Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 051

Friday, November 16 2001

• Re: zaddik and zechuyot
• Ikkarim
• Re: Rava, R Zeira, and the Shechita on Purim
• Re: techelet
• Malachi and Kohanim
• Re: Ha'Chovel
• herzl
• Re: zaddik and zechuyot
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• Re: astronomy
• "Passively basking in Ziv haShechinah"
• Re: "Passively basking in Ziv haShechinah"
• Uplifting Chores
• Re: Herzl z"l
• RE: Lot
• Re: Lot

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:50:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> It seems to me almost irrelevant to do so, but I cannot resist
:> citing the following words of the Rambam (T'shuvah 3:1).
:> kol ehad v'ehad mi-b'nei ha-adam yeish lo z'khuyot v'avonot.  mi
:> she-zekhuyotav y'teirot al avonotav tzadiq.

: That Rambam is referring to a tzaddik b'dino, not the tzaddik of zt"l note.

Much has been made of the distinction between techuyos and tzidqus, in
particular my own response to RDG's quote of the D4 WRT Herzl's place
in olam haba.

I am wondering how RYGB would apply this or a similar idea to the first
mishnah of Cheileq:
    Kol Yisra'el yeish lahem cheileq li'olam haba,
    shene'emar, "vi'ameich kulam tzaddiqim,  li'olam yisrshuy aretz..."

This pasuq, and reinforced by the mishnah, presumes that tzidqus and
place in olam haba are equivalent concepts.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

With regard to the ikkarim debate, and request for actual halachic
sources, the letter from rav kook to R M Zeidel (letter 20, p. 19-21 in
volume 1 of Iggerot hareayah may be of interest. It supports something
that RR Wolpoe suggested, although it goes much further than I think
he meant

To put in context, in a previous public letter (michtav galuy) Rav Kook
wrote with my love to learn and teach our yesode hadeot, I am far from
demanding rule (shilton) over the thoughts (deotav) of any man that lives,
that is in our days something that is unheard of (sheeyno nishma) Rav
Zeidel wrote back to ask whether that meant that he tolerated pure freedom
of inquiry, and whether that was a pragmatic decision or was lecatchila.

RAY Kook answers the rationale behind free inquiry, and then to say
that it has boundaries (e g to conclude that murder is permissible
is clearly wrong),and then goes on to the importance of ikkarim to any
cohesive group.

He then goes on

uleinyan dina, (with regard to psak - (in deference to the request for
halachic sources, I think that this part of the letter therefore counts
as a tshuva)) know, that even though it is completely prohibited (issur
gamur) and a bad sickness (holi ra), one who even doubts and reflects
(meharher) on matters of pure faith (haemuna hashlema), however, we
did not find that hazal judged the din of an epikors, except on the
kopher, that is, someone who decides on the reverse, and deciding on
the reverse is impossible that will be found in Israel in any man that
is not a complete rasha and deliberate liar. Because the greatest evil
can only put a tinge of doubt in the weak minded, and therefore anyone
who is bold enough to say that he is clearly kopher, (kopher beberur),
he is a rasha muchlat, that we could in justice judge him by the all the
written laws, and there is no claim that his heart forced him And if
the kfira in our generation was honest, it would always claim a claim
of doubt, and one could easily explain away its doubts.

Several conclusions:
1) A kopher (the only halachic (as distinct from hashkafic) issue that
seems to have been at the crux of the halachic necessity for these dinim )
is not one who does not uphold the emunah shlema, but one who deliberately
denies it. Anyone who merely doubts, no matter how severe the doubts,
while it is problematic, (and RAYK does suggest some halachic issues)
is not a kopher or epikoros. Atheists are, agnostics not..

