Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 013

Tuesday, May 20 2003

• Re: Recent Daf and Magic
• persian era
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Shaul's reign
• eilu v'eilu
• Re: Great non-Jewish works of Mussar
• chagim will be cancelled except for purim
• Re: Swallowing a Fly
• Chazal and history
• How long did Shaul reign?
• Re: Writing a Sefer Torah
• (Fwd) Re: Makos 017: Rava's praise for Rebbi Shimon
• Re: Is grain alcohol chometz gamur?
• Re: Is grain alcohol chometz gamur?
• Re: Is grain alcohol chometz gamur?
• Re: Chumroh of the Year???? (1989)
• Re: FW: Ben Franklin's "cheshbon ha-nefesh"
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah
M. Bechhofer wrote:
: We recently had in Avodah Zara a sugya about the "validity" of the
: kochos to which idolators direct their worship. I think (ans in personal
: conversation R' David Riceman was inclined to concur) that this sugya is
: linked to the issue of the "validity" of magic that we discussed here
: not too long ago - and the preponderance of the opinion in the Gemara
: is that it has no validity - like the Rambam. QED :-) .

What about AZ that are actual kochos? As per dor Enosh, who worshipped
real mesharsei haMelekh?

Those who worship the sun actually get light and heat from the sun.
Egyptians got water, crops and life from the Nile.

If this is true physcially, why not with non-physical kochos that
are worshipped?

For example, the Chaldeans worshipped Kirub,
a bull with a person's head. See my post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n121.shtml#12>. Their god had
real ko'ach because they chose a real ko'ach to worship.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      result in holding back from others?

> Such flippancy from a frum fellow (I assume the speaker was frum) is
> unfortunate, to put it mildyl.

Yes he was religious and as I indicated spent most of his time attacking
the bible attackers. He simply indicated as an expert in Jewish history
of the Persian era that there was no possible way to explain that the
Persian lasted 34 or 54 years (depending on girsaot).
Due to lack of time he did not discuss alternatives how to justify Chazal
eg R. Schwab.
He simply said that problems with seder Olam rabah are a lower leverl
problem than difficulties with Tanach.
--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 05/18/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

At 02:52 AM 5/16/03 +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>I had a discussion concerning R' Schwab's original assertion that the
>Persian kings lasted much longer than 54 years [he later retracted due
>to the strong attacks against him] with one of the leading talmidei
>chachomim in Baltimore several years ago. He said it is pashut that R'
>Schwab's original assertion was correct. He said there is simply no way
>you can read Rashi and other Rishonim on Tanach and maintain that there
>was only 54 years.....

I would be intrigued to know where these Rashi's and Rishonim are. I
am astounded that any leading TC can say that R' Schawab wholly
unsubstantiated position is correct. If Velikovsky, who had no axe to
grind for Chazal (ifcha mistabra!) can condense the PErsion period,
we who have Chazak have no reason to not do so!

YGB

RYGB expressed puzzlement at the verse in Shmuel that would seem to limit
Shaul's reign to 2 years. The verse reads, " Shaul was in his first
year as ruler, and he reigned 2 years over Israel" (Sam. I 13: 1).
I believe that the evident meaning of the verse is that Shaul was already
in his first year of nominal rule when he was popularly accepted as the
legitimate king by the people in Gilgal (after his initiative in saving
the inhabitants of Yavesh Gilad by defeating the Ammonites). He then
ruled, de jura, for 2 more years before his rejection as king by Hashem
(through Shmuel) was finalized by the annointment of David to be king
in his place. His rule subsequent to David's annointment is treated
as illegitimate and, therefore, not counted towards his reignal years.

Yitzchok Zlochower

RDE:
> Rashi Kesubos 57a
> clearly rejects the idea that eilu v'eliu applies to historical facts.

Not true. Rashi writes that two contradictory quotes concerning one
halacha from the same Amora or Tanna cannot have eilu v'eilu status.

I think historical facts can be eilu v'eilu, even according to Rashi
who certainly cannot argue with the following Gemara and Midrash.

