Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 055

Thursday, November 22 2001

• Re: Ikkarim as Halakha?
• Did Rambam trump himself?
• Re: TIDE and TuM
• Diabetes in Chazal
• Re: zaddik
• Who is a tzadik? aka Herzl
• RE: zaddik
• RE: zt"l
• Simchah - 'mitzvoh gedoloh lihiyos bisimcha tomid' ?
• RE: Herzl
• RE: zaddik
• Re: Who is a tzadik? aka Herzl
• Re: Who is a tzadik? aka Herzl
• Re: zaddik
• RE: Herzl
• Re: Who is a tzadik? aka Herzl
• Re: zaddik
• Re: Herzl
• Re: Herzl
• zaddik

Arie Folger wrote:
>The Rambam even wrote that he is convinced that since Torah is truth, one 
>will not arrive at proving Torah ideas wrong by engaging in philosophical 
>dialectic that follows strict logic (as opposed to simply making 
>nihillistic or relativistic statements, which don't prove much positively, 
>just may undermine proofs.)

David Finch wrote:
>Nor will one arrive at proving Torah ideas "right" by engaging in any such 
>dialectic. As the Rabad knew, Rambam trumped himself by insisting that 
>human logic, if perfected, would confirm the truth of Torah. Rambam's 
>Aristotelianism remains his greatest weakness.

Was this Rambam's position? My understanding (albeit probably flawed)
is that Rambam recognized that human thought has limits and can never
arrive at the entire truth of the Torah. It was Ralbag who was more
of a champion of philosophy and believed that it proved the Torah.
Mendlessohn followed Ralbag, which led to the question of why the Torah
needed to teach any beliefs if they can be derived via philosophy.
His answer: Therefore, Torah must not teach beliefs.

Gil Student

> dialectic. As the Rabad knew, Rambam trumped himself by insisting that
> human logic, if perfected, would confirm the truth of Torah. Rambam's
> Aristotelianism remains his greatest weakness. The Greeks knew less
> then they thought they knew. Such are the snares of the secular world
> on cosmopolitan Jewish elitists.

The only principle of faith that Rambam claimed to prove on the basis
of logic (and I'm not sure how "human" logic differs from logic) is
existence of G-d (& scholars debate even that).

Those who assert that the Rambam "insisted" on something he didn't hold
know less than they pretend to. Such are the snares of [fill in the blank]
on [fill in the blank].

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 06:54:56PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
>: The fusing of the twin peaks was beyond Kant for one reason and beyond
>: RYBS for another...

> I do not know what you mean. RYBS did not try to fuse them. His
> philosophy was quite existentialist. He was not out to describe some
> underlying reality, but rather to describe the human experience. Since
> people experience this tension, he set out to define and describe it,
> not resolve it.

> An existentialist Jew sees the ideal not in terms of being a good Jew, but
> in constantly striving to become a good Jew. 

This is exactly the way I understand RYBS's "Lonely Man of Faith. To
put it in simple terms, one can never synthesize Adam I, whose creative
capacity and dominian over the world neccesitates social activity,
with Adam II, the lonely Man who ultimately must be alone in his faith
because of the futility of trying to apply reason and the impossibilty of
the social interaction to explain it. One cannot synthesize faith and
reason and ultimately such attemps will prove fruitless. However reason
may be utilized in the search for Truth. Mada is the physical univere
(and the study therof so as to know what the Physical universe really
is and how it works to the best of human limitations). Torah is how we
are to interact with it.

This is in essence the subtext of "Halachic Man" as well. Man can
only deal with the cognitive. And the purpose of Halacha is to tell us
HOW. And in this sense there IS a synthesis between the real world and
the spritual world, that synthesis being achieved by Halachic Man who
percieves the real world and impacts on it through Halacah.

And this is what Brisk is all about. As RYGB once explained during
his DafYomi Shiur in Chicago, Brisk is not about "Why" but about
"What". ("Why" is for Telzers) To Brisk to ask why is futile as we
cannot really ever know the mind of G-d.

