Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 023

Wednesday, May 1 2002

• Re: Shaimos
• RE: Shaimos
• RE: Kaddish after Aleinu
• Re: Zohar 'Hadash
• Re: Kaddish after Aleinu
• Re: Kaddish after Aleinu
• Re: Yisgaddal/yisgaddel in qaddish
• Re: Shatz
• Re: Shehechyanu and Sfira
• Re: Minhag, oats, kitniyos, and haircuts during omer
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• Kaddish after Alenu
• Re: Shaimos
• Re: Minhag, oats, kitniyos, and haircuts during omer
• Re: Mila/Mohel/Meila
• Re: Zohar 'Hadash
• Re: Hezeq Re'iyah and the Cubs
• Hezeq Re'iyah and the Cubs
• Re: Cubs
• Kaddish after Aleinu
• LH against those who are not oseh ma'asei amcha
• RE: Kaddish after Aleinu
• Re: Creation: Guided or controlled
• Fwd (ndk@hakotel.edu): HaRav Steinberger's Shiur #5762-9

Reb Moshe in IM also wrote a teshuva that permits the putting into
recycling bins all types of Torah writings except siddurim and Tanakh
or any others that have Shem Hashem. As the questioner was living in
Israel he put his "psak" as a suggestion or opinion that should be
decided l'ma'aseh by the local Israeli posekim.

As to the permissibility of writing names such as Sh'muel, Yehonatan,
Gedalya etc., I would add the comment of, IIRC, R' Shlomo Aviner:

If one writes his name just as a name there is no kedusha. But if he
spaces the name with a dash or omits a letter and puts a shmichik instead,
this special action show that he is thinking of it as shem Hashem and
this gives the word kedusha.

This is certainly just the opposite of the usual practice of the
hyphenaters and smitchikers.

K"T,
David

From: D & E-H Bannett [mailto:dbnet@zahav.net.il]
> Reb Moshe in IM also wrote a teshuva that permits the putting into 
> recycling bins all types of Torah writings except siddurim and Tanakh 
> or any others that have Shem Hashem.  

Anyone have a cite?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From:	Markowitz, Chaim [SMTP:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> Today afetr minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
> yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu. This would
> mean that even if the shliach tzibbur's parents are both alive,he should
> still say the kaddish. I admit that I was a little surprised at this
> since I've never seen it done, but a quick glance in the shulchan aruch
> shows that this person is right. (with the one caveat that the parents
> of the one saying kaddish are not makpid). My question is, is this done
> anywhere and why is this not the prevelant minhag?

IIRC, it is not so clear that the parents of the shat"z have any say in the 
matter. Again, IIRC, Rav Henkin a"h has a teshuva about this.

kt
sk

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: Rethoricl question: why do I think that RSG's rejection of gilgulim shows 
: belief in them was not very widespread?

Not just his rejection -- his statement is that there is no mention of
"ha'atakah" by Chazal or anywhere in our mesorah. That's a pretty measurable
claim. He obviously did not know of any Sifrei Kabbalah from before his
generation (or so) that mentioned "ha'atakah".

A long while back we discussed whether "ha'atakah" is the same thing as
"gilgul". RSG's description does involve Re'uvein's neshamah being born
as Shim'on after Re'uvein's death.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   submission to truth, and what results?

In a message dated 4/29/02 4:37:20pm EDT, CMarkowitz@scor.com writes:
> Today afetr minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
> yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu. This would
> mean that even if the shliach tzibbur's parents are both alive,he should
> still say the kaddish. I admit that I was a little surprised at this
> since I've never seen it done, but a quick glance in the shulchan aruch
> shows that this person is right. (with the one caveat that the parents
> of the one saying kaddish are not makpid). My question is, is this done
> anywhere and why is this not the prevelant minhag?

AISI, there must be ONE Kaddish after daveninbg and that this is one of the 
requisiste 10 daily Kadddeishim
BUT
It might be eihter after Aleinu or the Yom

While the Halachah/Minhag is not so clear, it seems to me al pi savara that a 
mizmor - i.e. any "kappitel" of Tanach - is a definite trigger for Kaddish 
while Aleinu is a questionable one.

