Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 034

Tuesday, May 21 2002

• Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• kilaei ba'alei 'hayim
• RE: Shabou'ot, Yom Tob, Meat or Dairy
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• FW: Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening
• RE: Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening
• Talles koton outside again
• RE: Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening
• RE: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• FW: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• 9/11 stories
• bitachon & nature
• RE: bitachon & nature
• Re: bitachon & nature
• Re: bitachon & nature
• Re: bitachon & nature

Amazing how pshat in a pasuk that one MUST say with kavannah can elude you:

What does "Ratzon" mean in this pasuk - whose Ratzon?

I do not see any alternative to the Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem.

An Israeli researcher has created a naked chicken (meaning without feathers) 
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20020520/sc_nm/food_israel_chickens_dc_1). 
Is anyone on list familiar with how said researcher has created this useful 
little monster?

Halakhikally, I wonder about the following:
* is there a prohibition on kilaim for fowl? I only recall mamals
(everywere), trees (ditto) and plants (in Israel only).
* assuming we figure out what method was used for creating them, does that
method qualify as kilaim, or not. I believe that for kilaei beheimah the
qualification is actually mounting the male on the female and manually
force them to copulate. Did I remember correctly, and if so, what is the
status of artificial insemination, sans coitus, as well as cloning, for
that matter. (cloning is not really relevant here, as cloning involves
destroying the genetic identity of the mother, which is exactly what is
not desired when creating hybrids).

Good/hardy apetite?

Arie Folger

Among the many explanations for the custom of eating milk products on
Shavu'ot, I was recently reminded of one not among the most usually
repeated.

We eat milk products in memory of Moshe Rabbenu.

The day Moshe was rescued from the Nile was Shavu'ot. Assuming his birth
as 7 Nissan plus three months being hidden brings one to early in Sivan.

When removed from the water, Bat Pharaoh tried to have him fed by wet
nurse, but Moshe, who did not drink Chalav haCompanies, refused to drink.
Not until his sister Miriam arranged for Chalav Yisrael did Moshe drink.

In memory of this, we too partake of milk and milk products on the
anniversary of this event.

Although a single example proves nothing, I add that some 70 years ago,
long before there were any ideas of health-food or avoiding red meat,
we ate milchig on Shavu'ot. In fact I always thought that blintzes
were mid'oraita but cheese cake was only mid'rabbanan. Considering the
importance of masoret, maybe I still think so.

kt,
David

On Mon, 20 May 2002 19:58:53 -0400 "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
> What does "Ratzon" mean in this pasuk - whose Ratzon?

        Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking
him for his parnassa.  A person could be the greatest in the
world.............fill in the blank,  but if someone doesn't take a
liking to him as a potential employee/customer/associate, he'll get
nowhere.  Hashem provides this needed "ratzon".

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>Gershon gershon.dubin@juno.com
>Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for 
>his parnassa.  A person could be the greatest in the 
>world.............fill in the blank,  but if someone doesn't take a liking 
>to him as a potential employee/customer/associate, he'll get
>nowhere.  Hashem provides this needed "ratzon".

Emes l'amitta!

(The idea.)

But is this really the *pshat* in pasuk?

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

On Mon, 20 May 2002 20:58:22 -0400 "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
<<Emes l'amitta!
 (The idea.)
 But is this really the *pshat* in pasuk?>>

Rav Schwab presents all his peshatim as such, IMHO.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:58:53PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Amazing how pshat in a pasuk that one MUST say with kavannah can elude you:
: What does "Ratzon" mean in this pasuk - whose Ratzon?
: I do not see any alternative to the Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem.

We discussed this on Mesorah.

Pashut peshat would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai"
-- leaving every desire satisfied.

The Malbim's peshat would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia'
lechol chei beratzon".

RMPoppers suggests that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is
bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". (No surprise
that our local designated yekke gave me the same peshat as RSS.)

RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person
to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon --
but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable.
Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

This issue has bothered me sufficiently that I decided to ask R' Abadi
himself. Here's the correspondence [no longer -mi] in reverse order:

Comments?

- Danny

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Schoemann [mailto:dannys@atomica.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:41 AM
To: aabadi@kashrut.org
Subject: Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening

Dear Rabbi Abadi shlyt"o

When describing "Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening" you state: The Sofer
then puts ink on the screen, and applies the ink by hand passing a
squeegee across the Klaf. In a matter of seconds this Klaf has a full
page written perfectly.