Just my three cents. (And I still can't figure out who killed Laura
Palmer!)

HM

 From the description in mefarshim, bulmus (Yoma 83a-b) would seem to be
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).

Josh

> He went back into 1 WTC because one of his buddies was missing.
...
> Can you call someone who was heading toward intermarriage, who lived a
> life very centered on peritzus, by the title "tzaddiq"?

Of course not. Were this guy still alive today, he'd doubtless get a good
laugh out of the idea. It sounds like he was a good, tough, committed
fireman, that he was qualified emotionally -- even spiritually -- for
the job he died working at. But "tzaddik" has nothing to do with it.

A closer question (but still no cigar, as it were) is presented by men
(and women) who live gloriously accomplished religious lives, but have
certain disqualifying flaws. Like being Christian, for instance. Think
of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran cleric whose devotion to
anti-Naziism was unequalled within the German resistance (if one can use
that term). Think of Martin Luther King, Jr., whom I personally believe
was as close as any modern man will get to being a prophet of G-d. Both
men had personal flaws. Many true tzaddikim had personal flaws, which
comes with being human. But to be a tzaddik, one has to be a very rare
and selfless type of very observant Jew. That's the sine qua non of
the title. It just doesn't embrace Herzl, or Jabotinsky, or any of our
particularly secular heroes.

David Finch

Micha writes
> Can you call someone who was heading toward intermarriage, who lived
> a life very centered on peritzus, by the title "tzaddiq"?

I guess the joke would be, depends on how big a donor to yeshivot he was.

Nowadays, as a practical manner, we aren't very cautious with who'm we
use the term Z"L. To change Micha's example, if his firefighter, a non
observant Jew, was a member of an Orthodox shul passed away, many would
use the term z"l in the shul bulletin announcing his death. Indeed they
would do that if his parents were members of the shul, and he had not
been there since his Bar Mitzvah. If the person died in a heroic way,
giving his life for others, I would suspect that many Rabbi's would focus
on that during the hesped and ignore aveirot such as going to strip bars.

Perhaps it would be different in NY, where many Avoda members live.
But "out of town" we tend to focus on the positive aspects of our
fellow Jews.

It's that attitude of what we focus on, that I believe affects our
attitude towards secular Zionist leaders. Was Herz a tzaddik in the
same manner as Rav Kook. Of course not. But he wasn't a rasha either.

Remember today most halachic authorities hold that non observant Jews are
considered equivalent to a child kidnapped at birth. As I understand
it that means that those Jews who haven't had the opportunity to be
brought up in a frum community aren't held to the traditional level of
responsibility for their aveirot.

I would also think that this would mean that we, as a Torah Jewish
community, should be appreciative of any mitzvot on NFFB (non frum from
birth) Jew does. Rav Soloveitchik did have a two covenent theory, one
of which contained the historic responsibility of Jews to each other.
Certainly Herzl's successful activism to reestablish a Jewish state,
after 2000 years, could be considered fulfilling this covenent.

Those who refer to Herzl as a tzadik, are focusing on the great
positive achievements of his life. Yes, they typically do believe the
reestabishment of Israel is a religious good. I suspect alot of this
argument may have to do with attitudes towards Israel, and not just
Herz himself.

With regard to the sources cited by RYGB(Malbim on Mishle and on Tehillim,
Netziv on Breshit 6: 9)(I never saw the original post, only some cited by
RHM, so I am not sure of the precise significance RYGB attached to them,
and may not have looked at all the sources he meant.) However

Let us recall the original discussion - RYGB's claim that the use of
zt"l for Herzl is completely outside any normative use of the word.
I (and RDG) showed that gdole olam had positvie appreciation for Herzl,
and that he even (accroding to them) had a high place in olam haemet,
thus justifying the terminology. RYGB (and RMB) then wrote that that was
irrelevant - zechuyot and zaddik are two different issues ( I am not sure
if RMB has retracted) We then cited the Rambam (a separate post discusses
that al length() which equates the two, and I said that the Rambam's
definition of a zaddik was the only halachic definition I was aware of.