E.G.:
Sphardim say a mizmor THEN Kaddish then Aleinu. 
Minhag Frankfort also did not originally have a Kaddish after Aleinu  

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On 29 Apr 2002 at 15:56, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> Today afetr minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
> yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu. This would
> mean that even if the shliach tzibbur's parents are both alive,he should
> still say the kaddish. I admit that I was a little surprised at this
> since I've never seen it done, but a quick glance in the shulchan aruch
> shows that this person is right. (with the one caveat that the parents
> of the one saying kaddish are not makpid). My question is, is this done
> anywhere and why is this not the prevelant minhag?

I've seen it done, but NOT by someone whose parents are alive, even 
if they are the Shaliach Tzibur and even if the parents are not 
makpid. In fact, it's relatively common AFAIK. 

-- 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.

In a message dated 4/29/02 4:32:31pm EDT, sethm37@hotmail.com writes:
> R. Micha, I believe, is quoting some things I once wrote and
> said on qaddish, and therefore, of course, is by and large correct
> <grin>. However, as I shall explain elsewhere, the reason of the Gra is
> not that it must be Hebrew because otherwise it would be yisrabba. Rather,
> he is totally basing himself on the view of Rashi, as brought down by
> all of his talmidim, that those two words are Hebrew meant to echo the
> pasuq in Y'hezqel.

> Now, yisgaddel or yisqaddesh are indeed impossible forms in Aramaic. But,
> as R. Micha and R. Teitz note, both yisgaddal and yisgaddel are correct
> Hebrew, so why insist on yisgaddel? The G'ro could agree that the words
> are Hebrew, and still say yisgaddal, and allow any sofeq of Hebrew
> vs. Aramaic to remain unresolved.

I don't get one thing
EVEN if there connection to Yehezkel is 100% why does that need to be in 
Hebrew

IOW, so what is wrong with an Aramaic version of Yehezkel in what is an 
Aramaic text?  How does Hebarizing it make it any MORE connected.

Illustration:
V'chulam mkablim is a Hebraic form of umekalim dein min dein!

What is wrong with THAT?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I wrote:
>> Thus, may be that halakhah is the result of minhag hamakom of toshvei
>> haaretz terem bau bnei Yisrael lagur sham, and is thus (if I am right)
>> definitely not

RYZ
> See Bava Metzia 87a, Pssachim 86b.

Now we can speculate whether the Polish gentile minhag of refusing twice
(anything offered, whether a meal or a deal) and then accepting was
imported (exported?) by the Jews. This is not ludicrous, as Jews were
fulfilling many administrative functions and were quite in touch with
trendsetting gentry.

Arie Folger

In a message dated 4/26/02 4:13:26pm EDT, remt@juno.com writes:
> It is not so.  In the Three Weeks, we refrain because we do not celebrate
> our being alive baz'man hazeh, this season of puranus, when we must
> commemorate the continued churban habayis.  The same does not apply to
> S'firah.  It is explicit in the MB, 493:2, that Shehechayanu may be said.

I agree but there is one more Halachah - some kind of refraining from Mlachah
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/16/02 8:58:08pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Then why accept the first embellishment either? The only difference
> between qitniyos and mei qitniyos is that the latter wasn't nispasheit
> until much later. If you accept the process WRT 1,100 years ago, why not
> WRT 120? (After all, people 880 yrs ago were in your shoes WRT qitniyos.)

Mei kitniyoos was OU appraoved in my life time
I think that we have the right/obligatoin to stop a process of nispaseht when 
seen as in error
as opposed to a long standing minhag

Also we generally do not promot chumros to chumros

You cannot get OU peanut oil for Pesach anymore - why not?

Rav Breuer loudly protested Glatt Kosher 50 years ago, but NOW Breue's gave 
in. Does that mean he should NOT have protested? And you cannot tell me that 
Rav Breuer was not a devotee of minhag!

The issue of minhag Tuas is complex.  The supposition AISI is that no 
longstnading minhag that was erroneous would have survived scrutiny

I think Ri MIcourville protested the gzeira against kitniyos, but was 
over-ruled by history  

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/24/02 3:59:52pm EDT, laser@ieee.org writes:
> RRW wrote:
>>AFAIK There are 2 schools amongst Sephardim re: Rice on Passover
>>1) Ones that inspect 3 times  and eat
>>2) those that do not instpect

> I presume that the second school refers to those that do not inspect, and 
> eat,
> There is a third school among Sefaradim; viz., not to eat rice.
> Some Moroccans act according to this.

