Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 045

Wednesday, May 17 2000

• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: Eisav and Yaakov
• Re: Nashim *memaharot" lamut
• Esav Sone l'Yaakov
• Calendar controversy article
• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: Hacarat hatov
• Re: What constitutes a zibbur
• Re: What constitutes a zibbur
• Re: Sources on each word divine
• Re: Bach, Beethoven and the Halachic Man

RJJ Baker wrote:

>>What *is* hacarat hatov? 
>>Having a Hebrew term for it suggests a religious origin.
     
>>What are its sources and parameters? 
     
>>Who says we should recognize the good that others do, particularly those other
>>with whom we disagree on other things? 
     
>>Who discusses this?  Where?
     
R. Chaim Shmulevitz in his Sichos Mussar has a sichah on this and he brings many
mekoros from Chazal that there is an obligation of hakaros hatov and that it is 
an overarching (meta-halachic?) obligation which is manifested in various 
halachos.  I believe the sichah is in Shemos about Moshe not doing the first 
three makos because of hakaros hatov.

The Chovos HaLevavos (2:pesichah) assumes there is a natural obligation of 
hakaros hatov and uses that as a basis for doing all mitzvos, out of hakaras 
hatov to Hashem.  R. Sa'adia Gaon uses the idea similarly in Emunos VeDeyos 3:1.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On 16 May 2000, at 10:49, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> RJJ Baker wrote:
> 
> >>What *is* hacarat hatov? 
> >>Having a Hebrew term for it suggests a religious origin.
>      
> >>What are its sources and parameters? 
>      
> >>Who says we should recognize the good that others do, particularly those other
> >>with whom we disagree on other things? 
>      
> >>Who discusses this?  Where?
>      
> R. Chaim Shmulevitz in his Sichos Mussar has a sichah on this and he brings many
> mekoros from Chazal that there is an obligation of hakaros hatov and that it is 
> an overarching (meta-halachic?) obligation which is manifested in various 
> halachos.  I believe the sichah is in Shemos about Moshe not doing the first 
> three makos because of hakaros hatov.

Even before Moshe Rabbeinu, you could look at Leah ("HaPaam 
odeh es Hashem" when she named Yehuda), Avraham (when he 
insisted that Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei get their portions after the 
war of the kings - maybe the first recorded instance in which a 
human gave thanks to another human), Noach (korbanos after the 
mabul) and Hevel (korbanos - implicitly at least a korban toda?).

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

In a message dated 5/16/00 1:29:02 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< My point was that once we accept RYBS's answer about the permanence
 of "tav limeisav" we have ruled out the possibility of correlation
 between any such rule and experimental data. (See avodah v4n349
 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n349.shtml#12>.)
 
 IOW, it might be that the greatest such misapplication is to take it as a
 statement of behavior and psychology altogether. >>

You guys have to help me out here.

I don't see anything existential or psychological about Esau's hatred for 
Jacob, or the stain on Esau's soul. Both concepts are metaphorical. These 
concepts either relate concretely to the very concrete story of Esau, which 
is rich enough to stand on its own, or they stand for something broader -- 
and the broader the metaphor gets, the less Scriptural it becomes. At some 
point the metaphor loses coherency altogether. I think we've reached that 
point in our discussions about the inherent evils of non-Jews, particularly 
those, like Cardinals O'Connor and Bernardin, who committed the especially 
evil act of reaching out to the Jewish community in what they thought was a 
positive manner.

Ultimately Esau lost out on his spiritual inheritance, for reasons that were 
not entirely his fault. It's one thing to identify Esau with the Edomites, 
and to identify the Edomites with the Romans, and ultimately the Romans with 
the Roman Catholics. It's another to hate Esau or to treat his feelings for 
Jacob (and vice versa) as a justification for all the self-destructive 
ill-will far some Jews hold for other people. That's more than nonsense. It's 
heresy. Esau was G-d's child. Esau's descendants are also G-d's children.

As I said, help me out here. What am I saying that is wrong?

David Finch 

It certainly is in the Y-mi, as I remember teaching it recently, which means
it is in Yevamos, Kesuvos, Sotah or Nedarim. If I can recall more, I will
let you know!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Nashim *memaharot" lamut


> See also the lashon of the Tosafot haRosh (Ketuvot 52a): "she'rov
> nashim yesh lahen levura she'memaharot lamut yoter min ha'ish".
> It's also in the Shitta Mikubetzet there as well. The Rambam
> (Peyrush hamishnayot Niddah 5:6 d"h bat achat esrei shana, uses
> the lashon: "ush
> "ushnei hanekeiva l'onat nedarim pachot mi'shnei hazachar lihyot
> chayeihen ketzarim mi'chayei ha'ish barov".
>
> But Joel is right: I also didn't find it anywhere in the Yerushalmi !
>
> Josh
>

