Avodah Mailing List
Volume 06 : Number 106
Friday, January 19 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:17:32 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Commitment vs. "Connecting"
R' Amital's sichah hit close to home.
My own hashkafah is more about connecting with mitzvos than commitment
to them, in fact, I make commitment a derivative notion, an aspect of
connection. IOW, since one is supposed to be committed to HKBH, "ana avda
diKudsha b'rich Hu", acts that engender that sense of commitment have
that point of connection. Acting *to* commit. However, acting *from*
commitment is played down. It's main role is practice until you get
that connection.
In 1.1 I actually wrote:
: The distinction between mitzvah and tzivui could be understood with
: a metaphor. Someone goes to a doctor and is advised not to eat red
: meat. A few days later, as a guest, the same man is offered some
: steak. He declines, explaining to his host that he is under "Doctor's
: orders". The purpose of refraining from red meat isn't in order to obey
: the doctor. Rather, he has trust in his doctor's greater understanding
: of medicine, and feels secure that the abstention is in his own best
: interest. The doctor's order is therefore akin to a mitzvah, not
: a tzivui. [2]
...
: 2 The comparison is imperfect, though, since in the case of mitzvos an
: aspect of the "cure" is learning to trust the One Who gave us mitzvos,
: and to heed His advice. It's not just the content of the mitzvah that
: gives it value, but also the fact that one is obeying Hashem.
Note that even in the footnote, I talk about trust, emunah, that there
is a potential there. Not about commitment to obedience.
Like my portrayal yesterday of tefillah without kavannah. I said that it:
: still has worth because of mitoch shelo lishmah, or because of the
: Rambam's shitah in "ratzah HKBH lezakos es Yisrael" or the Ari's shitah
: that one's neshamah has kavanah whether or not one is aware of the
: fact. Tefillah is a training exercise. You need to follow the discpline
: for the sake of those times that it "clicks".
RYA would instead find meaning in the commitment to daven itself.
-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:51:19 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: RAV -05: "Majesty and Humility"
Another installment of this excellent series.
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAV SOLOVEITCHIK
by Rav Ronnie Ziegler
LECTURE #5: "Majesty and Humility"
Part 1 of 2
The essay "Majesty and Humility," despite its brevity, presents a number of
the most important ideas in Rav Soloveitchik's philosophy. It can serve as
a key to understanding many of his more complex essays, notably "The Lonely
Man of Faith." When read in conjunction with "Catharsis," it is a powerful
statement of some of the most basic principles of Judaism, yet formulated
in a fresh and surprising way.
This essay's very title indicates two critical points which the Rav wishes
to emphasize:
1) The title refers to characteristics of both God and man. Human morality
must imitate God's qualities or actions; thus, since God displays the
above-mentioned characteristics (as the Rav will explain), so too must man.
2) The nature of human morality, like the nature of man himself, is
dialectical; it is composed of two opposing movements which must both be
maintained in a tense balance. In other words, the title teaches us that
BOTH majesty AND humility are necessary.
Before examining the essay itself, let us discuss the concepts of imitation
of God and of dialectic, which are two of the pillars upon which the Rav's
philosophy rests.
IMITATIO DEI
The principle of imitating God is known in philosophic parlance by the
Latin term "imitatio Dei," and in halakhic terms by the phrase "Ve-halakhta
bi-derakhav" ("You shall walk in His ways"). This concept appears explicitly
in the Bible, is expanded upon by Chazal (the talmudic sages), and receives
its fullest treatment in the works of the Rambam. The phrase "Ve-halakhta
bi-derakhav" is taken from the verse, "The Lord will establish you as His
holy people, as He swore to you, if you shall keep the commandments of the
Lord your God and if you shall walk in His ways" (Devarim 28:9). (Similar
formulations are found in Devarim 8:6, 10:12, 11:22, 13:5, 26:17, and 30:16.)
There are several problems with interpreting this verse as a commandment to
emulate God: 1) it is phrased as a conditional statement, not a command;
2) the phrase "to walk in His ways" is open to several interpretations;
and 3) it seems like a general guideline and not a specific commandment.
The Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, deals with these problems in his responsa
(#63, printed at the end of many editions of the Mishneh Torah). In order
not to go too far afield, we will leave his answers aside; but let us just
note that the Bible commands emulation of God in a more unequivocal fashion
in several other places: "You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God,
am holy" (Vayikra 19:2); "For the Lord your God ... loves the stranger,
providing him with food and clothing; and you too must love the stranger,
for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Devarim 10:17-19);
"... I am the Lord who exercises loving-kindness, judgment and righteousness
in the earth; for these things I desire, says the Lord" (Yirmiyahu 9:22).
The Sages develop imitatio Dei into a more general principle. At times, they
interpret it as a mandate to emulate certain characteristics attributed to God:
"Just as He is called 'merciful,' so should you be merciful; just as He
is called 'gracious,' so should you be gracious ... just as He is called
'righteous,' so should you be righteous ... just as He is called 'pious,'
so should you be pious." (Sifri, Devarim 11:22; also Shabbat 133b)
As we shall see, Rav Soloveitchik (in "Halakhic Man" and elsewhere) expands
the list of divine qualities which man should emulate to include, above all,
creativity.
At other times, Chazal interpret imitatio Dei in terms of actions, not
character traits:
"Rabbi Chama the son of Rabbi Chanina said: What does it mean, 'After the
Lord your God you shall walk' (Devarim 13:5)? Can a person indeed walk
after the Divine Presence? Does it not say, 'For the Lord your God is
a consuming fire' (Devarim 4:24)? Rather, walk after [i.e. emulate] His
qualities. Just as He clothes the naked ... visits the sick ... comforts
the mourners ... and buries the dead ... so should you." (Sota 14a)
Sometimes the actions recommended are at first glance surprising:
"Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Simon said: 'After the Lord your God
you shall walk' ... At the beginning of the world's creation, the Holy
One occupied Himself first with planting, as it says, 'And the Lord God
planted a garden in Eden' (Bereishit 2:8); so too, when you enter the Land
[of Israel], occupy yourselves first with planting - and thus it says,
'When you enter the land and plant all fruit-bearing trees...' (Vayikra
19:23)." (Vayikra Rabba 25:3)
[Of course, there are some characteristics ascribed by the Bible to God
which we should presumably not imitate, e.g. "a jealous and vengeful God"
(Nachum 1:2). There are several answers to this question; see, for example,
Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed I:54.]
The Rambam was the first to formulate "Ve-halakhta bi- derakhav" as a
specific biblical commandment to develop a virtuous personality. (The Behag
preceded him in counting it as one of the 613 biblical mitzvot, but the
Behag interpreted it in terms of performing specific altruistic actions,
not in terms of striving for the ideal of ethical perfection.) In fact,
the Rambam bases his entire system of ethics on this principle. According
to his reading, the "way" in which we are supposed to walk is the middle path:
"The right way is the mean in each disposition ... namely, that disposition
which is equally distant from the two extremes ... This is the way of
the wise ... We are bidden to walk in the middle paths, which are the
right and proper ways, as it is written, 'And you shall walk in His ways'
... and this path is called 'the way of God' ..." (Hilkhot De'ot 1:4-7)
Rav Soloveitchik is reported once to have added an interesting twist to
the Rambam (see "For Further Reference," #3). Is the middle path a tepid,
middling position, a "pareve" form of mediocrity? If we are to draw an analogy
to God, the Rav claimed, then what emerges is a dynamic middle. Just as God
presents a constant dialectic between immanence and transcendence, or between
mercy and strict justice, so must man walk down a dialectical median path,
oscillating between two poles and incorporating both. Although it seems
to me that this is meant more as a creative midrashic use of the Rambam,
rather than a literal exposition of his position, it leads us to another
important motif in the Rav's philosophy.
TWO TYPES OF DIALECTIC
The pair of opposing concepts comprising a dialectic are known in philosophic
terminology as the "thesis" and "antithesis" (i.e. the anti-thesis). When
the tension between the two eventually leads to a third hybrid position,
it is labeled the "synthesis." A dialectic consisting of only two sides,
which never reaches a harmonious resolution, is known as a Kierkegaardian
dialectic (after the 19th-century Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard). If
it consists of three positions, ending in synthesis (which in turn can
become the thesis of a new dialectic), it is termed a Hegelian dialectic
(after the 19th-century German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel).