How does this differ from the halacha of a drop of ink that falls onto
a page and forms a letter - that the Mishna Berura brings down (in
32:17:67) that it unkosher, as it's not derech ketiva. In other words,
how is "passing a squeegee" considered derech ketiva?

Yelamdenu Rabbeinu
- Danny Schoemann
  Jerusalem

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Abadi [mailto:aabadi@kashrut.org]
Sent: Monday, 20 May, 2002 6:23 PM
To: Danny Schoemann
Subject: RE: Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening

Ketiva by silk screen is done by hand directly onto the klaf. It is not
poured on, but rather pressed thru the silk screen by the squeegee.
Pouring it, is sort of an indirect formation of a word, which
incidentally is not so clear that it would be a problem. The source
for that is the Yerushalmi in Gittin, which is talking about a whole
different situation. It refers to a case where the letters were written
by invisible ink & then the ink is poured on and letters suddenly form.
If pouring was in itself a problem, most of Sefer Torahs would be Pasul,
because the last letters are usually written by non-Sofrim by dripping
ink onto the letter.

Aaron Abadi

> If pouring was in itself a problem, most of Sefer Torahs would be Pasul,
> because the last letters are usually written by non-Sofrim by dripping
> ink onto the letter.

This is incorrect. A letter that is only an outline is kosher. Adding
ink to the center is adding ink to an already-kosher letter.

Akiva

I have gotten numerous posts from people about the issue of wearing
tzitzis out. Every single one that has data from Europe confirm what I
noted: no one in Europe wore the tzitzis of the tallis koton out. Not
misnagdim, not chasidim. Not Litvaks, not Poylishe, not Ungarishe. Of
course not German Jews.

So, rabbosai, you can argue with my explanations of the rishonim. But
you can't argue with facts: choose your favorite godol, and he wore the
tzitzis of his tales koton inside. You, in wearing them out, are showing
that you know better than he, or that you wish to follow others without
studying what the g'dolim did.

But, as R. Micha has correctly noted, nowadays among certain circles it
has become like a yarmulke: not a halakhic inyan to wear all day, but
a matter of accepted minhog, from which you differ at your own risk and
the risk of your children's shiddukhim. But CQs as I will continue to rail
against minhogim that developed in the last 100 years that go against what
was the minhag of K'lal Yisroel and the views of the European g'dolim.

R. Shlomoh Taitelbaum: <RSM, are you familiar with the S'mak (#28)
who holds there IS a mitzva to look at the tsitsis?>

Yes, the S'maq is very interesting. However, as with the Nimmuqei Yosef,
there is more to it than would appear to a casual perusal. Even the
Riva'sh doesn't quite know what to do with this view, saying that no
one else thinks it is a mitzva, and perhaps he just meant that it is a
mitzva to see them
 when saying q'riat sh'ma' in the morning, as the Riva'sh grandfather used
to do [emphasis mine].

But even from internal evidence there is more going on. The S'maq lists
under the category of "Mitvos of the eyes" the mitva of seeing tzitzis
as it says "ur'item oto" (ra'a usually means seeing, not looking, but
that is just a quibble, not important for the discussion). However, as a
separate mitzva under the category of "mitvos of the clothes" he lists
"asiyat tzitzit," i.e. making tzitzis (or, more exactly, putting them
on garments). In that mitzva he at least says what he means, describing
how to tye the tzitzis.

Now, then, we are left with two possibilities:

1) The S'maq thought that it is a mitzva to attach tzitzis to garments,
whether or not he owns or wears them. This would put him at odds with
all other rishonim, who hold (and so the SA and R'mo pasken) that the
mitzva of the Torah is only IF a person owns a 4 cornered garment AND he
wears it, he has to put on tzitzis. In that case, he is so far removed
from other rishonim, that I could imagine that he really thinks that
there is a mitzva to see them.

2) The S'maq actually agrees with other rishonim that the mitzva is only
if you own and wear such a garment, and he just left it out. In that case,
it would also imply that he left out similar relevant details about the
mitzva of seeing the tzitzis, such as it only applies to one who owns and
wears such a garment. I tend to think this is what the S'maq actually
meant: that a person who has a tallis godol should see his tzitzis. In
any event, he cannot mean that a person should spend his time during
davening or after davening looking at tzitzis, and probably the Riva'sh
is right, that he held it was a mitzva to look at them (assuming he has
a talis godol, as above) at some point, probably during k'riat sh'ma'.