> Shinnar, Meir wrote:     Subject: Esav Sone l'Yaakov
>
> This is from an article published by the gaon Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin
>
> And here I should repeat the the words of our rabbis: The Meiri...and it
> is forbidden for us to talk negatively (lesaper bignutam) in general, ...And it is
> an evil mistake (ta'ut ra) in those who rely on the language of Hazal
> "halacha she'esav sone leya'akov" to say so about everyone, because this was
> said about Esav himself ...And the essence
> of this statement of hazal comes to teach that even Esav himself, when they
> treated him with submission, his hatred subsided...
> Those who speak evil about all the nations or an invididual nation
> do a great evil, ... that they are in.....
> the category of the partner of "amalek" and his helpers, and about them it
> is said that they are "spillers of the blood of Yisrael (shofche damim
> miyisrael), that they help those who actively spill blookd, and this is a
> sign that they have no real love of yisrael,and this did not happen in our
> midst when Yisrael walked in the path of Torah, that their true love of
> their nation overcame the feelings of anger and jealousy even to forgive
> (levater) the greatest haters, and through this the evil was abated.
>
 I wonder if Rav Henkin wrote this before or after the Holocaust?

SBA

In a previous post, I observed that the actual sighting of the new
crescent moon usually coincided with our calendrical calculation of the
first day of the lunar month despite the fact that those calculations
are based on a mean molad rather than an astronomical calculation.  Carl
was struck by the fact that molad Nissan of 5760 was on tues. morning,
whereas Rosh Chodesh was thurs.  Carl's recollection is correct.  Molad
Nissan according to my Luach was tues. morn. (8:52:53), whereas the
start of the month was some34 hours later.  This is not unusual.  6 of
the last 17 months that I looked at had about that time difference and 5
had delays of over 40 hours to Rosh Chodesh.  Moreover, a similar
situation exists for the difference between the astronomical molad and
actual sightings of the new moon.  It must be kept in mind that the new
crescent will not seen for some 20 hours after the astronomical
conjunction under favorable viewing conditions.  In some months even
that time difference is insufficient at Israel's longitude, and the new
moon will first be seen the next evening. However, sightings of the new
moon (roughly extrapolated to Israel's latitude) seem to generally agree
with the calculated new moon or precede it by a day.  In some cases, the
new moon in Israel may possibly come a day after.  It would be of
interest to see actual observations of the new moon in Israel in order
to compare them with our calendar dates for Rosh Chodesh.

Carl asked, 'How close does a (calculated) molad have to be to Rosh
Chodesh'?  I gather that he is puzzled by the fact that a given Rosh
Chodesh can come out a day and a half after the molad following a 29 day
month, and even later after a 30 day month (2 days Rosh Chodesh).  This
is more of a delay than is obtained for Rosh Hashanna following a molad
zaken and one of the excluded days (sun, wedn, and fri) - which is some
30 hours or less.  Good question!  I have no immediate answer.  Anyone
out there with a detailed knowledge of the Luach calculations?

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: R. Chaim Shmulevitz in his Sichos Mussar ... he brings many mekoros from
: Chazal that there is an obligation of hakaros hatov and that it is an
: overarching (meta-halachic?) obligation which is manifested in various 
: halachos.

"Da'as Torah", written by R' Yerucham Levovitz, the mashgiach of Mir, makes
the concept of hakaras hatov an ikkar of yahadus. Which is why things turned
out so that we are called by Yehudah's name (hapa'am odeh es Hashem).

On the haggadah, on "meshubadim hayinu liPar'oh biMitzrayim", he comments
that we wouldn't still be enslaved to Par'oh. Subject to normal forces,
Mitzrayim would have collapsed eventually, or we would have assimilated away,
or perhaps even liberalism would have emerged in Mitzrayim. However, he notes
that the word is "mishubadim", in the shuf'al, (a construction borrowed from
Aramaic) doesn't mean enslaved, but indebted.

Therefore, the haggadah does not say "we would still be enslaved", but rather
"we would be indebted to Par'oh". Instead of having hakaras hatov to HKBH.

To compare with RYBS, R' Yeruchem sees Yahadus based on Yehudah-ness,
thankfullness, from which emerges the covenant that RYBS considers fundamental.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 5/17/00 7:11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 To compare with RYBS, R' Yeruchem sees Yahadus based on Yehudah-ness,
 thankfullness, from which emerges the covenant that RYBS considers 
fundamental.
  >>
I believe that RYBS posed the following question - if all tov comes from 
HKBH, why do we thank the "messenger" rather than just HKB"H directly? 
Answer- if we don't train ourselves to say thanks to the messenger we'll not 
say thanks to HKBH. 