RYGB now responds with different acharonim with (perhaps) a different
understanding of zaddik in their perushim on tanach (not in a halachic
discussion). bmkv"t, even if these perushim have a radically different
understanding of the concept of zaddik, it is irrelevant to the fact
that some do understand zaddik as zechuyot.

However, I think that the pshat of these perushim is not quite so
simple, and actually means something quite different than RYGB suggests.
(this discusssion, from my perspective, is independent of the above,
as I admit other definitions of zaddik, and is only directed (hopefully)
laamitta shel torah)

One general remark - the phrase ben adam lemakom can be understood either
as in contradistinction to ben adam lehavero, or as encompassing all
spheres (as ben adam lehavero has a ben adam lemakom ocmponent), Clearly,
the notion of zechuyot implies that the makom has a positve assesment
of the actions...Nor does the term ben adam lemakom necessarily imply
a specific kavana of the person direcrted to hashem ( RYGB may disagree
on this last point)

First, with regard to the Malbim (on Mishle perek 10, and others)

The Malbim defines zedaka as maa'asim tovim ben adam lamakom. In his
perush hamilot (10:2), he refers to yeshayahu 1:21 vekol hatanach.

This, I think, tells us the real meaning of the Malbim, who is
interpreting the word zedek and zedaka. One pshat is that zedek refers to
what is in English called justice, and is specifically limited to actionsl
relating either to the judicial system (zedek umishpat) or more generally
ben adam lehavero (popular meaning of zedaka) . Thus, in sanhedrin 35:2,
the gemara, discussing yeshayahu 1:21 (zedek yalin bo) applies that to
the sanhedrin. Most (but not all) mefarshim understand zedek there as
refering ben adam lehavero. The Malbim is explaining that zedek has a
far more expansive meaning - it refers to all ma'asim tovim ben adam
lamakom. Rather than limiting the term zedek, it expands it. This isn't
only simple pshat in the Malbim, given his sources, but also may have a
polemical undertone - the malbim was involved with fights with Reform,
with their notion of the "prophetic ideal" which limited zedek to issues
of social justice)

The Netziv is problematic as to the proper pshat. I understand the way
RYGB reads it, but find it a very difficult reading. The Netziv is basing
himself on the gmara in Kiddushin 40:1, discussing zadik shehu tov...
He says zaddik mashmauto hu ben adam leshamayim, verasha hu lehefech,
aval zadik tamim sheu zadik gam ben adam lehavero

The Netziv explains rasha sheeno ra as someone who is a rasha ben adam
lamakom but good ben adam lehavero. I think RYGB understands this that
someone who only does good ben adam lehavero is a rasha sheeno ra (as he
then applies to Herzl). This understanding of the Netziv is problematic
(ben adam lehavero is also ben adam lamakom), especially in view of
the gmara it is based on, and rashi's understanding (rasha sheeno ra as
someone who is over on mitzvot that don't affect others - eats helev,
mehallel shabbat etc, not someone who does good ben adam lehavero but
rah ben adam lemakom). Furhtermore, according to the Netziv, to be a
rasha is not merely the absence of ben adam leshamayim, but the reverse
of a zaddik ben addam leshamayim (hu lehefech)

I think that a better pshat in the Netziv may be based on the herchev
davar's explanation
ela vadai yesh zaddik shemikol makom mizad tivo umizgo eno tov labriot.
vechen lehefech yesh rasha velibbo rach vehcomel umerachem Rather than
referring to mitzvot sheben adam lehavero, the netziv is defining two
different issues - one is ones actions in the eyes of hashem, the other
is the way the individual can relate to others (personal middot). One
can be a zaddik with bad middot andwithout rachmanut, and be a rasha yet
have good middot. That is a very different issue that what was discussed.