No 2nd school do not inpsect and do NOT eat
AIUI the technique was lost and so the process abandoned

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
: Today afetr minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
: yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu. This would
: mean that even if the shliach tzibbur's parents are both alive,he should
: still say the kaddish. ...  (with the one caveat that the parents
: of the one saying kaddish are not makpid). My question is, is this done
: anywhere and why is this not the prevelant minhag?

It is definitely done in yeshivos.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: D & E-H Bannett [mailto:dbnet@zahav.net.il]
>> Reb Moshe in IM also wrote a teshuva that permits the putting into
>> recycling bins all types of Torah writings except siddurim and Tanakh
>> or any others that have Shem Hashem.

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> Anyone have a cite?

Reb Moshe wrote a long tshuva to Rav Rappaport - Rav Tendler's son-in-law

OH IV #39 pp49-61

He concludes:"As far a ma'aseh it is clear to me as I have written and it
is prohibited concerning Chumashim and sifrei Tanach which contain Shem
HaShem and also siddurim which print the actual Shem. However concerning
books of Oral Torah such as mishnayos and gemoras of both Talmudim and all
the books of the rishonim and achronim and the seforim of the scholars of
our time and all the journals which are torn and it is no longer relevant
to learn from them and use them for research - even though it is still
possible to glean information from them but it is clear that he won't
study from them in the manner if they were in proper shape - it is also
permitted. However to do this lema'aseh it is necessary to discuss this
with other gedolei poskim in Israel and also gedolei roshei yeshiva and
also with gedolei Torah and Hora'ah from the chareidi and Sefardim."

For additional relevant material see Yad Moshe "Shem HaShem" page 360-361
"Seforim" pp241-242

In a message dated 4/30/02 11:45:35am EDT, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> The issue of minhag Tuas is complex.  The supposition AISI is that no 
> longstanding minhag that was erroneous would have survived scrutiny

See Arvei pesachim 103A and 104A where R Yochan {amora} says Nahagu
ha'am and the Rashbam there

AIUI Minhag is often be a technique for perpetuating an anonymous psak.
But Minhaggim get mangled.

It is my analytical opinion that the minhag for Ashkenaz to not bench on
a Kos was promulgated due to the extenuating cirucmstances in Europe re:
Kosher Wine. (See MB re; Washing before Kiddush to back this up} IMHO
this minhag should NOW disppear because wine is now affordable. But once
started the Minhag does take on a life of its own.

Minhaggim - like texts - need to be scrutizinzed to get the proper
hacha bmai askinan going. There are limts to text based upon analysis
and it makes senste to do the same for Minhag. If flour for kitniyot
is possible to mix up with Hametz then the Minhag/Gzeira makes sens.
OTOH Mei Kiniyyot is not quite as sensible if you see the minhag as
predicated on that basis.

Being empathetic to minhag and mimetic/oral traditions does not require
blind obedience, rather I would treat a minhag or masorah as I would a
text, give it empathy AND scrutiny.

EG Rema himself does not ratify all minhaggim. It takes a sympathetic
connoiseur of Minhag to see waht is RIGHT about a minhag and what is
not so right

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/28/02 11:28:58am EDT, SethM37@iwon.com writes:
> To a related root: the word meila is only present in the g'moro as mimmela
> "of itself, by itself." 

Memeila - I had thought the word somehow derived from Male complete or in 
full etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RDR wrote:
<<I checked the EJ over Shabbos. It says that the ZH consists of those
parts of the Safedian Zohar manuscripts which did not make it into the
Mantua edition of the Zohar.>>

True, but that says nothing about its relationship to gufei Zohar, which is 
what I posted about.

RDR wrote:
> Arie Folger wrote:
>> Reb Feldman, Mark wrote:
>>>  For example, is the concept of gigulim ancient?

>> There are three topics here: survival of the soul possibly coupled with
>> physical reincarnation in the future (ancient, basically t'hiyat
>> hameitim), repeated reincarnation of a single soul, nowadys, into another
>> human body (disputable. rav Sa'adyah Gaon says it's import, but it may be
>> ancient. The record is spotty),

> These are certainly in Plato and probably in Pythagoras (Menashe ben
> Yisrael cites this as support for his assertion that Pythagoras was
> Jewish!).

