Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 057

Thursday, June 1 2000

• Re: Lo sevsaheil Gedi
• marranos
• Definition of Self
• definition of self
• Re: Ameylim BaTorah
• Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a
• Re: Chesed, Din, Emes
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Ameylim BaTorah
• Re: definition of self
• Re: Avodah V5 #56
• Re: Chazaka with a Rei'usa
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Chazaka with a Rei'usa
• Interesting Maharsha
• Re: Sanhedrin, s'michoh
• Re: Ta'am and taste

On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:29:02PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Actually, RSG seems to have held that chukkim are meant to cultivate
: discipline and espirit de corps, and do not necessarily possess intrinsic
: rationale.

A terminology issue: I don't think R' Saadia Ga'on ever maps his dichotomy
of rational vs masoretic-only mitzvos into the now commonly used "chukim" vs
"mishpatim". Which is more than a quibble if it affects his translation of
the words when they appear in Tanach.

Second, I thought his position was that they do "necessarily possess
intrinsic rationale". However since one may be incapable of understanding
or learning that rationale, one should follow them anyway if for no better
reason than to "cultivate discipline and espirit de corps".

The question is whether G-d acted arbitratily.

I have a problem in understanding the Rambam's position in this regard. His
answer to "Why an esrog?" is that we'd otherwise ask "Why a kiwi?" Some fruit
had to be chosen for the sake of consistancy, and it happened to be an
esrog.

My problem is that the Rambam doesn't address the fact that HKBH did not have
a fixed and finite list of fruit to choose from. Hashem knew He would make a
mitzvah of 4 minim back on day 3 of creation. "Why an esrog?" isn't only
about why did Hashem choose an esrog rather than a kiwi or anything else, but
also why do esrogim exist, why do they have the features they do, etc.. Hashem
didn't choose a fruit for the mitzvah, he made one. Why not to order? (As
most frum Jews today would assume?)


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:23:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: marranos

<<I thought of the problem of mamzerut. In theory making them Jewish
> could be more harmful then making them convert. The big kula would
> be that they obviously were not married Jewishly can so according
> to R. Moshe would not be considered married and so eliminate the
> mamzerut issue.>>

	IIRC Rav Moshe had ba'alei plugta on this issue,  notably Rav Henkin. 
Your premise is that Moshiach will be machria like Rav Moshe;  attractive
conclusion but not necessarily so.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:18:31 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Definition of Self

<<In Kabbalah there are five levels of soul; three are p'nimiyos and 
> two are chitzoniyos. The three p'nimiyos are nefesh, ruach and neshamah

> (Nara"n);  the two chitzoniyos are chayah and yechidah. According to R'
Aryeh Kaplan (see, for example, InnerSpace), the three p'nimiyos are
internal to the self, the three chitzoniyos are external.>>

	Please forgive my ignorance of Kabbalah,  matched only by my ignorance
of existentialism.  However,  how does this fit with the brocho said
daily of "hamachazir neshamos lifgarim meisim".  I always understood it
as your neshama having ascended to Shamayim during sleep;  would not
nefesh have been more appropriate?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The Baal haTanya (in Tanya 1:29; daf lamed vov)  makes the diyuk in
"neshama sh'nasata bi" and writes that "I" is the neshama hatehora only
for tzadikim; for the rest of us, "I" is the nefesh hachiyunis
habehamis. v'ayin bifnim

KT

Avrohom Weidberg

<<<Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:12:16 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject: Definition of Self

Last night I heard a good speech about education by the head of Torah
uMesorah whose name escapes me right now. His initial question was that we
say everyday "Elokai, neshamah shenasata bi..." What is "bi"? If I am not
the neshamah, then what am I? His answer is that we are our emotions and
therefore education has to be geared towards emotional experiences.

I know there is a whole existential literature on this question but I wanted
to hear the chevra's ideas as to who "I" am? Am "I" a body, emotions,
relationships, experiences,... and are there any mekoros in Chazal that
imply anything relevant?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com>>>

On 31 May 2000, at 1:16, David Hojda wrote:
: maskil in a European Yeshiva who learns gemara 17 hours a day, including
: Shabbos, and smokes cigarettes 7 days a week, including on Shabbos: Is he
: to be counted amongst those who are ameylim baTorah, albeit one who is also
: a ba'al aveira?

