Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 004

Tuesday, March 19 2002

• Re: Segulos
• 'Nishama should have an aliya' - universal to say it to yohrzeit observer?
• Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: what we daven for?
• prophetic messages
• content
• Daf Yomi He'oroh
• "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...
• Newspapers on Shabbat
• Ayin hoRa
• what we daven for?
• Re: what we daven for?
• Re: what we daven for? and Re: Daf Yomi He'oroh
• Fw: "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo... 2
• re: opening packages
• Re: Newspapers on Shabbat
• Rav Henkin s views on adoption
• Three Shidduchim
• Re: Avodah V9 #3
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Re: Segulos

I am not very familiar with the Nefesh HaHaim (henceforth NH), but I am
fortunate enough to own a copy with an index, which I spent some time perusing
on Shabbos.  My tentative conclusion is that NH's opinions do not reflect those
of RMB, and perhaps RMB will explain where I went wrong.

I found no mention of gilui panim and hester panim.

NH spends a lot of time discussing people's souls, and I could find no
reference to the possibility that someone does not recognize that he has a
soul.  He has a note (I:6) discussing bechira.  He explains (in a way I don't
understand) Adam's bechira before his sin, and implies (I think) that post-sin
bechira is related to the yetzer hara.  Now both pre and post sin Adam knew that
he had a soul, and one's internal yetzer hara is induced by the mixture of good
and evil in the world, not by one's knowledge of one's soul, so I don't think
this fits RMB's paradigm.

Incidentally this definition of evil and its relationship with the yetzer hara
is closely related to the thread about whether tzadiqim have a yetzer hara,
v'ein kan m'komo.

You will have noticed in 3:12 that he restates the Ramban in Parshas Shoftim I
cited earlier about the mechanism of kishuf.  That certainly implies the
continuum of natural->supernatural.  I have forgotten where, but I also noticed
somewhere in NH the Platonic metaphor of things in olam hazeh being shadows of
things in olamos haelyonim,  again implying continuity.

Micha Berger wrote:
> He also says that each
> of the four olamos have their own 10 sefiros -- also implying discontinuity
> between the physical and each of the non-physical realms.

In fact he says (NH I:17) that the malchus of each olam is the kesser
of the one beneath; the antithesis of discontinuity.

> However, my problem holds whether segulah is discretely different
> than teva, or is simply further along a spectrum. My question would
> then become about the need to create this spectrum, since the need for
> causality can be satisfied by the teva end without introducing evidence
> of higher existance.

I found no evidence in NH that God created olam haasiyah to provide for
causality. In fact, I found no discussion of causality - my impression
is that non-Aristotelian medieval thinkers (yes, I know the author of
NH lived in the eighteenth century, but in terms of science he was
a non-Aristotelian medieval thinker) think in terms of "the law of
similarity" rather than the law of cause-and effect.

Incidentally, I encountered an interesting phrase in Ramban Acharei Moth
16:8 at the end "eilu hamithchachmim b'teva". I got the impression that
he thinks that teva is a meaningless construct (though not, of course,
for the reason that R. Dessler does).

David Riceman

From: Joelirich@aol.com
<< In our thoroughly modern :-) orthodox shul, individuals of
every background sponsor a Tikkun Yahrtzeit (seems always to be
cookies,cake,whiskey and orange juice - but I'm not asking about this)
and the standard statement to the "celebrant" is "the nishama should have
an aliya". I had always associated both these elements with chassidic
tradition. Am I correct in this? If so, is there a mitnagdic equivalent of
"the nishama should have an aliya" to be said. >>

I think there is more than one issue here, as follows....

1) Do misnagdim / non-hassidim accept the idea?

2) Should Kabbalistic (esp. fine and more advanced concepts) ideas be
out in the public square and in common / every day discourse (esp. among
the masses) ?

Even if there is no issue with # 1, nevertheless, point # 2 is a serious
consideration on it's own. The Ashkenazic, non-hassidic tradition didn't,
generally speaking, speak publicly of Kabbalistic inyanim.

Rav Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger mentions this in Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz
(IIRC it may be, for one example, in cheilek aleph, in the piece on
'berich shemei dimorei olmo' - which 'Yekke' congregations omit) and Rav
Dov Eliach touches upon this general inyan in his new sefer on the GR"A.