The Rav takes a firmly Kierkegaardian stance in "Majesty and Humility":
"Judaic dialectic, unlike the Hegelian, is irreconcilable and hence
interminable... To Hegel, man and his history were just abstract ideas;
in the world of abstractions, synthesis is conceivable. To Judaism,
man has always been and still is a living reality... In the world of
realities, the harmony of opposites is an impossibility." (p. 25)
This kind of approach is rare in Jewish philosophy, which often tends to
be more harmonistic. It has roots, however, not just in modern philosophy,
but in the Rav's methodology of Talmud study. A "chakira," as we have pointed
out, is also an irreconcilable dialectic.
The Rav's staunchly Kierkegaardian approach here raises the question of whether
it is a motif in all of his philosophical writings. While "Majesty and and
"The Lonely Man of Faith" present irreconcilable dialectics, it seems that
some of the Rav's other writings, such as "Halakhic Man" and "U-vikkashtem
Mi-sham," present more harmonious portraits of personalities who have found
a synthesis. (It is true that halakhic man is first described as the product
of a dialectic between scientific and religious man; but the personality of
the emergent halakhic man is an entirely harmonious and tranquil one.) We
will bear this question in mind when examining the Rav's other writings,
and return to consider it then.
MAN AS A DIALECTICAL BEING
"Man is a dialectical being; an inner schism runs through his personality
at every level ... [T]he schism is willed by God as the source of
man's greatness and his election as a singular charismatic being. Man
is a great and creative being because he is torn by conflict and is
always in a state of ontological tenseness and perplexity. The fact
that the creative gesture is associated with agony is a result of this
contradiction, which pervades the whole personality of man." (p. 25)
Thus Rav Soloveitchik begins "Majesty and Humility." He does not yet tell us
what the dialectic is, nor does he begin by stating that it is a reflection
of a divine dialectic. Logically, it might have made more sense to begin
by stating, "God is a dialectical being, and so too must man be," or,
"God relates to man dialectically, because man is dialectical." However,
as always, the Rav proceeds from the human perspective; he begins all his
investigations with what is known to man through his own experience.
Furthermore, he is not yet interested in presenting to us the specific
dialectic upon which the essay will focus. He wishes first to establish the
fundamental fact that human nature is not tidy and harmonious, but rather
is conflicted at its very core. (This is the major theme of "The Lonely
Man of Faith.") However, although often perplexing and discomfiting, this
characteristic is the source of man's greatness - his creative power. The
harmonious person stagnates; the restless and conflicted person innovates.
Of course, some people may not be able to handle the tension successfully.
They will either abdicate responsibility by abandoning their commitment to one
side of the dialectic, or their personality may disintegrate altogether under
the pressure of the unavoidable tension. One of the roles of Halakha, then,
is to aid man in negotiating the dialectic by providing him with practical
guidelines for action. Let us now elaborate on this idea.
HALAKHA AS A RESPONSE
If the human personality is indeed dialectical, then it wishes to pursue
two different, perhaps incompatible, goals. Sensitive to this conflict,
the Halakha has thus formulated "a dialectical morality" - an ethic of
majesty and an ethic of humility. Halakha "did not discover the synthesis,
since the latter does not exist. It did, however, find a way to enable man
to respond to both calls" (p. 26). This response is developed in the last
pages of this essay, and is the focus of the essay "Catharsis." [In the
next several shiurim, we will analyze this issue in detail.]
The Rav's characterization of Halakha here carries through many of his
writings. For example, in "Kol Dodi Dofek," Rav Soloveitchik states that
philosophic solutions to the problem of evil and suffering are inadequate
at both an intellectual level (because of man's finite intellect) and at
an emotional level (because they deny the legitimacy of man's experience of
suffering). The Halakha, on the other hand, provides a practical response to
this insoluble intellectual and experiential question, through the mandate
of repentance in response to suffering.
Repentance enables man to take cathartic, therapeutic action in response
to adversity, thereby turning a potentially destructive experience into a
redemptive one. By responding in a constructive manner, one maintains his
dignity in the face of absurdity; instead of being buffeted by blind forces,
he "takes control" of the situation by creating (i.e. self-creation, which
is the essence of repentance).
