Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 100

Tuesday, August 8 2000

• Re: tnai benssuin
• RE: hashgacha pratis
• Re: Kiddushin al tnai
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: Kiddushin al tnai
• schar ve-onesh
• RE: hashgacha pratis
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• RE: Avodah V5 #99
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Hashgacha Pratis, Rav Yoseph, Senator Lieberman
• Re: Trope at 35:4-5

At 09:33 AM 8/3/00 -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
>Here is a summary of the position of the Seride Esh on tnai benissuin.

[Deleted]

>1) Meikar hadin, according to gdole haposkim, some form of tnai is feasible.
>2) The issurim mentioned in the book ein tnai benissuin were meant more of a
>response to the contemporary situation, rather than reflecting an intrinsic
>issur on tnai.
>3) The current situation is fundamentally different in quantity and quality
>from the problems that the poskim of previous generations had to deal with.
>4) Some form of tnai may therefore be acceptable as a solution.

Yasher Koach.

My impression is confirmed: The SE was proposing that the issue be re-examined,
not endorsing tna'im.

Moreover, it is clear that the SE was advocating reconsideration of the issue
because of the vast number of halachically performed marriages that terminate,
because the couples involved are not shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos, in non-halachic
divorce only. The SE was clearly saying: Maybe a tnai is not 100% halachically
sound, but perhaps it would add a level of heter in mamzerus cases. He is
clearly not advocating use of the tnai in marriages of Shlomei Emunei Yisroel.

Agav Urcha: Dr. Shapiro in his biography never fully resolves the "question"
(to his mind) of the SE's acceptability to the "Right" (as opposed to, say,
RYBS). Part of the "answer" lies here evident: The SE was socially a "lonely
man" - but not halachically: He was utterly and completely collegial with
the Gedolim and Poskim of his generation (many of which were, of course,
personal friends), and deferential to the Gedolei Poskim of yesteryear and
his colleagues as well.

KT,
YGB

I wrote:
>> Clearly, the Rambam believes that many individuals are not subject all the
>> time to hashgacha pratis and during those periods are subject to the
>> consequences of the natural world.

Gil Student replied:
> Without commenting on the correctness of such an assertion, R. Shlomo Wolbe
> in his Alei Shur quotes the Alter of Kelm in Chochmah uMussar as saying
> that the Rambam's "mikreh" refers to hidden hashgachah. Hashem still guides
> everything that happens to a person based on sechar ve'onesh but it is hidden
> within the apparently random events of the world. R. Chaim Friedlander in
> his Sifsei Chaim - Emunah uVechirah vol. 1 follows this approach as well.
> A former chavrusa of mine asked the mashgiach of the Mir (in Brooklyn)
> about this Rambam and the Ramban and he agreed with the interpretation of
> the Alter of Kelm and applied it to the Ramban as well.

I don't claim to be an expert in the Rambam, but if the Rambam believed that
nature is really nes nistar, then ikar chaser min hasefer--he never hints
at this at all (at least in III: 17, 18, 51). Moreover, the idea of hidden
hashgacha is very close to the view of the Islamic sects, Ashariyya (the third
view in III:17), and Mutazila (fourth view, ibid) which the Rambam rejects.

My understanding is that the Mussar position (hidden hashgacha) is based
on their understanding of RambaN, who speaks about nes nistar. Of course,
as mentioned before, Dr. David Berger takes issue with this understanding
of Ramban (showing that other passages, particularly in Iyov, follow Rambam).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I am not debating what gedolim held or with what they held. This is strictly
a Pilpulim 'R Us post.

I'm learning Kiddushin and yesterday I got up to daf 63 which has a mishnah
and a short sugya in gemara on exactly this sort of tenai. I looked through
rishonim and what few acharonim I have on that part of the gemara and it
seems that according to almost everyone that I saw a tenai can be made on
the kiddushin that could last forever. Granted, according to the way the
Beis Yosef reads the Rambam this Mishnah is not talking about that. However,
even according to him, one could structure such a tenai.

So, what is this gemara talking about? Kiddushin that lasts for a lifetime
without any nissuin? Or with nissuin also al tenai? Does anyone actually
say this?

