Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 126

Thursday, March 13 2003

• Re: Mishleiach manos
• Re: Toras Purim 5763, part 2: Megilla and Eydus
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Nice pshat from Rav Shmelke Selisher z'l
• kaddish
• B'birkat refua shelema/something on Mishlei
• RE: Toras Purim
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Timcheh and Lo Tishkach
• Zecher and Zeicher
• [Areivim] parshat zachor
• parashat zachor
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• Re: Deliberate planting of false evidence?
• Re: evolution
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: earliest mincha
• Re: Distance

On 12 Mar 2003 at 21:16, Dovid S & Avital Lipsett wrote:
> There are those that are maddayek from the Mechabur "shtai manos" that
> even one min that CAN BE split to two is acceptable.

RSZA might diasgree (depends what you mean by one min being split in
two). In Halichos Shlomo 19:12 he writes that you can use a top and a
bottom piece of chicken (l'mashal), but in Dvar Halacha 20 the publishers
(AIUI two of his granchildren - great story behind this but probably
for Areivim, not Avodah) write that two pieces of one min doesn't help
and in Orchos Halacha 39 there they bring Aruch HaShulchan 695:14 and
A.A. Butshash (not sure who this is) at the end of 695.

-- Carl

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

On 12 Mar 2003 at 22:33, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Why not learn it as "timcheh" but until you're m'kayem "timcheh," "lo
>: tishkach." That strikes me as pshat in the pasuk.

> Because that would rule out the role of the mitzvah in yemos
> hamoshiach.

> Purim, which the gemara says is the most likely to survive the
> ge'ulah, you're now making the least!

Why do you say that? There's more to Purim than m'chiyas Amalek!
There are the mitzvos ha'yom, there's the celebration of Torah she'b'al
peh, there's the whole inyan of simcha....

-- Carl

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:30:15AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Rav Soleveitchik writes in Halachic Mind footnote #4." And this concept
: of the dialectic...  give lie to the position that is prevalent
: nowadays in religious circles... that the religious experience is of
: a very simple nature - that is devoid of the spiritual tortuousness
: present in the secular cultural consciousness, of psychic upheavals,
: and of the pangs and torments that are inextricably connected with
: the development and refinement of man's spiritual personality. This
: popular ideology contends that the religious experience is tranquil
: and neatly ordered, tender and delicate; it is an enchanted stream
: for embittered souls and still waters for troubled spirits..."
...
: I would appreciate knowing where this approach comes from and who espouses
: this view today. While it seems totally compatible with figures in Tanach
: e.g., Avraham,Yaakov, Moshe, Iyov and Dovid as well as the prophets,
: it does not seem to reflect the concept of emuna/bitachon in Chazal
: and especially in the rishonim. Is there a Rambam, Ramban, Kuzari that
: expresses such a view?

I understood this footnote (particularly in light of the next) totally
differently than you did.

RYBS is saying that Jewish religion is about sanctifying the rest of
life, not providing a retreat from it. In the 2nd model, the church
builds cathedrals that create a sense of otherworldliness and quiet
external space.

Jewish spirituality isn't about getting that calm and quiet. It's about
providing the right context for persuing the struggles of life. About
the tension of dialectic and the spiritual growth it spurs.

Is there any frum derekh that does /not/ espouse this view? Perhaps not
with the focus of dialectic tension, but the basic notion?

-mi

--
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Nice [and poshut] pshat I heard at a shiur tonight b'shem Rav Shmelke
Selisher (Klein) z'l - one of the gedolei Hungary -about 130 years ago -
whose yorzeit is these days.

In the haftorah for Taanis Tzibur: "V'al yomar ben haneichor hanilvoh
el Hashem havdil yavdilani etc etc..val yomar hasoris hein ani eitz
yovesh..." And the posuk continues that by keeping Shabbos - both will
have their problems solved...

RSS comments that the hemshech hadvorim is very unclear and "Vos hot
dos tzu ton mit Shabbos?"

He answers that the posuk is talking of 2 kinds of people. 1) Geirim
and 2)Childless.

