Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 088

Wednesday, July 19 2000

• Re: Rashi in Balak
• Re: Tefillin Strap
• Nusach of tefilla betzibbur
• Rashi question: Balak
• Paying Dayanim
• Re: Paying Dayanim
• truth versus adversial law
• Fwd: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• pants
• Nidah 31a
• Re: truth versus adversial law
• Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?
• Re: truth versus adversial law
• Deference to Talmidei Chachamim (was Re: truth versus adversial law)
• Re: Dominant cultural values
• Re: Custom - Origins of
• Re: Custom - Origins of
• Re: Hefker and Kiddushin
• Rabbi Berman
• Fwd: Summer Mini Series - Pirkei Avot 1

In a message dated 7/17/00 5:36:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
>  The Lubavitcher Rebbe's *Bi'urim le-ferush Rashi ah"T* [2nd ed.] vol. 4,
>  p. 212 also raises the question and others on that Rashi. He ends, I
>  believe, with something along the lines of RCS' suggestion about saying
>  shema immediately upon rising in the morning.

The L. Rebbe's general answer is that Rashi Teitches here Yokum a physical 
awakening (vs. the Medrosh a spiritual awakening) during sleep a person is 
Pottur from Mitzvahs, when a Yid wakes up he grabs Mitzvahs, and here Rashi 
elaborates first Tzitzis which is Shokul Kneged Kol Hamitzvohs, hence he 
grabs all the Mitzvahs, then Rashi goes on to another General Mitzvah even 
though it is not Shokul like all the Mitzvahs Krias Shma (Kabolas Oil) is the 
Yesod of all the Mitzvahs, and then adds Tephilin while it is a Mitzvah 
Protis it mentions Yetzias Mitzrayim, which is a Yesod to many MItzvohs.  He 
then goes on to add what you brought that it is possible that Rashi holds 
that they recited K"S even before Tephilin.

The above removes the question of the Dibur Hamaschil.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/14/00 2:27:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Any thoughts on the subject? I sort of took them for granted until I was
>  pointed to Mo'ed Katan where we see R' Hunah fast 40 days because his
>  retzu'ah (the part that holds the tefillin on) twisted. As though it's
>  as awful as dropping a seifer Torah.

This is brought in the Mogein Avrohom on O"C 27:11, also in S"A Horav 27:19, 
and see at lentgh in the E"R many details in this Halacha including that the 
40 days R"H fasted was Midas Chassidus.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

> From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com

>> How about a private person saying kadish. There is the small difference
>> between ashkenaz and sefard (chassidic) of veyazmach perkunai. However,
>> there are much larger difference between edot mizrach sefard and ashkenaz.
>> The usual minhag is for each person to say his personal version. Since
>> usually everyone says kaddish together (semi in unison) this creates a
>> mishmash and confusion.

> I think that all of the sources quoted so far would apply to kaddish as well.
> It is either a violation of lo sisgodedu or deviating from the minhag hamakom.

There is a distinct difference between kaddish deYohid which can be said by
the ordinary mitpallel or the Shliah Zibbur, and Kaddish dezibbur which can
only be said by the Shliach Zibbur.

deZibbur

According to our LOR, kaddish deZibbur such as that after Shmona Esrei should
be according to minhag hamakom ie whatever nussach is customary in that schul.

Kaddish deYahid can, or perhap should be said in one's own nussach, however
the nussach ashkenaz kaddish sayers should pause for a few seconds after
'hirusei' when the nussach sefard add in 'VeYitzmach Pirkumei...." so as
to allow for synchronization. The same goes for other places in Kaddish.

Such behavior will avoid 'mishmash and confusion'

Daniel

From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
> Is that maybe the reason some put on tefilin after birchas hashachar, just
> before boruch she'omar?

	Are you saying that we are yotze the main obligation of krias
shema with the one parsha which we say before baruch she'omar? I had heard
that parsha is only there in case we miss the zman. In any event, the halacha
is to put on tefilin before shema unless one is an "onus", so I can't see
delaying it purposely until after shema.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Reb Gershon asked me to summarize Chasam Sofer CM 164, regarding why dayanim
get paid today. The short answer is Schar Batala in two senses - both in
terms of time the Dayan could otherwise spend working at his parnassa,
and in terms of time the Dayan could otherwise spend learning Torah.