On the other hand, it is clear from the Sha'agas Aryeh 93 that with a
kiddushin al tenai there is no kiddushin at all until the tenai is fulfilled.
That would seem to imply that there is no nissuin either or that the nissuin
is also al tenai.

Gil Student

> He said the 6 million Holocaust victims "were reincarnations of the souls 
> of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things that 
> should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order to atone."

See the Ramban's introduction to Iyov and Rav CD Chavel's footnotes.

Gil Student

I wrote:

> I'm learning Kiddushin and yesterday I got up to daf 63 which has a 
> mishnah and a short sugya in gemara on exactly this sort of tenai. I 
> looked through rishonim and what few acharonim I have on that part of the 
> gemara and it seems that according to almost everyone that I saw a tenai 
> can be made on the kiddushin that could last forever. 

Sorry, I sent this on Friday and did some more investigating over Shabbos.  
It's a complicated sugya in Kesuvos 72b-74a and Yevamos 107a.

Let me also add that after seeing the acharonim quoted in Pischei Teshuvah 
E"H 157:8,9 I cannot see any way for a tenai in the kiddushin to be a 
feasible solution to our current problem.  The Noda Biyehudah requires a 
husband to say the tenai before every time the couple has relations.  The 
Chasam Sofer brings the sevara of the Noda Biyehudah, the Meil Tzedaka, and 
his own regarding exactly when a tenai can be said in the nesuin.  Only 
according to the Noda Biyehudah would a tenai in our case work and the Noda 
Biyehudah said his sevara lehalachah velo lema'aseh.

> On the other hand, it is clear from the Sha'agas Aryeh 93 that with a 
> kiddushin al tenai there is no kiddushin at all until the tenai is 
> fulfilled. That would seem to imply that there is no nissuin either or that 
> the nissuin is also al tenai.
     
The Rosh on Kiddushin 63 also seems to say that with a tenai, kiddushin are not 
chal until the tenai is fulfilled which in our case would be never.  The Ran on 
the Rif seems to say that the kiddushin are chal immediately.

Gil Student

R.E. Preil writes
> IIRC, Rabbi Frand on a tape discussing hashgocho vs. bechira quoted Rav
> Dessler that on Rosh Hashana THREE types of verdicts are possible -
> 1. No harm will befall this person; 2. This person will experience suffering
> and/or hardship; 3. The person's fate will be left to the bechira of others.
> Thus, if a mugger (e.g.) confronts #1, he will escape unscathed. #2 will
> be mugged. #3 is up to the bechira of the mugger and 3's own resources at
> defending himself.
>
sounds interesting, is there an earlier source for this?

At least according to Rambam (possibly Ramban) most people fall into 3.
BTW does Rosh Hashana also apply to nonjews?

According to the other opinions I have always been bothered by
the advance of medicine. It is clear that the average age at death
today is much greater than 100 years ago and 500 years ago.
Does that mean that the average Jew today is more deserving than
at the time of the Ramah (for example).
It is clear that it will continue to increase at least in the near future.
Thus, we all know that the next generation will be more religious than
we are!

As others have pointed out the same problem exists in space rather than in
time. I assume one can find out the average lifespan in various areas of
Israel. Should one expect people from Bnei Brak and Jerusalem to live longer
than from Ramat Aviv? Certainly Israel as a country is not the place with
the longest average age.

> Without commenting on the correctness of such an assertion, R. Shlomo Wolbe in
> his Alei Shur quotes the Alter of Kelm in Chochmah uMussar as saying that the
> Rambam's "mikreh" refers to hidden hashgachah.  Hashem still guides everything
> that happens to a person based on sechar ve'onesh but it is hidden within the
> apparently random events of the world. R.Chaim Friedlander in his Sifsei Chaim
> - Emunah uVechirah vol. 1 follows this approach as well.  A former chavrusa
> of  mine asked the mashgiach of the Mir (in Brooklyn) about this Rambam and
> the Ramban and he agreed with the interpretation of the Alter of Kelm and
> applied it to the Ramban as well.