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> Assuming those are all the facts, I would say he is a mumar le'chalel
> Shabbos le'teiavon, 

Although I would get perverse enjoyment speaking in learning with such an
individual I would say that he is likely a Mumer L'Hachis.

HM

On Wed, 31 May 2000 Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> This has bothered me for a while.  Tosafos in Chullin 3b (or 4b?) says
> that yotzei venichnas only works for a gentile and not for a mumar
> because the mumar doesn't think that he will be suspected. 
> 
> I was thinking that perhaps tosafos were only talking about a mumar
> ledavar echad and not a totally frei yid.  However, I could not find
> anyone who discusses this. 
> 
> When I was in EY and this question came up, I talked to a rav and he
> assured me that frei Sefardim are not mumarim and would never be
> machalif food and would tell me if it got treifed up. 
> 

I thank you very much for bringing the Tosafos to bear.

This harks back to an earlier point in the conversation: That the
Rrabbanut must treat all individuals ho want to keep or provide kosher as
ne'emanim, not mumarim. Which is the way the system must run, but is
problematic.

KT,
YGB

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

On Wed, 31 May 2000, Micha Berger wrote:

> : I'm still not getting this. If one is machmir and is not psychotic, surely
> : he is doing so for reasons that are "mitzvahdicke"?
> 
> Mitzvahdik isn't mitzvah.
>

Oh yes it is. For example, the chumra of glatt is based on the mitzva of
eating kosher. 

> (BN? Ben Noach? I wish you would AFATMRT -- abstain from assuming to many
> rashei teivos.)
>

Ba'al Nefesh.
 
> I assumed that glatt is no superior a point on which to be machmir than
> the ne'emanus of the shocheit. I have yet to be explained why you feel
> otherwise.  Also, given that you do feel otherwise, why does the Ch"S
> praise someone who doesn't double check the lungs for himself and yet
> tells a shomeir nefesh to do so? 
> 

He told the eater to double check the lungs so as to be a BN?

Could you repost that?

> We can leave the question as to whether the Chasam Sofer meant what I
> read between the lines about who should choose which derech. I'm more
> interested to know what moved you to such a vehement objection. You seem
> to hold that not only is trusting the mashgiach less important than
> being machmir in a minhag, but that it would be an insult to anivus to
> suggest that for an anav the mashgiach's ne'emanus is primary. 
> 

Correct. Your proposal posits that anavim are not just temimim in the
positive sense, but in the negative one as well.

> What I said was that someone working on his ta'avos should be machmir in
> kashrus, someone working on his ga'avah should be machmir in trusting a
> mumcheh who is a yarei shamayim. Each are objectively of comparable
> value in a case where the kashrus issue is one of merely "mitzvahdik".
> Different people could therefore make different choices depending on
> what they themselves need for their own growth. 
> 

Correct.

> I didn't dismiss either side. It's you who is dismissing the CBALC
> (chumrah bein adam lachaveiro). And you had done so shockingly
> vehemently, as though my mistake is far from subtle. And yet I still
> don't get it. 
>

Because you confused me!

We were discussing hashgachos in Ey and you throw in a totally different
scenario, which a naive, anivusdicke reader liike myself confused with our
issue undr discussion. 

KT,
YGB

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

Your nefesh remains attached to your body (even, it seems, after death -
that is how Ov works). The neshomo comes and goes.


On Wed, 31 May 2000, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> 	Please forgive my ignorance of Kabbalah, matched only by my
> ignorance of existentialism.  However, how does this fit with the brocho
> said daily of "hamachazir neshamos lifgarim meisim".  I always
> understood it as your neshama having ascended to Shamayim during sleep; 
> would not nefesh have been more appropriate? 
> 
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
> 

KT,
YGB

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

On 31 May 00, at 16:45, Harry Maryles wrote:

> 
> On 31 May 2000, at 1:16, David Hojda wrote:
> : maskil in a European Yeshiva who learns gemara 17 hours a day, including
> : Shabbos, and smokes cigarettes 7 days a week, including on Shabbos: Is he
> : to be counted amongst those who are ameylim baTorah, albeit one who is also
> : a ba'al aveira?
> 
> "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> > Assuming those are all the facts, I would say he is a mumar le'chalel
> > Shabbos le'teiavon, 
> 
> Although I would get perverse enjoyment speaking in learning with such an
> individual I would say that he is likely a Mumer L'Hachis.