2) Hazal were reluctant to rule on the issues of kofer except in these
cases of deliberate denial - this reluctance seems lacking on avoda
(eg, by this criteria, R Moshe Taku who argued about the possibility
of corporeality apparently would not be a kopher, and RYGB could safely
drink his old Regensburg wine :-) :-)) ( I think that this goes back to
an old argument of mine about reluctance to label epikorsim)

3) There is no discussion here about the ikkarim of the rambam. In the
body of the letter which I omitted (prior to the uleinyan dina), there is
a general discussion of the nature of things that need to be included -
declaration of God's name to the world, as master (eloke) of the world,
shomer habrit vehachesed and the ways of justice, that are the middot
of hakadosh baruch hu), and a special condition in its existence on its
land and the establishment of its government. There is no indication
that the rambam's ikkarim define emuna shlema (and in the context,
it is quite clear that this is not just implicit)

4) RAYK has another article about ikkarim in the sefer ma'amare raayah,
where he again discusses the nature and variable importance of ikkarim
(eg hashem's unity being more important to the rambam than the creation
of the world). There too it does not appear that he views the rambam's
ikkarim as defining emunah shlema (Not that he negates them, but the
equivalence that so many here clearly see between normative faith and
the ikkarim is lacking)

Meir Shinnar

First, people interested in this aggadita would be interested in our
earlier discussion of it in v4n61 - v4n66.

Second, the protagonist was Rabba, not Rava. (RES's summary seems to be
the only one who got it right in this thread.)

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:49:21AM -0500, Eric Simon wrote:
: The name "Rabbah" means "the great one," i.e., he had a broad intellectual
: capacity. The name "Zeira," by contrast, means "the small one," i.e.,
: he had a more limited capacity...

Since v4 I saw a different peshat in the story. We know that R Zeira
ran toward depression; or at least, that he alone amongst Chazal has
stories told about people trying to chear him up.

Rabbah, however, was quite the opposite. (Unfortunately, I forgot the
raayos. Anyone want to provide some?)

As for their relative sizes, Rabbah was the greater at "ivdu es Hashem
besimchah".

Nichnas yayin yatza sod. Rabbah, by giving a depressed person wine,
brought him to a point of despair. Ke'ilu shocheto.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:21:09PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
: First of all, it is not at all clear that the techeiles dye must be
: solely a result of the contribution of dam chilazon.

Even so, it has to be something uniquely produced by a chilazon.
Particularly according to the Radziner Rebbe. But even according to
RSM's looser interpretation of the gemara, kalah ilan must be the only
other readily available source of a colorfast dye of the same color
(including, of course, sources of the same chemical).

However, because of that which RYZ so aptly calls libun, the nature of
the original biochemical is irrelevent. In fact, I wonder if ox blood
was the usual source of prussian blue because it provides iron, and
therefore any red blood would produce the same dye /more/ easily than
relying on iron leeched of the pot.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Question about the haftora.

Malachi scolds the kohanim for taking their avodah for granted, for
not showing Hashem the kavod due their Father, for treating kodshim as
though they were regular feasts, etc... This echoes the complaints found
in the last pereq (13) of Nechemia.

What generation of kohanim was this? We are talking about the first
and 2nd generations of Bayis Sheini?! The idealists who did not stay in
Bavel and their children had so rapidly sunk?

I would think this argues in favor of R Shwab's rejected proposal
of adding 168 years that are not in our calendar between chanukas
hamizbei'ach and the completion of the bayis. This would put Nechemia
closer to the third and fourth generations of doing avodah. We often
see the third generation abandoning the ideals of the first: look at
third generation Soviets, or kibbutznikim. (Or, for that matter, third
generations of movements within Torah.) For them, it is the routine
they were raised with, not an ideal that inspires.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I though this would be of interest.

: Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
: Shlomo Katz

Other divrei Torah skipped.

: In the Friday night zemirot composed by the Arizal we read: "To the right
: and to the left, and in between them, the bride." The "bride" presumably is
: Shabbat, but what is "to the right and to the left"?