Mordechai

 From a relative (slightly edited - my response follows my relative's
comments on my friend's post):

>I assume this is an edited list, so I'm writing just to you.  My wife 
>points out that we pray for Peace in "shemonah esreh", Kaddish, birkat 
>hamazon, etc. How can that be considered wrong?  That seems to be a 
>fundamental principle.  Perhaps it is the Geulah that will bring Peace and 
>we should have that in mind when we pray for both?

I must say the CS is pretty amazing. I queried my friend for the source,
and he has not found it yet, but recollects that it may well be that
the CS is discussing wars between two gentile nations, not Israel's wars
with her enemies.

Be that as it may, I recall that RAYH Kook in Orot does also have a pretty
positive, Messianic, attitude towards War as well, although there, too,
he may specifically be addressing gentile wars.

A person I very much respect has said that even if wars leave almonos
and yesomim, while this may seem tragic, we must accept that this is part
of their lot in this world, and that we cannot have complaints over that
situation, as this is the Ratzon Hashem and "Good" for these people. I am
not sure if this point of view squares with the Or ha'Chaim in Vayeshev.

L'ma'aseh, I myself did not mean to preclude davening for peace, for fewer
or no casualties, etc. These seem like admirable goals for prayer. My
focus was on the import of Tehillim 83, and its focus. Nevertheless,
the constant requests for shalom also may be read in that context - the
connection between the Elyonim and Tachtonim is best acheived in a state
of Shalom, and one of the Mesechtos Ketanos in the back of Avodah Zarah
(forget which one) contains an entire perek "Perek ha'Shalom" that IIRC
dwells on this point. Even the casualties issue may be understood in
that vein: We understand that neshamos need tikkun and that sometimes
tragedy is part and parcel of that tikkun. But that approach to tikkun
entails Chillul Hashem and a tremendous agmas nefesh to HKB"H plus
a tremendous nisayon of acceptance on our part. So, we say to HKB"H,
we know there are other ways - can we go down one of those other roads?

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

I received the following insight into a phrase in Malachi which bears 
an important message as well as an illustration of the significance of 
having a proper understanding of technical terms used in Tanach.

>Refined Silver

>There was a group of women that met for Bible study. While studying in
>the book of Malachi, chapter three, they came across verse three which
>says: "He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver."

>This verse puzzled the women and they wondered how this statement
>applied to the character and nature of G-d. One of the women offered to
>find out more about the process of refining silver, and to get back to
>the group at their next Bible study.

>The following week, the woman called up a silversmith and made an
>appointment to watch him while at work. She didn't mention anything
>about the reason for her interest, beyond her curiosity about the
>process of refining silver.

>As she watched the silversmith work, he held a piece of silver over the
>fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one
>needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire, where the flames
>were the hottest as to burn away all the impurities.  The woman thought
>about G-d holding us in such a hot spot, then she thought again about
>the verse, that "He sits as a refiner and purifier of silver." She asked
>the silversmith if it was true that he had to sit there in front of the
>fire the entire time the silver was being refined. The man answered yes,
>that not only did he have to sit there holding the silver, but he had to
>keep his eyes on it the entire time it was in the fire. If the silver
>was left even a moment too long in the flames, it would be destroyed.

>The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith, "But
>how do you know when the silver is fully refined?" He smiled at her and
>answered, "Oh, that's easy - when I see my image in it."

>If today you are feeling the heat of the fire, remember that you are in
>G-d's hand, He has His eye on you, and He will keep holding you and
>watching you until He sees His image in you.

>Don Selig

I once heard a similar but far less dramatic insight from a Refusnik
friend who had served in the Soviet army in Siberia.

I was teaching Malachi and came to 1:13 which I translated conventionally
as, Here is this scrawny or sickly animal that you can blow away
[vehipachtem bo] (that you offer as a sacrafice). Whereupon he corrected
me by stating that he had listened to the dealings of horse traders in
the heart of Siberia. It was not unusual for the owner of a scrawny,
i.e. sick, horse to try to pass it off as healthy by sticking a pipe up
the poor animals rectum and blowing into it to inflate the horses belly.
That he continued was a more likely meaning for "vehipachtem bo",
the owners using this method to pass off their miserable sacraficial
offerings as a fat, healthy animals. The kohanim, whom Malachi accused
of encouraging such behavior, did not even have the option used by the
Siberian horse traders to detect such fraud.

The latter would use a swift blow to the poor horse's belly in a suspected
belly inflation to have the excess air passed off as gas.