See also Chasam Sofer CM 166, Rama YD 246:1, Shach YD 246:20, Beis Yosef YD
246:1, Sma CM 9:8, Nesivos CM 9:9. (He also mentioned a Shvus Yaakov and a
Shaar Mishpat which I did not have available and a Sfas Emes which I could
not find - maybe RYZ can help?).

The shiur also dealt with several other shailas connected to dayanim - how
bribery works, whether one can judge someone whom he likes or dislikes very
much, whether there is a din kdima for a talmid chacham (in terms of order
in which cases are heard) today, and whether one is permitted to bribe a
non-Jewish judge.

-- 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

In a message dated 7/17/00 12:46:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> (He 
>  also mentioned a Shvus Yaakov and a Shaar Mishpat which I did 
>  not have available and a Sfas Emes which I could not find - maybe 
>  RYZ can help?).

The Shvus Yaakov is Chelek 1 # 142, he says the Hetter is, since we anyway
are not considered able to Pasken as Din Torah, rather as a Pshara, for
which one may take money.

The Saar Mishpat, I don't have available now.

The Sfas Emes is on Bchoros 29a, he brings Shitas Horamban (as a Daas Yochid)
that the reason that one may not Shecht based on the Psak of one who took
money (to say that it is a Baal Mum) is because, it is like a Dayan that
took money for a Psak which invalidates the Din.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Returning to an old topic Micha claimed that Halacha was in interested in
truth as opposed to American law which is adverserial.

A recent daf yomi discussed the case of an administrator of land for orphans
where the father had signed a document but claimed land belonged to him and
then died.
Abaye ruled the land did not belong to the father.
However, the adminstrator came with claims that maybe so and so happened
and Abayae held the adminstrator was right and complimented the adminstrator.

I am troubled by this gemara. Obviously the adminstrator does not know what
happened. He is simply claiming a maybe on behalf of the father/orphans. If
the bet din were only interested in the truth then the bedt din could make the
claim for them.
In essence abaye is saying that if the adminstrator is a talmid chacham then
they win otherwise they lose. But they can't hire a lawyer to tell the right
claim to make.

kol tuv,
Eli

I am taking the liberty of posting the following fairly short article to
Areivim in the hope that it will stimulate some interesting discussion.

The article takes the Chazon Ish's shitta regarding today's non-religious as
"tinokot sh'nishbu" that have to be drawn close with "cords of love", and
draws from it an interesting conclusion regarding theodicy and the Holocaust.
Almost puts the Chazon Ish in the same camp with R' Eliezer Berkovits.
I wonder if the Chazon Ish would agree?

KT,
Shlomo Godick

----- Original Message -----
Thoughts to Ponder 53
The David Cardozo School for Jewish Studies and Human Dignity
Machon Ohr Aaron
Dean: Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Ph.D.
Honorary President: Aaron Spijer
Visit our Website: http://cardozoschool.org

******

Rabbi Cardozo's latest book "Judaism on Trial" is now available in all
Judaica bookshops in the USA.

*******

The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?

For some years now there has been a major debate among religious thinkers if
the Holocaust should be seen as a divine punishment. Pointing to the Torah's
warnings (Vayikra 26, Devarim 28) that the divine curses would come true if
a widespread violation of the laws of the Torah would occur, some thinkers
maintain that the Holocaust is clearly the result of the Jewish people
transgressing the laws of the Torah.

Looking into these verses and reading their midrashic comments, it would
indeed be difficult to deny the marked similarity between what happened in
the Holocaust and the predictions of the Torah.

Nevertheless, this position could be challenged. Rabbi Yeshaya Karelitz,
z.l., one of the greatest halachic authorities of our generation, known for
his multi-volume halachic works called "Chazon Ish" discusses the problem of
heresy and deliberate violation of Jewish law and its halachic consequences
in today's society. In the olden days heretical views or deliberate violations
of Torah law were penalized, and people guilty of such views or deeds were
not permitted to join some of the community's religious ceremonies or fulfil
certain religious functions. Now, however, such halachic rulings, according
to Rabbi Karelitz, z.l., could no longer be applied without hesitation.