: Rav Pinchus David Horowitz z"l (the "Bostoner Rebbe") explains:

: In kabbalah, the "right" and the "left" represent the attributes of "chessed"
: (loving-kindness) and "gevurah" (strength) respectively. In our history,
: Avraham epitomized chessed (the right) and Yitzchak, gevurah (the left).

: Avraham fathered Yishmael, who, according to the midrash, refused to accept
: the Torah because it outlawed adultery. Adultery is the result of chessed
: (love) gone awry (see Vayikra 20:17). Yitzchak fathered Esav, who refused to
: accept the Torah because it prohibited murder, which is the excessive use of
: "gevurah."

: The nations on the right and the left observe their sabbaths to the right
: and the left of Shabbat, i.e., on Friday and Sunday, respectively. It is to
: this that the Arizal's song refers.

: Each of these three nations--Yishmael, Esav, and ourselves-- claims to have
: the true Torah of Avraham. When we observe Shabbat, says the Bostoner Rebbe,
: we add to it a few minutes from Friday and a few minutes from Sunday in
: order to solidify our claim. (quoted in Shoshelet Boston p.273)

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Rena Freedenberg wrote in relationship to my post
> Oy, vey, I'm not quite sure where to start. There is NO question that
> Moshiach ben Yosef and l'havdil Herzl have no relationship one to the
> other. On the idea of Moshiach ben Yosef, there are several sources that
> you should look into to see why your understanding is not the correct
> one in this case:

I would like to thank Rena for educating me (RYGB and RMB can tell you
it isn't an easy job:-) :-)_. However, the alleged error isn't mine -
I was citing RAYK in his hesped of Herzl (to be found in his ma'amare
reayah) To complicate matters, AFAIK, the former sephardic chief rav
of tel aviv, Chaim Yosef Dov Halevy, called David Ben Gurion mashiach
ben yosef.. Rena is of course entitled to object, as many others have,
but please be aware of who the real ba'al plugta is, before one becomes
certain of one's opinions and the falsity of others

[In a 2nd email... -mi]

RYGB wrote
> 1. The Rambam in Hil. Teshuva is discussing a tzaddik b'dino - the Tanach
> and Shas are full of definitions of the persona of a Tzaddik as one who
> battles and conquers his YH!!!

WADR, my understanding of the tanach and gemara is that the way to
become a tzaddik (and therefore accumulate the zchuyot) is to conquer
one's yetzer hara, and lefi za'ara agra. Is there any textual support
for this distinction between zaddik b'dino and zaddik for zt"l? (not
a zaddik elyon, not a zaddik in a hasidic sense, but one for whom the
term zt"l would be appropriate??)I would be happy (as I think most on
the list would be) to be one who fits the rambam's definition of a zaddik.

(I would add, that there is something strange about the whole discussion
- I can not remember a single previous time when asking for the textual
sources was jumped upon as unnecessary (RMB - "The textual basis? What
about simple translation of the word.?" ) and when a clear source to the
contrary was found it was dismissed immediately as not relevant without
evidence. Again, RMB and RYGB posited that the scale of zchuyot (allowing
for status in olam haemet) is different than the scale for zaddik -
and I wonder about such a distinction - and think it is quite a hiddush.

RYGB
> The issue of lishma is critical to one's status in the Olam ho'Emes. See 
> the last Rambam in the Peirush ha'Mishnayos in Makkos.

Yes, doing a mitzva lishma is better than lo lishma and Yeshaya Lebowitz
has a whole theology over lishma. However, what precisely lishma means
is of course not quite so clear - Herzl was not doing it (at least
to start - the issue of his children is a strange saga that I don't
know what the truth is. Remember, that the Haaretz is in some ways as
antizionistic as the yated, albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum)
for personal aggrandizement, but for the sake of the mitzva of saving jews
(even if he might not have phrased it as for the sake of the mitzva..).
What the proper definition and kavana of lishma means is a source of
much controversy. However, in general, when we have someone with major
accomplishments, we don't sit there picking at them and saying maybe
they weren't lishma. we especially tend to be dan lkhaf zchut those who
helped save israel (hayonatan yamut asher asa hayeshua hazot..)

