Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 018

Wednesday, October 27 2004

• Re: "Lekaleis" - shevach or genai?
• Re: besamim rosh
• beamim Rosh
• besamim rosh
• Zohar Forgery?
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: Difference between leining and davening
• Re: Four not Two, and Other Sanhedrin Stuff
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: besamim rosh
• Re: Sanhedrin Stuff
• josephus
• Re: Josephus
• Haftarah
• Re: Haftarah
• HP redux
• Re: besamim rosh
• Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: besamim rosh
• Kol Letzanuseh Asira Milvad 'Letzanuseh d'Avodah Zarah
• Dveykus vs. Shleymus, Parashas HaShavua
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• chazarat hashatz
• Re: The evolution of Hebrew
• Yir'as H' according to the Alter fun Slabodka

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> Interesting comment by the Baal Torah Temimah in his sefer Tosefes Brocho
> al haTorah [and also in his peirush on siddur Boruch She'omar].

> On the Tefilah "Uvemakhalos Rivevos" - he suggests that the word
> 'lekaleis' does not belong there.

> His reason, which lechoireh makes sense, is that while the word 'kaleis'
> in Aramaic [and loshon Chazal] indeed means a type of praise, in LHK it
> always means the opposite - eg 'lelaag ulekeles'.
...

My g-grandfather R. Avraham Shalom Shaki z"l discusses this in Heichal
Avodat Hashem, in his section on Pesach

"The number of expressions of praise in this section: in the Ashkenazi
nosach: nine, in the Baladi Tiklal: eight, and in the Sephardi: seven,
and each tradition has its own reasons and sources. In the Sephardi
and Ashkenazi: 'l'kales' is included, following the Mishna shel'fanenu.
In the Tiklal it is not there: following the Yerushalmi, the Rif and the
Hagadot of the Rambam and the Rav Sa'adia Gaon. The reason is as stated by
RSBA: the word carries a double meaning distinct between LHK and Lashon
Chazal - and we should not be praising HKB"H with ambiguous language.
Therefore the Maharitz wrote that it should not be said, in the name of
the Rambam, and also see Hagaddah Shlema Chapter 26.

However at the end of Nishmat, also the Sephardim do not include it,
while the Ashkenazim do."

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

If anyone has access to the Bar Ilan CD, it may be interesting to do a
search for the keywords "Besamim Rosh" in SHU"T *before* the so called
forgery (200 years ago ?). If a Posek say 400 years ago quotes the SHU"T
Besamim Rosh, then there is such a sefer. If there's no mention of it
whatsoever, it must be a forgery. [I believe on the Bar Ilan CD one can
do a search by time periods].

KT
Josh

First and foremost the Artscroll sidur was NOT citing to the Besamin
Rosh attributed to R. Asher (Rosh). Instead there is a commentary on
Teffilah that bears the same name, Besamim Rosh and is written not in
the 18th century but instead in the 19th by R. Hanoch Zundel ben Yosef
and incorperated into the Otzar Hatefilot.

That being said, the Besaimim Rosh that you are refrencing the one
published by R. Saul Levin in 1793 which he atttibuted to the Rosh,
the Rishon. At the time published there was a fairly large and heated
debate about the authenticity of the this work. There were those that
claimed it was a forgery, R. Yihezkal Katenelenbogen. And there were
those that believed it, the Hida. R. Saul was no saint, and even before
this was published there were many that were against him, mainly for
another work he published, Mitzpeh Yutikel. However, recently there was
an article in HaNoam, vol 2 where R. Saul's last will was published in
it he basically admits that he was the world's best Jew and alludes
to the fact the Besamim Rosh was a forgery. This has not eneded the
controversy. In the 1980's the Besamim Rosh was republished, with an
introduction where the publisher, mainily through misquotes and other
such devices wishes to prove that the Besamim Rosh is ok.

In truth, R. M. Strausun explains that even if the Teshuvot are not from
the Rosh, R. Saul was no lightweight so at the very least take him at
his word.

There are many articles and bibliographies on this controversy, if
interested I can send them out.

=====
Dan Rabinowitz
rwdnick@yahoo.com

From: "Samuel P Groner" <>
> .....Artscroll Siddur cites the Besamim Rosh for the reasons behind
> dancing on simchat torah. Since I was vaguely aware that Besamim Rosh
> was a forged work, ......

I spoke to our 'expert' Rav Shimon Opman and he hopes to give me more
time about this later on.