Yitzchok Zlochower

What does Lev. 7:29 mean (this week's parsha)? Why isn't it entirely
superfluous?

David Riceman

In today's daf (BM 117) the Gemara finds it more reasonable to expect
a person to go up two flights of stairs than to have to go up and then
down again. From this, lichorah, we see, that greater futility is more
frustrating than greater exertion!

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

The popular sefer Pardes Yosef by R' Y. Pacanovski z'l (originally 3
volumes on Breshis, Shmos, Vayikro) has recently been republished in
newly typeset form. It has now become 6 - very user friendly - volumes
with a 7th being an index. The publishers have also added Bamidbor and
Dvorim put together by 'heintigeh' in a similar style.

It has likutim and chidushim for all levels of learners, Agodo, halocho,
pilpel ve'od.

What caught my attention this week was his mention of our nusach in
the siddur by korbonos: "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...velomo ein me'orvin
bo dvash mipneu shehatorah omroh ki chol se'or vechol dvash lo saktiru
mimenu.."

The question is of course - it is a clear posuk - so what is the question
"umipnei mah"?

What I wanted to bring out, however, was that I tried looking up this
maamar of Bar Kapporo - and - v'einenu...

There is no such a maamar in our Bavli or Yerushalmi (or any anywhere
else - AFAIK).

So my questions are: who actually compiled the seder hakorbonos that
we say?

Are there other known quoted Chazals that we do not have?

(The piece 'elu devorim she'odom oichel peirosehem beolom hazeh" is also
interesting - as being a mishna or breisa there are different versions
for nusach Ashkenaz and Sfard - whilst in the gemoro it is a different
nusach again!)

SBA

How do the meikilim get over the objection that the paper is brought
over the techum (which is certainly the case outside of NYC)? As I see
it this is the real problem. Since the paper is being brought for you
(you pay for it to be brought, unlike the mail) what can the heter
be? There must be a heter since virtually everyone reads the paper,
even rabbonim (just listen to their sermons!. So I ask again, what is
the heter re. the techum. Thanks for any leads.

   SS

A rational explanation, as close to Hirschian as one is likely to find,
from Prof. Yehuda (Leo) Levi:

----------

Evil Eye

The concept of an "evil eye" is mentioned frequently by our Sages,
once in the Mishnah and many times in the Talmud and Midrashim. Some of
these references imply that the evil eye is a phenomenon closely related
to magic; others suggest that it is a personality trait. In keeping
with the aim of this work, we will focus on the latter interpretation,
according to which there is no contradiction between the teachings of
the Sages and scientific opinion.

Let us begin with the Mishnah in Avot (2:11), and Rambam's commentary:

"Rabbi Yehoshua says, an evil eye and the evil inclination and hatred for
others remove one from the world". He teaches that passion for money and
excessive lust and a bad mentality, that is the illness of melancholy,
which causes one to despise what he sees and hate it, and prefer the
company of animals, or isolation in deserts and forests, and live in a
deserted place. With [these people], this is not because of asceticism,
but only because of their evil desires and their envy of others, which
will undoubtedly kill a person, because his body will also fall ill and
he will die before his time.

Rabbeinu Yonah writes, "'Evil eye': this means one who is not satisfied
with his lot and hates one who is wealthier than he... and he causes harm
to himself and to others, as the scientists said." He goes on to provide
a physical description of this phenomenon; his intent may be figurative,
and a reference to psychosomatic symptoms. Rabbi Yitzhak Abarbanel writes
in a similar vein in Nachalot Avot.

In any case, it is clear from these sources that "evil eye" is an
emotional state.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 8:7) relates the incident of a student of
Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi who owned precisely 199 dinar. Since he had less
than a full two hundred, he was eligible to receive the Tithe for the
Poor, distributed every three years. Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, who is known
to have been extremely wealthy, gave him his own tithe, which amounted to
a very considerable sum. However, this windfall came to an abrupt end when
"his students cast an evil eye on him and made up the sum for him [to two
hundred by giving him the missing dinar, disqualifying him from receiving
the tithe]". Once again, we encounter "evil eye" as a term for envy. Even
when the Midrash (MR Bamidbar 7:5) lists evil eye as a cause of leprosy,
this is the explicit intention. The Midrash itself says (ibid.), "This
is according to Rabbi Yitzchak, who said of an evil eye that when one
begrudges another and does not lend out his utensils, G-d sends leprosy
to his house." Similarly, we find in the Midrash (MR Vayikra 26:9):

"[Saul was] head and shoulders above the entire nation" (I Samuel 9:2).
Because they dressed [David] in his clothes and he saw that they fit as
if they were made for him, he immediately gave him an evil eye. When
David saw that Saul had turned pale, he said, "'I cannot wear these
because I am not accustomed to them, and he removed them" (ibid., 17:39).