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. The suggestion by RSG that gilgulim are 
import obviously includes the affirmation that such believes did exist in 
antiquity; except they may not have been believed among Jews.

Arie Folger
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

[On Areivim, we were discussing the permissability of looking over
the fence to watvh a Cubs' game without paying. -mi]

On 30 Apr 2002 at 15:03, Arie Folger wrote:
> RJB wrote:
>> 1) violation of dina d'malchuta dina
> may be, definitely arguable. If it is dina demalkhuta, why are they putting
> up a fence, they would have sued the rooftop gardens out of business
>> 2) probable chilul hashem
> Do the goyishe fans care? Does a goy's lack of shmirat dinim constitute CH 
> ('HH in my parlance)?
>> 3) possible violation of onaah (as per Choshen Mishpat 228)
> Huh????

> OTOH, I found that there is most likely a problem of hezek reiyah. 

Why? Hezek Re'iyah is looking/observation that is going to limit the 
freedom of action of the one being watched. How is the Cubs' freedom 
of action inhibited by those watching from the rooftops? Especially 
if there are anohter 35,000 people inside the stadium watching, how 
could there be Hezek Re'iyah? 

-- Carl

On 30 Apr 2002 at 15:03, Arie Folger wrote:
>> OTOH, I found that there is most likely a problem of hezek reiyah.

[R' Carl Sherer replied: -mi]
> Why? Hezek Re'iyah is looking/observation that is going to limit the
> freedom of action of the one being watched. How is the Cubs' freedom
> of action inhibited by those watching from the rooftops? Especially
> if there are anohter 35,000 people inside the stadium watching, how
> could there be Hezek Re'iyah?

I am writing a shiur on this for this coming Shabbat, BEH, so it's not
yet finished. I looked matters up (so far only) in ET.

HR is considered by most rishonim to be a principle in privacy, and some
(such as Ramban) add also an element of 'ayin har'ah if a business is
conducted there or wealth displayed. I am no big fan of the 2nd reason,
but it would clearly apply. As for the first, you should know that bnei
'hatzer kofefim zeh et zeh to install a wall and a gate around the
'hatzer.

Also, there is an explicit prohibition to look into somebody else's
domain without reshut, as such peering is considered hezek reiyah, and
HR shmei H. (I believe Ramo mentions this prohibition). This prohibition
clearly applies.

The only caveat is the possible lack of me'haah as long as the neighbours
weren't doing commercial ticket sales. I don't think that halakhah
distinguishes between 'hazakah for private use and for business use
unless it was explicitly contracted.

I am posting this on Areivim as well.

[Bounced to Avodah. -mi]

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

On 30 Apr 2002 at 19:39, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 April 2002 19:04, you wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2002 at 15:03, Arie Folger wrote:
>>> OTOH, I found that there is most likely a problem of hezek reiyah.

>> Why? Hezek Re'iyah is looking/observation that is going to limit the
>> freedom of action of the one being watched. How is the Cubs' freedom
>> of action inhibited by those watching from the rooftops? Especially
>> if there are anohter 35,000 people inside the stadium watching, how
>> could there be Hezek Re'iyah?

> I am writing a shiur on this for this coming Shabbat, BEH, so it's not yet 
> finnished. I looked matters up (so far only) in ET. 

> HR is considered by most rishonim to be a principle in privacy, 

Again, if 35,000 people are already looking on, where is the privacy 
violation? 

> and some (such 
> as Ramban) add also an element of 'ayin har'ah if a business is conducted 
> there or wealth displayed. I am no big fan of the 2nd reason, but it would 
> clearly apply. 

Ayin hara I could see (except that the likelihood is that most of the 
people on Waverly (or is it Waveland?) Avenue are Cubs fans anyway - 
people coming from out of town usually have to buy tickets :-). 

> As for the first, you should know that bnei 'hatzer kofefim 
> zeh et zeh to install a wall and a gate around the 'hatzer.

So that they can use their hatzer in privacy without outsiders 
looking in. Not the same as someone who has invited 35,000 people 
into their hatzer. 