R. Shlomoh Taitelbaum: <Also, I seem to remember a picture of R. Aharon
Kotler ztl in his younger days in Europe out in the summertime forest
together with some others (I believe at the feet of R> Boruch Ber)
and he was wearing a talis koton over his shirt but under a vest>

There are other pictures with him with his talis koton under his clothing,
and no tzitzis showing. Perhaps in the summer in Europe he wanted to be
yotze those shitos that hold only a beged elyon is chayyav.

I received a note from Michael Freedman, with very interesting data from
R. Moshe's grandson; I am reporting it as it was sent to me:

<Rav Mordecai Tendler, once gave a 12 part shiur on the topic of tallis
katon... The Mishna Brura problem upon research it seems to be the
misunderstanding of the century.

As was well known, Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L was very makpid against the
phenomenon of this "new " custom of wearing tzitzis out. There are those
that note of some pictures of Rav Moshe with his tallis katon on the top
of his clothing but this is not acurate since he only did this at an
advanced age and only in the summer when he was away from people. the
reason was that he wore his wool beged directly on his skin and he had
a terrible rash in the heat of the summer that was aggravated by this.

The MA and MB can [have] a different understanding.

There were different types of tallis katon. the mechaber is discussing
one that is not the beged we wear today. The problem and controversy
that developed with this beged was that it was worn by goyim in germanic
countries and there was a debate if it was chukas akum. the problem was
that people were wearing the beged outside yet tucking the tzitizs inside
(the corner or the pants).

it is here that the problem arises, as Rav Moshe explained, if you wear
the beged out then the tzitzis need to be out but on the tallis katon
we wear today the beged should be inside.When the beged is inside it is
improper to put the tzitzis outside (according to ALL SHITOS, based on
rav moshe). I heard from Rav Chaim Ozer Chait of a story (he witnessed)
that the son in law of the chafetz chaim came to mtj and got attacked
by all the talmidim about how his father in law could have come up with
this chiddush of wearing the tzitzis out. He responded with the above
explanation and stated that the chofetz chaim had held exactly as did
rav moshe and people have misunderstood this.

I heard from a friend who learned in the chofetz chaim yeshiva in Monsey
under the grandson of the chafetz chaim, that he gave the same explanation
to the talmidim!>

Ad kahn R. Freedman. This would also fit in with the view of the S'maq
above: only a talles koton do the tzitzis have to be out.

<So where does this idea that tzitzis should be visible come from? You
will look in vain in the rishonim for anybody who says that tzitzis must
be visible. Those who question the talles koton do so on the basis of size
and the way it is worn, not because it was worn underneath theclothes.>

R. Yosef Stern wrote: <My search was not at all in vain, the Ba'al
ha'Ittur DOES infact mention it in Hilchos Tzitzis (shaar 2, Chelek 1
and Chelek 3): And our holy teacher writes in the name of the Chochom
R. Yitzchok b. Moron Levi that those who wear their tzitzis under their
garments are not fulfiling the Mitzvah of Tzitzis... because the Torah
says Asher Techase Boh (which implies the outer most garment, this does
not include an overcoat as in Gemara Moed Katan 22:2 (Apikrotzuso =
overcoat)).>

I am always glad to see Hazal's words on yaga'ta v'lo matzata al ta'amin
confirmed. However, in this case, mefears you missed my point. This 'Ittur
is one of the rishonim the Nimmuqei Yosef that I quoted mentioned. To
requote what I translated: <Some rishonim say that the mitzva of tallit
[sic] is not fulfilled without 'atifat harosh, to cover the head and the
body or most of it, as it says "asher t'kshasseh bah." According to them,
there is no mitzva of tzitzit b'elu tallitot k'tannim shenahagu lilbosh
b'rov malkhuyot>

IOW, there were plenty of rishonim that said that there is no mitzva in
the talles koton worn under the clothes, because only an outside garment
qualifies. This is what the 'Ittur says. He does not even address the
point that the tzitzis of this garment must be out, although that is
probably taken for granted. But if you are not wearing an outer garment
that is chayyav in tzitzis, the 'Ittur would hold that there is no
requirement to put on tzitzis at all, and certainly not to wear them out.