Even if he may do other things le'hachis, I think cigarettes are a 
teiavon. 

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Please forgive my ignorance of Kabbalah, matched only by my ignorance of
> existentialism. However, how does this fit with the brocho said daily of
> "hamachazir neshamos lifgarim meisim". I always understood it as your
> neshama having ascended to Shamayim during sleep; would not nefesh have
> been more appropriate?

By the Gaon's terminology, I can't speak to anyone else's and barely about his, 
if one didn't have a ruach breathing would cease. And if one's ruach went,
one would be aware of making the trip. The ruach spends the night experiencing
dreams.

Rather, one's nefesh is free to return to HKBH because it is no longer held
in tension between olam ha'emes and the ruach when the ruach is asleep.

One gets a similar impression from the Maharal, but it's very hard to
thread a global picture from his scattered mentions.

From: "Edward Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
: The Baal haTanya (in Tanya 1:29; daf lamed vov)  makes the diyuk in
: "neshama sh'nasata bi" and writes that "I" is the neshama hatehora only
: for tzadikim; for the rest of us, "I" is the nefesh hachiyunis
: habehamis. v'ayin bifnim

It is dangerous to try to mix the Vilna Gaon and the Ba'al haTanya in an
attempt to get can get a single cohesive shitah. I wonder why, according
to this description, no one is in between -- nobody has an "I" that is
their ruach -- the very place where the Gr"a places bechirah and thought.
(And the Maharal places perfection of the self and Torah.)

Perhaps the BhT is saying that a rasha's ruach is intimately linked with
his nefesh, his animal nature, while a tzadik's is totally freed from the
animal and therefore cognizant of what goes on in the neshamah.

Such cognizance, allowing ideas to reach the ruach, the conscious mind,
from the olam ha'emes via the neshamah is key to ruach hakodesh and nevu'ah.

FWIW, I would argue that the definition of tum'ah is that adulteration of
the ruach with the desires of the nefesh. Which is why RSRH defines tum'ah
as a "pernicious misconception ... that Man must - willy-nilly - submit to
the power of physical forces". RYSB associates tum'ah with the shift from
man the nosei, the subject, with man as nisa, object. And it fits the
definition of the word "taharah" as a lack of adulteration (e.g. "zahav
tahor").

Also, FWIW, I defined kedushah as the commitment of the ruach to the neshamah.
Which explains why I posted a little while back that defined kedushah as
commitment. IOW, taharah frees the ruach from being an object, a victim of
the physical world and its own body. Ein licha ben chorin ela mi she'oseik
baTorah. Being nivdal, though, is worthless without knowing what someone is
to be separated for. Kedushah provides that ruach with access to its mission.

I assume that there's an intimate connection between bechirah and a sense
of self, the "I". After all, it is "I" who chooses between two sets of
urges. And if there is no "I" doing the choosing, in what sense is bechirah
"chafshi"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:37:53 -0400
> From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com

> RS Boublil wrote:
>> The halachic issue that is the basis for ALL Hashgachot, in Israel and
>> abroad, OU, OK, Rabbanut, EC is the same: "Yotzei VeNichnas". That is the
>> proprietor, whether Shomer Shabbat or not has no idea when the Mashgiach will
>> walk in. If you claim that the Mashgiach notifies the owner that he will come
>> only between 14:00-16:00 (for instance) then what you say may have some
>> merit.

> This has bothered me for a while.  Tosafos in Chullin 3b (or 4b?) says that
> yotzei venichnas only works for a gentile and not for a mumar because the
> mumar doesn't think that he will be suspected.

> I was thinking that perhaps tosafos were only talking about a mumar ledavar
> echad and not a totally frei yid.  However, I could not find anyone who
> discusses this.