If I could summarize your argument (insofar as I understand it) initially,
you had argued that my logic was so tortured that it could justify great
evil (Hitler, Haman, Osama.(great company, and their use does prove
the ideological bent of the discussion (regardless of any denials) -
today any comparison with Hitler is not ideologically neutral or a purely
logical point). 
I hope that that line is abandoned.

Now, (if I understand it) you are arguing something quite different - not
that my logic can be used to justify evil, but that the mere act of doing
good does not guarantee status, as the issue of lishma arises. While that
can be discussed (as is partially done above) , I am one who has always
argued for the validity of multiple viewpoints, and would point out that
this was argued from a RZ perspective, which, as cited by RAYK and the
DR, seemed not to have the problem giving Herzl the status I do (the DR
does specifically give it in olam ha'emet,,) We are told olam haemet is
an olam hafuch, and the ribbono shel olam will make his own heshbonot.
However, we do have an obligation to be makir tov, and the sources cited
seem adequate justification for my using the honorific ztl for herzl,
While RYGB and I have frequently disagreed, this is the first time that
I just do not comprehend the logic (although I do comprehend the emotion).

Quite simply, all the people who have a difficult time giving Herzl zt'l
(and there are many ) would also have a difficult time envisioning him as
mashiach ben yosef or as being at a high level of olam haemet (regardless
of their appreciation of his activities). However, I do not understand
the logic that would admit the last two as appropriate, but argue that
usage of the term zaddik even in zt"l is completely inappropriate.

Meir Shinnar

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>With regard to the definition of a zaddik, I know of only one
>halachic definition of a zaddik Rambam, Mishe Torah hilkhot tshuva 3:1
>Kol echad veechad mibne ha'adam yesh lo zchuyot va'avonot. Mi
>shezechuyotav merubot al avonotav, zaddik

I was going to offer other definitions (e.g. Kiddushin 40a - tzaddik
is determined by bein adam lamakom) until I saw the phrase "halachic
definition" in RMS's post. However, I am sure that RMS did not mean
that literally because not everything in Mishneh Torah was meant as an
halachic pesak. I doubt that RMS would disagree with that, particularly
considering our recent discussion about the 13 ikkarim (which the Rambam
restates in the same chapter that RMS cited above).

Gil Student

>>My point was not whether is right or wrong just simply the fact that
>>it is the siddur does not make it normative. I believe that Chatam
>>Sofer did not say shalom aleichem

>Source?

I don't know about the Chasam Sofer, but the minhag in Volozhin was not to 
say the last two stanzas of Shalom Aleichem (barchuni, tzeischem).  I heard 
that from R. Hershel Schachter and R. Lipa Geldwerth.

The Chasam Sofer writes in a teshuvah that he privately skips the machnisei 
rachamim in selichos.  Maybe that is what the above poster was thinking of.

Gil Student

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< I'm not sure that one could pasken by the Siddur,
but OTOH the siddur is likely a reflection of normative psak. >>>

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< My point was not whether is right or wrong just
simply the fact that it is [in] the siddur does not make it normative >>>

May I suggest a compromise view. The siddur has little to do with how the
rabbis pasken, and it has much to do with what the hamon am like. The
siddur certainly does not *make* psak, nor does it even reflect the
consensus of the poskim. But it does reflect the consensus of the
hamon am.

In our case, I think that Yigdal demonstrates that the hamon am accept
the concept that ikkarim do exists, and the generalities of what those
ikkarim include. But when it comes down to the fine points of the ikkarim,
and one can demonstrate a machlokes between what is found in Yigdal, vs
what is found in Rambam, vs what is found in other Rishonim, I thing even
the hamon am would agree that Yigdal is a great poem with a steady rhyme
and beat, and that nothing should be darshened out from the exact words.