We know that 'bro mezakeh abba' - which means that a father in the
Olom Emes whose son does Mitzvos and maasim tovim adds zchusim to his
deceased parent.

Unfortunately a childless person misses out on this.

OTOH zchus ovos is most beneficial to their children in Olom Hazeh.
This is something which a Ger misses out on.

However, the Gemoro says that a Shomer Shabbos is 'nochel shnei olomos'
- so this is the advice for a person who cannot have the abovementioned
zchusim..

And that is why the matter of Shmiras Shabbos follows the above psukim...

SBA

> I do too. But the reality is that it is quite common to have members
> of Eidot HaMizrach come into an Ashkenazi shul in EY and say their own
> nussach for Kaddish....

How about the reverse and try saying an ashkenazi kaddsih in a edot
mizrach shul.

We are currently having a major "fight" in our shul as during the week
many edot mizrach join the various minyaim and all say kaddish in their
own nusach (the shatz uses the shul (sefard) nusach except for kaddish).

One member of the shul is making a major stink over this and rushes
through his kaddish so no edot mizrach could keep up as he feels they
have no right to use their own nusach.

I wrote an email to Rabbi Neustadt of Cleveland who has several halacha
books out including a d discission of the issue. His answer was that
everyone should use the same nusach for kaddish. However, he stressed
that avoidance of machloket was more important than everyone saying
kaddsih together in one nusach

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 03/13/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

NOT BEING A NUDNIK BEFORE G-D

"Make yourself scarce in your friend's house; lest he become weary of you
and hate you" (Mishlei 25:17). The Gemara (Hagiga 7a) applies this warning
to the person who frequents the Bet haMikdash, offering many sacrifices.
But doesn't the Psalmist (Tehillim 66:13) announce happily that he comes
to G-d's house with burnt offerings? The Gemara therefore distinguishes
between sacrifices that are welcome, because they are not incurred as
the consequence of transgression, and sin offerings, constant recourse
to which risks "wearying" our divine Friend.

At first blush, the theme of the Gemara is a familiar one. As the
prophets often taught, bringing a multitude of sacrifices is a poor
substitute for obedience to G-d. Better not to sin than to sin and then
scrupulously satisfy the requirements of ritual atonement. Thus R. Bahye
b. Asher, elaborating on our Gemara, in his preface to Parashat Tsav,
cites Samuel's reproof to Saul (Shmuel I 15:22), when the king changed
the subject from his failure to do as he was commanded to the offerings
he intended to make. According to this reading of the Gemara, G-d is
"wearied" by constant sin offerings because they betray negligence on
the part of the worshiper. Displays of piety in the house of G-d that
are not backed up by dedicated service outside smack of hypocrisy.

On careful examination, however, it appears that the Gemara's use of the
verse in Mishlei indicates a different focus. The verse does not speak
of sacrifices, let alone specifying sin offerings. Rather it seems to
discourage overly frequent visitation to the Mikdash. The advice is
better suited to a potential pest than to a nascent hypocrite.

I believe that the Gemara is concerned with the pest, not with the
hypocrite. The verse in Mishlei is about how to avoid "wearying" G-d, not
about the danger of worshipping Him insincerely. In order to understand
what this means we must understand how "wearying" G-d differs from
offending Him. And what do we mean anyway when we speak of G-d being
"wearied?"

Consider human relationships. Often people impose themselves upon their
friends because they have gotten into trouble and desperately need help.
Sometimes the friend called upon for assistance detects an element of
hypocrisy: you are angry because your supposed friend exhibits affection
only when he needs you to extricate him from a mess; because he is
not faithful otherwise, you suspect that his attention now is mere
lip service.

Sometimes, however, you do not resent the person, but are merely annoyed
with his apologies and appeals. You do not find him insincere or disloyal,
but you are wearied by his or her presence. Why do you find the person
tiresome? Because virtually every encounter you have with him results
from some failure on his part, for which he must make amends and which
you must help put right. What makes the relationship onerous is not
simply the frequency with which the friend drops in, but the nature of
his constant requests. The entire connection revolves around the person's
failures and your involvement in them. This pattern makes for a poor,
one-dimensional relationship.