Just as Halakha provides a practical response to suffering without "solving"
the problem of evil, in "The Lonely Man of Faith" the Rav portrays Halakha as
providing a practical means of mediating the unavoidable tension between the
positions of Adam I and Adam II, without reaching a philosophical synthesis
of these two approaches. (We will examine both "Kol Dodi Dofek" and "The
Lonely Man of Faith" in later installments in this series.)
Thus, Halakha responds to man's most urgent and deep- seated dilemmas;
instead of being paralyzed by dichotomies and intractable problems, man is
provided a means to respond to them practically and creatively. Halakha does
not deny man's desires and internal paradoxes. Rather, it confronts reality
unblinkingly, providing man a framework to help him negotiate his internal
conflicts and to sanctify his natural urges (instead of delegitimizing or
denying them).
It now remains for us to delineate the human dialectic between majesty and
humility and how Halakha responds to this duality. This will be the subject
of the next lecture.
FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:
1. Imitatio Dei: R. David Shapiro, "The Doctrine of the Image of God and
Imitatio Dei," in Contemporary Jewish Ethics, ed. M. Kellner [NY, 1978],
pp. 127-151; Shalom Rosenberg, "Ve-halakhta Bi-derakhav" (Hebrew), in
Pilosophia Yisraelit, ed. M. Halamish [Tel Aviv, 1982], pp. 72-91.
2. Rambam's Ethics: This subject is very complex and has been subject to
many conflicting interpretations. Some of the issues in dispute are the
relationship between the Rambam's "Middle Path" and Aristotle's "Golden
Mean;" the relationship between the chakham and chasid (sage and saint)
in Rambam's writings; the Rambam's different accounts of his ethical system
in his various works (Shemoneh Perakim, Mishneh Torah, Moreh Nevukhim); and
the Rambam's ideal of human perfection. For a presentation of the various
opinions on the last issue, and a treatment of the previous issues, see
Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on Human Perfection [Atlanta, 1990].
3. The Dialectical Nature of the "Middle Road": The interpretation proposed
by Rav Soloveitchik is recorded by Rav Walter Wurzburger in his article,
"Alienation and Exile," Tradition 6:2 (1964), reprinted in A Treasury of
Tradition, eds. R. N. Lamm and R. W. Wurzburger [NY, 1967], pp. 93-103. It can
also be found in Rav Wurzburger's book, Ethics of Responsibility [Philadelphia,
1994], pp. 100-101.
(For questions or comments to the instructor, please write to
rav@etzion.org.il)
Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion All Rights Reserved
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:27:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael J Broyde <mbroyde@emory.edu>
Subject: Cooking metal and florescent lights
Someone posted:
> Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
> of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
> of bishul.
I do not think this is agreed to by all. Although Chazon Ish (50:9) takes
the view that heating metal above yad tzoledes bo is bishul and assur
menhatorah, most poskim do not agree with this; Indeed, the common minhag
haolam is to be makil. I think most poskim adopt the view that cooking
metal requires melting the metal.
(Consider the case of the food in a metal pot that was fully cooked before
shabbat, and taken off of the blech on Shabbat, and cooled down to below
yad tzoledt bo, but yet is still warm to the touch. Can you put it back
in the bleich to get it above yad tzoledets bo? If the above logic is
correct, that action (making the metal grow hotter (above YTB) should be
an issur torah.)
Michael Broyde
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:39:52 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Cooking metal and florescent lights
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 11:27:36AM -0500, Michael J Broyde wrote:
:> Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
:> of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
:> of bishul.
: I do not think this is agreed to by all. Although Chazon Ish (50:9) takes
: the view that heating metal above yad tzoledes bo is bishul and assur
: menhatorah, most poskim do not agree with this; Indeed, the common minhag
: haolam is to be makil...
This catches me by surprise. Discussions of the issur of using an
incandescent bulb on Shabbos seem to take it as a given that if it isn't
hav'arah to make the metal glow, it would certainly be bishul.
My argument was about identifying the problems of the filament in a
flourescent bulb to be the same as the incandescent variety. I think
that most people don't realize they have glowing filaments in them.