(R) Meir Shinnar

[Email #2. -mi]

RMB wrote
> Perhaps we should consider another example. The case is fictional:
> A Jewish firefighter from Brooklyn was remembered by his friends as
> being a real fun guy. Went once a week to strip clubs. ...
> He went back into 1 WTC because one of his buddies was missing.
> Can you call someone who was heading toward intermarriage, who lived a
> life very centered on peritzus, by the title "tzaddiq"?

I wouldn't, although don't think the situation comparable (a different
discussion)
Let me ask you a different quesion. Same case, but funeral is at a
synagogue (grandfather is Orthodox), you go (some relationship), rav
hamaspid refers to him as zt"l.
How strenuosly would you object?? Would you object in print if the
hesped is printed?? Would the answer be different if you knew the family
wouldn't find out (so no issues of being metzaer the avelim)?

Meir Shinnar

At 12:53 PM 11/21/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>RRW wrote
>> Tzaddik in the context of ZTL is bepashtus a role model of what a Tzaddik
>> SHOULD BE.

>The Malbim, on the pasuk in Mishle zecher zaddik librocha, veshem reshaim
>yirkav . (Mishle 10:7) writes he says yesh hevdel ben shem lezecher -
>hashem hu hashem haatzmi, vehazecher moreh ma shemazkirim oto al yede
>ma'asav asher asa therefore, zecher zaddik livracha does not remember
>or cite the individual per se, but the actions that he did...

Incorrect application, sorry. The source of saying zt"l is the Gemoro Yuma 
38b: "One who mentions a tzaddik must bless him; one who mentions a rosho 
must curse him," cited in the Kaf ha'Chaim OC 156:14. See Beis Yechezkel 
vol. 1 p. 107. RRW is correct.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

There is an essay on the Mail-Jewish website that critiques / opposes
the (Breslov'er originally, but now has spread to others) saying of
'mitzvoh gedola lihiyos bisimcha tomid'.

The URL is http://www.mail-jewish.org/simcha.txt

Have people seen this essay? 

I would be interested to hear comments on it. 

biTodah limafrea - 
Mordechai

With regard to the CC and Herzl

There are clearly different levels of zaddikim, and different definitions
of zaddikim (I had mentioned the RAYK's notion of a zaddik elyon, as
something that Herzl was not).
With regard to the other quotations about zaddikim, the same response.
There are levels of zaddikim
I don't understand why the term zt"l necessarily refers to the highest
level of zidkut - that is clearly not the common use.

RYGB
> Dr. Shinnar linked this discussion to some of our previous ones. I would
> draw a link as well. It is the same individuals that "deflate" the Avos
> that "inflate" Herzl.

I am rather surprised, as I do not remember any post of mine that deflates
the avot. I have been involved in arguments that people who deflate
the avot are not involved in kfira or being megale panim batora shelo
kehalacha - leshitati that one minimizes the notion of epikorsut and
maximizes freedom of inquiry. I posted a letter from RAYK supporting
this general approach. That does not mean that I personally deflate
the avot, nor even that I view such attempts favorably.

Meir Shinnar

At 04:30 PM 11/21/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:

>Let us recall the original discussion - RYGB's claim that the use of
>zt"l for Herzl is completely outside any normative use of the word.
>I (and RDG) showed that gdole olam had positive appreciation for Herzl,
>and that he even (accroding to them) had a high place in olam haemet,

Gedolei is plural. We have, so far, one ostensible, anecdotal reference. 
The others appreciated the man and his accomplishments but granted him no 
"high place" in OH.

>thus justifying the terminology. RYGB (and RMB) then wrote that that was

One cannot justify the use of zt"l simply because an individual is in Gan 
Eden. That usage is in and of itself non-normative, and you know very well 
that it is NEVER used merely to indicate presence in Gan Eden.

>irrelevant - zechuyot and zaddik are two different issues ( I am not sure
>if RMB has retracted) We then cited the Rambam (a separate post discusses
>that al length() which equates the two, and I said that the Rambam's
>definition of a zaddik was the only halachic definition I was aware of.

