Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 072

Tuesday, December 18 2001

• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• R Chaim as social worker
• EEZ vs AAZ
• Comparative Liturgy
• comparative liturgy
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: The Wealth of a Navi
• Dreidel on Shabbos
• Pelishtim & R. Soloveitchik as academic
• yimach shimo
• Sarah with Womb
• Re: yeshiva system - "why would he not have said so"
• Chazon Ish on Medinas Yisrael
• RE: Chashmona-ee vs. chashmonai
• Re: talking to mourner
• Abusive teachers
• Re: yimach shimo
• Re: comparative liturgy
• Re: Sarah With(out) Womb
• Re: Rambam

> Maybe a Rav today should be well-rounded generalist who refers more
> difficult matters to speicalists
> For Psak, go to great Poskim
> For Health go to pyshicians
> For Emotional issues, Therapists
> For Finanicial problems- employers and analysts, etc.
> For Didkduk - Scholars on dikduk ...

And don't forget that issues of Health, Emotional Wellbeing and Finance
are also issues of halacha, so in addition to consulting a physician,
a therapist, or an analyst, consult your Rav. Unfortunately, this
is often forgotten by those who argue that "the other side" is overly
reliant upon daas Torah.

I do not beleive R Chaim was a social worker in our terms of the word. See
the Rav see the Rav page 193 Rav Chaims view of the Role of a Rabbi is
"to help needy, protect the persecuted, defend the widows, and sustain
orphans" not a counselor in our terms who acts as a psychologist rather
a doer of Chesed

I think that R. Chaim would do what was necessary to help people.
There is also the story of how he played "horse" for kids that jumped on
hi. Certainly if part of the chesed was acting as a counselor he would
do it.

R. Eliyashiv is famous for his hasmada and not wasting time which he
why he is so protected by his gabbaim. Nevertheless I once heard a story
of how he spent an hour with some stranger who was despondent and just
needed someone to listen to him.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/14/2001

Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sfard (both via Rinat Yisrael) have the
shehechiyanu ending "laaz'man hazeh" whereas Nusach Ari has "leez'man
hazeh." Similarly on the second bracha on Chanukah where we find
"baaz'man" in Ashkenaz and Sfard and "beez'man" in Ari.

Is this some disagreement over grammar, or is there something more
significant going on?

(It was with some difficulty that I persuaded myself not to title this
post "The wonderful Wizard of EEZ" - but I figured that might be regarded
as AZ via JG (Avodah zarah via Judy Garland).)

Shabbat shalom.

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> NA got distanced itself more from Kabbalah, and g'e'ulah do to Shbatai Zvi
> etc.
> NS retained a relatively Meshichistic orientation

> Perhaps Asheknazim saw the impatience for the ge'ulah as precipitating
> the SZ debacle and therefore favored nuscha'os that are more subdued.

I think there is something in your words, but how can this to be traced 
specifically to the Shabesai Tzevi ymshv"z debacle? These aspects of nusach 
Ashkenaz predate that (although perhaps that just reinforced some of them).

I believe that in almost all cases nusach Ashkenaz is more concise / less 
verbose than 'nusach Sepharad' / nusach Eidos hamirach, etc. It is more 
restrained both in the number of words and in terms of requests made in 
tefillah....

R. Gershon made a good list showing some of these differences...We can also 
add to it his recent post (and R. SM's answer) re chayim vs. chayim tovim.

Mordechai

Gershon made the observation that the so-called nusach Sefard that
originated in the areas of Eastern Europe dominated by Hassidim has often
added "meheyra" to the older nusach Askenaz in birchot kriat shema and
the amidah. In fact, a more systematic comparison would show that this
nusach Sefard is primarily nusach Ashkenaz with many such additions.
Aside from the question of the need for embellishing certain phrases
in a well developed nusach, one can question the legitimacy of such
changes. By whose authority were these additions and changes made?
Merely stating that there were kabbalistic reasons for such changes
is inadequate. What were the reasons? Furthermore, anyone can invent
gematriot to rationalize a change in number of words or letters in a
text. Can anyone who invents a rationale make changes in the siddur?
Apparently not, since the poskim seem to insist on people following
the nusach of their families. How, then, did this nusach Sefard get
grandfathered in when Hassidus originated in nusach Ashkenaz families?