Akiva Miller

Eli Turkel: <How about the Raavad in hilchot kidush hachodesh who implies
he did not know astronomy and was not particular interested in learning.>

David Riceman: <You might want to check R. Twersky's biography. IIRC he
demonstrates that in fact the Raavad was quite knowledgable in astronomy.>

In addition, I would argue that the words of the Raavad do not suport what
R. Eli was claiming. Hil. Qiddush haHodesh 7:7, my translation, with the
original Hebrew in places where someone might want to quibble with me):

"This author [the Rambam] is very boastful and proud of [his knowledge]
of this science, and he thinks he understands it completely ("shehiggia'
l'takhlitah"). I, OTOH, am not expert in it ("va'ani 'eini me'anasheha"),
since my rebbis also did not reach it ("lo higgi'u 'eileha"). So I have
not gone into his calculations to check him."

To me, this sounds very much like the Raavad knows more than a thing or
two about astronomy, but is protesting that he doesn't consider himself
an expert, and will not challenge the calculations.

Please feel free to disagree with my translation, and that may lead
you to slightly different conclusions. However, regardless of your
translation, I will argue that the Raavad intimates that he could check
the calculations if he wanted to, so that indicates that he knew enough
astronomy to check if he wanted to. Furthermore, that section (7:7) of
Hil. Qiddush haHodesh is very technical; when I have tried to go rhrough
it with people nowadays, they want to skip it. The Raavad obviously read
it all, and with enough thought that he conposed a hassogo that clearly
indicates he understood the Rambam's argument completely.

Finally, there is no source at all for saying that "he was not
particularly interested in learning."

And I would like to point out that I specifically said there is no need
for frum Jews to know astronomy in detail, and mentioned things like
quasars and relativity. These may enhance Avodas haShem, but what I
am claiming is that every frum Jew should know elementary astronomy,
enough to understand the analemma, the stages of twilight and dawn,
the brightness of the stars, the stages of the moon, and some ancillary
things. It is unquestionable that the Raavad knew at least that much,
or else he would not be able to follow the Rambam's discussion. I think
it is mandatory on yeshiva high schools to teach enough astronomy so that
the boys, if the spirit moves them, can learn hilkhos Qiddush haHodesh,
and based on my observations, that is not the case. Will you claim that
one must be expert in shechting animals is order to learn enough to get
current day s'mikha? I know many of my colleagues would not know where to
begin if confronted by an animal to shecht, although I hope and expect
that they could still discuss b'dikos of the rei'os intelligently. That
is all I am asking for.

Seth Mandel

Ps. I think it would be far better to go back to the ancient Ashk'naz
system of Moreinu and Haver if people want titles. Teaching boys hil.
tarfus when they have no intention of ever shechting and almost no
likelihood of ever being asked a question about a chicken just so they
can call themselves "rabbis" is ludicrous in modern America. Better,
if they want a document that says "yoreh,yodin" that they should be
forced to have b'hinos in hil. gittin and qiddushin, in Choshen mishpot,
and in hil. b'rokhos and shabbos, as well as ta'arovos. Just a pet peeve.

I figured someone would take issue with R' Micha's statement below,
but no one has -- so I am forced to unlurk for a bit. (Kind of like
being called up from the minors.)

>To [the Rambam], imitatio dei
>is not part of the ultimate good, passively basking in Ziv haShechinah is.

Without fully analyzing the issue, my gut tells me that "passively
basking" is just the wrong way to understand the Rambam. First of all,
the tsadikim are "neheneh" from the Ziv HaShekhnino -- i.e., a full
enjoyment which requires the use of every spiritual sense, the end-product
of lifelong yedias HaShem. I don't think anyone would classify yedias
Hashem among the passive activities.

Second of all, from a purely semantic point of view, "passive" is the
wrong term, because the "passive"/"active" dichotomy is not something
to which the Rambam's view of oylem-habe can be fitted. Using these
terms begs the question, because it assumes that the ultimate good is
a pursuit, or an activity -- rather, according to the Rambam, it is an
ultimate Aristotelian knowledge, in which the mind of the knower fuses
with Him who is known. (I'm thinking of the discussion in the Mishneh
Toyre and the three-fold repetition of yud-daled-ayin.)