Thus hakarat hatov seems a basic element of our avodat hashem.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

RYGB wrote

>True. times have changed.

>The tzibbur is defined today as the collection of followers of sets of
>minhagim. There is no other definition that can fit today.

>This is a return to the definition of tzibbur that was used to define such
>things as whether nispashta takkana, etc.

While in relationship to minhagim we have adopted a more limited definition
of zibbur, the fact that a distinguished rav like RYGB believes that the
meaning of a zibbur, with all its halachic connotations and meaning of
community, is exhausted by whether or not one says veyatzmach purkane is
truly frightening. Halacha should, and does, have more to say about the
meaning of a community and communal obligations, which has been  subsumed
under the notion of zibbur.  

When different minhagim started being accepted in the same city, initially
under the influence of gerush sefarad and then later, under the influence of
hassidut, there was a tremendous concern of lo titgodedu and prisha midarche
tzibbur.  It was accepted (grudgingly) that having separate minhagim did not
constitute prisha min hatzibbur, and that one could tolerate several
minhagim zibburim in a community.  However, the notion that this exhausted
the meaning of a zibbur, and because I daven differently than the rest of
the town means that I am not part of their zibbur I don't think would have
occured to anyone before this century.  Indeed, I believe RYGB may be first
in this radical formulation.  Are there any sources for this radical
formulation??  Or have I misunderstood the apparently clear statement that
"The tzibbur is defined today as the collection of followers of sets of
>minhagim. There is no other definition that can fit today."

 
Under what halachic category would RYGB categorize my obligations to those
Jews who are not part of my minhagic community?? Am I obligated to respond
to a zara which affects the entire community, but affects my minhagic
community less?

Meir Shinnar

When you use an ambiguous term like "Tzibbur", you are tempting fate. The
definition of tzibbur vis a vis minhagim is one thing, and I believe that it
is a real defintion, and that is whay Sefaradim can eat kitniyos on Pesach
and cannot eat our "Glatt", can marry multiple wives but cannot use most
eruvin, etc. This is the definition of an "Edah", as in "Eidot ha'Mizrach"
or "Eida Charedis".

You are using "Tzibbur" not as I was, as "Edah", but more as "Umma". There
is, of course, one Umma Ha'Yisraelis, for which every Edah must share
concerns. And, an immediate Tzoro to a fellow Jew or, certainly, the Umma
Kulla, would require all members thereof to jump to the nation's assistance.
But, in this case, you are arguing that the siren call is a manifestation of
minhag that transcends distinctions of Edah and becomes a matter of Umma.
You need ra'ayos.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Shinnar, Meir <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: What constitutes a zibbur


> Under what halachic category would RYGB categorize my obligations to those
> Jews who are not part of my minhagic community?? Am I obligated to respond
> to a zara which affects the entire community, but affects my minhagic
> community less?
>
> Meir Shinnar
>

Yesterday I quoted R JJ Baker and commented:
::                                      If you read the Rambam's Eighth
:: Principle in the original in perek Chelek, ...      Rather, he holds that
:: God transmitted to Moshe a series of precise images, descriptions of
:: which were written down by Moshe.
: 
: That would answer a question I asked a while ago, about the Maharal's first
: introduction to Gevuros Hashem. ...
: I had asked how this concept of chazon applied to Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah.

: How then does one explain derashos? Doesn't that require divine word choice?

A second question, does anyone know for sure whether the Maharal holds like
Rashi or the Rambam on this issue?

-mi

I'd like to share with the chevrah an article in "Points to Ponder" #35 from R'
Dr. Nathan T Lopes Cardozo of Machon Ohr Aharon (Cardozo School for Judaism)
in Amselveen, Holland. It reached me as part of Crosscurrents v2i3, edited
by Yitzchok Adlerstein.

In particular, his view of creativity is very much in harmony with RYBS's
Halachic Man.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Spinoza Meets Bach
Rabbi Dr. Nathan T. Lopes Cardozo

Arnold Toynbee, the great, though slightly anti-Semitic historian of this
century is quoted as saying that "history is the tragedy of what could
otherwise have been." When contemplating this comment, we wonder what would
have happened if Johann Sebastian Bach, (1685-1750), genius musician and
composer would have met Benedictus (Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677), world
renowned philosopher, a Jew by birth and foremost critic of Judaism.

It is our thesis that in a meeting between these two great minds Bach would
have staunchly defended the world of Halacha against Spinoza and that Spinoza
would have informed Bach that he did not appreciate his music as much as
he did Beethoven's. This may sound ludicrous. Bach after all was a most
devout Christian. He was a Lutheran, and it may be argued that Lutheranism
is further away from Judaism than any other Christian denomination. And what
has Spinoza in common with Beethoven who lived long after he did?