> Also, there is an explicit prohibition to look into somebody else's domain 
> without reshut, as such peering is considered hezek reiyah, 

But I don't think it's assur qua looking - it's assur because your 
looking will prevent someone else from fully using their hatzer - not 
the case here. The nezek isn't in the etzem act of looking - it's in 
the consequences of the looking: the chilling effect (to borrow a 
term from another field) on the uses that the ba'al ha'hatzer can 
make from his hatzer. 

> The only caveat is the possible lack of me'haah as long as the neighbours 
> weren't doing commercial ticket sales. I don't think that halakhah 
> distinguishes between 'hazakah for private use and for business use unless it 
> was explicitly contracted.

I'm not sure that a lack of mecha'a before would preclude you from being
mocheh now, unless you have established a chazaka. Given that people
have been sitting on the roofs for as long as anyone can remember,
I would argue that the neigbors have a chazaka.

-- 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.

CMarkowitz@scor.com  wrote:
> Today after minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
> yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu.....My question
> is, is this done anywhere and why is this not the prevalent minhag?

Actually, the lubavitcher rebbe was Makpid that it should be said (his
letter in this matter is printed in the very back of the lubavitcher
Tehillim) and that is the prevailing Minhag in chabbad (that someone
without parents RL should say the Kaddish.

kol tuv
yosef stern

From: Carl Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il] on Areivim:
> There are certain areas of Halacha whose protection is not afforded 
> to people who purposely violate Halachos that are known to all. For 
> example, one is permitted to speak Lashon Hara about someone who is 
> not an oseh ma'asei amcha (for example, R"L he purposely eats pork 
> when there is other food available). 

When we discussed this last, didn't we conclude (someone quoted RAS) that
other sources of the issur of LH apply to LH about goyim (and presumably,
therefore, to Jews are not oseh ma'asei amcha).

The way I understand it is that one is permitted to speak LH about the
particular sins that the sinners do in order to shame them into following
the Torah (at least that's what I recall the CC saying).  It might be
implied that if that is not the purpose, there's no heter to speak LH about
a sinner (though as I recall, the CC never explicitly says so).  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

CMarkowitz@scor.com  wrote:
> Today after minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
> yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu.....My question
> is, is this done anywhere and why is this not the prevalent minhag?

From: yosef stern [mailto:avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com]
> Actually, the lubavitcher rebbe was Makpid that it should be said ...
>           and that is the prevailing Minhag in chabbad (that someone without
> parents RL should say the Kaddish.

is the minhag that only someone without parents should say kaddish. or
is the minhag that even if everyone in the minyan has both parents,
one person should say the kaddish.

R' Yitzchok Zlochower wrote <<< I, personally, am comfortable with the
notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how living
systems will behave. >>>

Like R' Micha Berger, I too was surprised by R' Zlochower's statement,
for I saw nothing in that post that discussed foreknowledge. I therefore
presumed this to be a typo, and that what he meant was <<< that the
Creator does not have a total **control** of how living systems will
behave. >>>, which fits the context of the post much better, especially
his explicit siding with Rambam on Hashgacha Klalis.

Akiva Miller

R' Steinberger's e-Shiur on the Rambam, sent by R' Nehemiah Klein.

Touches on the subject of the age of the Zohar. But I think he entirely
misses the Rambam's point WRT sod. The Rambam acknowledges the concept
of "pardes", but that doesn't mean that he identifies "sod" with what
we now call qabbalah. To him, it refers to philosophical hashqafah,
and could be purely rationalist and skeptic. Sod is what you study to
be impressed with Chochmas haBorei and make your way to ahavas Hashem.

-mi

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:06:57 +0300 (IDT)
From: Nehemiah Klein <ndk@hakotel.edu>
X-Sender: ndk@mail
To: rambam list <hk-rambam@lists.hakotel.edu>
Subject: HaRav Steinberger's Shiur #5762-9
Precedence: bulk

"The Rambam and the Kabbalah -- Jewish Mysticism"

It is well known that the Rambam never mentions "Kabalah" or "Chachmat
HaNitstar" as a part of his book "Mishne Torah", nor is he considered
a Kabbalist. On the contrary, the Rambam is supposedly (together
with Rav Saadia Gaon) the head of the school of the rationalists
(sometimes referred to as "philosophers") vis a vis the school of the
Kabbalists. (See the famous Beur HaGr"a, Yoreh Deah 179, paragraph 13).