The individual who is always in the Bet haMikdash with his sin offerings
may be a hypocrite, but that is not the problem posed by the verse in
Mishlei. Here we are concerned with another matter: how to avoid being
a pest. Mishlei teaches that it is wise not to domicile oneself in the
Mikdash. Entry to the Mikdash, as Rambam explains in another context,
should not be a casual occurrence (see Guide III, 47, where he mentions
our Gemara). When the individual voluntarily consecrates a sacrifice, it
is indeed a festive occasion-one is appearing before G-d as a welcome,
invited guest. When one turns up under compulsion, so to speak, as the
consequence of sin, the relationship with G-d threatens to deteriorate
into an endless account of joyless failures. This is referred to as
"wearying" G-d.

There are many occasions when we must come to G-d as sinners requiring
His forgiveness. But if we aspire to take advantage of G-d's offer of
friendship, and make ourselves welcome in His house, we would do well
to cultivate His companionship in our performance of mitzvot, in the
love of our fellows, and in the study of His Torah.

At 01:33 PM 3/12/03 -0500, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
>Just to add my 2 cents to what others already pointed out, that kabbalas
>hatorah was the supreme level of ahavah, see Noam Elimelech, P' Titzaveh, in
>conjunction with a long hesber (i.e. too long for me to write) of the
>11,12,13,14,15 of the mishna.

I have not probelm with that, but am curious as to the evidence from
Chazal.

Anyway, how can one have true ahava without yiras ho'romemus.

>Techeiles leads to kisay hakavod , which is a mixture of yirah and ahavah,
>din mixed with rachamim.  However, N.E. is medayek that Mordechai went out
>"*blevush* techeiles", the din represented by techeiles was covered by a
>levush and was rachamim gemurim.

A little bit difficult - if anything the levush would seem to be the
din and Mordechai (who is inside the levush) the besamim (mira dachyah)
that is mamtik the din.


Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

> I have not probelm with that, but am curious as to the evidence from
> Chazal.

Rashi Shabbos 88 "hadar kibluhu - m'ahavas hanes..."  

> Why does the Mishna say: 'Lo Pachos v'lo Yoseir' by 11,12,13,14 and 15.
> Shouldn't the languag be 'Lo Kodem V'lo Meuchar

Not sure the linguistic point is correct, but it is an unnecessary clause.
Maor V'Shemesh asks this kashe (end of P' Titzaveh) and answers: "It
is known from sifrei kodesh that there are 5 chasadim and 5 gevuros.
By drawing down from the makor of 13 paths of rachamim...the 5 gevuros
have 'hamtaka' and the 5 chasadim are drawn down to knesset yisrael.
Keriyas hamegillah is on those 5 times, 11,12,13,14,15 to be 'mamtik'
the 5 gevuros...each day one aspect, and on Purim itself all 5 are
'nimtak'....'lo pachos' means not less than 5 [days] will suffice to be
'mamtik' the 5 gevuros, 'v'lo yoser', and not more are needed." 

He has a cute remez:  
Amalek=Ram(shoresh of ga'avah)=240.  Timche es *zecher*=227.
240-227=13 midos harachamim=ahavah=echad, achdus achieved through anivus is
the downfall of amalek.

Al pi pshat, perhaps the mishna adds the extra words to tell you there
is an *issur* of adding to the list of dates. The gemara has to find
mekoros for all 5 dates because otherwise you have a problem of b"d being
mevateil b"d chaveiro (derech agav, you see a chiddush that even if the
date of 14th was left in place, merely adding dates is also bittul b"d
chaveiro, see Tos 5b ubikeish).

Some food for thought while we are on the mishna - the lashon "megillah
nikrais" sounds like a di'eved; why didn't the mishna say "korin es
hamegillah"? Interesting ritv"a, and maybe the list-olam has some
lomdus...

-Chaim

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
>>Rashi Shabbos 88 "hadar kibluhu - m'ahavas hanes..."