It is possible that this interpretation may even be explicit in
Scripture. We find in Midrash Tehillim (beginning of Psalm 53), "What is
wickedness? An evil eye, as is written, 'Beware lest there be a wicked
thing with your heart... and your eye will be bad, and you will not want
to give [to your poor brother]" (Deuteronomy 15:9).

On the other hand, we see that an evil eye can cause damage to
objects. The Gemara (Pesachim 26b) discusses appropriate behavior for one
who found a garment: "If he should happen to have guests, he should not
spread it out, not on a bed and not on a hanger ...[which will ruin it],
whether because of an evil eye [i.e. jealosy] or because of thieves."

RiYaavetz's words encouraging modesty in marital relations help us
understand this approach to the concept of evil eye.

No other human activity can compare to [marital relations]. When performed
with pure intent and clean, unblemished thought, it is certainly called
sacred... and it seems that because of the great importance of the
fruit of this act... it therefore requires extreme modesty, so that
the evil eye not hold sway over it, as happened with our first ancestor
[a reference to the Aggada that the snake in the Garden of Eden saw Adam
and Eve together and became jealous, which provoked him to tempt Eve]...
Because of this, [Adam's] descendents after him must exercise extreme
modesty and secrecy in this precious, exalted, and profound act. 45

It seems, then, that the concept "evil eye" refers to a negative influence
born of others people's awareness of our good fortune or success.
Apparently this is because their jealousy is aroused, motivating them to
harm us, or at the very least, be unwilling to make the effort to assist
us. In most cases, this type of jealousy is prompted by ostentation.
This is implied by RiYaavetz, who described the snake's temptation as
the result of jealousy, referring to it as an evil eye.

----------

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

 From someone on my bcc list
>   The Chasam Sofer is quoted in Rav Herschel Schechter's article on land for
>peace, in the Journal of Society and Contemporary Halach (I think volume 16
>or 17). I am sure he docuements the source.

>    I don't think that the CS is very germain (sic) to our issue. He was
>talking about a specific instance, where war was for a better good. I don't
>know how that applies to other wars. Would we extrapolate and then say that
>no one during the Holocaust should have davened for the end of WWII? One
>could argue that the Holocaust led directly to the establishment of the
>Medina, which one could argue may have something to do with the ultimate
>Geula.

RYGB writes:
>The Chassam Sofer writes (quite emphatically) that it is inappropriate to
>pray for shalom, since we know that war and suffering is a necessary
>precursor to the Moschiach.  Pushing that off, pushes off the revelation of
>Malchus Shomayim.   Rather, he concludes, at times of national distress such
>as war, we should pray for the ge'ula.

Unfortunately, I am also new to this thread, but at the risk of repeating
an earlier participant, this shita would seem to be difficult according
to the Rashi in Megillah 17b, which states that the bracha of Go'al
Yisrael in Shmoneh Esrei specifically means "that we should be redeemed
from the tzoros that that we encounter constantly", and that this bracha
does not request that we be saved from Golus, which are dealt with in
later brachos in Shmoneh Esrei.

Arnie Lustiger

 From my uncle:
>Find this "pilpulistic discussion" very strange. Al pi pashtus, ve'al pi
>halochoh -tefiloh is yevakesh tzerochov kipshuto (cf. Shemonah Essre) -
>whatever they may be, albeit with qualifications of iyun tefiloh and "hatov
>be'einecho ta'aseh." To be sure, there is the censure in Zohar re kekelavim
>who go hav hav etc., thus avodah tzorch gevoha, for Shechinoh etc., but even
>re this - instruction/teaching of Baal Shem Tov that this is only when you
>really mean it fully (and not as subterfuge as tzorkei Hashechinoh are done
>so will be yours etc.); if not, it is dover shekorim lo yikon neged einai,
>and one should be honest and actually pray in context of what you really have
>in mind. See Mabot, Beis Elokim, Sha'ar Hatefiloh; and note also the
>discussion of avodah tzorech gevohah etc. in my "The Dynamics of Prayer"
>("Deep Calling Unto Deep," part I)

Which is of course all true - again, I was stressing reflection on
the import of the specific words of the specific tehillim we recite
b'eis tzoro - take, again, for example "Shir ha'Ma'alos esah einay el
he'horim" - especially according to the Mekkubbalim who hold that "ayin"
is a place, a la "yesh me'ayin" - this tehilla is one of bitachon and,
it seems, great happiness!