Nevertheless, the Rambam does relate to the discipline of mysticism --
"sod", even in the "Mishne Torah", but not in this introduction. He sums
up the first four chapters of "Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah" -- the laws
of the principles of Torah, which open his magnum opus -- the "Mishne
Torah" and "Sefer HaMaddah", referring to the issues discussed there as
"pardes". There is even a more specific subdivision there -- defining
the material in the first two chapters there as "Maaseh Merkava",
the issues of Divinity; and the other two -- as "Maaseh Bereishit",
issues of Creation. Indeed, the Rambam concludes that all these issues
of metaphysics and mysticism are more important that the "disputes of
Abaye and Rava" -- the hard core of Halacha (see there Halacha 13, based
on Sukka 28a). Only because Halacha is more rational and corresponds to
life in this world does it superceed "Pardes". The "Pardes" is also
mentioned in Hilchot Talmud Torah as part of the Gemara -- Talmud
(Chapter 1, Halacha 12).

Why then does the Rambam omit this part of the "Torah SheBaal Peh"
completely in the introduction every time he refers to the other parts
of the "Messorah"? He should have mentioned it while discussing R' Akiva
who was the one successful "conqueror" of the "Pardes" (as even described
in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ibid.). He could have mentioned it earlier
regarding R' Yochanan ben Zakkai who (according to Sukka ibid. and
Chagiga 14b) was well versed in "Maase Merkava" and even transmitted
these secrets to his great pupils: R'Elazar ben Arach, R' Yehoshua ben
Chananyah, and others. The Rambam certainly should have mentioned this
discipline while teaching us the details and the literature that make up
the mass of the Oral Law. (By telling us, later after having completed
the list of all the transmitters till Rav Ashi, the total contribution
of the 40 generations since Sinai to the corpus of the Mesorah). We would
also expect him to mention the "Pardes" when he mentions the sources for
his book, towards the end of this introduction. Since he does include, at
least in the first four chapters of Madah (ibid.), the issues of "Maaseh
Merkavah/Bereishit" -- it would do justice to the subject to count among
the: Mishna, 2 Talmuds, Sifir, etc. source material of "Pardes" as well.
(See Introduction to the "Mishne Torah", Twersky, Yale University Press
1980 p. 504, 505 also p. 361, note 12. Twersky holds basically that the
inclusion of these four chapters in Mishne Torah are not so meaningful.
The main book dealing with these issues is the "Moreh Nebuchim").

[One could also expect the Rambam to mention the "Zohar" -- the central
corpus of Kabbalah attributed to R' Shimon bar Yochai. The generally
accepted opinion is that the Rambam was not aware of the existence of
the "Zohar". It became revealed and publicized by R' Moshe De-Leon at
the end of the 13th century. But there are opinions, especially among
Chassidic circles that see many Halachot in the "Mishne Torah" originate
in the "Zohar". See the Radziner Rebbe's introduction to his book on
Bereishit "Beit Yaakov" and also a list of the laws paralleling the
"Zohar" (in appendix to "Kadmut HaZohar" by the Radal) by R' Yerucham
Leiner. According to these opinions, the Rambam's omission of the "Zohar"
also constitutes a problem.]

The omission of the Kabbalistic sources from our introduction by
the Rambam can be explained as follows. First of all, the Rambam
emphasizes that he is dealing with issues of clear Halacha -- criteria
of "Chayav" or "Patur"; "Assur" or "Mutar", and so forth. Matters of
"Pardes" do not apply even if they are mentioned sporadically (like in
the beginning of "Madah", ibid.). For the same reason that the Rambam
omits issues of Aggadah (see Shiur 4), he omits also those of Kabbalah --
mysticism. But there is here, unlike in the Aggadah, another dimension to
the omission. Since the whole discipline of Kabbalah is a secret, it is
possible to assume that the Rambam was relunctant to name the sources,
even if they existed in writing. (There are, besides the Zohar, other
early Kabbalistic works like "Sefer HaBahir", "Otiyot D'R' Akiva", etc.
which are mentioned by the Ra'abad and the Ramban -- both prominent
Kabbalists, who also may have not been aware of the existence of the
"Zohar"). And if these works did not exist in writing, but were just
passed as an oral tradition, secretly to a few select worthy ones --
then certainly the Rambam could not have mentioned such sources.