Hatach, the messenger between Mordechai and Esther, disappears in the
middle of the story. tthe Gemara in Megilla 15a learns from this that
it is inappropriate to deliver bad news [and he therefore he chose not
to deliver the message]. Tosafos Bava Basra 3b brings a Midrash that
Hatach was killed by Haman. Tosafos says the Gemara is ar5guing with
the Midrash. It seems that this is because we cannot learn about the
propriety of delivering bad news from one who is killed . I would think
that eilu v'eilu applies here.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 12:07:29AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Covey's book is a truly great mussar book, a kind of *Mesillas Yesharim
: for Dummies*, that gives very specific advice for working on one's
: character and on one's attitude to life...

I would not call the book a work of mussar. Yes, Covey focusses
on character. However, because it's a secular book he can't present
principles as a primary value, an end in itself. Rather he pushes being
principled because it's more effective.

So far (mid chapter 2) Covey has given 2 reasons why this is true:

1- Basing one's life on fixtures makes one immune to weakneses caused
by changing circumstance. As opposed to finding one's meaning in another
person (spouse, children, friends, getting back at enemies) or posessions
or fame.... in which one can not be happy without factors outside their
control. And therefore such stances lead to warped responses.

2- Covey believes that while all people hold certain values dear, those
are subjective. Principles refer to an objective reality. By being
principled, one's values match reality. And like every map, the closer
it matches the territory met, the more effective its user can be.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      result in holding back from others?

From: "Avi Burstein" <avi@tenagurot.com>
> Can anyone point me to where it says that when Moshiach comes, all the
> chagim will be cancelled except for purim?

I just found this question again - and possibly it has been resolved,
ober doch,

It is in the piyut for Parshas Zochor towards the end of the last piece.

I saw one sefer that brought a source for this from Midrash
Tehillim/Shochar Tov, while the Otzar Hatefillos says it is a Midrash
Mishlei.

The OH also adds b'sheim Hagaon Rav Mordechai Gimpel Yafah zt'l that the
kavono is NOT re the Moadim mentioned in the Torah [ki afilu ois achas min
haTorah eino asido lehisbateil], but rather of those moadim referred to
in Megilas Taanis - which include Purim. [and ayin Tshuvas hoRashbo 93].

Meanwhile the RY Emden siddur writes, that according to some, both Purim
and Yom Kippur will stay on [explaining to the loshin hapiyut 'V'IM'
kol hamoadim yihyu beteilim..'

SBA

At 12:56 PM 5/16/03 -0400, Gil Student wrote:
>Toby Katz wrote:
> >I always wondered how much of an aveirah it is to swallow
> >a fly that just flew straight into your mouth and down your
> >throat. Of course it is disgusting beyond words, so if it is
> >an aveirah at all, I suppose it is one in which the aveirah
> >and the onesh are one and the same.
>
>I don't think that there is any aveirah because 1) you didn't do anything,
>it just flew in and 2) you didn't eat it.

Somewhere in Hil. Taaruvos it is explicit that there is no issur in
inadvertant consumption of devarim ha'me'usim - the Gemara IIRC cites
deliberate consumption of a moth as an act of mumarus l'hach'is, as it
is revolting.

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

Posted by: yadmoshe@012.net.il on: May 16, 2003, 2:56 PM
> One question was about the length of the Persian era where Chazal (54
> years) differ considerably from secular history. The answer was that he
> has enough troubles defending the authenticity of Tanach. In this case
> it is absolutely clear that Chazal erred. There can be debates about
> details and years but there is no way that the Persian kingdom lasted
> only 54 years

I had a discussion concerning R' Schwab's original assertion that the
Persian kings lasted much longer than 54 years [he later retracted due
to the strong attacks against him] with one of the leading talmidei
chachomim in Baltimore several years ago. He said it is pashut that R'
Schwab's original assertion was correct. He said there is simply no way
you can read Rashi and other Rishonim on Tanach and maintain that there
was only 54 years. We are thus faced with the problem of reconciling
Chazal with the Rishonim. The secondary problem is the propriety of having
a solution which involves ascribing error to Chazal. Rashi Kesubos 57a
clearly rejects the idea that eilu v'eliu applies to historical facts. An
alternative solution is based on a variant text in Seder Olam (chapter
30) of 250 years instead of 52 years. This solution is rejected by the
Gra and most others.