 From a cousin, concerning exertion vs. futility in today's daf:
>Indeed, acc. to some meforshim, the p'shat in avodas porech is futile 
>work. (by mitzrayim and by the lav relating to an eved).

Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> What caught my attention this week was his mention of our nusach in the
> siddur by korbonos: "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...velomo ein me'orvin bo dvash
> mipneu shehatorah omroh ki chol se'or vechol dvash lo saktiru mimenu.."

> The question is of course - it is a clear posuk - so what is the question
> "umipnei mah"?

The Likutei Maharich brings a nusach (from Siddur Rav Amrom and Machzor
Vitri):
"...ein odom yochol laamod mipnei reicho, eloh shehatorah omro ki chol
se'or..."

SBA

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> One of the problems with books like Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah is
> that they give long lists of rules but do not emphasize the general
> rules behind them.... I highly, strongly recommend reading the Tiferes
> Yisrael's introduction to Shabbos - called Kalkeles HaShabbos - where he
> goes through hilchos Shabbos by melacha and explains the general rules....

I normally use the ssk footnotes to know where he is coming. however
there are footnotes only in the Hebrew version, not the English

At 03:33 PM 3/17/02 +0000, Shlomo Simon wrote:
>How do the meikilim get over the objection that the paper is brought
>over the techum (which is certainly the case outside of NYC)? ...

The question is whether any unique havo'oh me'chutz la'techum was done
for you: Generally your paper is one of many, rov for non-Jews, so it
is not havo'oh me'chutz la'techum for you.

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

RMB has now posted Rav Henkins tshuva on the aishdas site:
See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/henkinAdoption.pdf>

SBA

Is anyone familiar with the source of the saying that one who makes
three shidduchim automatically merits olam ha'ba?

Many thanks. 

-- Carl 

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

>   .... The Bibluical Archaeology Review ran an article during the
> past year about Roman wines, how they were brewed and how they tasted,
> and that article explains the whole issue of mezigat hayayin/kos very
> well. Essentially, Roman wine was dry and sour and would be spiced up
> and mixed with honey to make it sweeter. It did not have a high alcohol
> content, but its taste was so strong because of the concoction, that
> it would require dilution....

Based on the discussions in the Gemara about Yayin Chai, why would we
ssume that the wine was highly alchoholic and fortified. If anything,
the preferred approach in the gemara in Pesachim is not to use the
undiluted wine, thus lowering the alchohol content. Is this Roman wine
what is meant by Yayin Chai?

Jordan 

I looked into this a bit last night. It all revolves around the exact
text of a baraita in Pesachim 118a. In our gemara, we have "It is taught:
[On the] fourth [cup] copmlete Hallel and say Hallel HaGadol, these are
the words of Rabbi Tarfon." However, some gaonim have the text "[On the]
fifth [cup]".

Based on this, those gaonim rule that we really drink five cups at the
seder. Some rishonim say that there are really five words referring to
redemption and add "ve-heveisi" as the fifth.

Others, however, say that the fifth cup is optional. Still others rule
that the fifth cup is forbidden. And, finally, some say that the fifth
cup is poured but not drunk (I think this is what the Rambam means in
Hilchos Chamet uMatzah 10:10 but I'm not certain).

R. Menachem Kasher has a 19-page essay on this in the back of his Haggadah
Shelemah. Surprisingly, I did not find mention of the fifth cup in the
Haggadah Ba'alei HaTosafos even though R. Kasher cited Ba'alei HaTosafos
who discuss it.

I did not find anyone who said that the fifth cup is called the Cup of
Eliyahu because we don't know what to do with it and Eliyahu will explain
it. Perhaps I did not look hard enough or perhaps it is an urban myth.

Incidentally, the biggest proponent of the fifth cup among the acharonim
was the Maharal in his haggadah that was first published around the
turn of the 20th century. It was later discovered that the haggadah was
largely a forgery.