Sholem Berger

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 10:55:21AM -0500, Sholem Berger wrote:
:> To [the Rambam], imitatio dei
:> is not part of the ultimate good, passively basking in Ziv haShechinah is.

: Without fully analyzing the issue, my gut tells me that "passively
: basking" is just the wrong way to understand the Rambam. First of all,
: the tsadikim are "neheneh" from the Ziv HaShekhnino -- i.e., a full
: enjoyment which requires the use of every spiritual sense, the end-product
: of lifelong yedias HaShem. I don't think anyone would classify yedias
: Hashem among the passive activities.

This is akin to RDF's objection. So I guess I was not clear on this point.

My question was how the Rambam justifies G-d creating a universe and
human beings such that we need to work at yedi'as Hashem. If the ultimate
reward is passive, why did He create a system in which we need to struggle
to attain it? The work you describe is the means to reach the reward,
not the reward itself. So, if Hashem just kavayachol "wanted" beings to
be meitiv, why did He not just put us at the end-point to begin with?

The Rambam defines the ultimate hatavah in terms of enjoying something --
although Hashem leaves it to us to make that something first by obtaining
da'as.

Contrast this to the Ramban. To him, the ultimate reward is the
post-techiyas hameisim life. The ultimate reward is defined in terms
of the doing. In terms of being able to be like the Ultimate Good.
(As opposed to experiencing Him.) Pursuing the means is as much the
hatavah as reaching the end. Therefore, we explained the purpose of HQBH
creating pursuit, and therefore creating us with lacks that we need to
work on. (Although he would not phrase that lack necessarily in terms
of da'as.)

: Second of all, from a purely semantic point of view, "passive" is the
: wrong term, because the "passive"/"active" dichotomy is not something
: to which the Rambam's view of oylem-habe can be fitted. Using these
: terms begs the question, because it assumes that the ultimate good is
: a pursuit, or an activity -- rather, according to the Rambam, it is an
: ultimate Aristotelian knowledge, in which the mind of the knower fuses
: with Him who is known....

Again, this is confusion of ends and means. Cheileq li'olam haba is the
yedi'ah. Knowledge is a noun. Learning is a verb, the means to obtain
that noun -- it is only the means to the reward. And the only reason
why it is the means is because Hashem chose to create us without innately
having that yedi'ah. Why?

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

[We have reshus to post torah.org stuff in general, as long as we mention
that Project Genesis shares the copyright. Which is true for the devar
Torah below. -mi]

Shoshana Boublil has, in the past, requested divrei Torah about household
chores. The following was in this week's Hamaayan by R. Shlomo Katz.

Gil Student


"Because Avraham obeyed My voice and observed My safeguards, My
commandments, My decrees and My teachings." (26:5)

The gemara (Yoma 28b) derives from this verse that Avraham observed the
entire Torah before it was given, "even," says the gemara, "the mitzvah
of Eruv Tavshillin" (setting aside a bit of food before yom tov which
falls on Friday and reciting the formula that permits one to prepare on
yom tov for Shabbat). Why is the mitzvah of Eruv Tavshillin singled out?

R' Yerucham Levovitz z"l (the "Mirrer Mashgiach"; died 1936) explains:
One of the greatest wonders of the world is that G-d has made the
achievement of spiritual greatness dependent upon the performance of
seemingly mundane, even dry, deeds. Even a "chore" such as preparing
for Shabbat and Yom Tov can be spiritually uplifting.

However, whether one's deeds will succeed in uplifting him depends
upon his observance of the laws, even laws as simple as Eruv
Tavshillin. Avraham, the gemara is teaching, understood this well.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Rashei Yeshivat Mir p. 16)

Rabbi Bechoffer (8:50) wrote:
> WADR to my good e-mail friend, RDG, you are still not understanding the 
> DR's comment.