I realize that one can argue that evolutionary changes in the nusach of
tefilot was inevitable in the days before printing when sheluchei tzibbur
had more liberty in phrasing the tefilot that were learned orally.
In a sense this is akin to the idea that the oral torah was intended
to be a dynamically evolving body of law and tradition. However, that
text has become fixed as a result of an attitude of veneration and the
advent of the printing press. Those who use nusach Sefard are not
apt to embellish or make other changes in the talmud text. Why was
the siddur different? Why is the talmudic adage of "kol ha'mosif -
gorei'ah" not applicable here?

Yitzchok Zlochower

REG>If the Posek is unable to arrive at a definitive convincing solution,
> i.e. he cannot "be machriah",
> then Sefeka De'Oreita le-chumrah and Sefeka De'Rabanam lekullah etc.

I think this klal is bandied about a bit frivolously. If the "posek"
doesn't know, maybe he should ask a gadol.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
>REG>If the Posek is unable to
>>arrive at a definitive convincing solution, i.e. he cannot "be machriah",
>>  then Sefeka De'Oreita le-chumrah and Sefeka De'Rabanam lekullah etc.

I strongly agree.

I would add that the derech of Chachamim and the mark of a talmid chacham,
which includes being a yireh shamayim and an anav is to therefore consult
with others.

However, when referring to a “Posek” I meant someone who himself was a
"chacham gadol ha-yodeah le-hachriah be-raayayot".

As an aside, the talmid chacham with whom I have had the zechut to learn
corrects me when I use the term “Gadol” as he regards its current use as
a neolgism with political connotations. I think that he prefers referring
to a "Talmid Chacham Gadol" or a "Chacham Gadol".

There is a very useful discussion of Horaah in volume VIII of the
Encyclopedia Talmudit beginning at p. 486 and see especially p. 491 (first
complete paragraph): Behoraat isur ve-heter, she-yesh lo safek machmat
machloket ha-poskim, im hu chacham she-yodeah le-hachriah be-raayot,
ha-reshut be-yadoh, ve-im lav—ve-eyn lo Rav she-yismoch alav—be-issur shel
Torah yelech le-chumrah u-be-issur de-rabbanoan yelech achar ha-meikil
[ At Footnote 71 here there is, among other references, a reference to the
long Shach at the end of YD 442 where there is an extensive discussion
of how the klallim of safek de-oreita etc. are used. My understanding
of Halachic Methodology is that, if I understand such correctly,
those klallim should be used only where there is a safek in metziut
that one is unable to resolve by further investigation or a safek in
Halach that exists and an immediate need for an answer or because of
the fact that a machloket ha-poskim has not or cannot be resolved.]
[The article in the ET continues:] Ve-katvu ha-rishonim she-hakaballah
ve-ha-maaseh—be-makom she-yesh machloket amudim gedolim be-horaah
u-bahem raoouy le-hetalot.

This is a favourite topic of mine as I believe that there is far too
much merely-political talk generated on both Right and Left without
resort to basic principles and rules of Halacha.

KT
Eliyahu

Micha Berger wrote:
>We discussed here in the past the prerequisite of wealth for nevu'ah. It 
>was debated whether this is literal, or in an eizehu ashir sense.

FWIW, the Rambam in his Iggeres Teiman says it refers to someone who is
ashir beda'as. This is obviously different from what he wrote in his
8 Perakim.

Gil Student

 From Rabbi Neustadt's Halacha Discussion:
<<Children should be discouraged from playing dreidel games on Shabbos, even
when playing with candy, etc.(22) A dreidel, however, is not muktzeh.(23) 
22See Mishnah Berurah 322:22. 
23See Igros Moshe O.C. 5:22-10.  >>

The sources deal with doing a goral and do not mention dreidel.  Can anyone
think of a chiluk between dreidel and goral?  Has anyone else heard that
it's problematic to play dreidel on Shabbos?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> SC: 
> > If, as the Bible critics hold, the Torah is anachronistic, ...
> 
> They don't hold that, if you mean the entire Torah. In any case, it's
> not my intention here to defend modern Biblical criticism. My prior
> response was simply to note the non sequitur, using the JUDAISM article
> as an example.

I don't understand the sentence. Is the Judaism article by Rabbi Gordis
an example of my non sequitur. Since I neither wrote it nor quoted it,
I don't know how it exemplifies my supposed error in reasoning.

SC
> > ...then why
> > indeed would the Torah place the fictional Pelishtim of Breshit in a
> > different locale than the real Pelishtim of the later books.
> [snip]

Criticism:
> This too is a non sequitur. Assuming, arguendo, that the Torah is a
> purely human product, then there are a number of plausible explanations,
> including the author's or the redactor's being mistaken on events that
> occured centuries before, or his simply not being concerned for literary
> reasons with connecting Avimelech with the Philistines.