R SBA: < In fact now I remember when we were kids, that is how many of
us did it. We tucked the tzitzis into its own handy little pocket.>

That is the way I imagined the MB was describing, but I had not heard
from people who actually did it that way. From the MB, it appears that
this is to avoid them touching the leges (yes, as RSBA says, they wore
underwear in Europe like nowadays).

There are two problems with this. First, in the time of Hazal, the talis
was worn wrapped around the body, over a tunic (like a long undershirt,
that went down to the knees). At any rate, the paintings and mosaics
clearly show that the tzitzis were worn over legs bare below the knees,
and the tzitzis were down where the legs were bare.

The second problem is halakhic. The g'moro (quoted by rishonim lahalokho)
says the tzitzis must be "notef 'al haqeren," drooping over the corner
of the garment. If they are tucked into the corner, they are not.

The Beiur haGro on the SA that RSBA's friend quoted is interesting. I
might venture a guess that he is pointing out that the view that the
tallis koton must be worn outside must come from someone's understanding
of what the posuq means, since it is clearly not the shitta of a rishon,
and contradicts the g'moro's understanding of the posuq. But it represents
the G'ro's notes for himself regarding the source of the the M'habber's
view that the tallis qoton should be worn over the clothes. As students of
the Vilner Gaon know, the Beiur haGro mostly does not coincide with the
Gro's own opinion. When it does, he may say "v'khen 'iqar." In this case
he does not, but, more importantly we know that the Gro didi not hold that
way. His talmidim specifically record that his version of a tallis koton
was worn UNDER his clothes (and was the size of a talis godol, probably
to fulfill the view of the rishonim that only a beged of that size is
chayyav. As a matter of fact, R. Chayim Volozhner is quoted as saying
that the proper size of a talis koton is down to the knees of a godol.

Note also the facts: the followers of the Gaon, both in EY and chutz
laaretz, wore the tzitzis of their talis koton inside the clothes,
including R. Velvel Brisker and RYBS, who are descended from R. Chayim
Volozhner and kept the minhogim of the Gro as a matter of family minhog.

Sorry for this disjointed post. The nice young men in the clean white
coats are coming to take my computer away (ha ha, hee hee), and I wanted
to get this (which has been sitting on my hard drive for a few days)
out before the strait jacket is put on...

Seth

From: Akiva Atwood [mailto:atwood@netvision.net.il]
>> If pouring was in itself a problem, most of Sefer Torahs would be Pasul,
>> because the last letters are usually written by non-Sofrim by dripping
>> ink onto the letter.

> This is incorrect. A letter that is only an outline is kosher. Adding
> ink to the center is adding ink to an already-kosher letter.

Actually I was reading about this last night in a booklet published in
honor of a Sefer being donated to Yeshivat HaRaN, in memory of the late
wife of R' Elyashiv shlyt"o.

I'll double check, but it seemed to say that:

a. This is a machlokes. (What isn't) :-)

b. Certain letters are not really kosher already. E.g. a Yud in outline
is a kosher Mem-sofit. So you're creating the Yud. (I can't think of
any other examples, and they didn't supply any other.)

What I will say is that they don't drip ink - they usually "write"
(color in) with a kulmus, as opposed to squeegees, R' Abadi-style.

- Danny, who's trying to decide whether to finish his sefer by himself
  or get other people fill in a few letters. Any input?

From: Yehuda Friedman [mailto:yehuda.friedman@corp.idt.net]
> What is wrong with translating it as 'ratzon of the 'chai''?

Masbi'ah"!

YGB

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> What does "Ratzon" mean in this pasuk - whose Ratzon?

It refers to the *desire* of the individual/creature for sustenance.   

The proof is the parallel in 104:27-28 -
 
Kulam alecha yesaberun		/ Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru                
Lases ochlam b'ito		/ V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito
Titein lahem yilkotun.		
Tiftach yadcha			/Poseach es yadech
yisbe'un tov.  			/U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon.

The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to
sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like
bestowing "razton".  

From: Yehuda Friedman <yehuda.friedman@corp.idt.net>
: What is wrong with translating it as 'ratzon of the 'chai''?

Where's the posessive? Wouldn't it be "masbia' retzon kol chai" (with
semichut) or "masbia' lechol chai es retzono" or the like?

I also like RYGB's simple existential proof. (Which brings us to the
discussion of bitachon that will be forwarded over from Areivim iy"h
in a few posts...)