WADR to my good e-mail friend, RYGB, I think that you are mistaken.

> Similarly, that the DR made that statement, indicative of a positive 
> attitude as it may be, it is not at all, due to the inherent anavah of any
> true Gadol, that impressive.

> What would have been stunningly significant and impressive would be if the
> DR had said that halevai his sainted great grandfather (the Chasam Sofer)
> should merit to be Herzl's footstool.

> But, of course, he did not. And would not.

My dear, dear Rabbi Bechoffer. For you to analogize me to my
great-grandfather and suggest that I am to him what he was to his
great-grandfather (in the dimension relevant to our discussion of
course) strikes me as being so far fetched, so over the top, so bizarre,
that if the comparison were not so extravagantly flattering to me,
I might have taken offense. Please remember who the Dor Revi'i was.
If you need help go back and see Rabbi Kook's description of him in my
earlier post. You cannot simply dismiss the Dor Revi'i's remark about
Herzl as an expression of his anivus. Do you imagine that the Dor
Revi'i, knowing who he was and what position he held, was not aware of
how deeply shocking such a statement would be? And do you imagine that
he did not understand that in making such a statement he was giving his
tormentors yet another club with which to beat him in the war of amaleq
(not my description, theirs!) which they were waging against him?

Of course, he deliberately chose an exaggerated metaphor to make the point
that Herzl's memory ought to be treasured by all Jews, not trashed. To
make the point using his chosen metaphor, it would have been disrespectful
and offensive and in poor taste to have mentioned the name of any other
person (gadol or no) as the footstool. The only way in which he could
have made the point was to cast himself (gadol that he was) in the role
of footstool.

I have absolutely no doubt that if asked he would have replied that in the
olam ha-emet Herzl would be perfectly free and welcome to sit together
with the Hatam Sofer on the same sofa. But, in his surpassing gadlus,
the Dor Revi'i well understood which was the more powerful metaphor.

>>It seems to me almost irrelevant to do so, but I cannot resist
>>citing the following words of the Rambam (T'shuvah 3:1).
>>kol ehad v'ehad mi-b'nei ha-adam yeish lo z'khuyot v'avonot.  mi
>>she-zekhuyotav y'teirot al avonotav tzadiq.

> That Rambam is referring to a tzaddik b'dino, not the tzaddik of zt"l note.

Well, evidently the term "tzadiq" has a certain flexibility. If so,
I don't exactly see why it is such a flogging offense to append those
three little words to Herzl's name.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:31 AM, Eric Simon [SMTP:erics@radix.net] 
wrote:
>> Emes L'Yaakov (Bereishis 14:14) notes that according to Shulchan Aruch there
>> was no basis for saving Lot.

> No basis? Moshiach comes from Lot. I don't get it.

Moshiach coming from Lot would not be a halachic basis for saving Lot. By
that cheshbon, if one saw Dovid Hamelech being rodaif another Jew it
would be asur to save the other Jew by killing Dovid Hamelech.

L'shitoscha, if I could prove to you that killing a particular person
(who is not m'chuyav misah) would bring the geula, or eating a ham
sandwich would bring the geula, or wearing shatnez would bring the geula,
you should commit murder or eat treif.

Halachah doesn't work that way.

kt
sk

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
: L'shitoscha, if I could prove to you that killing a particular person
: (who is not m'chuyav misah) would bring the geula, or eating a ham
: sandwich would bring the geula, or wearing shatnez would bring the geula,
: you should commit murder or eat treif.

Hanistaros Lashem E-lokeinu vehaniglos lanu ulvaneinu ad olam.

Being more general than just talking about bringing the geulah... we are
chayav to follow halachah, not to bring about the pest possible income.

Chizqiyahu wanted to refrain from piryah virivyah, knowing that he was
fated to father Menasheh. Hashem sent Yeshayah to him to tell him this
was a bad idea.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam 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         ]