"(Such laws) only applied at times when the divine presence was clearly
revealed such as in the days when there were open miracles, and a heavenly
voice was heard and when the righteous would operate under direct
divine intervention which could be observed by anybody. Then the heretics
were of a special deviousness, bending their evil inclination towards
immoral desires and licentiousness. In such days there was (the need)
to remove this kind of wickedness from the world, since everybody knew
that it would bring divine retribution to the world (including) drought,
pestilence and famine. But at the time of "divine hiding," in which faith
has become weak in people, there is no purpose in taking such action
(harsh measurements against heretics and violators), in fact it has the
reverse effect and will only increase their lawlessness and be viewed as
the coercion and violence (of religious fanatics.) And therefore we have
an obligation to try to bring them back with 'cords of love' (Hoshea 11:4)"
(Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah, Hilchot Shechitah 2:16)

This unprecedented statement is, we believe, of major importance. Chazon Ish
maintains that we cannot compare earlier and surely the biblical periods
with our own days. In these earlier days, faith was strong and people did
not doubt its foundations. Divine intervention was clear and consequently
there was no reason why one should doubt God's existence and the truth of His
will as stated in the Torah. Heresy and the violation of the Torah's precepts
could, therefore, only be the result of deliberate rebellion against better
knowledge. One knew that one was violating the words of the living God,
since no doubt existed concerning His existence and will. As such, there
were proper reasons to take action against those who broke the covenant and
spoke heresy. They knew that they were falsifying the truth. It was purely
their physical desires which made them travel this road.

This, however, is no longer the case. God's presence is no longer as exposed
as it was, and much of what happens to man and mankind seems to be random,
without any indication that it is the work of the Lord of the Universe.
Therefore, one can no longer call heretical views the result of deliberate
viciousness. These views may, in fact, be the honest consequence of careful
deliberation which is clouded by the confusion of not knowing how to see
and understand the workings of history and matters such as personal tragedy.

For several centuries, so-called "academic studies" of the Torah have
undermined the authenticity of the Torah, convincing a great number of
well meaning people to believe that there was proof that the Torah did not
reflect the will of God. As such, there was no longer a reason to live by
its precepts.

This is no longer deliberate heresy but intellectual confusion.

As such, it is difficult to argue that the Holocaust was caused by divine
anger for the violations of Torah precepts and deliberate heresy. The curses
in the Torah are meant to come down on those who against better knowledge
and with the full understanding that they were violating the will of God
decided to do so -- not on those who are confused or the victims of others'
misunderstandings. This, we believe, is the implication of the words of
Rabbi Yeshaya Karelitz, z.l., in relation to the question if the Holocaust
should be seen as divine retribution.

Nathan Lopes Cardozo

*********

Please continue to pray for
Deby Chaya  bat Aliza
Rivka Ruchama bat Greta
Zimra Shlomith bat Jaffa
David Bruna Chaim ben Miriam
Moshe ben Rivka

*******

All previous "Thoughts To Ponder" are found on our Website.

*******
The David Cardozo School
Machon Ohr Aaron
7 Cassuto Street
Jerusalem 96433
Tel: 02 6414077
Fax: 02 6426076
Email: nlc@internet-zahav.net
Website: www://cardozoschool.org/

Does any one know the sources (preferably with references) for
the connection of pisuk raglaim and tsniut for women.

Thanks,
Eli Turkel

I must say, with all the learned discussions on this list, I am surprised
that no one has even acknowleged this question.  With RMB's permission, I
will ask again.

What does the following passage from Gemara mean?

----
"Why are the pains of a female birth greater than those of a male birth?  
The female emerges in the position she assumes during intercourse and the 
male emerges in the position he assumes during intercourse. The former, 
therefore, turns her face upwards  while the latter  need not turn his face. 
(Nidah 31a)
----

RMB told me that this is meant metaphorically, and that if I look in
Maharashah I can probably find out what this passage is supposed to mean.