This question has occupied commentators form R. Saadiah Gaon to our
times. A good presentation of different opinions by Orthodox and other
thinkers is found in Mitchell First's Jewish History in Conflict, Jason
Aronson. While most Orthodox writers held with Chazal, there were a few
who did not. I must say that to my recollection, most of the "heavywights"
did support chazal over the gentile historians.

M. Levin

I have now had a chance to check the Abarbanel on ShmuelI, 13,1. This
is a very important source as he discussed the entire chronology up
to Shelomo's building of the Beis Hamikdash. In reference to Shaul,
he ultimately suggests that he reigned 17 yrs and Shmuel was 75 years
old when he annointed Shaul.

The Ralbag ibid expresses his wonderment at Chazal assigning only 2
years to Shaul in almost the same terms as RYGB. I therefore witdraw
my previous suggestion that a lot can be packed into eventful years of
hakamas malchus. It is, however, true that history tends to move in spurts
- many languid years punctuated by intense periods of upheaval and change.

M. Levin

R' Akiva Miller asked:
> Several people have referred to "relying on the Rosh", and it sounds to
> me like they mean the idea that one can do this mitzvah by buying seforim.

Isn't there also a shita that one can stand by a sofer as he writes a
letter *as* *your* *shaliach*, and you can be yotzay in this manner? I
don't know whose shita this is, but I know that at least twice in my life,
I have participated in this at various shuls.

My answer, based on "Birkas hatora" - a 46 pg booklet by R' MM Karp,
produced in Sivan 5755 for the occasion of the hachnosas ST in memory
of Rebetzin Shaina Chaya Elyasiv ob"m.

I think we have 3 issues in play here:

1. If a person buys or inherits a ST and fixes even a single letter
in it, thereby making it kosher, it's as if he has written the entire
ST. (Menochos 30., RMBM ST 7:1, RMA YD 270:1)

2. Minhag Yisroel is to honour dignitaries at a Hachnosas ST with writing
the last few letters. This is actually done B'Toras Shlichus for the
"owner", even of they don't realize it. (Mishnas Avrohom). The owner
should write the very last letter. (See 1.)

3. Writing a ST as a group effort.

  (a) According to some you don't fulfill the mitzva (RaSHBaM in B Basra
137:, KM on RMBM ST 7:1, Chinuch 613, and many achronim).

  (b) Others say you do (Igros Moshe YD 163 + long list of achronim,
most I don't recognize).
Note: If one of the group is not obligated in the mitzva (woman or
underage (or goy)) the rest aren't yotzei either. (Or Sameach ST
7:1). [Not to be taken lightly - it's one of the proofs for 3(b).]

Back to the question:

- If you're part of a group of Jewish Adult Men (small enough to have
a Peruto's worth for each [Igros M ibid]) Paying a sofer to write a ST,
then each letter being written is "also yours". (If you insist a certain
letter is *yours only*, then IMHO nobody is yotze.)

- If somebody else is writing a ST, then you're a shliach to finish HIS
mitzva.(Or: you're appointing a shliach to be your shliach to help finish
HIS mitzva).

- I haven't seen this mentioned, but there's a further possibility. The
writer of the ST may be giving you a part in his ST. (How you did the
kinyan I'm not sure, but) considering the $20,000+ he's spending, it's
nice of him to "cancel" his mitzva according to 3(a) above.

Question: Which of the above scenarios did you participate in?

Reminder: If you don't write your own ST, then you have to buy seforim
instead. Chumash, Mishna, Gemoro and Peirushim, says the Rosh towards the
beginning of Hil. ST, which can be found in the Rosh behind Menochos. He
doesn't says how many peirushim - just mentions that it needs to be
enough for you to learn and teach your kids (supposedly Kol HaTorah Kulo).