SC:
Correct. The author may get something wrong simply because he is mistaken.
But ordinarily authors make mistakes of this sort because the mistake fits
their information or prejudices.

If, arguendo, there were no Philistines in Israel in the period of
Abraham, but there were Philistines there at a later period, it makes
sense for a later author to mistakenly imagine they were there previously.
This is precisely what the Bible Critics in question claim.

My response (i.e. Grintz's) is that such anachronism, would be plausible
if the later author placed the Philistines in the same area they inhabited
during the period about which the later author had reliable information.
It is not plausible if the author placed them in a place where they
neither existed nor did he have any motive to place them.

Analogy: It would be a plausible error if someone wrote about George
Washington occupying the White House, because the author might mistakenly
believe that the capital was in the District of Columbia at an earlier
date than was the case. It would not be a plausible error for a 21st
century writer, however mistaken, to assert that Washington governed
from Charleston South Carolina.

The reader can judge if the reasoning I am employing is plausible or
not. Such reasoning about plausible motives for authorial errors and
anachronisms is certainly a commonplace in Biblical scholarship when it
suits the Bible Critics' theories to say so. The authors make "random"
mistakes only when the likely motives that would explain the text before
us do not fit the theories devised by the scholars.

> The anachronistic use of "Pelishtim" is not necessarily inconsistent with
> Torah miSinai. God might have had His reasons for calling Avimelech
> "king of the Philistines, just as God had His reasons for including
> other apparent difficulties in the Torah as "hooks" for Midrashim.

Or because the gemmatriot identify the murderer of Rabin or describe
last year's World Series...

I can't find a logical flaw in this, but I don't buy it. As my Galician
mother has been known to say, "He thinks like his [Litvak] father." An
argument for/against intermarriage?!

Amihai Bannett adds:
> David HaMelech ran away to Achish melech Gat, and was then expelled from
> his house.
> There is a Mizmor in Tehillim, which starts "Ledavid B'shanoto et taamo
> lifnei <<Avimelech>> ...".
> Avimelech is the name of the king/s of the Pelishtim in the time of
> Avraham and Yitzhaq, which might be the official name for the king
> (just like Par'o).
> This shows a connection between those two groups of Pelishtim.

But the society in which Tehillim 34 was written and canonized has
the Torah, and the fact that both groups (regardless of their history)
are called Pelishtim would lead the later author (of Tehillim, or more
specifically the superscription to the mizmor) might lead one to apply
the Torah's terminology to the situation in the later period.


& on a completely different subject:
> Illustration: the way I heard RYBS's positoin re: Avilus on Sefira was
> based upon a supposotoin that the Chazal instituted Aveilus as formulaic
> instutoina that therefore must match existing structures. But if you
> look in the Halachic history (IOW poskim since the Gaonim) you will
> see terms like "nahgau bo miktzas aveilus" IOW Chazl did not make a
> formal formulation of aveilus rather minhag evolved out of eclectically
> pracitcing some forms of aveilus and not others. Therefore IOW, RYB"s
> structure of AVeilus is not based upon the strucutre of Poskim over time
> (something Beis Yoseph and Ruch Hashulchan use a lot). Rather it is
> a super-imposigion based upon a need for RYBS to see things as having
> been cosntructed loigcally instead of having evolved historically and
> mimetically.

I am not ready to swear on a sefer Torah, but this is something that
others can confirm or refute: Methinks the foundations of this analysis
were laid by R. Moshe Soloveichik and that I heard it from the Rav as
his father's basic idea.

If R. Moshe had university training, I'm sure we would have heard about
it by now.

(Some years ago, someone suggested, quite plausibly in my opinion, that
one of the Rav's hiddushim presupposes knowledge of Western political
theory. Prof. Blidstein put this notion to question when he discovered a
similar idea in the Griz. Of course, one may argue that the Griz got it
from his nephew... or that the Rav's formulation is better because his
imagination roamed the fields of liberal arts studies. I am certainly
on the record as holding that general education fosters better Torah
understanding for many students, and so is the Rav. But matters are not
so black and white as some ideologists or intellectual historians would
make them.)

While saying 'Maoz tzur', the words ' vioyeiv shemo mochiso' passed by
my lips....

