with
that employed with the other chushim. So, the parameters are neither
necessarily "made up", nor, on the other hand, need they, from the Chassidic
perspective, be consistent.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 5:11 PM
Subject: Historiography, repost


> So you dismiss this story specifically?  We weren't talking about the
> book as a whole.  I've heard the same  "clarification" made about Midrash.
> At least, about literal readings of Midrash, in line with Rambam's points
> about Midrash and literalism.
>

I still don't understand what you believe the story's moral might be. Does
it not mean that mashkeh can lead to higher levels of Avodah? If so, it it a
push specifically for the state of mind brought on by mashkeh, but not a
plug for any other form of pleasure, or the seeking thereof.

> And noting that you did not dismiss Schatz-Uffenheimer, I will note that
> she has perceived a pattern: that pleasure as a means of engendering joy
> was present from the beginning, and that it later changed to a means of
> elevating the sparks.  I don't think anyone was advocating hedonism,
>

I do not know who she is. To avoid any appearance of bias, let me assure you
that I regard her work as just as treif as R' Schochet's :-).

As above, I do not know what other pleasures were pushed beyond Mashkeh.
Herring?

> And other "Historians" (Mindel, Touger, Wein, etc.) were heavily biased
> in favor of Chassidim, or against secularism, or against Haskalah, or
> zionism, etc.  Reading history with a jaundiced eye is necessary, just
> as reading the newspapers, be they Yated or Jewish Week, with an eye
> toward their biases.
>

True. That is why one needs to go back to primary sources.

> Hirsch criticized Graetz for his distortion of history.  He did not
> dismiss him a priori as an associate of Frankel.
>

R' Hirsch probably did not care one whit what Graetz wrote about Chassidus.

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

Where do the other Ba'alei Tosafos "make fun" of RYH?

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: R Yehudah HeChasid


> Where is he quoted in the Tosfot?  Or Zarua and Rokeach are
> considered part of the German school, not ba'alei Hatosfot (even if
> OZ was taught by ba'alei Hatosfot).
> 
> Also, even if you wish to consider him one of the ba'alei hatosfot,
> why is difficult to believe that the other ba'alei hatosfot made fun
> of his talmidim?
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

It seems I was wrong about Schatz-Uffenheimer, as well.  I had noticed
the sections on elevating the sparks in Tzavaat haRivash, and wondered
what S-U had been saying, so I went back and looked at it.  

Apparently, while from the Besh"t onwards, avodah begashmiyut was meant
to elevate the sparks in physical objects and in human interactions,
the Besh"t intended it (and the full chassidic program) for everyone.
The shift in emphasis in the Maggid's thought and in the Baal haTanya
was to restrict this practice to the elites.

She brings the following from the Toldot Yaakov Yosef:

  I have heard from my teacher that the soul, having been hewn from its
  holy quarry, ought ever after to long for its place of origin; and lest
  its reality be extinguished as a result of its yearning, it has been
  surrounded with matter, so that it may also perform material acts such
  as eating, drinking, conduct of business, and the like, in order that
  it [the soul] may not be perpetually inflamed by the wroship of the Holy
  One bleset be He, through the principle of ther perfection (tiqqun) and
  maintenance of body and soul.  (R' Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, Toldot
  Ya'aqov Yosef (Jeruslame, 1966 [photo edition of Korets, 1780], Parashat
  Tazri'a, p. 83c)

I looked in the Toldot YY, I must have a different edition (the type looks
more like 1830s than like 1780s), under Tazria.  I didn't find her quote,
but I found something similar at the end of Tazria: 

  MITZVAH "and the garment which has a nega in it...and the kohen
  sees..." as I heard from my teacher regarding smallness and greatness
  which exists in the supernal Sefirot above, so it is below in all
  things they are in garments etc., and this is where the tailoring of
  the garment is sometimes wrong so that it is too tight on the person,
  which is in the secret of smallness, etc., and the corrective action
  (taqanah) is that he should redeem it or give the old garment to the
  poor or that he should give the value of the garment to charity
  VDPKh"Kh (?).  And I say that it is also from the sparks of his soul
  which descended with the 288 sparks to raise them and all his food or
  garments or living at home and business are for the purpose of
  raising the sparks of himself and sometimes he loses some profit and
  has not yet made up for it, and sometimes in a pleasurable smell
  (reiach sheyesh hanaah v'taanug), through this one raises the sparks,
  as is known from the writings of the Ari zlh"h, see there:  And this
  is the secret of "Know Him in all His ways" to unify and raise the
  sparks of his soul which are the sparks of the Shechinah in the secret
  of M"N and to cause the supernal coupling in the secret of 'and Adam
  knew Eve' and this is the secret of 'KNOW (DA) the God of your fathers
  and serve Him and understand' and if so this is indeed the nega of
  garments from the blemishes of his sins and after he washed and sat
  in repentance and the priest saw him and purified him, and it is
  established for us.