But meanwhile he says that a new edition of BR was published a couple
of years ago and it was condemned in a 'kol koreh' signed by a number
of prominent rabbonim [including Rav Wosner shlita] who were not happy
about its reappearance.

OTOH as he rememebrs, ROY did approve of its publication [the publisher
was a Sefardi Jew.]

RSO adds that the publisher includes an essay - a history of the BR
controversy, and which in his opinion it is quite objective.

SBA 

As to if the Zohar or parts therein are fogeries, the best discussion
of this issue can be found in Tishby's Misnat HaZohar, vol. 1 the
introduction. This work is also available in English, Wisdom of the
Zohar. Tishby devotes the bulk of his 150+ page intro to all the opinions
regarding this issue.

=====
Dan Rabinowitz
rwdnick@yahoo.com

In a message dated 10/22/2004 2:14:42pm EDT, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> It is also why Rashi does not interpret
> as in Niddah 61 (I think, don't have it here) that Og is called palit
> bse he escaped from the waters of the mabul but that he escaped form
> the war of which we had just spoken

Rashi brings both opinions.

Koll Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Mlevinmd@aol.comFri, posted on 22 Oct 2004, Re:linguistic norm:
> What annoys lately is the rapidly spreading custom of those who daven
> in Israeli-Sefaradic Hebrew to pronounce shem-Hashem in Ashkenazic...

> I recall reading that this is old Iraqi pronounciation. Every kamta is
> an ah except in the ado-shem, where it is an Oh.

Long ago in my youth, originally educated in the Sephardic pronunciaiton,
when I (Ashkenazi by birth) entered a Yeshivah, one of the rebbeim told
me that after consultation he verified that at least in Krias Sh'ma,
I should pronounce the Shem HaShem the Ashkenazi way. Unfortunately,
I don't have any details. (I since adapted a pure Ashkenazi-type (like
my father's) dialect.)

I am more annoyed by the currently popular "Askefard" pronunciation
that pronounces the "thuf" both with and without a dagesh as a tuf, yet
pronounces the holem like a long "O." This totally baseless "chulent"
was taught purposely.

But I guess the trick is to daven with kavanna, without distracting
oneself with taynos on other peoples' davenning, and without the attendant
feelings of superiority getting in the way.

Zvi Lampel

In a message dated 10/24/2004 6:27:08pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: How would eliyahu be able to reintroduce smicha? This isn't an example
>: of a navi coming to establish a fact ...

> No, it's an example of a musmach coming to give semichah.

Is it our understanding that eliyahu will have the din of a "normal"
basar vdam? Was eliyahu one of the10 miracles created ben hashmashot? If
not, how are we to understand his reappearance and by what standards do
we accept one who claims to be eliyahu?

KT
Joel Rich

>What annoys lately is the rapidly spreading custom of those who daven
>in Israeli-Sefaradic Hebrew to pronounce shem-Hashem in Ashkenazic. I
>don't believe that prayer requires any particular dialect or accent
>but it should be lashon tzecha, that is consistent in its dialect,
>conventional usage, and make sense grammatically.

It is said that the Hazon Ish pasqened that while Ashkenazim must daven
with the Ashkenazi pronunciation of their fathers and grandfathers, the
only such requirement for Sefardim is that they pronounce shem Hashem
as Adoy-noy.

I haven't seen that inside and would appreciate a proper reference.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org
Fax: ++1-619-639-8172

WRT the Sefer Besamim Rosh, see Sdei Chemed Klolei Haposkim Simon 11 ois 7.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com posted on: Oct 24, 2004: 
> The Sanhedrin's origins are a bit murky and certainly
> evolved over time but it was undoubtedly around for at least 600 years
> and probably more. For at least half that time it had representation
> from groups other than the A-team, notably including Saducees, who only
> disappear as an organized element in the Sanhedrin and elsewhere with in
> the yavneh era.

I was only aware of a Saducee presence in the Sanhedrin during the
relatively short period right before Shimmon ben Shatach eliminated them,
as stated in the Talmud. What evidence is there of the above?

Zvi Lampel 

From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
> FWIW, I thought I'd mention that Josephus (Antiquities 13.13.5) writes
...
> Here Josephus says that the Jews use citrons (Esrog) on Succos. However
> in Ant. 3.245 he says that it is perseia, an avocado like fruit. Also
> in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron.

Just a thought.