I never agreed to that "pshat" in the Rambam - that, as RGS notes, is 
clearly referring to this world - and cited the Moreh for a nice definition 
of a tzaddik. (Interesting topic for a more productive collateral 
discussion: The Rambam's conflation of"tzaddik" qua persona and "chochom".)

>RYGB now responds with different acharonim with (perhaps) a different
>understanding of zaddik in their perushim on tanach (not in a halachic
>discussion). bmkv"t, even if these perushim have a radically different
>understanding of the concept of zaddik, it is irrelevant to the fact
>that some do understand zaddik as zechuyot.

I only know of one individual - to date - that equates the tzaddik in the 
term zt"l, governed by the Gemoro in Yuma 38b, with a person who is rubbo 
zechuyos - you. I am still taken aback by your confidence in your capacity 
to make a cheshbon which even you admit that the Rambam consigns to G-d 
alone, and brand Herzl a tzaddik even according to your definition.

I will leave the discussion of the Malbim and Netziv to some other time, 
but I find your pshat in the Netziv a stretch.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 21 Nov 01, at 12:57, Michael Horowitz wrote:
> Nowadays, as a practical manner, we aren't very cautious with who'm we
> use the term Z"L. To change Micha's example, if his firefighter, a non
> observant Jew, was a member of an Orthodox shul passed away, many would
> use the term z"l in the shul bulletin announcing his death. 

There's a difference between z"l and zT"l. What RYGB was objecting to
was the use of the T with respect to Herzl.

Just to throw another twist in here, the non-fruhm media here say
"zichro l'bracha" rather than "zichrono l'bracha." Why? I have no idea....

-- 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.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 12:44:11AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: There's a difference between z"l and zT"l. What RYGB was objecting to
: was the use of the T with respect to Herzl.

Yes, emotionally there is a difference. However, zichrono livrachah
also harkens back to Mishlei 1:7 (zecher tzadiq livrachah, vesheim
risha'im yirkav). It implies rather than states that the person so
described is a tzaddiq.

: Just to throw another twist in here, the non-fruhm media here say
: "zichro l'bracha" rather than "zichrono l'bracha." Why? I have no idea....

Going back to the Gra on zecher vs zeicher... one means 'memorial', the other
'memory'. Zichono livrachah means that things that remind us of the deceased
are a berachah. Zichro would refer to the memory itself being a berachah.
Perhaps the difference is over which the pasuq means.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

In a message dated 11/21/01 5:07:04pm EST, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> Let me ask you a different quesion. Same case, but funeral is at a
> synagogue (grandfather is Orthodox), you go (some relationship), rav
> hamaspid refers to him as zt"l.
> How strenuosly would you object?? Would you object in print if the
> hesped is printed?? Would the answer be different if you knew the family
> wouldn't find out (so no issues of being metzaer the avelim)?

All I can say is that I used ZTL sparingly re: anyone who is niftar.  I don't 
even use it about some very fine frumme Yidn.  I only use if for people of 
superior middos etc.

As far as objecting to hyperbole, If objectivng to hyperbole were a 
requirement, it would take me a Myriad of Millenia to voice all of my 
objections, Bli guzma! <g>


Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

At 06:09 PM 11/21/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>> Dr. Shinnar linked this discussion to some of our previous ones. I would
>> draw a link as well. It is the same individuals that "deflate" the Avos
>> that "inflate" Herzl.

>I am rather surprised, as I do not remember any post of mine that deflates
>the avot. I have been involved in arguments that people who deflate
>the avot are not involved in kfira or being megale panim batora shelo
>kehalacha - leshitati that one minimizes the notion of epikorsut and
>maximizes freedom of inquiry....

I apologize for assuming the link. I have checked the archives and do not 
see you engaged in those debates, and I am sorry for having erroneously 
linked you to them.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 11/21/01 6:22:31pm EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> Just to throw another twist in here, the non-fruhm media here say
> "zichro l'bracha" rather than "zichrono l'bracha." Why? I have no idea....