Tzavaat haRivash says something similar in paragraph 2-3: "God wishes to
be served in all possible ways.  This means the following: Sometimes
one may walk and talk to others and be unable to study [Torah].
Nonetheless, you must attach yourself to God and effect yichudim
(unifications).  So also when you are on the road, thus unable to pray
and study as usual, you must serve [God] in other ways.  Do not be
disturbed by this.  For God wishes to be served in all possible ways,
sometiems in one manner and sometimes in another.  That is why it
happened that you had to go on a journey or talk to people, i.e., in
order that you serve Him in that alternate way."

However, the Tanya says almost the opposite, substantiating S-U's
idea, in Chapter 25:

  In the upper spheres, this union [i.e. between the soul and GOd] is
  eternal ... Here below, however, it is only while it is engaged in
  Torah study or in the performance of a mizvah.  For if he engages
  afterwards in anything else, he becomes separated, here below, from
  this supernal union -- that is, if he occupies himself with entirely
  useless matters (devarim beteilim) that are in no way useful in the
  service of God -- nevertheless, when he repents and resumes his
  service of God through Torah study or prayer, and he asks forgiveness
  of God for not having studied Torah when he could have done so, God
  forgives him.[!]... For this reason, the Sages ordained that the
  blessing beginning "Forgive us..." for the sin of neglecting the study
  of the Torah, be recited 3 times daily, for no one avoids this sin even
  a single day.

Now we have turned away from TYY's "bechol deracheha daehu" to "unification
and spark-raising is only possible when engaged in learning or a mitzvah;
talking to people or traveling is devarim beteilim"

So, rather than my initial thought, that S-U said that the spark-raising 
idea was a later justification for AbG, spark-raising was present from
the beginning.  OTOH, what she does say is that AbG as a positive good
for everyone was the original idea, but that it was withdrawn by the Baal
haTanya (among others of his generation).

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Where do the other Ba'alei Tosafos "make fun" of RYH?

Look in Dr. S's article (I read it some time ago and may be quoting
it incorrectly).  I do remember that there are parts of Sefer
Chasidim which tell the Chasid not to pay attention to all the people
making fun of him (the Chasid), and that Dr. S derived that the
Ba'alei Hatosfot disagreed with the Chasidim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

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

I do not have the essay, nor do I know where to get it.

Dr. S's derivation seems frivolous to me. "Al yeivosh mipnei ha'mal'igim
alav" is a standard phrase throughout our sources. Because RYH cites that
exhortation we assume *his fellow Ba'alei Ha'Tosafos" (yes, he is quoted in
Tos. run a CD search) mocked him?!

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: R Yehudah HeChasid


> --- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > Where do the other Ba'alei Tosafos "make fun" of RYH?
>
> Look in Dr. S's article (I read it some time ago and may be quoting
> it incorrectly).  I do remember that there are parts of Sefer
> Chasidim which tell the Chasid not to pay attention to all the people
> making fun of him (the Chasid), and that Dr. S derived that the
> Ba'alei Hatosfot disagreed with the Chasidim.
>
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
>
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>

Thank you for an informative post. I am somewhat confused, now, however, as
to whether we are still in disagreement over anything.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Rambam and asceticism chassidus subthread



> Now we have turned away from TYY's "bechol deracheha daehu" to
"unification
> and spark-raising is only possible when engaged in learning or a mitzvah;
> talking to people or traveling is devarim beteilim"
>
> So, rather than my initial thought, that S-U said that the spark-raising
> idea was a later justification for AbG, spark-raising was present from
> the beginning.  OTOH, what she does say is that AbG as a positive good
> for everyone was the original idea, but that it was withdrawn by the Baal
> haTanya (among others of his generation).
>
>

We did at Ner Yisrole's Mechina until "ugly" rumors circulated that Jastrow 
wasn't frum, and then we still used it anyway...