With the difference that while you don't directly use the light (of the
filament), you do actually use the heat.
Second, wouldn't this situation different then that of a metal pot
(and closer to making metal glow) because it creates a change of state
in the mercury?
-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:55:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "David Riceman [dtr]" <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject: reference?
Is anyone aware of any discussion of the relationship between the
Ramban and Yehuda HaLevi (particularly the Kuzari)? I often find HaLevi's
ideas mentioned approvingly by the Ramban, but rarely find the Ramban
mentioning HaLevi by name.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:00:08 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: E-hyeh shelachani aleichem
Micha Berger:
> ... in a universe where HKBH is fully involved, things happen for a
> purpose. In addition to causality there is teleology... The telos lays
> later in time ...
I'm not sure I am clear, but does this match an idea in one of my earlier
posts that something can be set up in advance in anticipation - i.e. al
sheim he'osid?
So, for example, the aspect of Sukkos, that was instituted as a "zman
simchaseinu" IN ANTICIPATION of the future Beis Hamikdash of Shlomo?
(leaving the agricultural, "hag ha'asif", aspect as an earlier cause.)
Or that Yerushalyim as a Makom asher Yichar Hashem le'shakein shmo sham
was in Dvarim anticipatory of the events fulfilled by David Hamelech?
Shalom
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:34:32 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject: Re: Teaching Torah to Gentiles in an Academic Setting
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> understand it. The SE wants to be meikel based on the Rambam's shitah,
> but he ignores a teshuvah in which the Rambam only permits teaching
> Torah shebichsav, and only to believing Christians.
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
I haven't seen the SE's teshuva, but, AIUI, it is permissible to teach Torah
sh'ba'alpeh to gentiles if the gentile is merely part of a larger group (of
Jews). IOW, the isur only applies to one-on-one instruction. I would think
that this heter would solve most of the problems of teaching torah to
gentiles in academic settings.
(I heard this from R' Reisman on one of his tapes. Apparently, a gentile
who was moving towards converting had asked his rabbi if he could attend R'
Reisman's navi shiur. The rabbi said, "Navi? No problem, it's Torah
shebichsav!" R' Reisman commented that it was highly doubtful whether his
navi shiur really qualified as Torah sh'biksav, but that it was still
permissible for this gentile to come to the shiur, since the isur does not
apply where the gentile is part of a larger group.)
KT
Aryeh
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:51:37 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject: Re: Filaments , RSZA and other Gdolim re electricity
In a message dated 1/18/01 9:40:43am CST, Micha Berger writes:
> Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
> of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
> of bishul.
Not so pashut. Where is the maaseh bishul or conversion of a soft
substance to a hard one or fakert? Also, if the electricity is a staedy
source which is activtaed, but not created by the flow of a switch, why
is it either bishul or maceh bpatish? RSZA has a running discussion and
attack on the CI in both Minchas Shlomoh and Shulchan Shlomoh. In fact,
both seforim describe in great detail the level of this machlokes. If
you think that that there is bishul involved why not use an Acum or
katan ? It is brought in Nefesh haRav that RMS ordered RYBS ro turn on a
light when a doctor came to their house when RYBS had a fever. Perhaps,
a fever in pre WW2 Poland was differernt than today, but the fact remains
that RMS told RYBS to turn on the light.
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:51:37 -0600
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@heidecorp.com>
Subject: Re: Flourescent lights
Micha Berger wrote:
> Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
> of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
> of bishul.
Hi.
My brother noted that 359C is around 678F!! And yet they are cool to the
touch. So I did a bit of web checking at http://www.howstuffworks.com
after seeing your note about flourescent lights.
In fact, the mercury is under very low pressure, which, iirc, would allow
its vaporization and ionization to occur at a much lower temperature.
I could not find what that pressure is or the temparature. It also seems
that it may depend on the kind of ballast being used as to whether there
is any glow emitted from the heating of metal (eg a bimetal plate)
A separate thought: there is only a tiny drop of mercury; if bishul is
are only issue, than would that not be only derabanan?