[Micha: I checked the Maharshah to no avail. He doesn't discuss any of the
aggadita about birth and genetics on that amud. Perhaps the Maharal has
something, I lost that volume of my set -mi]

I checked it out over shabbos, and, frankly, my Hebrew skills are just not
good enough (yet).

Can anyone help me?  Can anyone describe what the above passage is supposed
to tell us?

Thanks,
Eric

In a message dated 7/19/00 9:56:50 AM US Central Standard Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> I am troubled by this gemara. Obviously the adminstrator does not know what
> happened. He is simply claiming a maybe on behalf of the father/orphans. If
> the bet din were only interested in the truth then the bedt din could make 
> the claim for them.
> In essence abaye is saying that if the adminstrator is a talmid chacham then
> they win otherwise they lose. But they can't hire a lawyer to tell the right
>  claim to make.

I agree. I don't see where the Beis Din is interested in "truth" as an
abstract, empirical, or absolute proposition. Last year RYGB taught an
intensive shiur on Makkos, which I was extremely fortunate to be able to
attend regularly. From this shiur I learned that Beis Din's various rules of
evidence aren't truth-seeking. Instead, by being highly exclusionary they
seek a form of earthly justice. (These are my conclusions, not necessarily
those of the sponsor, RYGB.)

The Beis Din is nonetheless hierarchical. A talmud chochim will get
deference. Is this deference to the chochim's view of truth? Not really,
since truth really isn't at issue. Justice is at issue, and to that extent
the deference paid to the chochim makes rough sense.

David Finch

In a message dated 7/19/00 10:00:12 AM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:
> As such, it is difficult to argue that the Holocaust was caused by divine
> anger for the violations of Torah precepts and deliberate heresy. ...
>                    This, we believe, is the implication of the words of
> Rabbi Yeshaya Karelitz, z.l., in relation to the question if the Holocaust
> should be seen as divine retribution. >>

How can any of us ever presume to intepret contemporary events through the 
eyes of HaShem? To me, that's the heresy.

David Finch

On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 06:52:47PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Returning to an old topic Micha claimed that Halacha was in interested in
: truth as opposed to American law which is adverserial.

To more accurately state my beliefs: American law uses an adversarial system
in its attempt to determine the truth. Beis din, OTOH, tries to produce the
truth more directly. My point was the lack of adversarial stance, not the
focus on truth as an alternative.

But it's not so simple, because there are clear halachos as to what kinds
of evidence are admissable and what parts are to be believed. Even literal
smoking gun wouldn't count for much. IOW, I agree with RET's and RDF's
observation that BD doesn't try to ascertain what happened.

The ruling of BD is actually halachah applied to a set of eidus, chazkos,
rovim, etc... -- not to the metzi'us these are trying to represent. (Unless
BD invoked their authority to jail or got the parties to agree to pesharah,
in which case other evidence and trying to get to the bottom of the matter
could be important.)

This ties back to the "ta'am and taste" conversation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 17-Jul-00: Levi, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 19 Jul 2000, at 12:42, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> The Beis Din is nonetheless hierarchical. A talmud chochim will get
> deference. Is this deference to the chochim's view of truth? Not really,
> since truth really isn't at issue. Justice is at issue, and to that extent
> the deference paid to the chochim makes rough sense.

AIUI the only way in which a Talmid Chacham gets deference is that his case
is heard first if the Beis Din is not in the middle of another case. Aderaba -
if the Beis Din were to show the Talmid Chacham deference in any other respect,
we would run the risk that the other side would be afraid to present his claim.

-- Carl

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.

R' David Finch <DFinchPC@aol.com> asks:
: How can anyone ever "prove" otherwise, unless, say, someone of stature has 
: traced the minhag to a heretical event? 

RYGB <ygb#aishdas.org> answers:
> Good question.
> You can trace it to ignormuses too, and that would suffice.
> Short of that, I do not know.

What if you could show that the minhag ran kineged halachah? Is a minhag
ta'us's makor bekodesh? You seem to thing that an accident of am ha'aretzus
couldn't be.