Gil Student

In a message dated 3/19/02 9:25:46am EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> R. Menachem Kasher has a 19-page essay on this in the back of his Haggadah
> Shelemah. Surprisingly, I did not find mention of the fifth cup in the
> Haggadah Ba'alei HaTosafos even though R. Kasher cited Ba'alei HaTosafos
> who discuss it.

According to the recently published "haggadat Nechama", Nechama Leibowitz
is quoted as saying that when Medinat Yisrael was founded R' Kasher
sought to have the rabbinate institute a fifth cup

On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:26:23PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger responded: <<< Yes, I did not figure the role of ignorance
: in preserving bechirah. >>>

: But that's the whole point! Ignorance is *crucial* to the preservation
: of bechirah!

: We have often mentioned how HaShem plays "hide-and-seek" with us,
: specifically to hint at His existence, while preserving our bechira
: chofshis. And whenever we think we percieve Him a bit too clearly,
: He hides elsewhere, again to preserve our bechira.

With ignorance, one can not distinguish between teva and segulah. The
division would be just guesswork and personal prejudice (rationalists
would tend to assume the former, mystics the latter).

So there is really no point to the existance of segulah over getting
the same effect via teva.

: <<< But my question was why segulos? Why leave around something that when
: properly understood reduces bechirah? What is the offsetting benefit? >>>

: Do you have these questions about nevuah?

No, because we don't have nevu'ah. And the only people who did were
ones for whom that requisite emunah or for whom an equal and opposite
yeitzer already existed. Vinager only burns for a R' Chanina ben Dosa
who is already convinced it ought to. As the Maharal's 2nd intro to
Gevuros Hashem reads, it is the person who brought himself above the
olam hateva who experiences neis.

But to say the same for segulos would be to make them identical to nissim.

: One looks in the Torah, sees something that "clicks", and exclaims,
: "That's incredible! No one but the Creator could have written this
: stuff!" Is this much less bechira-robbing than a good segulah, or a
: real nevuah?

Yes.

Segulah can only be read one way -- or not read at all.
Teva, even if read, can be read either way. The skeptic and the ma'amin
both can study science and maintain their old stances.

Teva is therefore more economical in its expenditure of bechirah than
segulah.



On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:50:25AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: I found no mention of gilui panim and hester panim.

Nor did I say you would. Otherwise I would have started out with
sheim amro. You asked for somone who treats the worlds as distinct.
And that he does.

He speaks of multiple aspects of the soul, how each has a home in
a different olam, how each olam has its own eitz chayim...

: bechira is related to the yetzer hara.  Now both pre and post sin Adam knew that
: he had a soul, and one's internal yetzer hara is induced by the mixture of good
: and evil in the world, not by one's knowledge of one's soul, so I don't think
: this fits RMB's paradigm.

What conflict of paradigms? I'm talking metzi'us, obvious fact from
observation. The more reason you have to believe you're more than chomer,
the easier it is to deny oneself the ta'avos gashmiyos.

RCV tells you where ta'avos come from, not every factor that goes into
keeping the balance.

: You will have noticed in 3:12 that he restates the Ramban in Parshas Shoftim I
: cited earlier about the mechanism of kishuf.  That certainly implies the
: continuum of natural->supernatural.

Why? Just because the rambam speaks of a continuum, someone who agrees
with another nequdah of his does?

: somewhere in NH the Platonic metaphor of things in olam hazeh being shadows of
: things in olamos haelyonim,  again implying continuity.

Again I disagree. Disproving a single kind of dicontinuity doesn't
disprove the idea as a whole.

In any case, I thought you were asserting the platonic system of
emanation, that every ko'ach hateva has a ko'ach elyon behind it.

: In fact he says (NH I:17) that the malchus of each olam is the kesser
: of the one beneath; the antithesis of discontinuity.

WADR, your ra'ayah is lehefech from your point. He describes
discrete olamos that are chained together. The shalsheles metaphos
is his. Chains are made of discrete links. If the olamos were along
an axis, then there would be little separating the other 9 sefiros
from eachother. Instead they would be rays continuing straight
down through all the olamos.

Whether atzilus is in discrete steps or gradual is not the ikkar
here. As I pointed out, my argument works either way.

: I found no evidence in NH that God created olam haasiyah to provide for
: causality....

As above, you're using my citation as though I was out to prove more
than the one question I cited him to answer.

In any case, your model doesn't explain Abayei's chaqira. He explicitly
says that the connection between spilled beer (which I guess you /should/
cry over) and povberty is NOT teva but INSTEAD it's segula.

-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         ]