I thought that this loshon was used a la the expression 'yimach shemo'
that we use at times WRT rishoim.

I was thinking to myself....how was Haman's name erased - by killing
him and his family / children presumably (even though we are taught
that 'mibnei bonov shel Haman lomdu Torah bivnei Berak'?).....so death
of a person and his descendants / family line is considered 'mechias
sheim'....as we see from the verse WRT yibum ' vilo yimocheh shemo
miYisroel'.......

If so, why do people say yimach shemo on the evil head of the 'third
reich', for example, if he is dead and left no children? I can understand
people saying yimach zichro....but shemo? I am not against the sentiment,
but isn't his name already 'erased' like that of his comrade Haman,
for the reasons outlined above? So technically is it applicable to him?

Mordechai

Gil Student writes:
"I asked Dr. Josh Backon and he had two suggestions. His first is that
Sarah had a non-functioning uterus and gave birth to Yitzchak through
an ectopic pregnancy. The second is that Sarah had retroversion where
the long axis of the uterus is directed forward instead of backwards.
This can cause infertility. Admittedly, though, this is all outside of
his expertise."

You requested comments from an OB/Gyne so I'll tell that neither of
these suggestions are plausible. The first suggestion is actually
the more plausible of the two. It is possible in VERY VERY VERY rare
circumstances to have a pregnancy that is not in the uterus at all, such
as in the abdominal cavity. In most of these rare cases the pregnancy
will eventually rupture and either be resorbed by the body or the patient
will suffer severe, life threatening hemhorrage. This generally occurs
long before the fetus is anywhere near viable such as around six to twelve
weeks of gestation. In extremely rare cases of abdominal pregnancy,
the pregnancy can be carried to term and a viable baby can be delivered
by surgery, however the maternal death rate in such cases is close to 90%
because the hemmorhage is almost uncontrollable. However, even if Sarah
had an abdominal pregnancy, although she certainly could have been one
of the miraculous few who survived to term, it is impossible to deliver
an abdominal pregnancy vaginally because there is no uterus to push
out the baby and her abdominal contents would have come out with the
baby, not a very pleasant thought. There are other types of ectopic
pregnancies that are much more common, such as in the fallopian tubes,
but the tubes are incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term because they
are not large enough, and they will rupture.

The second suggestion I don't understand. There is such a thing as
retrograde menstrual flow, i.e. menses that flows backward out of
the tubes into the abdomen instead of out the cervix into the vagina.
This is generally considered one of the causes of endometriosis and
can cause infertility. I assume that this is what Dr Backon was
reffering to. Generally the woman does not actually have "backward"
menses, she has normal menses, only that some of the blood spills out
the wrong way. It is obviously possible that this was the etiology for
Sarah's infertility, although I see no reason to assume this etiology over
any of the myriads of other possible explanations. However, the uterus
in such cases is not any different than a regular uterus, I'm not sure
what Dr Backon meant by the long axis of the uterus. This cannot be what
the chazal meant by ain lah bais velad because if the bais velad is the
uterus then even if she had retrograde menses, she obviously had a uterus.

Back to the first suggestion, even if her pregnancy was abdominal, Gil is
correct that if she had menses in the past, she obviously had a uterus,
and Ovaries for that matter, because you can't have menses without either
of the two. In fact, if Sarah did menstruate, as seems to be the case,
I really can't identify any part of the Pituatary/gonadal/reproductive
tract that she could have been missing.

On the other hand most likely what chazal meant was that although she
had a uterus (and everything else for that matter) there may have been
something structurally abnormal about that uterus prompting them to
say that she had no bais velad. There are many possible structural
uterine abnormalities that can occur, such as a "bicornuate" i.e. a
uterus shaped with "two horns". Sometimes these can cause infertility
and in general the patient will otherwise have completely normal menses.
My suggestion then is that she the uterus is the "bais velad" and what
Chazal meant was that she did not have a normal bais velad and her uterus
in a normal woman would not ever have been able to maintain a pregnancy
and hence the neis of Sarah Imainu.

Shaul Weinreb

In a message dated 12/12/01 11:28:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
RRW:
>>> AISI I was mechaven to R. Greenwald.  But WADR it's no big deal, because 
>>> anyone with a feel for the historical context were made would/could have it 
>>> figured out.

> Carl: > If that's what he meant, why would he not have said so? 

2 quick points.

1) Many many siddurim say to omit 2 paragraphs of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh.
If that is so should we have omitted those paragraphs on Rosh chodesh
Teves? If not why doesn't it say so?