Lichrono livracha and Zachur latov can be understood as referring
exluxivelyto the "good" side of a complex persona. So I could say Z"L
for Herzl if I hold that aspects of his public life wefre of tremendous
positive benefit and THAT is what we choose to slectivly remember.
That is a kind of limud zchus, we remind ourselves and HKBH of the
good a man does while the evil lays interred in his bones (apologies
to Shakespeare)

OTOH, ZTL implies a judgment and evluation of the persona s a whole It
implies if he were flawed that he at least did Tshuva.

So if I feel Herzl was a net positive, ZL is a reminder of his good
side, OTOH ZTL would be making a mockery of people who spend their lives
deicated to self-perfection.

Alav Hashalom is a simple bakasha and makes no value judgment. You can
remind everyone to pray for the Shalom of someone's Neshama. Outside of
the case of resha'im gmurim this is probably an act of chessed.

In a message dated 11/21/01 5:06:08pm EST, DFinchPC@aol.com writes:
> Both
> men had personal flaws. Many true tzaddikim had personal flaws, which
> comes with being human. But to be a tzaddik, one has to be a very rare
> and selfless type of very observant Jew. That's the sine qua non of
> the title. It just doesn't embrace Herzl, or Jabotinsky, or any of our
> particularly secular heroes.

AISI a tzaddik might be flawed but at least adressing those flaws with
at least a partial tshuva.

A Tzaddik Gamur probably is either unflawed or has done a T'shuva Shleima.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 11/21/2001 6:45:40pm CST, RabbiRichWolpoe writes:
> AISI a tzaddik might be flawed but at least adressing those flaws with at 
> least a partial tshuva.

> A Tzaddik Gamur probably is either unflawed or has done a T'shuva Shleima.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an unflawed human being. T'shuva
Sheima is a good idea, for any of us. But I was taught that on cannot
do t'shuva without understanding the nature of the sin at hand. One
therefore cannot do t'shuva for sins that one doesn't recognize or that
one denies. Who among us has really wiped the slate clean? Not even
Moishe Rabbenu, which is the whole point of Moishe Rabbenu.

All of this is to say that there's still a difference between z"tl and
perfection, between man and Moshiach. Anyhow, I wouldn't want to be
led by a perfect tzaddik. He (or she) would by definition belong to a
different species than I, a different order of creation, and thus would
be no more of a role model than the Archangel Gabriel.

David Finch

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Perhaps we should consider another example. The case is fictional:
> A Jewish firefighter ...

I don't know, but are these things really so clear cut? Who knows? Maybe
God does consider him a Tzaddik, He seemed to feel that R' Elazar Ben
Dordai was...

Moshe


P.S. I know there are differences between the two stories, but after the
fact it's very easy to draw distinctions. I would guess that this fireman
is in fact very appreciated by God. Would I place a ZTLUKLUL"U ZY"A after
his name? That's not my style, a Z"L will suffice. But I think that the
current (week long) argument is not about who is a Tzaddik...it is about
who is NOT. And I am not prepared to pasken that about BZH. That's what
we have God for...

Moshe

Let me make this perfectly clear

Tzaddik is a lechatchila ideal.

The fact that someone gets oalm habba can be via very bdi'eved means -
such as HKBH's rachamim or misa mechaperes, etc.

Limud Zchus for Herzl etc. is based on a bdieved, given who he was
and the good he did, can we see him in a positive light? I say we CAN.
Must we? That's certainly debatable - I lean towards the Levi Yitzchak
of Berdicheve school

OTOH, in NO WAY does trying to make leamonade out of lemons a recipe
for lechatchila makign all of life INTO a lemon. Herzl is NOT a role
model for Torah Yiddn. He did not even attempt to make himself into an
ideal personna, nor was he introspectively working on middos perfection
or dveikus.

The fact that we do tolerate less-than-ideal leaders is a concession to
the reality of life, few of us live up to high standards.

However, calling a Herzl a Tzaddik is not a limud zhcus so much as a de
facto lowering of statndards. It implies, jsut do some good {ie. Asei tov}
and forget about sur meira. Well as a lechatchila this is not acceptable.