>Does not say there "mei'ahavas Hashem;" it says "mei'ahavas ha'nes."

I would say it is the same thing.
The Ahava created fom the neis leads to a greater Ahavas hashem

At 12:55 PM 3/13/03 -0500, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
>> I have not probelm with that, but am curious as to the evidence from
>> Chazal.

>Rashi Shabbos 88 "hadar kibluhu - m'ahavas hanes..."

I thought so.

Does not say there "mei'ahavas Hashem;" it says "mei'ahavas ha'nes."

Since we're doing gimatriyos so profusely of late, the gimatriya of:

"Hadar kibluha b'yemei Achashverosh" is the same as the entire pasuk in 
Tehillim 115:18: "Va'anachnu nevarech Kah me'atah v'ad olam hallelu Kah" - 
the same shem that HKB"H swore by when the milchmam me'dor me'dor began 
(again, courtesy of Bar Ilan)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

> Does not say there "mei'ahavas Hashem;" it says "mei'ahavas ha'nes."

The point is Rashi is meduyak that a binding kabbalah had to be done
specifically through ahavah. If I was you I would be concerned with
the fact that Rashi uses the word ahavah at all; why didn't Rashi say
"mitoch yiras haromimus"?

N.E. k'darko brings no mekoros, but seems pashut to me that it is a
simple extension of this Rashi.

But v'nahapoch hu, where are your mekoros in chazal for a kabbalah based
on yiras haromimus b'zman purim?

In Avodah 10:122, R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Why not learn it as "timcheh"
but until you're m'kayem "timcheh," "lo tishkach." That strikes me as
pshat in the pasuk. >>>

That fits the words nicely, but the corollary would be that once
"timcheh" has been accompliched, then "lo tishkach" will no longer apply.
That's quite a chidush, and I think it should be held with some delicacy
unless a source can be cited that this chiyuv d'oraisa will (or may)
become batel at some point in the future.

I think a MUCH simpler solution is as I wrote in Avodah 10:48 --

Rashi (Dvarim 25:19) writes that "timcheh es zecher Amalek" refers to
people or things which were part of, or had belonged to Amalek. Something
which you can touch and say "This was Amalek's" - that, says Rashi, is a
"zecher". My favorite translation, therefore, is "souvenir". (Or, if that
sounds too pretentious, try "reminder". But never "remembrance", which
is an act of remembering, or "memory", which is the mental recording.)

I believe this Rashi resolves the oft-asked contradiction, "How can we
both remember Amalek and also destroy the memory of him?", because we
only destroy the tangible objects, not the memories.

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< This is the Gra's chiluq between "zecher" and
"zeicher" -- not that his talmidim agree about which he said meant which.
According to RCVilozhiner's version, "zeicher" means "a reminder /
memorial", "zecher" means "memory". >>>

I hope this does not sound disrespectful, but does anyone know got this
idea from?

For example, did he see a manuscript where the zayin had a segol? No one
has ever shown me a "zecher" anywhere in any Tanach, although "gefen"
abounds, and I suppose there are many other "segol-segol" words as well.
Was the Gra suggesting this change as his own chidush based on his
understanding of the language, or was he citing variants which existed
prior to his time?

In Avodah 10:55, R' Ira Jacobson asked <<< And by the bye, the siddur
from which I pray every morning has, in both Ashrei and Psalm 145, the
reading zekher rav tuvekha with a segol under the zayin. Is this due to
the Gra's influence?>>>

Interesting... In my Artscroll, Ashrei is indeed printed with "zecher"
(segol) throughout the entire siddur portion of the book, even in the
Tehillim in the back. But my Artscroll *Tanach* has "zeicher" (tzere)
in Tehillim 145.

I wonder if someone paskened to follow the example of Aseres HaDibros
(taam elyon and taam tachton), and say Ashrei one way when it is davening,
and the other way when it is learning. -- Or is it an editing error,
and the Gra would have put "zecher" even in the Tanach?

Akiva Miller

why is all of parshat zachor in the singular except for the phrase
"be-zetchem mi-mitzrayim" ?