Is there any internal evidence of this ?
Sounds to me like trying to push the rambam into the mainstream.
Others claim that Rambam knew kabbalah and just hid it.

Eli Turkel

> My understanding is that the Mussar position (hidden hashgacha) is based on 
> their understanding of RambaN, who speaks about nes nistar.  

I think it is based more on kabbalah ie Ramchal and Maharal.

Gil Student

"Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov> wrote:
> JERUSALEM (AP) -- An eminent rabbi ...          saying that 6 million Jews
> perished in the Holocaust because they were reincarnations of sinners.

> Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, leader of the Shas party,...

I don't believe in re-incarnation. 

HM

[Moderator: R' Saadia Gaon speaks against gilgulim in pretty firm terms,
calling it an idea that was being brought in from avodah zarah. OTOH, one
can not deny the role the Zohar and the Ari's statements on gilgulim have
played on Jewish thought... -mi]

> He [Rabbi Ovadia Yosef] said the 6 million Holocaust victims "were
> reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all
> sorts of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order
> to atone."

	Rav Ovadia Yosef is not the first one to say this. In his sefer
Shomer Emunim, Rabbi Aharon Rota (founder of Toldos Aharon) makes the same
point. 

RH Maryles wrote:
     
> I don't believe in re-incarnation. 
     
RM Berger wrote:
     
> [Moderator: R' Saadia Gaon speaks against gilgulim in pretty firm terms, 
> calling it an idea that was being brought in from avodah zarah. OTOH, one can 
> not deny the role the Zohar and the Ari's statements on gilgulim have played 
> on Jewish thought... -mi]

The Sefer HaIkkarim also denied the existence of gilgulim.  However, his rebbe 
R. Chasdai Crescas writes that there is no evidence for or against gilgulim and 
he therefore accepts it because that is the tradition.  That seems pretty 
compelling to me.

Gil Student

On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 01:00:04PM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: The Sefer HaIkkarim also denied the existence of gilgulim. However, his rebbe
: R. Chasdai Crescas writes that there is no evidence for or against gilgulim
: and he therefore accepts it because that is the tradition. That seems pretty
: compelling to me.

I'm not as compelled. After all, R' Saadia, well before RCC, argues that it
was being introduced in his day. If they succeeded despite RSG's attempts
to discredit the idea, RSG could be right and RCC would still have seen it
firmly within the masorah he received.

As I see it, there are two issues:

1- The age of the Zohar, or if we are to follow the Ya'avetz, the age of those
   parts of the Zohar that refer to gilgulim. If these portions are part of
   the original as written by R' Shim'on bar Yochai, then R' Saadia didn't
   have access for some reason to elements of masorah. Therefore his belief
   that the idea was new to Yahadus was a ta'us.

   OTOH, if they are a later interpolation to the Zohar, they could well be
   a consequence of the idea having already been imported.

2- Is the system of masorah guaranteed (perhaps via communal nevu'ah or
   whatnot) not to include such gross errors of the kind RSG holds belief
   in gilgulim to be?

   If so, it would seem that we have experimental evidence that RSG erred.

One more note: Note that we speak of gilgulim of neshamos -- and I think
it's safe to say that sefarim that speak of gilgulim use the word neshamah
in a very technical, perhaps even Naran-specific. According to the Gra, the
ego is/in/of the ruach, and according to the Ramchal is/in/of the nefesh --
in either case, not the neshamah. It would therefore be a reincarnation of
the self in the sense that most people picture.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In Avodah V5 #99, AZZivotofsky asked,
> What is one supposed to make of this????

Since the question didn't appear to be rhetorical, I would hope Ari was really
asking, "What is one supposed to make of the concept of gilgul n'shamos?"
I would further hope that no Torah-true person would dare question Rav Yosef's
remarks without first being familiar with the concept, if not with writings
upon it (e.g. those of the ARY z'l').