2) At Cong. Beth Aaron in Teaneck and in my shul Cong. Ohav Sholaum we
lit Hanukkah candles with Shabbas Candles. No where on the box does it
say that these Shabbas candles may be used for Chanukkah. Q: Is it OK
to use them fo Chanukkah licht? <big grin>

As R. Gorelick would admonish us:
"The problem with you people is that when you read Ashrei Yoshvei -
YOU SIT!"

Or if you will - I can "idiot proof" R. Gorelick's quip as follows:
"Torah is not written in an "idiot-proof" manner!"

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

It was recently mentioned that the Chazon Ish predicted that Medinas
Yisrael would only last for a decade. There was a letter from a close
talmid of the CI, R. Zvi Yehuda, published in Tradition, Summer 1979
that disputed this. Here are some excerpts:

"Let me make it perfectly clear from the onset: Hazon Ish never said
such an ominous thing, nor was he the kind of person to do so. Based on
my intimate closeness to Hazon Ish at the time, I am in the position to
categorically deny such a libelous and disastrous rumor."

"Contrary to the new myth emerging and circulating, remodeling his image
and reclaiming him to a narrow camp of State negators, Hazon Ish was
neither antagonistic to the State nor opposed to its hailers."

"Hazon Ish was very alarmed by undue messianic overtones. In line
with the rabbinic trend... he feared and fougth hasty and unqualified
messianic fervor and indulgence."

"'Time will tell.' This is the gist of Hazon Ish's response..."

"It is impossible to properly evaluate a great historical event, while
we are still very much a part of it. We need that advantage and vantage
of time and the benefit of its perspective."

"For the birth of the State, however, Hazon Ish allotted a reasonable
waiting period of a decade or two, not in antagonistic anticipation
of its disintegration, but rather with tender and fervent prayers and
yearnings for its sure and safe continuity."

Gil Student

>>>In al ha'nisim, most siddurim have chashmona-ee (kamatz under the nun
and a chirik under the aleph) but I see that Rinat Yisrael siddur has
chashmonai (patach under the nun, nothing under the aleph). Can anyone
comment on this variance in nusach?>>>

I noticed over Shabbos that Artscroll uses a different nusach in their
hebrew siddurim (chashmona-ee) and english siddurim (chashmonai).
If anyone can find out why Artscroll does this, I would appreciate it.

I also realized that I have been pronouncing the word not like either
shita: I say chashmonoi - with a *kamatz* under the nun, nothing
under the aleph. Is this third alternative an acceptable alternative?
(I certainly hope so....)

KT
Aryeh

> I have heard that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to open the
> conversation if the mourner didn't.

This is from a discussion I was having with a friend. Does anyone have
knowledge on this "hearsay"

KT
Joel Rich

I was wondering about this halachicly; how can we beleive three minors
and report a teacher thus potentialy ruining his life. This queston in no
way mitigaes the severity of the problem but we must function within the
halacha disregarding emotion so what guidlines are availible in beleiving
minors? We must also take into consideration that kids may exagerate if
they have an axe to grind with teacher.

Please comment on the Halachic guidlines.

In a message dated 12/16/01 9:12:49pm EST, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> can understand
> people saying yimach zichro....but shemo? I am not against the sentiment,
> but isn't his name already 'erased' like that of his comrade Haman,
> for the reasons outlined above? So technically is it applicable to him?

Yimach shmo etc. is based upon the half-passuk
V'sheim Reshaim Yirkav

Saying ZL, and of course ZTL is from the other half-passuk
Zecher Tzaddik livracha 

both are seen as imperatives

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/16/01 9:12:13pm EST, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
> I realize that one can argue that evolutionary changes in the nusach of
> tefilot was inevitable in the days before printing...
> In a sense this is akin to the idea that the oral torah was intended
> to be a dynamically evolving body of law and tradition. However, that
> text has become fixed as a result of an attitude of veneration and the
> advent of the printing press. Those who use nusach Sefard are not
> apt to embellish or make other changes in the talmud text. Why was
> the siddur different? ...

Q: who in the Torah world thinks that the Siddur cannot be modified -
expecpt perhaps upon reaserch into manuscripts and traditional texts?


So far as I have found, Yitzchok
You 
Philip Birnbaum 
and I are the only 3 Jews who really think, that the siddur is a sadred
text that is not plastic.

Virtually everyone I know thinks the Siddur is fair game for revisions
based upon svara or shitos.