I'll try to find some sources.

> When I was in EY and this question came up, I talked to a rav and he assured
> me that frei Sefardim are not mumarim and would never be machalif food and
> would tell me if it got treifed up.

In Israel, and I'm sure elsewhere, when you think about it -- if someone is
Mumar Le'Hach'is -- why would they want a kosher Hashgacha? They could just
as easily go to some reform rabbi and put a "K" on their foods, or in Israel,
go to a group of private "rabbis" that exists here who would be more than
happy to supply him with a "Te'udat Heksher" which would completely ignore
the fact that the store is open on Shabbat.

As you noted, "the mumar doesn't think that he will be suspected". The whole
basis of the contract between the Rav Mashgiach and the proprietor is that he
is warned up front that the Mashgiach will be making spot checks, whenever he
feels like it and that if he is caught -- the certificate will be taken away.
Now, why would someone spend the money on creating a kosher business, pay for
the certificate (which is a monthly bill equal a few hundred to a few thousand
shekel a month, depending on the size of the business) , be warned that he _is_
suspected -- and then "think he will not be suspected"? This is not logical.

Shoshana L. Boublil

:> Aren't we assuming there's a sheker -- IOW, that we may/should ignore the
:> chezkas kashrus that says there isn't? I think your statement here
:> presupposes your conclusion.

RYGB replied:
: You are actually making a lomdishe assumption that is not pashut - that a
: chazaka with a rei'usa bleibt a chazaka. Doubtless someone more conversant
: with the relevant Shav Shema'attas than I can give a more considered opinion
: on the topic, but arvach arva tzarich.

Actually, I thought it was obvious. For example, we do hold by the chezkas
kashrus of a chalaf that wasn't checked before shechitah, or a mikvah that
late in the evening was found to hold less than a se'ah. The Sh"Sh is
quite explicit about this in 2:8,9 that ikka rei'usa is only by safeik, and
not by chazakah. More telling, perhaps, is that he assumes it as a given
when he explains tum'ah birshus harabim in terms of chazakah in 1:7,8.

The inyan there (1:8) is thereby reduced to a case of chazakah bimakom trei
utrei, a topic the Sh"Sh doesn't deal with explicitly until 6:22. There
the Sh"Sh is medayeik that chazakah kama (what I have been calling a ch'
dimei'ikkarah, following the Revucha Shma'atsa's terminology) holds in a
case of trei utrei, but a chazakah misvara does not. The R"Sh (ad loc) is
choleik, and says that rov and chazakah disvarah do hold bitrei utrei. (The
sevara I gave on another thread assumes like the Sh"Sh.)

So, to determine the question I'd have to know which kind of chazakah the
chezkas kashrus of an obervant Jew is. I could see arguing either way. (A
Jew is born kosher, therefore it's mei'ikara; or it's a rule of thumb.)


More relevent to our original discussion, where's the ikka rei'usa about our
shocheit? Is there any indication that he's referring to a "mumcheh yarei
shamayim" who has a history of a flaw in either qualification?

To recap the inyan as I see it, an Ashkenazi has three choices:
    1- ikkar hadin: not worry about glatt;
    2- trust any known to be kosher butcher who claims the meat is glatt;
    3- check the butcher on the issue of glatt as much as one checks him
       about his kashrus.

I wanted to say (regardless of what the original teshuvah said) that the
difference between no.s 2 and 3 doesn't necessarily outweigh for all people
the problems of not trusting one another. Someone who requires more work on
his middos (either because of personal lack or because of the derech he
is following) than on inyanei kashrus would therefore be recommended to
follow #2 -- which still lifnim mishuras [ikkar] hadin.

I also find it odd that it's you in particular who are blurring the
distinction between mitzvah and a mitzvah-dik lifnim mishuras hadin.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

BTW, note that in my discussion with RYGB about "shomeir nafsho", I assume
that it is someone who is trying to master his ta'avos, and therefore
going lifnim mishuras hadin in kashrus is more of an issue.