All that said, it sounded to my humble ears (more precisely, my eyes,
which read a translation that was said to have come from Ha'aretz, a
medium whose reliability I cannot vouch for) as if Rav Yosef sh'l'y't'a'
was addressing the apparent pointlessness of losing so many precious people
from this world and essentially saying that no, their loss was not in vain --
if for no other reason, their souls were affected by all that occurred to the
respective bodies. Not being anything close to knowledgeable on the subject
of gilgul, I had been given to understand that a n'shomo might return in order
to accomplish in its latest incarnation what it had not yet accomplished in
[a] prior incarnation(s), and I was not aware that a n'shomo might return
in order to be affected by y'surin -- what say y'all?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 01:38:50PM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: All that said, it sounded to my humble ears ...  as if Rav Yosef sh'l'y't'a'
: was addressing the apparent pointlessness of losing so many precious people
: from this world and essentially saying that no, their loss was not in vain --
: if for no other reason, their souls were affected by all that occurred to the
: respective bodies.

For that matter, the answer sounds much like a thought I heard often when
sitting shiv'ah for my 3 month old daughter. That such people had almost,
but not quite, finished their tafkidim in a previous gilgul and therefore
needed to spend little time here to finish them.

In bother cases, RMP's reasoning applies: one is trying to understand
tzidduk hadin where it is clear that there couldn't possibly be a cheit
that would justify the tza'ar as an onesh.

I think the reaction to ROY's statement proves RYBS's shitah in Kol Dodi
Dofeik -- evil needs to be confronted and lived through, justifications
don't really work.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Hashgacha Pratis alone explains how Rav Yoseph's utterance, the choice of
Senator Lieberman, and Hashgacha Pratis itself could be cited in the same
mailing, as I hope to pointo out.

I, too, was thrilled by the choice of the Senator. It certainly seems
"good for the Jews", and we should all daaven for his well-being and syatta
d'shmaya. I also cringed at the statement of the Rav, as I imagined a lot of
the subscribers did.

But as someone implied, Senator Lieberman's place in the sun will
certainly shine light on orthodoxy -- just as the institution of the State of
Israel shone light on Judaism as a whole, and on statements of gedolim living
there, as a consequence.

Like it or not, we're "out there". And perhaps that's what the Hasgacha
Pratis involved in our little assemblage, here, is telling us, too. For our
list is "out there" too -- on the Web, and traceable. And we all need to be
aware of that -- those of us here, and those of us Jews elsewhere.

Now down to particulars. Are Arabs "snakes"? In the sense that they seem
docile right now and just as hot and sweaty as we, yet they're capable of
snapping at our throats at a moment's notice? Yes. Are they all vile and
dust-ridden beasts? Certainly not.

Does the Torah talk about reincarnation (gilgul)? Certainly so, and in a
number of places. It's just that acheinu ha'sefardim have always been more
comfortable with the mystical, inexplicable and less-linear than we. So
they've accepted gilgul as a factor in the hirly-whirly give and take of
Hashgacha Pratis. Are there consequences to our sins? Sure. Did our ancestors
sin in Europe before the war? Nebuch, yes.

So does what the Rav said make sense from a Torah perspective? Yes. And
we're going to have to come to terms with own own religious discomfort, and
learn to be prouder of darchei Torah which will certainly meet with dismay in
an age of spiritual mediocrity and hedonistic excellence.

I'm sure Moravian Jews were nervous when Rav Hirsch served as a member of
their Parliament, and twitched everytime he said something Gentile society
would take exception to. But I'm just as sure he was m'kaddish Hashem many
times over.

Let us all take this opportunity to project stout pride for observant
Judaism, and to live up to our own potential as observant Jews.

Yaakov Feldman

Way back on Thu, Jul 27 2000, Eric Simon wrote:
: It is my understanding that at Bamidbar 35:4-5 there occurs two consecutive
: words (alpayim ba'ama) for which there is unique trope ...          It seems
: awfully "coincidental" that two different tropes, both of which are unique,
: appear on consecutive words. Is there something special about that verse?

I don't know what's special, however, the coincidence you speak of is
illusory.

Trop is an interesting punctuation system. Unlike the system we use for
English, which is primarily aimed at distinguishing between different kinds of
pauses, trop also indicates grouping. IOW, the unique pair of trop indicates
a unique kind of clause in relation to the sentence, not two unique words that
"coincidentally" are next to each other.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]