BTW: Somebody told me last week that it took R' Chaim Kanievsky shlyt"o
a mere 23 years to write his ST. That's about 2 lines/day. (I thought
I had a record at 9 years.)

- Danny. Not a poseik, not even a Kollel-man. Just a computer guy with 
safrus as a hobby.
Please daven for Chaya bas Naomi Zehava amongst other cholei Yisroel.

This certainly seems appropriate for tonight. 

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Sun, 18 May 2003 16:15:53 +0200
From:           	Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.co.il>
Subject:        	Re: Makos 017: Rava's praise for Rebbi Shimon
To:             	diScuss list <daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il>
Send reply to:  	kornfeld@netvision.net.il

(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________

                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                      daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Re: Makos 017: Rava's praise for Rebbi Shimon

>> Anonymous asked:
We came across the statement of Rava that if a mother gives birth, she
should give birth to someone like Rebbe Shimon.... why we don't say that
about any of the other Tannaim and Amoraim (i.e. Rebbe Akiva, Rebbe Meir,
Rebbe, Rav, Rebbe Yochanan, etc.).
<<

-----
>> The Kollel replied:
I raised your question with Hagaon Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita, of
Yerushalayim, who has addressed this subject many times in his talks. I
summarize here his general response, *in my own words* and citing
additional sources based on my understanding of his words.
<<
(See original response.)

----------------------------------------------
The Kollel adds:

Further to the above question, I found that the Sefer "Nifla'os
b'Torasecha" discusses this in brief (Erech "Zohar"). He writes that the
Gemara in Eruvin (13b) concludes that "it would have been better had man
not been created than had he been created." This is difficult to
understand, though, because the verse (Bereishis 1:26) states, "Na'aseh
Adam b'Tzalmenu ki'Demuseinu," clearing implying that it was Hashem's will
to create man, and thus how can the Gemara say that the creation of man was
something undesirable?

The answer is alluded to by Rabeinu Shimon Lavi, the author of the Piyut
about Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, when he writes, "Na'aseh Adam Ne'emar
ba'Avurcha." That is, for every other person, the Gemara in Eruvin applies
-- it would have been better had he not been created. However, Rebbi Shimon
bar Yochai was such a great Tzadik that his creation was indeed the most
desirable, l'Chatchilah thing, and the creation of the entire world was
worthwhile just so that a perfect Tzaddik like Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai
would live. (See also Tosfos Eruvin 13b)

This is the meaning of the Gemara in Makos when it says that one should
give birth to a son like Rebbi Shimon -- because a son like Rebbi Shimon is
in the category of "No'ach Lo l'Adam she'Nivra," it was best that he was
created. But if the son is not going to be like Rebbi Shimon, then he
should not be born, because then he falls into the category of "No'ach Lo
l'Adam she'Lo Nivra."

M. Kornfeld

MK:ys 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
majordomo@shemayisrael.com with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss

------- End of forwarded message -------

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Zell, Goldberg & Co.
Telephone 972-2-571-5030 Fax 972-2-571-5031 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

It was a mistake to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq. 
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon P, Haaretz, December 24, 1995

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> <<< Many individuals who do not sell chometz gamur will sell alcoholic
> beverages before Pesach. >>>

> Is this not a contradiction in terms? Are there opinions who say that
> barley malt beer is something less than chometz gamur?

It is lack of precision.  What he means is "many people (which, I imagine,
is what he believes "individuals" to mean) who do not sell other forms of
chametz gamur ...."

These people, IIUTC, base their argument on history.  The heter of mechirath
chametz, based on a weird form of sale, was initially invented for Jewish
merchants of alcohol who had all their capital tied up in chametz (remember
that grain and flour are not chametz, so this did not apply to bakers or
farmers).  The people who follow this paradigm argue that, even today,
destroying large quantities of liquor entails great financial loss, whereas
destroying a few boxes of macaroni does not, and therefore there's no need
to use the kula for that.