--
Elly Bachrach
Heide Corporation http://www.heidecorp.com
Phone: (847) 676-2880
Fax: (847) 982-2304
mailto:ebachrach@heidecorp.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:12:20 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Flourescent lights
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:51:37PM -0500, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
:> Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
:> of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
:> of bishul.
: Not so pashut. Where is the maaseh bishul or conversion of a soft
: substance to a hard one or fakert?
One would think that boiling mercury, converting a liquid to a gas,
would qualify.
: source which is activtaed, but not created by the flow of a switch, why
: is it either bishul or maceh bpatish?
I wasn't arguing this point, but rather whether a flourescent bulb is
any more mutar than an incandescent one. Only the points in which the
two differ. Physically, they differ less than most people realize.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:51:37AM -0600, Elly Bachrach wrote:
: My brother noted that 359C is around 678F!! And yet they are cool to the
: touch. ... the mercury is under very low pressure, which, iirc, would allow
: its vaporization and ionization to occur at a much lower temperature.
As to why the bulb is cool, realize that the filament in an incandescent
bulb reaches 20,000deg or so. By comparison that is cool -- and yet still
well into bishul territory. So the outside glass doesn't get hot. Even
if it needn't be as hot as 678deg to boil the mercury, the mercury isn't
boiling because of temperatures below 160.
In either case, the filament itself, has to be yad soledes bo and glowing
in order to throw electrons or holes toward a second filament that can be
as far as two yards away.
: A separate thought: there is only a tiny drop of mercury; if bishul is
: are only issue, than would that not be only derabanan?
You're asking about chatzi shiur? If so, what's the shiur?
-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:28:32 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Parasha question
On the "Morsel of Hebrew Grammar" parasha sheet, he asks why, if
Bemidbar becomes sefer Bamidbar, doesn't shemos become sheimos? He does
not, IIRC, answer. Any suggestions?
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:34:07 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re:Teaching Torah to Gentiles in an Academic Setting
Bs"d
RGS:
>Are there any sources to be meikel in teaching Torah (shebe'al peh)
>to gentiles other than those mentioned in the Seridei Eish's teshuvah?
>I've seen a number of fine talmidei chachamim do this, and I can't really
>understand it. The SE wants to be meikel based on the Rambam's shitah,
>but he ignores a teshuvah in which the Rambam only permits teaching
>Torah shebichsav, and only to believing Christians.
I would also like to find out more about this, particularly as it concerns
posting to, say, Torah Forum, which has many non-Jews as list members. I
used to be a frequent poster there, but have basically stopped, and this
issue is one of the major reasons. Anybody have what to say?
Eli
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:44:57 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Tzelem Elokim
Back in v6n85, RYGB quoted me and succinctly asked:
: >It would appear from the 2nd perek of Tanya that all Jews (regardless
: >of tzidkus or lack thereof) and all chassidei umos ha'olam have a nefesh
: >Elokis. In my huge ignorance of Chabad chassidus, I am reluctant to argue
: >with a rav who lives it. However, I do not see how Chabad actually does
: >teach what the correspondant's rav said it did.
: Does he say that about Chassidei Ummos Ha'Olam?
It took me so long because, as RYGB was trying to tactfully say,
he doesn't. And yet I remembered something along those lines so
clearly. I finally came across what I was remembering, it's from the
end of "Lessons in Tanya" on Chapter 1. Here's the text, lifted from
<http://chabad.org/library/tanya/book-1/chap01.html>. In particular note
the first sentence of the third paragraph:
> [When a Jew acts in a benevolent manner he is motivated mainly out of
> concern for the welfare of his fellow. The proof of this is that were
> his fellow not to need his help, this would give him greater pleasure
> than the gratification derived from his act of kindness.
> Concerning the nations of the world, however, this is not so. Their
> motivation is not the welfare of their fellow; rather, it stems from a
> self-serving motive - the desire for self-glorification, a feeling of
> gratification, and the like.
> It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also
> to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. (32)
> Called "the pious ones of the nations of the world," these righteous
> individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a
> genuine concern for their fellow.
...
> 32. See Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Likutei Biurim (by Rabbi
> Hillel Malisov of Paritch), 47b.
I have no idea who the sources in #32 are, if they are being choleik with
the Ba'al haTanya, giving p'shat, or an "efshar lomar" apologetic.
-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]