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


> Dind' many of us rely upon Jastrow for Peshat in gemoro?. 
> 

Not that I can ever remember, no.

> Rich Wolpoe

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

Josh wrote:
<<Brain death: until September 1998, doctors were all so complacent
about
accepting a flat EEG trace as indicating brain death and *death* in
general.>>

Brain death- in its clinically significant usage as being equivalent to
death- refers to the complete cessation of ALL brain functions,
including brainstem functions.  In all but the very young this can be
accomplished by clinical observation alone (e.g. no spontaneous
respiration in the presence of sufficient hypercarbia, absent
vestibulo-ocular reflexes, no pupillary or corneal reflexes, no
decerebrate or decorticate responses etc.).  The EEG reflects only
cortical brain function, NOT brainstem function.  It is neither
necessary nor sufficient for determination of brain death.  It may be
used optionally to confirm clinical findings.

<<Then cama a startling paper in one of the neurology journals that
stunned
the medical community: people being in a coma on a respirator for more
than a year suddenly waking up.>>

Do you have the reference for this paper?  I am unaware of any recent
major shake-ups in the brain death literature.  It has been known for
quite some time that people can "wake up" after prolonged coma.  If they
were not (properly) confirmed as brain dead then this is irrelevant.

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

Harry Maryles wrote about R' Lamm's adoption of a "Chassidic model" 
of Torah uMadda:

> The Chasidic model is entirely different as it does
> not take into account the mysticism of the Kookian
> model.  It is Avodah B'Gasshmiut. "serving G-d with
> and through our very corporeality, worshiping Him in
> our material, physical situations."

Now that I've brought all those quotes in the previous post,
we can fit the pieces together.  Torah uMadda fits the AbG
model in that we are commanded to raise the sparks in everything
we do, *including* secular studies.

> The idea expressed by RYGB in an earlier post about
> Nitzotzos not being universally available to man to be
> exploited is one that I do not understand.  He states
> that there are certain activities or items wich are
> beyond the perameters of permissiblity and hence
> cannot be accessed.  I can understand this point if it
> reffers to what is actually forbidden by the Torah. Mo
> one would accept that one can be Oveid Hashem by being
> mechallel Shabbos, no matter how sincere the act my be
> in one's devotion to Hashem.  But Divrei Reshus is
> another matter entirely. RYGB asserts that Chasidus

Note that "Chassidus says" is often taken, particularly by
those raised in Chabad traditions, to be synonymous with
"Chabad Chassidus says"...  I hope my quotes have shown
that the two are *not* necessarily synonymous.

> defines Divrei Reshus as a more limited area, and can
> therefore "outlaw" more traditional reshus areas.  In
> this way Limudei chol is conveniatly eliminated as
> being exploitable for Nitzotzos.  Well this is just
> TOO convienient.

Indeed.  But it reflects the Baal haTanya's pulling away from the
idea of AbG as something that applies to "bechol deracheha daehu",
and posits it instead as something that only applies to actual mitzvah
acts.  I agree, it is "too convenient", since it allows people to define
for themselves what is a davar reshus and what is a chovah.  By adopting
the "original" Chassidic model, R' Lamm sidesteps the question of what is 
inside or outside the pale, by defining *everything* (including sins? 
- not clear to me - that's where antinomianism can creep in) as "good
things": mitzvah acts which the Toldos Yaakov Yosef sees as coming
through the mitzvah of removing negaim.

     Chana Luntz wrote:
     
     <<I have known numbers of girls whom I can best describe as ghosts, 
     living in a holding position while waiting for that illusive shidduch. 
     And I know some who have done that for 10-15 years.  And this is 
     across the spectrum.  Yes the holding pattern kicks in later for MO, 
     because they are expected to go to college, so that they are not 
     really just "holding" until they finish college, while the holding may 
     start earlier for others, the pattern is the same.  On the other hand, 
     others use the time they never expected to have to do other things and 
     develop fuller lives than they would otherwise have had.  Of course, 
     the danger with the latter approach is that you may be making yourself 
     even less marriagable than you were before and the girl has to have 
     the self confidence to face and take that risk.>>
     