For example, the Gra claims that the expression "moshav yikaro" is kineged
halachah to the extent that it smacks of avodah zarah. It's an anthropomorphic
image not found in Tanach. The Gra therefore uses a different variant of
Aleinu in which "kisei chevodo" is used.

However, one needn't prove that the mekor was off in order to dismiss
a minhag. Many minhagim fell into disuse because of a later change in
metzi'us. After Shabbatai Zvi, Yekkes make a point of not quoting the Zohar
in tefillah, and some other kehillos dropped "baruch hu ubaruch sh'mo"
because the S"Z-niks found it was gematria for S"Z.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

: I think we talked about this once before. One might argue that dinim 
: d'rabbanan and gezeiros are constructive and interpretive, not really 
: legislative. They more resemble the actions of courts with remedial powers 
: than they do the Sanhedrin. P'sak is also interpretive. I'd argue that minhag 
: permeates all of these processes.

I lost you. Dinim diRabbanan and gezeiros are the product of Sanhedrin ONLY.
They are the legislative power of the Sanhedrin -- dinim to preserve the
spirit of the law (e.g. megillah reading to proclaim a miracle) and gezeiros
to preserve the letter from accidental or habitual violation.

When Rabbeinu Gershom wanted to make a din, he phrased it as a cheirem --
I hereby preemptively excommunicate anyone who reads another's mail (takes
a second wife, reminds a geir of his origins, etc...) Charamim are an issue
of public consensus and are only as strong as the community's unity behind
the court.

See <http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/04-02.html>, which I wrote
based on a shiur by R' Yonasan Sacks of YU (and an LOR in Passaic).

:                                                                  Wouldn't you 
: say, however, that minhag as it really develops is a mish-mosh of mimeticism 
: *and* book-knowledge? That these distinctions are more theoretical than real?

Again, a minhag is one whose origins are from the people. Yes, the longevity
and development of a minhag could have conscious, textual, elements.

:                                        There are those who wish to restore 
: some of the minhagim of European communities wiped out during the war.

A point Dr Haym Soloveitchik makes in "Rupture and Reconstruction" is that
one can not restore what was before the war. The RW attempt to do so is
a conscious, textualist, approach -- and therefore fundamentally different
than the original.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:29:42AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: REW quotes R. Chaim Soloveitchik as explaining that there are two types of 
: rabbinic laws.  One is the EXTENSION of biblical laws (mishmeres), which is 
: interpretative.  Chazal, in a sense, redefined the parameters of the biblical 
: laws. The other is legislation, like netilas yadayim and eiruvin which have
: no biblical basis.

R' Yonasan Sacks repeated in the name of RCS's grandson RYBS that there are
two types of takkanos: gezeiros designed to protect people from violation of
di'Oraisos. Dinim diRabbanan are based on ta'amei hamitzvah and aggaditos. IOW,
they must involve an act -- not a sheiv vi'al ta'aseh -- that is *similar
in purpose* to a di'Oraisa.

Interestingly, he argues that shehiyah is a gezeirah; it involves no act,
so it can't be a din diRabannan. A "blech" works for shehiyah, since any
heker will prevent accidental violation. OTOH, chazarah is a din diRabbanan,
being similar in purpose to bishul, and a simple heker isn't enough.

A similar, but non-identical, dichotomy to R' Chaim's.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> writes:
: Thus, for the Ran's (and gemorra's) logic to work, we have to be discussing
: questions of rishus, not questions of activity/passivity. And what the Ran
: appears to be suggesting, is that what occurs in the marriage situation,
: is that the woman acts to move herself out of her rishus into a sort of no
: man's land, which is, in fact, a movement towards him, but that movement
: does not get her all the way. The husband then completes that movement by
: bringing her in to his rishus, ie he "takes" her out of the no man's land.

I don't understand the chakirah being made. Why do we assume that differences
in chalos would NOT be reflected by differences in pe'ulah?

IOW, the Ran says that the woman needs to go from reshusless-ness to
mekudeshes, and not from her own reshus to the ba'al's. Any act which shows
that she plans on giving up personal ba'alus directly to the ba'al without the
middle step shows that she didn't put herself into hefkeirus -- ba'al-lessness.
The acharonim cited, R' Shimon Shkup and the Ohr Samei'ach seem to be pretty
clear that the problem is that any pe'ulah on her part could show intent to
effect a different kind of chalos than that of the Ran's definition of
kiddushin.