OK, I take that back. Some yekkes are probably on our side. But even
Seligman Baer made changes based upon Dikduk and sometimes Wolf
Heidenheim too.

This one adds this word. That one changes the pronounciatoin. anohter
one drops this tefillah as hefsek. Another source says this line is
not me'ian hachasima so ank it out, etc.

Have you EVER seen in a siddur: This is the masorah of our avos and
minhag avoseinu beyadeinu, so we accept it as is with all the questoins
we might pose...

When you DO find it (outside perhaps of Birnbaum) please do show it to me!

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

[I took the liberty of jigsawing this out of a number of emails. My
apologies to RYZ if I mangled his words. -mi]

In a message dated 12/13/01 2:52:09pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
>>> I'm not sure what a "beis velad" is....I don't know what "em" is or how
it can be ne'ekar.<<<

See Bchoros 28b Eim = Rechem (Rashi) = Beis Vlad (Rabbeinu Gershom). See also 
Mishna Chulin 54a, and Rashi 55b, and Pirush Hamishnayos of the Rambam, also 
Rashi (and Shita Mkubetzes) Chulin 48a.
 
>>>I thought that perhaps "beis velad" means ovaries.<<<

The ovaries in Halacha are called "Aliyah" see Pirush Hamishnayos of
the Rambam Nidah 17b.

>>>I asked Dr. Josh Backon and he had two suggestions. His first is that
Sarah had a non-functioning uterus and gave birth to Yitzchak through
an ectopic pregnancy. The second is that Sarah had retroversion where
the long axis of the uterus is directed forward instead of backwards.
This can cause infertility.<<<

The Limud of the Chazal is from the extra wording of Ein La Valad in
addition to Akara, which indicates she was missing something (Ein
La). also the B"R says she did not have Ikar Mitron (= Rechem, see
Rashi there).

In a message dated 12/16/01 9:13:03pm EST, saulweinreb@msn.com writes:
> Sometimes these can cause infertility
> and in general the patient will otherwise have completely normal menses.
> My suggestion then is that she the uterus is the "bais velad" and what
> Chazal meant was that she did not have a normal bais velad and her uterus
> in a normal woman would not ever have been able to maintain a pregnancy
> and hence the neis of Sarah Imainu.

And perhaps that is why the Torah did not say Ein La "Rechem", it was
a Rechem that could not house a Vlad, however in the B"R this is a Dochak.

The B"R says that HKB"H carved out in her a "Ikar Mitron" not that the
birth was not in the Rechem.

WRT the issue of Nekar haEim to see S"A and Klei Nosi'im Y"D 188:3

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:12:40AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: >So, if anyone can have the zechuyos of Mosheh, then his level of
: >yedi'ah is also within our reach (!), why not his chochmah?

: I do not follow - how is sachar an effect of yedi'ah? And who says sachar 
: is a reflection of the ultimate purpose of the Beri'ah (according to the 
: Rambam)?
 
According to the Moreh 3:18, knowledge of HQBH is what defines "person"
WRT the notion that all people are subject to hashgachah peratis. He
is clear that he is speaking in terms of a spectrum, people with greater
yedi'ah recieve more hashgachah; and to the extent that one lacks yedi'ah
one is abandoned to teva. (As mentioned in the past in our discussions of
the reality of teva.)

In 3:51 and in the introduction to Cheileq the Rambam relates yedi'ah
to man's fate in olam haba. The nitzchiyus in olam haba is an effect
of one's mental parallel of the nitchiyus of the Borei. Note also the
position he puts philosophers in 3:51. It would seem that while yedi'as
hobrei is the ultimate, a secular philosopher is still "closer to the
palace" than someone with little knowledge.

(Also running through cheleiq gimel of the Moreh is his concept of a
yodei'ah being one with a "nefesh rechavah". An idea that I, as the
father of someone with Downs, find particularly unpalatable.)

So it would seem that both in terms of olam hazeh and olam haba, sechar
is a function of knowledge.

I do not know that the Rambam identifies sechar with the ultimate tachlis.
As I wrote, I have no reason to believe that he is choleiq with the
commonly held attitude that the person of beri'ah was so that the Meitiv
would have recipients for His hatavah. In which case, as sechar is a
form of tov, I would think the two are related.

To put it even more firmly, I think asserting that one is /not/ a
reflection of the other would require explanation. Why offer sechar for
anything other than accomplishing one's tafqid?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]