     Those who use the time to "develop fuller lives" frequently get used 
     to a single lifestyle to which the married lifestyle pales in 
     comparison.  I'm saying this about both single men and women.  They go 
     out to eat frequently, go on road trips, visit museums, and generally 
     try to fill their lives with interesting and sometimes educational 
     activities.  What else are they supposed to do?  Even with a man, most 
     men cannot sit in the beis medrash 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
     
     Once they get married, none of this is possible (at least after the 
     children start coming).  The former-singles frequently get depressed 
     and are unhappy with their new lives.  Think of all the fun they are 
     missing.  This inevitably leads to marital stress and/or poor 
     parenting - constantly dumping the children with relatives and/or 
     babysitters to go out and enjoy themselves (emphasis on constantly).  
     It also leads to poor avodas Hashem.
     
     None of this is conjecture.  I see it happening on a daily basis with 
     my friends and neighbors.  Of course I don't want singles to be 
     "ghosts" and lead sad and depressed lives.  But I also don't want them 
     to get used to a single lifestyle.  If I were single, I would much 
     rather marry a "ghost" than a someone with a "fuller life."

     Harry Maryles wrote:
     
     <<It occurs to me, however, that all those Mashgichim/Shadchanim who 
     advise budding Talmidei Chachamim about finding a wealthy Bal 
     Habyis/father in law should instead be advising them to be looking for 
     a Bas Talmid Chacham.>>
     
     If he doesn't already know this then he probably isn't a potential 
     gadol.  See pesachim 49a-b.

What about jokes about Tzelem Elokim?

Isn't making a joke about a Jew a toldo of making fun of Hashem as it is wrtten 
Bonim Atme Lashem?

Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Request not to Crack Jokes about G-d 



1) there is a general mitzvah to RESPECT GOD.
2) Any violation of this mitzvah would be an ISSUR ASAY
3) Although the SA does not give a LIST of what shouldn't be done clearly 
at the
very least anything you would not do before a King, or CEO or American 
President in Public
you shouldn't do before God (Note I am making the prohibition dependent 
on your assessment
of what you would not do).

About the above I am sure. About what is to follow I would have to say it 
is speculative (But
I still think it has legitimacy)

It seems to me that cracking Jokes about God is a Toladah of GIDUF in 
that it has the same form
but not the same intensity. I would argue that any TOLADAH of an issur 
mithah must be
rabinically prohibited (as a syag). But I do not have further proof

Russell

Question: May one rely on the chazaka that brain death is halahcially death and 
consider that the 1 in 1,000 exception constitues a mei'uta d'mei'uta?

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


Brain death: until September 1998, doctors were all so complacent about 
accepting a flat EEG trace as indicating brain death and *death* in general. 
Then cama a startling paper in one of the neurology journals that stunned 
the medical community: people being in a coma on a respirator for more
than a year suddenly waking up. This tremendously complicates the 
situation for heart transplants.

Josh

Given it's  say 150 years ago I moved from Vilna to Frankfurt. 
I used to say cheilem in Lita.
Question: would I be expeted to change my minhog to chasulom to be congreutn 
with the locals?

Rich Wolpoe

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I do not have the essay, nor do I know where to get it.

I would assume that a good academic library would have it:
Haym Soloveitchik
Three Themes in the Sefer Chasidim
AJS Review v1 1976

> 
> Dr. S's derivation seems frivolous to me. "Al yeivosh mipnei
> ha'mal'igim
> alav" is a standard phrase throughout our sources. 

True, and Dr. S knows that too.  There was more evidence than that.

When I first cited the article I asked anyone who has read the
article more recently to flesh out my brief description.  It's not
fair to attack Dr. S based upon my musty recollection of his writing.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

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

Indeed this is quite an extrapolation!

R. Moshe might have gently and kindly made a suggestion and.the woman might 
STILL have fainted.

One possible reason:  her reverence for R. Moshe might have been so great that 
she saw his suggestion as tantamount a command.

In that sense the lack of social skills might have been R. Moshe's Anaovo in 
that he did not see his words as imposing as she might have heard them.

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rav Moshe 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/8/1999 9:04 AM


> > From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com	>

<<ANSWER
========
I thought that obviuos Gershon...R Moshe Lacked Social skills...you 
don't tell a 6 week Callah that wants a divorce to "try it a little 
more"--
the poor woman fainted....obviously the situation was not handled 
correclty>>
	The fault,  dear Brutus...

Gershon

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


[ 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         ]