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 03/13/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> why is all of parshat zachor in the singular except for the phrase
> "be-zetchem mi-mitzrayim" ?

Found on the Web:
: If, as Jews, we choose to live only for ourselves, then the subsequent
: lack of kedusha leaves an opening for impurity to enter and taint our
: life. The Torah states, "Remember what Amalek did to you (lecha,
: singular) on the road when you (l'chem, plural) were leaving
: Mitzrayim. When leaving Mitzrayim on the way to Har Sinai, the B'nai
: Yisroel were unified, like one man with one heart. Amalek is
: powerless against the kedusha that exists when the Jews are unified
: at such a level. When this love and unity disintegrates and the clal
: becomes a loose collection of individuals, lecha and not lechem, then
: Amalek attacks.

from <http://www.ohreliyahu.org/Parsha/zachor_purim_5759.htm>

R' Yitz Etshalom also talks about disunity being a cause of vulnerability
to Amalek's attack, but doesn't raise the singular/plural issue.

<http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5762/hagim/4Parashiot.pdf>

In a message dated 3/12/2003 7:17:51 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I like R' Moshe Koppel's description.
...
> A navi, who is in communication with ratzon Hashem, is similarly
> capable of following that ratzon in ways that defy the halachah
> as codified. But these things are exceptions, merely for the
> special case, the sha'ah.

But then how do you understand chacham adif minavi in allowing bet din
to make horaot shaah?

KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:58:36PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> Hor'as Sho'a is not really an excpetion, rather it is a temporary
> suspension in a limited circumstance. The ikkar hadin remains intact

Not always - such as halachos that changed because of she'as sakkanah
(e.g., Ner Chanukah).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:14:33AM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> A navi, who is in communication with ratzon Hashem, is similarly
:> capable of following that ratzon in ways that defy the halachah
:> as codified. But these things are exceptions, merely for the
:> special case, the sha'ah.

: But then how do you understand chacham adif minavi in allowing bet din
: to make horaot shaah?

I'm missing your question. If chochmah is adifah minevu'ah, and nevu'ah
is sufficient to know ratzon H' to an extent where one can identify
situations for poetic license, why can't chachamim (of sufficient
caliper)?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

From: "rach elms79" <rachelms79@hotmail.com>
> Granted that the evidence for evolution is there, and it seems distasteful
> that Hashem would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us. But the
> evidence is also there that we earn our paychecks (at least the secular
> world takes this as a given), whereas we all know the parnasa is from
> Hashem. Why shouldn't this latter "deception" be distasteful as well?

Your analogy would work for someone who says "Evolution is the correct
explanation for how all species came to be, it's just that evolution
was in fact guided behind the scenes by G-d and not truly random."
That would be a way of saying G-d works within the laws of Nature
(which of course He Himself created) and rarely openly breaks them.
I do not find this distasteful at all. We don't have mon falling by our
front door, we have to go to work, nevertheless our parnassa is really
from Hashem and I don't have a problem with that. [BTW even though this
understanding of guided evolution is not distasteful, I do not personally
agree with it. I think every separate species was separately created,
over a time span of millions of years.]

Your analogy does not work at all for the case I wrote about (and
rejected), the hypothesis that dinosaurs and other extinct species never
existed at all, but the fossils were planted in a young earth by the
Creator to give the false impression that the world is very old.

Such deliberate falsification of evidence on the part of the Creator is
what I reject; I find the notion that He did such a thing distasteful,
and consider those who offer this suggestion to be totally mistaken.
Deliberate falsification of evidence is not at all the same as Hashgacha
Pratis working behind the scenes through natural means, which of course
is not distasteful at all, but a reasonable understanding of how G-d
provides for us.

Toby Katz

rach elms79 wrote:
> Granted that the evidence for evolution is there, and it seems distasteful
> that Hashem would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us. But the
> evidence is also there that we earn our paychecks (at least the secular
> world takes this as a given), whereas we all know the parnasa is from
> Hashem. Why shouldn't this latter "deception" be distasteful as well?