We can see this from the way Chazal quibble re: Noach and Avraham and
their repsective Tzidkus Bottom line aisi is pashut, Noach was NOT as big
a TAzddik as Avraham but bedi'eve we can be melamed zchus that he had a
more challenging environment. It does NOT make him a better role model,
it jsut means his inferior performance might have required a superior
effort due to his sviva.

While it iss OK with me to find a positive spin on questionable
biographies, it is not OK to idealize less than exemplary behavior as
somehow being a paragon.



In a message dated 11/21/2001 2:10:39pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> How is this passage from Hilchos Teshuvah an halachic definition?
> Are we paskening how HKBH should judge us on Rosh Hashanah?

Q: How do you understand 
v'hitzdikku es hatzaddik v'hirhiu es harasha?

Is malkos limited to court case that involve a Tzaddik and a Rasha mamash?

OR
 can those terms be relative and NOT aboslute as per context.

Was Leah a Snuah in the abolsute sense of beiing hated.
OR
was in in context of how Ya'akov favored Rachel? (As such snuah would
less favored or as I prefer "rejected", but not hated)

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

With regard to the argument with RYGB about the use of zt"l, I (and I
am sure others) have been wondering about the vehemence and volume of
the response. Some recent clues (the comparison to the avot) I think
may elucidate this (it really isn't about Herzl).

The question is the nature of the role models that we should aspire
to -should we have role models who embody perfection, setting a high
goal but perhaps inducing despair in view of our own inability to reach
it, or should we aim for more human role models, with flaws that they
overcame (perhaps imperfectly) - a less lofty goal, but one that may be
more achievable.

RYGB (I think) comes down squarely on the side of perfect role models.
Those who hold this side, the avot (and neviim) represent the possibility
of human perfection. Therefore, downsizing the avot strikes squarely
at this possibility, which therefore directly impacts our own avodat
hashem. This is also (as per past discussions on avoda) at the heart
of the prototypical Artscroll biography of the gadol. I think that this
is partly based on the gadlut haadam school of mussar from Slobodka,
which has been so influential, which relies on the role model of the
zaddik as embodying human perfection as a role model for us to strive.

There is, however, another view that emphasizes becoming over being -
the process of struggling to achieve perfection rather than the actual
achievement of perfection as our role models. In this view, pointing out
faults in avot/neviim/gdolim may be acceptable, as long as the emphasis
on what they overcame, or even to emphasize their humanity, so as to
make them more imitable role models. Our own avodat hashem would be
overwhelmed when presented with perfection, realizing how far we are
from it, and is bettered by the realization that even the greatest
struggled. (ki hadam eyn zaddik baaretz asher yaase tov velo yecheta)
or even did not reach perfection.

This difference is perhaps best illustrated by the story (it is brought
down in Tradition in 1989) of Moshe and the artist, as brought down
in Tiferet Israel (on the mishna in kiddushin 4 on tov sheberofim). He
brings a story (first in Jewish sources in Ohr Pne Moshe, hasidic work
that a king sent an artist to paint Moshe Rabbenu. After looking at the
painting, he says that that is the picture of a menuval. He goes to find
the truth, and Moshe says that yes, he started out this way, but overcame
those tendencies to become Moshe Rabbenu, the most shalem individual.

This story caused an uproar. The Aderet wrote a book against the story,
claiming that it was of pagan origin (which R Saul Lieberman later
showed was correct, finding its sources in Greco Roman literature).
RAY Kook wrote in agreement with the Aderet. This even led Rav Maimon of
Mossad Harav to suggest censorship and actually published an edition of
Tiferet Yisrael with this censored (something that he should be publicly
blamed for as much as I am known to blame Artscroll for censorship -
fair is fair)


I think that therefore are at least three schools of how best to encourage
avodat hashem:

1) Emphasize models of human perfection (baale tshuva can be role models,
as long as one clearly distinguishes a pre perfection and post perfection
period)

2) Emphasize the struggle to achieve human perfection, while still
maintaining that certain people (avot etc) actually reached this
perfection as a role model to us

3) Emphasize the struggle to achieve human perfection, without focusing
on whether it is actually achieved.