An occasional list member, whose father was a prominent scholar (and a
Litvack) who followed this custom, mentioned to me that the liquor bought
for his bar mitzva, even though it was offered to regularly to guests,
reappeared at his wedding.  For abstemious Misnagdim purchasing liquor for
every large simcha would indeed be a hefsed merubah.

David Riceman

In Avodah V11 #12, Akiva Miller wrote:
> At http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-purcpesach.htm, Rabbi Dovid
Heber, Kashrus Administrator of the Star-K writes (in the second-to-last
sentence of that article):
<<< Many individuals who do not sell chometz gamur will sell alcoholic
beverages before Pesach. >>>

> Is this not a contradiction in terms? Are there opinions who say that
barley malt beer is something less than chometz gamur? <

I read that sentence (and stanza) as saying that the practice of those
"many individuals" (which likely is a chumrah based on the nature of the
m'chiras-chomaitz procedure -- see my response to ZSero in Mail-Jewish
V39 #28 [http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i28.html#CIU,
page down a bit :-)]) isn't a neder which forbids them from relying
on m'chiras chomaitz for any and all "chometz gamur" (if it's a neder
at all, which we can assume it is [like]). Based on my late father's
alcoholic-beverages collection (which was quite extensive largely
because of all the "holiday gifts" he had received over the years),
I would hazard that major inconvenience, if not actual hefsed m'rubah,
would occur if such an "individual" had to destructively dispose of
a well-rounded collection of such beverages, such that (as per the
explanation I quoted in REMT's name in that M-J post) m'chiras chomaitz
would be the appropriate means of disposal in that situation.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I asked why there would be people who sell their liquor prior to Pesach,
but do not rely on that sale for other "chometz gamur". My quess was
that liquor is a slightly less severe form of chometz than cookies and
pasta are.

Several people responded that the difference is not in the severity of
the chometz, but in the amounts involved -- large and expensive amounts
of liquor, compared to small and cheap amounts of other chometz.

My problem with that is that if a person believes that the Mechirah is
a truly genuine sale to the point where he is willing to use it for his
liquor, then why not use it for other things too?

Let's take the following example: A person has three and a half bottles
of $500-per-bottle liquor, ten bottles of $50-per-bottle liquor, five
bottles of $2-per-bottle liquor, another bottle of $2 liquor which is
only 1/4 full, and a full $3 box of cereal. Total value: $2263.50.

I imagine that most people would agree that this sum constitutes enough
of a hefsed that he should sell it, and not throw it away. But some seem
to feel that only *some* of this should be sold, and the rest *should*
be thrown away.

Why would someone feel this way? Why would that not be Bal Tashchis
(in a mussar sense, even if one argues that it can't be assur because
the bi'ur is a mitzvah).

If one doesn't feel comfortable selling chometz at all, then by all
means go ahead and destroy the entire $2263.50 worth. But if one *is*
going to sell some, why not sell all of it? And why would the dividing
line be that he would sell his $2260.50 of liquor (even the bottle with
only fifty cents worth), and trash the $3 of cereal? Maybe he should
sell the $2013 in unopened containers, and trash the $250.50 in started
containers? Or maybe he should sell the $2250 of expensive chometz,
and trash the $13.50 of cheap chometz?

I suspect that the answer is purely tradition, and not logical in any
meaningful sense. Perhaps this is what R' David Riceman meant in his
post that Mechiras Chometz was originally intended for liquor merchants
(when plain flour was not chometz), and I guess some people developed
the tradition of selling only the liquor, and continued this even when
bakeries were faced with large inventories of presumably-chometz flour
(see Mishna Brurah 453:24 in the name of even earlier acharonim).

Another possibility is that I'm being too literal, and that when I see
someone write <<< Many individuals who do not sell chometz gamur will
sell alcoholic beverages before Pesach >>>, I'm supposed to interpret
it as <<< Many individuals would not sell chometz gamur if it is only a
small and inexpensive amount, but they would sell chometz gamur before
Pesach if they have a large and expensive amount. >>> Could this be?