Also, which step does this happen in? I think people accepted my proof that
eirusin doesn't create a chiyuv on the man -- that the chiyuvim after 12
months (which is less than a year if the shanah is me'uberes, FWIW) are a
k'nas, not part of the ikkar of eirusin. And we're talking about accepting
the taba'as -- eirusin, not nissuin.

Perhaps the Ran is moot because he's talking about nissuin, when the chiyuvim
and therefore the husband's ba'alus, actually begins! (The word kiddushin
is often used loosely to refer to either or both steps.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

David Finch:
> If minhagim are holy until proven otherwise, and if as a practical matter no 
> such proof (or no halachically acceptable mode of developing such proof) 
> exists, then the line between halacha and minhag blurs to the point of 
> abstraction. This creates a problem for thinkers like Rabbi Berman, who, by 
> learning halacha for its own sake, raise legitimate questions about the pure 
> logical correctness of certain minhagim. It's a mistake, I think, to 
> mischaracterize the possibility of such illogic as a matter of "dominant 
> cultural values," which is a buzz phrase for Conservative laxity.

As I see it the line between Lamdus and Lemaaseh ought now be revisited.
For example, I am not alarmed by R. Rackman's proposals with regard to
geirsuhin, I'm alarmed that he practices them.

So let R. Berman think as creatively as he wants {or needs}, yet reamin
cautious in implementing any changes ipmlicit in his lamdus. Let him publsh
chiddushim defending his shitos academically and adding a disclaimer that
this is not for halachah lemaase - at least until other {distinguished}
poskim rally behind the concept.

I'm for giving lamdus more or less a free rein, as long as it does not
jeopardize hanhagah.

Rich Wolpoe

here's  a fascinating twist on the old subject of TIDE.
                                        Steve Brizel
                                         Zeliglaw@aol.com

---

From: Torah and Science <torahandscience@avoda.jct.ac.il>
To: pr@avoda.jct.ac.il
Subject: Summer Mini Series - Pirkei Avot 1

     Avot 1
     Love Work

In Avot (1:10), Shmaya says, "Love work." R. Ovadiah of Bertenura explains:

"Love work" -- even if you have ample sustenance, you still should engage in
work, since idleness leads to shi'amum -- dementia .(1) "Despise positions
of authority" -- "Do not say: I am prestigious and it does not befit me to
engage in toil." As Rav said to Rav Kahane, "Skin carcasses in the marketplace
to earn your living and do not say: I am a kohen, I am prestigious, and this
activity is inconsistent with my dignity."(2)

 "Tiferet Yisrael" comments on the Mishna:

A man supports himself by one of three methods: either physically, with
labor, or with his wealth in business, or with his intellect in teaching his
wisdom to others. The Tanna advises man to love to learn a skill with which
to support himself, since as long as he loves his work, he will perform it
more easily and more perfectly. ... Similarly, we find that people who engage
in very strenuous labor, like oarsmen, sing while working to make their work
easier. One should not make his living with his wisdom since much physical
illness accompanies this method. Particularly if one wishes to support
himself with the Torah's wisdom, how can he exploit the 'crown of holiness'
to support his 'bowl of lentils'? Likewise, earning a living from business you
should abhor, since it is an occupation replete with deception and stealing.(3)

Lately, the commentaries and outlook of Maharal of Prague have become very
popular. It is strange, though, that no attention has been paid to Maharal's
commentary on the topic of loving work. Maharal viewed this as an "important
foundation" in the path to self-perfection and love of Hashem, as he writes in
"Derekh Chaim" on the aforementioned Mishna:

Regarding what it says, "Love work and despise authority" -- i.e. political
power -- these sages [Shmaya and Avtalyon] come to perfect man in the realm
of reverence and love [of G-d]. For it is befitting for a Chakham to foster
love of G-d's Name. As the Talmud says, "You shall love the L-rd your G-d"
-- through you others should love G-d's Name. One should learn Torah and
cling to the Sages, while speaking pleasantly with people and conducting
all business dealings with others fairly and pleasantly. What do people say
of such a one: 'Happy is he who learned Torah, how beautiful are his ways,
how pleasant are his actions.'(4) ... Also it brings about love of Hashem
when the Torah scholar is not dependent on others... This matter is the cause
for the decline of respect for Torah; if the scholars would not receive their
livelihood from the community, the Torah would be much more respected. Also,
the scholars would admonish the community instead of fawning. They are held
responsible for the community's offences. However, being dependent upon others,
every Rabbi acquires a master over himself. Therefore, Shmaya said "Love work
and despise authority" which shuns labor; one should not relate to work as
beneath his dignity. The opposite is true -- work gives dignity to man...
since it allows man to avoid the disgrace of becoming dependent on others...
Understand, then, how much the Sages stressed loving work... They said "love
work" -- not "choose work." Furthermore, they taught (5), "One who enjoys
his toil is greater than one who fears G-d. Concerning the former it says,
'You are happy and well off'-- happy in this world and well of in the next
world, while by the latter it says merely, 'Happy is the man who fears
G-d." ... Know that one who enjoys his toil necessarily also will love
[of G-d], since he is happy and loves his work and, therefore, must love
the One who granted him his skill. For if one receives a gift that is very
dear to him, perforce, the one who gave him the gift will be very dear to
him. And the Sages have taught that the attribute of love is higher than
that of reverence. ... Hence, in order to be complete in one's love of G-d,
one must work, despise authority, and not become intimately acquainted with
the authorities, since these things all lead to one's submission to G-d.

In fact, Maharal's view is not new; it is firmly based on the explicit words
of earlier Halakhic authorities. This is how Rambam states the Halakha:

Anyone who dedicates himself solely to Torah study, and does not engage
in work but lives off of charity -- such a person desecrates G-d's Name and
disgraces the Torah, extinguishes the light of the Law, causes evil to himself
and removes himself from the next world. For it is forbidden to derive any
[material] benefit in this world from the words of Torah. The Sages said,
"Anyone who derives benefit from the words of Torah removes his life from
the world." They also said, "Do not make them [Torah's words] a crown with
which to glorify yourself and not a spade with which to dig. " Furthermore,
they commanded, "Love work and despise authority" and "Any Torah which is
not combined with work will vanish and in the end causes sin." It is a great
virtue to work for one's living, like the saints of earlier generations.
Thereby, one merits every honor and goodness in this world and the next
world. As its says, "When you eat the fruits of your toil, you are happy
and it is good for you" -- happy in this world and good for you in the next
world which is completely good.(6)

We do not relate here to the permissibility of Torah scholars to receive
monetary support; we are concerned with the optimal situation as our sages
envisioned it. It is an obligation to engage in work and to love it, and this
obligation is imperative to every Jewish man including Torah scholars. This
imperative is of great import; the Torah giants viewed it as a fundamental
point of Torah. So writes Maharal: "The Mishna teaches that one must love
work because it is a great matter and an important foundation, especially
for the Chakham, both for the self-perfection achieved through work, and for
the glory given to G-d's Name. It is befitting that G-d's Name be loved in
the world particularly through the deeds of the Chakham."


Hashem instilled in every man the desire to perfect the world, to improve
it and make it flourish. The six working days of the week are intimately
connected with the six days of Creation. G-d gave the world to man, in order
to build it and turn its desolation into productivity. In the words of the
prophet: "He did not create it to be void, but in order to settle it."(7)
This idea appears in the words of the Sages in various forms. The desire to
develop the world and be creative is a divine desire meant to be implemented,
be it in man's striving to provide for his own personal needs or in the
development of society and the world at large. This, also, seems to be the
intent of the verse: "G-d created to do"(8) -- G-d created the world that we
should continue the doing, to build up the land and fill it. Study of these
ideas arouses a pure love for work. Also, in Kabalistic and Chassidic texts,
emphasis is placed on the idea that this world is not static but dynamic,
that it can be and should be improved, and that this is the very raison
d'etre of man. No wonder, then, that the Creator instilled in the soul of
every Jew the desire to work and contribute to progress. The love of work
is perfectly natural; it originates in the loftier side of man.