The zaddik, by this understanding, is the individual who has either
reached or is close to reaching perfection. It therefore emphasizes
how differences in understanding who is a zaddik are crucial not just
to the status of that person (and few of us go behind the pargod),
but to our understanding and motivation for our own perfection and
avodat hashem. (It also has implications for how we view our leaders,
as to whether we think that they may have reached perfection - related
to the argument over da'as torah and listening to gdolim)

My own bias is that all three schools represent authentic trends, and
the proper model for an individual to choose varies with the individual -
what will best motivate him, and what will discourage him. I understand
that the first school (with perhaps occasionally the second) are fairly
dominant in RW circles today,which may partially reflect the influence
of Slobodka.

I think that traditionally, even those who upheld the possibility of
human perfection (models 1 and 2) thought that it was also important
to have as models those who did not achieve perfection, as many people
would give up if perfection was the only goal. It is one thing to posit
that the avot, and especially moshe, reached perfection. It is another
to argue that these are our only models and aspirations. This also
reflects on RW criticisms that were posted on avoda about the typical
Artscroll hagiography

That (IMHO) is the significance of the Rambam;s definition of a zaddik
in hilkhot tshuva, which differs from his definition of shlemut in the
Moreh, where he discusses the possibility of perfection (I think that
the only one who truly achieved shlemut according to the Rambam would
be Moshe, and even there it is not clear - veraita et achorai ufanai lo
yerau inherently limits human potential to achieve perfection. However,
moral perfection may be reachable)

The hilkhot tshuva tzaddik is within all of our reach. Although some
(RYGB) might argue that it sets too low a goal - I am not sure that the
Rambam would agree, and this tzaddik is not the ultimate goal.

This is also Rav Saadia, who defines as a zaddik those with more zchuyot,
as distinct from a shalem, vehu hanikra zaddik gamur.

As he says (p. 180 in the kappach) about the shalem veaf al pi shebne
adam hoshvim sherachok hu sheyimatze kegon ze sheyihye shalem bechol
derachav, bechol zot nireh li sheefshar sheyatzliach, lefi sheilu lo
haya ken lo haya hachacham metzuve bechach.

For Rav Saadia, the possibility of the shalem is important, because it
motivates the chacham to try to achieve it. This does not change the
value of the plain zaddik, which is something that everyone (not just
the chacham) can aspire to.

With regard to the current argument, I think that RYGB, who holds by
either the first or second (probably first), is upset by my use of zt"l,
as herzl does not represent human perfection (we do agree on that..),
and the notion of the zaddik as a model to aspire to is fundamental to
his avoda (I hope I am being accurate)

However, as R Saadia and the rambam show, even if one accepts the
possibility of human perfection, there is an important role for those
who do not fully achieve it, and they also merit the term of zaddik,
and (I think, and am still puzzled at the vehemence of the opposition)
therefore also zt"l, which is commonly used not merely for the perfect
humans, but others with major spiritual achievements.

It is within this partial achievement model of still struggling zaddikkim,
that I think that the apocalyptic zioni school would place herzl -
not perfect, struggling, with different types of zchuyot than your
prototypical zaddik (and a significant part of apocalyptic zioni thought
focused precisely on zechuyot achieved through nontraditional means and
even without the intention of the doer - another part of the discussion),
but who achieved a form of greatness that needs recognition and emulation.
Such a model may be strange to some, and perhaps undercut one's own notion
of a zaddik and its meaning for avodat hashem. One may wish to reserve
the term zaddik solely for the perfect model, but that is clearly not
the common usage,or that of the rambam or R Saadia. Semantic discussions
should not generate that much heat.

On avoda /areivim, I think that one determining principle is recognizing
authentic differences within avodat hashem within the mesora, and that the
mesora recognizes many different, even antithetical models. The attempt
to homogenize the mesora and declare aspects of it non normative is
(IMHO) the other real issue of the debate, which I have focused on.

Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]