There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of
the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which
the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that
could be one object (as in RYF's suggestion).

Poetry can be like that, but it makes life difficult.

-mi

[Forwarded from Areivim. I couldn't find a good place to cutover the
conversation. If you want me to bounce over any of your posts, simply
ask.

[In short, we were discussing stories that dwell on people who normally
would have been in the wrong place on the morning of 9/11, but weren't.

[Some (including yours truly) voiced concern with dwelling on such
stories. This also crossed into a conversation about saying tehillim
as a means of gaining such siyata dishmaya. Which then lead to the
following. -mi]

> Exactly.  Claims that someone was saved are not claims that these people are 
> righteous.  The fact (or rather, assertion) that one person was saved from 
> WTC and another was not absolutely is not an implication that one was worthy 
> and another was not.  THAT would be hubris.

I am not keen on the proliferation of 9/11 stories, and the fact that
these stories center on people like us tends to reinforce the feeling that
people like us are indeed worthy candidates for divine intervention, there
is one religiously healthy factor in all this-- Modern people tend to
think themselves invulnerable. To recognize how easily the best laid plans
of human beings can go awry is a reminder that we are not the masters of
our fate. To be sure, a realistic person recognizes this truth in less
dramatic everyday matters.

From: Shalom Carmy [mailto:carmy@ymail.yu.edu]
> I am not keen on the proliferation of 9/11 stories, and the fact that
> these stories center on people like us tends to reinforce the feeling that
> people like us are indeed worthy candidates for divine intervention, 

I assume that you are writing according to the Rambam's view that nature
exists as an independent entity, that most people are subject to it, and
that only worthy people are subject to divine intervention to save them from
negative natural occurences.

> there
> is one religiously healthy factor in all this-- Modern people tend to
> think themselves invulnerable. To recognize how easily the best laid plans
> of human beings can go awry is a reminder that we are not the masters of
> our fate. 

However, the stories are uniformly of those people who were saved, not of
those who came to the office early that day and perished. Consequently,
when hearing of those stories (as opposed to reading the secular newspaper
accounts, which focused on those who perished) people don't so much focus
on their vulnerability as much as end up reinforcing their belief in
Rav Dessler's view of complete divine control (with nature as a cover
for divine action), or perhaps even causing those who waver between
the Maimonidean and Desslerian models to opt for R Dessler's view.
This leads to a "don't worry be happy" attitude: people don't worry
about the next attack because everything is divinely preordained anyway.

I was corresponding with an Israeli charedi about whether she fears being
subject to terrorist attacks.  She responded:
<<I also think that most people here have very strong bitachon in Hashem
and they know that whatever is meant to happen is going to happen and
that everything Hashem does is for the Ultimate Tov. I can't imagine how
anyone could live here for any period of time and continue functioning
without this level of bitachon >>

Frankly, I find the Desslerian approach much more comforting than the
Maimonidean, but it's hard for me to have complete bitachon in that
approach when I know that the the approach of Rambam (and according to
Dr. Berger, that of Ramban and R Bachya al haTorah) is a valid approach
as well. Which brings me back to the question I've posed before: how
can anyone have complete Desslerian bitachon without having a niggling
thought in the back of his mind: maybe Rambam is right?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> I assume that you are writing according to the Rambam's view that
> nature exists as an independent entity, that most people are subject to
> it, and that only worthy people are subject to divine intervention to
> save them from negative natural occurences...

> However, the stories are uniformly of those people who were saved, not
> of those who came to the office early that day and perished.
> Consequently, when hearing of those stories (as opposed to reading the
> secular newspaper accounts, which focused on those who perished) people
> don't so much focus on their vulnerability as much as end up
> reinforcing their belief in Rav Dessler's view of complete divine
> control (with nature as a cover for divine action), or perhaps even
> causing those who waver between the Maimonidean and Desslerian models
> to opt for R Dessler's view.  This leads to a "don't worry be happy"
> attitude: people don't worry about the next attack
> because everything is divinely preordained anyway...

> Frankly, I find the Desslerian approach much more comforting than
> the Maimonidean, but it's hard for me to have complete bitachon in that
> approach when I know that the the approach of Rambam (and according to
> Dr. Berger, that of Ramban and R Bachya al haTorah) is a valid approach
> as well. Which brings me back to the question I've posed before: how
> can anyone have complete Desslerian bitachon without having a niggling
> thought in the back of his mind: maybe Rambam is right?