Of this natural inclination to work, Chovot HaLevavot writes, "Everyone has
an inclination to some specific skill or occupation, for which G-d instilled
within him a love or fondness."(9) Further on, he explains that every man must
trust in G-d that he will make a living, "and fulfill the Divine imperative
to engage in worldly ways such as plowing and planting. As it says, 'and
G-d took man and placed him in Gan Eden to work it and keep it.'"(10)

Tosfot Yom Tov, a disciple of Maharal, also emphasized the importance of
loving work. According to him, this was the intention of R. Ovadiah Bartenura:
"R. Bartenura wrote that 'even if one has ample sustenance...', since then
one engages in work not for money but for love of the work itself. This is
why he [Shemaya] said 'love work' rather than 'engage in work.'"

Likewise, R. Meir Lehman writes in his commentary Meir Netiv on Avot: "Shmaya,
our great teacher, advocates not only the mitzvah of working but also love of
work. Most people view work as a necessary burden, and one who rids himself of
this burden seems happier. How foolish are people with such a view.... There
are a many sayings by the Sages that speak of the importance of loving work."

Love of work also brings a sense of happiness in working. Abarbanel, in
his commentary Nachlat Avot, cites Rambam's words that becoming intimately
acquainted with the authorities -- the rulers -- causes one to slacken in
the fulfillment of mitzvot. Abarbanel, who himself served as a royal minister
in Spain and Portugal, adds:

These are accurate words and I can personally confirm them. For all my life I
spent in royal circles and woe onto to the man who draws close to them. Happy
is the man who stays away from them. One should only draw close to the King of
kings.... And here, the Sage writes "love work," instead of "engage in work,"
to teach that man should not work out of necessity and against his will, but
rather out of love, so that he will be happy and enjoy it. Just as David said,
"As you eat the fruits of your toil, you are happy and it is good for you,"
and the Sages explained, "happy in this world and good for you in the next
world." Therefore, many sages were themselves laborers...."

In a similar vein, Midrash Shmuel on Avot:

He intends that one should not love the salary he receives for working
while despising the work itself, rather one should be happy with his work
and enjoy it, as if it is no burden upon him. The Sages said of such a man:
"One who enjoys his work is greater than one who fears G-d." They did not
mean that one should enjoy the payment for his work, but rather that he should
enjoy the work itself and be happy with his G-d-given lot as a worker. Since
there are trades that are not prestigious, like shoemaking and smithery,
so he [Shmaya] said, "despise authority" -- even if you are a great teacher,
despise authority and love work. Many great sages acted this way, as we find
among them shoemakers, smiths and woodcutters.

Also, Mahari Alashkar wrote at length in his commentary on this Mishna,
and quotes others regarding the importance of enjoying one's work. A short
excerpt follows:

Do not think that for someone who learns [Torah] half a day and works half
a day, that his reward for a half-day's work is not like his reward for a
half-day's learning. Hence, he comes to tell us that one who learns one hour
a day and benefits from his work is greater than one who learns all day and
does no work to uphold his Torah, for all Torah which is not combined with
work will vanish in the end.

Yona Imanuel
Editor, HaMa'ayan

 1. Tractate Ketubot 59b.
 2. Tractate Pesachim 113a.
 3. see Tractate Kidushin 82a.
 4. Tractate Yoma 86a.
 5. Brachot, Ch. 1
 6. Sefer Ahava, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3, 10-11.
 7. Isaiah 45, 18.
 8. Genesis 2:3
 9. Shaar HaBitachon 3.
 10.  Genesis 2, 15.

***********************************************************
Senior Editor:  Prof. Leo Levi,
Rector Emeritus, Jerusalem College of Technology -- Machon Lev
Junior Editor:  Avi Polak
***********************************************************
Dvar Torah U'Mada
Jerusalem College of Technology - Machon Lev
21 Havaad Haleumi St., POB16031
Jerusalem, 91160 ISRAEL
Tel:  972-2-675-1193  Fax:  972-2-675-1190

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


[ 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         ]