It's the definition of nefesh that I gave in this discussion that I'm using
to define the idiom.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 05:56:34AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: the Sh"Sh is medayeik that chazakah kama (what I have been calling a ch'
: dimei'ikkarah, following the Revucha Shma'atsa's terminology) holds in a
: case of trei utrei, but a chazakah misvara does not. The R"Sh (ad loc) is
: choleik, and says that rov and chazakah disvarah do hold bitrei utrei. (The
: sevara I gave on another thread assumes like the Sh"Sh.)

Ouch! I forgot an important point from my notes: the R"Sh is clear that he
is choleik on the Sh"Sh in defining the mechanism for trei utrei. According
to the R"Sh, it would come out that neither he nor the Sh"Sh have a problem
with chazakah disvarah bi'ikka rei'ussa in general, it's the particular
kind of rei'usa -- trei utrei that's the inyan.

As I reminder: all of this is interesting, but not an issue here where there's
no rei'ussa, such as our topic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

I'm a couple of blatt ahead of the Daf right now, and this morning I 
learned (most of) Daf 67. In the shiur, R. Zev Cohen brought a 
Maharsha on Daf 67a s"v Iboees Aima. 

The Gemara there talks about Nakdimon ben Gurion and says that 
he was punished by losing all his wealth because he did not give 
enough tzedaka. The Gemara asks, how can you say such a 
thing? We have a gemara that says that when Nakdimon came to 
the Beis HaMikdash, "klei milas" (which I thought were silk, but 
may have been wool) were spread out under his feet, and after he 
had walked over them, they were rolled up and given to the aniyim. 
The Gemara gives two answers - one that he did not have proper 
kavana when fulfilling the mitzva, and one that he did not give 
enough because l'fum gamla shichna (we pile onto the camel 
whatever it can bear).

Fregt the Maharsha, how can you say he didn't have proper 
kavana? The gemara in Rosh HaShanna says that if a person says 
that he's giving tzedaka "kdei she'yichye bni" he's a tzadik gamur. 
So how could not have had "proper kavana." The Maharsha 
answers that there are three ways to fulfill a mitzva. One is to do it 
properly with all of the proper kavanos. A second way is to fulfill it 
with no kavana at all or with a kavana that is irrelevant. The third 
way is to fulfill it davka with the wrong kavana. For example to 
enhance one's own kavod. This is what the Gemara is saying 
Nakdimon ben Gurion did. 

Then, apropos a discussion we had on Avodah a couple of months 
ago, he goes on to compare the actions of Nakdimon ben Gurion 
with the actions of baalebatim in his own time (some 400 years 
ago) who were goizel from the akum and then brought the money 
to shul and tried to be "metaher" it if you will by donating it to 
tzedaka.

See also R. Chaim Shmuelevitz's Sichos Musar #12 of 5732 (which 
I have not yet seen inside) and Kovetz Shiurim 224.

-- 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.

<From: "Kira Sirote" <kira@sirote.net>
Subject: Re:  Sanhedrin
<<What will it take for there to be agreement among the current Chachamim
that we should renew S'micha?  (The previous attempt, iInm, was at the
time of the Ariza"l, and the Mechaber was the recipient of the S'micha).>>
	If we get that kind of agreement then Moshiach will have already
come <g>. I believe that the Mahri Berav was the (first) intended recipient,
and then he was to pass it along to the appropriate candidates, includingthe
Mechaber.
Gershon>