It is.  See the Rambam's dissection of the doctrines of the Kalam at the end
of the first Cheilek of the MN.

David Riceman

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> RHM:
>> You cannot say that the evolution of a mosquito is trivial.

> Your daughter's experiments do not involve the "evolution of a mosquito."
> You haven't said what they do involve, but I'm guessing some heritable
> trait of the mosquito changes in the course of several generations in
> response to environmental changes. 

Frankly, I don't know the details. But IIRC she told me it had to do with
demonstrating natural selection. Those genes that enable survival in a
hostile environment are passed on and and become dominant in subsequent
generations... evolving into a sort of super-mosquito. But you don't need
my daughter's experiments to demonstrate this phenomenon. All you have
to do is look at new strains of bacteria who have survived anti-biotics
because of genetic mutations in newer generations that now have immunities
to those anti-biotics. This is one of the major problems medicine today,
If I am not mistaken.

> No one has a clue how to create a
> mosquito, or a gnat, or an amoeba, from a creature that wasn't already
> a mosquito. Breed mosquitoes for a thousand thousand years and they will
> still be giving birth to baby mosquitoes.

So... what's your point? Just because we can't reproduce it in a lab
doesn't mean it didn't happen. My daughter didn't have is the evolutionary
time component.

That a mosquito evolved from some lower form, say...pre-mosquito...
is quite a reasonable possibility just like my daughter's super mosquito
evolved from ITS lower form, the mosquito.

Did it happen for sure? I don't know one way or the other.


> I am further guessing that whatever trait "evolves" in your daughter's
> evolution experiments, the gene for it was already present in the moquito
> population she started with. 

Probobly, but given evolutionary time, mutations in DNA will, if the
are beneficail to survival and reproduction will overtake the older,
lesser DNA.

> I am willing to hear that I am wrong.

I am also willing to hear that you are wrong.

:)

HM

In Avodah 10:123, R' Joel Rich asked about <<< the shitah ascribed to
R' Moshe that one could daven at non-shaot zmaniot noon+1/2 hour year
round(ie 12:30 or 1:30)? >>>

In Avodah 10:124, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn listed <<< four places in the
Igros Moshe where R' Moshe asserts - based on a mesora from his father -
that the time of chatzos is fixed the entire year. >>>

Just a short word of clarification: What Rav Moshe wrote there was not
specific to davening mincha, but was a definition of chatzos, and -
more importantly - was a definition of Shaos Zmanios.

Rav Moshe NEVER said to use NON-shaos zmanios, and (as Rabbi Wolpoe
pointed out) he did not specify "12:30 or 1:30" either, as the longitude
within a time zone is critical for these calculations. What Rav Moshe
did say in those teshuvos is that chatzos (for any specific location)
is the same time all-year round, and that shaos zmanios are calculated
by dividing the morning and afternoon into six parts *each*, so that the
hours of the morning may be longer or shorter than those of the afternoon.

Akiva Miller

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:15:56PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:> What it means is that Hashem is giving the ko'ach and mamashus to the
:> chotei to do his cheit. In a manner, He is participating ("up close") in
:> allowing the sin to happen. "Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leileich..." This
:> is discussed at length at the begining of Tomer Devorah.
...
: Distance means G-d's non-interferance to right wrongs...

> That's not the definition I assumed. I took "distance" to mean the
> difference between HQBH biKhvodo ube'Atzmo doing something vs al
> yedei shali'ach, or by allowing humans or teva (if teva really exists)
> to act.

> Which is why I spoke of being "up close" but still allowing -- and
> even helping -- wrongs being perpetrated.

To my limited knowledge, there are two ways to explain distance. In
philosophy it is as I defined it; in KabboLAH it is by similarity. Two
things are as close as they resemble one another. The definition you quote
is deceptive because the number of intermediaries does not decrease the
responsibility of the actor in any way. I believe that the Kuzari makes
a similar point at the end of the sefer.

BTW, I did look up the Tomer Devorah, thank you. He is focused on
"savlonos" of Hashem being present at the moment of sin. That is a
different issue than distance or closeness.

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]