I'm not really sure that there is such a big contradiction between the
Desslerian and the Maimonidean approach to this subject. First of all,
who created the nature and the "derech hateva" but Hashem Himself? It
seems to me that it is very logical to say that Hashem runs the world
and is in control of all that happens in it and has an ultimate purpose
in everything that He does, and that he allows the world that he has
created to function according to derech hateva most of the time, but
that at any time Hashem wishes, he can interfere with the derech hateva
if there is a reason to. Rambam never said, chas v'sholom, that there
are two separate entities running the world -- Hashem and teva. He means
that Hashem set a system in place and generally lets it run in a regular
fashion, which gives us the ability to figure out when naitz should
start and what time Shabbos will come in. However, Hashem and only
Hashem is in charge and can change things whenever He feels that it
would be beneficial to do so. 

So far as one's comfort level, I also think that one can be very happy
knowing that if Hashem does not interfere with the derech hateva then
this, too, is part of his plan. 

---Rena

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:02:41AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Frankly, I find the Desslerian approach much more comforting than the
: Maimonidean, but it's hard for me to have complete bitachon in that approach
: when I know that the the approach of Rambam (and according to Dr. Berger,
: that of Ramban and R Bachya al haTorah)...

Please, see the Iggeres RYZ faxed us (mentioned in v9n27) at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/protis.pdf>.

RMMS discusses the Besh"t's shitah in hashgachah, and how the vast
majority of rishonim didn't believe hashgachah peratis applied to
non-humans. The Rambam and other shitos that limit HP WRT people are
also discussed.

In any case, that's hashgachah, not bitachon. In the CI's model of
bitachon, it's belief in hashgachah peratis guiding things to turn out
in the best possible way -- but not belief that everything will turn
out the way we want.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RMB:
> In any case, that's hashgachah, not bitachon. In the CI's model of
> bitachon, it's belief in hashgachah peratis guiding things to turn out
> in the best possible way -- but not belief that everything will turn
> out the way we want.

Even so, that's more comforting than the Rambam's notion that most people
are subject to nature. According CI, there's no reason to be anxious
whether you're going to be in the next terror attack--you either will
or won't but it's not up to you (unless you purposely enter a place of
sakanah--statistically, even Sbarro's isn't a makom sakanah).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:53:19PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> In any case, that's hashgachah, not bitachon. In the CI's model of
:> bitachon, it's belief in hashgachah peratis guiding things to turn out
:> in the best possible way -- but not belief that everything will turn
:> out the way we want.

: Even so, that's more comforting than the Rambam's notion that most people
: are subject to nature...

"Most people"? He says that a kesil or a rasha` (trans Ibn Tibbon) is
abandoned to nature. Most of us are somewhere in between on the spectrum.
Moreh 3:18 pretty clearly defines being a "ben adam" as a fuzzy set in
this regard.

As I argued here in the past, that too is an indirect hashgachah.
Onesh needn't be a slap in the face, it could be abandonment to the
forces one chooses to follow.

The Rambam's position on this is actually conformable with REED's! After
all, REED too speaks of a spectrum where people who have more bitachon
require less hishtadlus. Isn't hishtadlus working bederech hateva'? It
would seem therefore that bitachon isn't only trust in HP, but the cause
of HP.

The difference between the Rambam and REED is whether teva is real,
or simply a pattern G-d happens to choose to follow for hester panim
purposes. Not really relevent here, since either way the effect on the
person experiencing it is that when the rock is let go over his foot,
he will soon be in pain.

The Rambam also fits the Maharal's model for neis, which says that
different people are in different places on the teva-neis axis, and
therefore experience more or less in the way of nissim. Nissim always
occur, but someone who is on the wrong madreiga won't experience
it. (Another topic I've beaten to death here in the past.) Again, a
spectrum of emunah (not bitachon, though) correlating to a spectrum of
subjectedness to teva.

:                        According CI, there's no reason to be anxious
: whether you're going to be in the next terror attack--you either will
: or won't but it's not up to you (unless you purposely enter a place of
: sakanah--statistically, even Sbarro's isn't a makom sakanah).

I don't know if that's what the CI is saying. You're making his statement
about bitachon into one about HP. He could hold like the Rambam, and
yet define bitachon to include the confidence that if Hashem treats you
more beteva it is in your best interest.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ 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         ]