But before the reader puts this Thought to Ponder politely but surely in
the dustpan, we ask him or her to bear with us for a few more minutes.

Spinoza is well known for his rejection of Jewish Law. To him Judaism and
even more so Halacha is a kind of religious behaviorism, in which outward
action is idolized and inner devotion of secondary importance. Judaism,
according to Spinoza, is a well -- organized discipline, in which tradition
and careful observance have the upper hand. To obey and to follow all the
minutiae of the Law is the ultimate goal of the religious Jew. There is
"no place for lofty speculations nor philosophical reasoning." "I would be
surprised if I found (the prophets) teaching any new speculative doctrine,
which was not a commonplace to... gentile philosophers." He believed that for
Judaism "the rule of right living, the worship and the love for G-d was to
them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and grace of Deity."
(Tractatus Theologico Politicus III, XIII) Spinoza's main objection against
Jewish Law is its confinement of the human spirit and its intellectual
constraint. It does not allow for any novelty or intellectual creativity.
All that the rabbis did, as they developed biblical law, was to spin a web
so intertwined that it killed its very spirit and turned the religious Jew
into a robot. As such, the Jew became a slave of the law and the law became
a yoke. (It is not surprising that many gentile philosophers echoed Spinoza's
critique. Because of this, Emanuel Kant maintained that Judaism is "eigentlich
gar keine Religion" (actually not a religion). The same applies to Hegel.)

Indeed this seems to be a bitter critique on the foundations of Judaism,
not easily defeated.

Those who carefully study the music of Johann Sebastian Bach will be surprised
to discover that the great musician dealt with music as the rabbis dealt with
the law. Bach was totally traditional in his approach to music. He adhered
strictly to the rules of composing music as understood in his days. Nowhere
in all his compositions do we find deviation from these rules. But what is
most surprising is that Bach's musical output is not only unprecedented but,
above all, astonishingly creative. According to many, he was "the greatest
composer of all." Anybody carefully listening to his St. Matthew Passion and
having a sound background in music will admit that this is probably the most
beautiful composition ever written within western tradition. (This is the not
the private observation of a rabbi but something stated by several outstanding
music critics!) What we discover is that the self-imposed restrictions of
Bach to keep to the traditional rules of composition forced him to become the
author of such outstandingly innovative music that nobody after him was ever
able to follow in his footsteps. It was within the "confinement of the law"
that Bach burst out with unprecedented creativity. This proves, against all
expectations, that the "finiteness" of the law leads to infinite riches. What
Bach proved as nobody else was that it is not in novelty that one reaches the
deepest of all human creative experiences, but in the capacity to descend
to the depths of what is already given. Bach's works were entirely free of
any innovation, but utterly new in originality.

This type of conventional creativity we do not find in Beethoven. Beethoven
(in his later years) broke with all the accepted rules of composition. He
was one of the founders of a whole new world of musical options. But it
was his rejection of the conventional musical laws which made him less of a
musical genius. To work within constraints and then to be utterly novel is
the ultimate sign of unprecedented greatness. This is what Johann Wolfgang
Goethe (1749-1832) the great German poet and philosopher meant when he said:

    In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich erst der Meister, Und das Gesetz nur kann
    uns Freiheit geben. (In limitation does the master really prove himself/
    And it is (only) the law which can provide us with freedom. From the
    sonnet: "Was Wir Bringen.")

Bach, then, was a "halachic" giant of the first order. He realized that it
is not true that when one adopts a well defined scheme one forfeits an inner
life experience of great spiritual profundity.

This is indeed why we maintain that Spinoza would have preferred Beethoven
over Bach. What Spinoza did not comprehend when he criticized Jewish law
was that restrictive rules, when deeply studied and contemplated, become
the impetus of a special kind of infinite creativity, never to be found by
those who rejected these very limitations.

Bach thought that Halacha is both a discipline and an inspiration, an act
of obedience and an experience of joy, a yoke and a prerogative. Man needs
to hear more than he understands in order to understand more than he hears.

Any student of Jewish law would no doubt give evidence that the study of
and the life according to Halacha was and is one of the most creative of
all human endeavors. Music cannot be played without a musical instrument,
and no "real" religious Jew can play his soul music without a most sensitive
musical instrument called Halacha. In fact, it is the secret to a life of
happiness and tranquility.

It is indeed a great tragedy that Spinoza was not able to meet Bach. Would
he have, he may have become an even greater philosopher.

(Reprinted with permission from Thoughts to Ponder, No. 35. All issues of
this newsletter by Rabbi Cardozo can be found at http://www.cardozoschool.org)

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


[ 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         ]