Anyway, in my opinion (see at length my article "The authenticity of
the Zohar -- between the academic research and the Beit Hamidrash",
published in "Machanayim", Merkaz Sapir 1994 and included in my book
"Ishey Yovel", p. 321), the Zohar existed orally before R' Moshe De-Leon.
Only when this great Kabbalist realized the need for putting it in writing
for publication, did it become known to everybody. In other words, by the
same token that the Mishna and the Talmud were oral until their recording
in writing much later (see Shiur 41,42), so was the Zohar, until R' Moshe
De-Leon. Thus the Rambam, even if he had known the contents of the "Zohar"
(which is a matter of dispute, as previously mentioned), he could not
have mentioend it as a book, since it certainly had not yet been recorded
in his times. Hence, even if there are some Halachic ramifications based
on the"Pardes", certainly in matters of the Principles of the Faith (see
Shiur 4), like the commandments included in the first four chapters of
"Maddah" (ibid.) -- there is documented literature to mention (unlike
the Mishna, Talmud, etc.). Incidentally, the Rambam later attributes
to Rav Oshayah a book of commentary to Bereishit. We do not have it,
or know of it. Still it may very well be an earlier version of Midrash
Aggadah or maybe even of Kabbalah, since Bereishit contains mainly issues
of this nature. Very few commentaries on Bereishit are of Halachic nature.

All said and all told, the Rambam was very much aware of issues of
metaphysics and mysticism -- he dedicated to them his major late work
"Moreh Nebuchim". Yet, most probably he either preferred to ignore or
he did not know the major written sources, even the ones attributed to
Chazal, dealing with these issues. (In his introduction to Chelek and
elsewhere, the Rambam hints to certain Kabbalistic works that seem to
attribute physical characteristics to Hashem. He vehemently opposes
their opinion. See, also the dispute between the Rambam and Ra'abad,
in Hilchot Tshuva III:7 regarding anthropomorphism. The Ra'abad, who was
a Kabbalist, while disagreeing with those opinions, refuses to dub them
as heresy. The Rambam, referring probably to the Kabbalistic work "Shiur
Komah", considers them heretics even if they think so mistakenly. (See
J.D. Bleich "With Perfect Faith" in his introduction where he explains
the concept of the "Thirteen Ikarim" -- principles of the Rambam).

At the same time, going along with the central theme of our very
introduction -- the tremendous significance of the Oral Tradition --
"HaMesorah", there is no field where this tradition dominates the scene
as much as in that of the "Nistar" -- the secret hidden part of the Torah.
This theme manifests itself there in three ways:

a) The knowledge of the "Pardes", even nowadays, is transmitted mainly
orally, from master to student. Despite the written literature that
abounds today (even in English) in Kabbalah and the popularity of it,
the real students of the secrets of the Torah always learn it from an
older scholar who had a personal "Mesorah" of his own. Everybody, who
ever looked into a book of Kabbalah, realizes that most of it is written
encoded and only with guidance it is decipherable. [This fact reminds
the reader of Rav Hutner's explanation of the preservation of the oral
nature of the Talmud even after it was written down. Based on the Gr"a,
the Rosh Yeshiva zt"l explains that in order to enforce the necessary
teacher -- student relationship even after the easy accessibility of
books of the Talmud, the editors of the Talmud made it inaccessible
for the inexperienced reader. Only the well versed, who spent time in
Yeshiva and had a Rebbi, can deal with the difficult texts which were
intentionally written in a vague and unorganized manner. The only purpose
of writing down the Oral Law was to save us from the danger of forgetting
it -- see Gittin 60a and Shiur 41,42. But if that could be done without
abandoning the dependence on a Yeshiva and a Rav -- all the better (see
"Pachad Yitzchak", Chanukkah I). The same idea applies to the writing down
of esoteric obscure Kabbalistic material. Here, even more than in the case
of the Talmud, there was a need to keep things a secret. (How ridiculous
it is, in the light of the above, that Kabbalah study and activity became
so vulgarized and commercialized these days). The oversimplification of
new, especially translated, editions of the Talmud, like Steinzaltz (and
even the Ultra-Orthodox ArtScroll) editions was a project opposed by Rav
Shach zt"L mainly because of this very reason: too much accessibility to
the lay reader runs against the above mentioned will of Ravina and Rav
Ashi to keep their work exclusively within the walls of the Beit Midrash.]