Akiva Miller

SBA wrote:
>We have just had a visitor - best described as a minor
>Rebbeleh - on his annual fundraising campaign - and we
>noticed that his retzuos are black not only on the front
>but also on the back. In fact he explained that the entire
>leather strap had been dipped into black ink [?] which
>has seeped right through the retzuah. He said it was the
>'latest chumrah'...

R Gil Student responded:
> This was a suggestion I made in 11th grade that finally took off. The
> Gemara in Moed Katan 25a says that Rabbi Chiya's retzuah once turned
> around and he fasted forty days because of it. Rashi says that the
> problem is that the black part has to face out. My suggestion was to
> paint both sides black so that the black part will always face out.
> People laughed then but now it is taking the world of Rebbelehs by
> storm.

My $0.02
If you look in OC 33:3 in the BH "Mibahutz" (p 144) he mentions this
concept, and ends with "according to the Pri Megodim this would be
a chumra..." - but I do not understand the rest. Can somebody please
explain?

Thanks
- Danny

> [As RYGB has discussed BF's role in the history of the sefer Cheshbon
> haNefesh, I thought this would be on interest. Also interesting is the
> similarity between BF's 13 middos and RYS's. -mi]

Well, being at home on sick leave has its advantages. The first time I 
browsed through the email I thought it was RYS's 13 - until I hit "J and 
Socrates" in #13. The I restarted, reading more carefully. (It was too long 
to finish in my state.)

So, in brackets you have RYS's version, translated partially, so as not to 
loose too much.

These names of virtues, with their precepts, were:
1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
()

2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid
trifling conversation.
(13. SHEKET. Think of the purpose of your words before speaking.)
(6. NACHAS. The words of the wise are listened to quietly, therefore make an 
effort to speak quietly.)

3. ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your
business have its time.
(9. SEDER. Do to every act and Inyan with order and Mishtar.)

4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail
what you resolve.
(3. CHARITZUS. To do what you have resolved, with Shkida and Charitzus.)

5. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself;
i.e., waste nothing.
(12. KIMUTZ. Not to waste even a Pruta for no reason.)

6. INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful;
cut off all unnecessary actions.
(2. ZRIZUS. Not to waste a second Levatolo. Do everything needed to be 
done.)

7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and,
if you speak, speak accordingly.
(1. EMES. Not to say anything the heart doesn't testify its veracity.)

8. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits
that are your duty.
(11. TZEDEK. Do justice with your friends, and Levater him what's yours.)

9. MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as
you think they deserve.
()

10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or
habitation.
(7. NIKAYON. That your cloths and body be always clean and Tahor.)

11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common
or unavoidable.
(5. MENUCHA. Menuchas Hanefesh, not to be Mevohal, and to do everything with 
Menucha.)
(8. SAVLONUS. Lisbol with Menucha every happening and every Pega in life.)

12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never
to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace
or reputation.
()

13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
(10. ANOVO. Recognize your shortcomings, ignore your friends shortcomings.)

(4. KAVOD. Be careful of everyone's Kavod, even those who don't agree
with your Day'ot.)

Now we can analyze the differences omissions.

HTH.

- Danny

Please include Chaya bas Naomi Zehava in your tefillos for other Cholei 
Yisroel.

Carl wrote:
>I don't understand how the first form discussed above works.
>In our human experience, objectively speaking, R"L everything
>does NOT turn out alright.

The way Rabbeinu Yonah puts it, you should have bitachon that everything
will turn out OK and, even if it doesn't, at least you have the sechar
of bitachon.

Re criticism of the Chazon Ish: I've been meaning to translate and
post my notes on R' Avraham ben HaRambam's section on bitachon in his
HaMaspik LeOvdei Hashem. I believe that there are a lot of similarities
between RABhR's and the Chazon Ish's approaches (and some dissimilarities
between RABhR's words and how the Moreh Nevuchim is generally understood).
Od chazon la-mo'ed.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]