despite the common appreciation that the attempt by r.y. berab (in 1538)
was "the previous attempt" to revive the s'michoh (with the proximate
cause of its failure the opposition led by r.levi ibn habib - though
it did linger on for a few more generations than that - the mechabeir
in turn passed on the s'michoh to some of his talmidim, and they to theirs
- i think, e.g, maharam alsheqer was a "musmoch") this was by no means
the last attempt, and by no measure the most quixotic.  That adjective
is more appropriate for the actual most recent "previous attempt", which
is the effort organized by r. yisroel of shklov to despatch an emissary
to locate the lost ten tribes - who doubtless possessed a real musmoch
from the unbroken chain of s'michoh, who could then in turn pass on,
and thus renew, the s'michoh amongst the rest of the two tribes (i.e.
the rest of kilal yisroel). funds were raised and an emissary (r. boruch
of shklov) despatched - they thought they knew the general area to search
in the arabian desert because of the accounbts of eldad hadani as well
as other "witnesses" some relatively contemporary. it is an interesting
story and was intimately tied to the extreme messianic fever which gripped
the kollel hap'rushim (the community of the gr"a students) in the early
years of the 19th cent.  since it ended with extraordinary disappointment
(the expected "messianic" year of 1840 came and went) and even instances
of conversion by some rabbonim of the kollel to christianity, the whole
period of active engagement in "qiruv haqeitz" has been more or less
buried in - and from - communal memory. the attempted revival of s'michah
should be seen as a critical component of this "activist" approach to
hastening the messianic age, since both the zohar and rambam (perush
hamishnayos - first mishnoh in san.) seem to indicate that revival of
the true court system was a pre-requisite for the messiah.  after its
failure, some of the disappointed and demoralized even attempted to blame
r. yisoel's efforts for "causing" the catastrophic earthquake which killed
most of the jewish population in the galil around 1839. all in all a
very interesting story.

on a quite orthogonal matter - i will be in st petersburg during the
week of 19 june - does anyone know of any jewish infrastructure or resource
there? i will stop in london for shabbos before, where i do speak a version
of the language and can manage - so i won't have to weather a weekend
there, but was wondering if there might be a regular weekday minyon or
something.

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
frankemj@acq.osd.mil            H: (3010 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil
mechyfrakel@zdnetoebox.com 

___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com

The origin of this whole line of thought was R' Dovid Lifshitz's comments
about microscopic beitzei kinim lacking halachic mamashus, comparing them
to microscopic bugs.

At around the same time I came up with the idea that became
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/lechLicha2.html> but was better described in RYGB's
"Forks in the Road" article <http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila/forks.htm>.

Contemporary Yahadus sees itself as being about man's search for d'veikus
to HKBH and personal temimus. As I put it, in the pasuk "his-haleich lifanai
vihayei tamim", which is the goal, and which is the means?

Either way, we're talking about changing the self in a way that is fully
meaningful as a psychological and existential statement.

At some point, the two ideas combined to yield the notion stated earlier, that
these things lack mamashus because they have no direct experiencial component.

What I find intriguing is that it provided me with an approach to detailed
inyanim like chazakah vs migo that connects the question all the way back
to basic yesodos of Yahadus.


While on this topic, I'm going to reopen yet another discussion we've had
earlier. Assuming I've convinced anyone that halachah deals with experience,
not physics, what about a pasul mezuzah?

Say I hang a mezuzah, check it as required, etc... all the halachos are
followed. However, a letter happens to crack off of the mezuzah in the second
year after being last checked. Lima'aseh what I did and experienced until the
next time it's checked is identical to what would have been had the mezuzah
stayed kosher. From the perspective I have been pushing, there should be no
difference between a mezuzah that physically is kosher and one in which I
permissably relied on a chezkas kashrus.

And yet the general opinion here was that one would provide protection to
the home, and the other would not. Is this a rejection of the underlying
idea, or is there a way to be meyasheiv to two?

To deepen the question (hitting chap 1 of my rough draft), R' Chaim Vilozhiner
(Nefesh Hachaim 1:6) reads:
    This is what our Rabbis zt"l said, "the forefathers, they are the Merkavah"
    (Breishis Rabba 47), and so in the reverse, chas vishalom. By injuring one
    of his powers or limbs via his sin that he sinned, this flaw too reaches to
    its source to that world and that higher power that corresponds to it.

He defines man's power to change the metaphysics of the external world as a
consequence of changing one's self. 

This seems to support the strictly rationalist viewpoint, as expressed recently
on Areivim by R' Joel Rich about segulos:
:                                                                  The mesora I
: received was that none of these are quick fixes, they only work if they lead
: to a change in the individual.

The segulah aspect of mezuzah would apparantly also be limited by RCV to
the consequences of its power to make a change in the individual. So again
I wonder why a pasul mezuzah that chazakah tells me is kosher should be
any less protective than one that is physically kosher.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

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


[ 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         ]