b) If there is a prohibition to write down the Oral Law in order to secure
a transmission between pious and suitable learners (see Shiurim 40 and
on), even regarding the "Nigleh" (Mishna, Talmud, etc.) -- certainly
there is a similar need regarding the "Nistar", Kabbalah. Thus only a
live transmission fits the needs of proper Kabbalistic teaching. The
Rambam rules ("Yesodei Hatorah", there, Halacha 10 and 11) that both
"Maase Merkava" and "Maase Bereishit" should not be taught openly. The
first is taught only privately and only to a wise competent scholar. Even
then he is not getting the full picture, but only general principles. He
has to sweat it out himself and decipher the rest. The second, while
it is also taught only to one person privately, but at least the whole
picture is spread out in front of him and anything he can understand
is being taught to him. No doubt that only a very secure, secretive
and tight transmission could do justice to the highly sensitive and
holiest part of the Torah. (A famous Chassidic saying goes as follows:
the "Nigleh" parts of the Torah were given to Moshe and Bnei Yisrael
in a big staging and tumult -- voices and lightning. The "Nistar" --
was whispered by Hashem to the ears of Moshe).

c) The central work of the Kabbalah is the Zohar. There is a well known,
ongoing dispute, whether the Zohar originates from Sinai through R'
Shimon bar Yochai, or was it forged by R' Moshe De-Leon. (See above,
in my article about the Zohar's authenticity). In academic circles,
where the ethos is "publish or perish", the prevalent perception is
the one of Gershom Sholem's: if the "Zohar" would have been antique,
there would have been no way to hide its existence. It had to appear
and be mentioned in other sources. Hence, Sholem decided that it was a
forgery. Being an irreligious Jew, who never stepped a foot in a Yeshiva,
the professor of Kabbalah could not understand the existence of a quiet
secretive tradition. Indeed, such phenomenon is unheard of in other
disciplines, certainly not in academia.

But we know, that even in recent times, when the flow of information
became so rampant and quick, there were great Torah luminaries
who succeeded in hiding their knowledge in and preoccupation with
Kabbalah. It remained indeed and literally "Nistar" by the likes of
R' Yisrael Salanter, the "Chazon Ish", and others, especially in the
Lithuanian Yeshiva world. [There was a giant Kabbalist in Lithuania,
later in Jerusalem, who wrote the classic "Leshem Shevo VeAchlama". It is
an awesome compilation demonstrating a scope of depth and knowledge almost
unrivalled. Yet nobody clearly knows about the channels of transmission of
such high level Kabbalistic scholarship in Lithuania which enabled that
giant to write such a work. (His name was Rav Eliashiv, the grandfather
of Posek HaDor Y.B.D.L.A.)]. We belive in the authenticity of the Zohar
because of the firm trust in the Mesorah of it starting with the likes
of the Ar"I Z"l, continuing with the Maharal, the Ramchal, HaGr"a, Baal
Shem Tov, Rav Kook, and almost everybody. Sholem's arguments pale next
to this. The power of such tradition is really the biggest energy and
force not only behind the authenticity of the Zohar and the Kabbalah,
but behind, our whole belief in Torah from Sinai -- Min HaShamayim! And
it should be remembered, that the very word "Kabbalah", which became a
synonym to "Chochmat HaNistar", means tradition -- a knowledge acquired
exclusively through transmission from earlier generations.

--
The HaRav Steinberger Rambam archives can be found at
http://www.hakotel.edu/torah/rs.html

--
We would like to express our gratitude to Adam Smith & Company which has
so generously donated and maintains the computer center at the Yeshiva in
memory of HaRav Aryeh Bina zt"l, founder of Yeshivat Hakotel. This
enables us to communicate this issue to you -- "lehagdil Torah ulehaadira".

Please say a tefilla for refuah shlema for Baruch Yoseph ben Adina Batya.
He is the thirteen year old son of one of our alumni who is in great need
of "rachamei Shamayim".

In the Holy Memory of the Gaon HaMekubal R' Refael Levin zt"l

(C) 5762/2002 by Rav Steinberger and American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel

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


[ 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         ]