Dr. Louis Feldman at YU has written on variants from Jewish tradition
in Josephus and may address this issue. Possibilities raised by Feldman
in other contexts are, as I recall, that (1) Josephus was writing from
memory in Rome and made some errors; (2) for apologetic reasons he varied
the truth to make Jewish practices more amenable to the Romans (e.g.,
perhaps Romans did something with the perseia); or (3) having lived
prior to the Mishna, Josephus may have been privy to a variant tradition
from what ultimately ended up in the Mishna/Gemara. Obviously option (3)
would be unacceptable w/r/t esrogim, which are halacha l'moshe misinai,
but there could perhaps have been a tradition involving perseia (e.g.,
Shehecheyonu fruit for Rosh Hashana?) during some other festival that
Josephus was confused about.

.nd 

[Perhaps RMF could ask his father? -mi]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 10:55:59PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Here Josephus says that the Jews use citrons (Esrog) on Succos. However
: in Ant. 3.245 he says that it is perseia, an avocado like fruit. Also
: in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron.

Off the cuff...

Perhaps a ra'ayah to the teimani esrog, which has almost no citrus
meat? The texture of the white of their rind can be through of as
avocado-like. A breed to citron with the texture of a perseia would
yeild a fruit that Josephus wouldn't know how to name.

-mi

A question recently asked by RGD (and, more recently, myself) on the
Mesorah list prompts me, reminds me to ask the following here:

What is the halakhic distinction vis a vis hiyuv between keri'at ha-Torah
and Haftarah? Is there a level of difference, both from the reader's
perspective as well as from the Kahal's? Why do some (Hasidic?) shuls
have the reader of the Haftarah say the berakhot alone out loud but
the entire haftarah is read silently (or not so silently) by all in
shul? Regarding correcting misread (mispronounced) words, why is there a
much stronger and heated tendency to correct words in Torah but not in
Haftarah? Inasmuch as most shuls read the haftarah from a printed book
and therefore assume the baal haftarah does not need preparation to read
it (mah she-en ken le-gabe torah), many people with minimal reading (I
wont even mention leining) skills are being given the responsibility of
reading on behalf of all present. If the hiyuv is as strong as for Torah,
why are there so few (in some shuls: none) corrections being called out
during the reading? And how can we knowingly allow such readers to get
up there in the first place? (At least in shuls that read from a klaf,
the baal haftarah knows in advance and must prepare) And what does
this say of the reading/pronouncing abilities of our kehillot and their
educational systems (I assume in most cases if there are not corrections,
the people either arent paying attention to haftarah or assume the reading
was correct, when in fact it wasnt)? What does it say of our priorities
when shuls stop Torah reading to have the kahal "quiet down", but dont
do the same when the haftarah is being read (and more importantly: why)?


Yisrael Dubitsky

In a message dated 10/25/2004 3:38:44pm EDT, Yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
> Regarding correcting misread (mispronounced) words, why is there a
> much stronger and heated tendency to correct words in Torah but not in
> Haftarah?

Perhaps because (according to at least some poskim) our loss of use of
klaf(which is an interesting issue in and of itself) we're not yotzeh
with the "bal koreh" of the haftarah and each need to read it ourselves.

KT
Joel Rich

You can find Rav Chaim Navon's take on the subject (looking at the
Rambam, Ramban, Netziv and R' Yehudah haLevi, in citation order) at
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/bereishit/02bereishit.htm>, an archive of
a recent YHE VBM mailing.

-mi

Reb Lipman Phillip Minden wrote:
> I second the appreciation for responses, and as well answers to the same 
> questions regarding the Seifer Hazouhar. I'm aware that this is more 
> delicate, and details are different. Are there opinions holding yes, it is
> only 700 years old, but the author (Moushe de Leon or not) had knowledge
> of sod matters?

I believe that Rav Ya'aqov Emden held this to be the case. (actually,
it is a bit more complex, but similar).

Arie Folger

In a message dated 10/22/2004 2:14:42pm EDT, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
>> It is also why Rashi does not interpret
>> as in Niddah 61 (I think, don't have it here) that Og is called palit
>> bse he escaped from the waters of the mabul but that he escaped form
>> the war of which we had just spoken

[R' Yitzchok Zirkind:]
> Rashi brings both opinions.

Yes, he does but the first as pshata and 2nd as drash. The original
question was regarding pshat and that is what I was adressing.

M. Levin

Reb Lipman Phillip Minden wrote:
> I second the appreciation for responses, and as well answers to the same 
> questions regarding the Seifer Hazouhar. I'm aware that this is more 
> delicate, and details are different. Are there opinions holding yes, it is
> only 700 years old, but the author (Moushe de Leon or not) had knowledge
> of sod matters?

I believe that Rav Ya'aqov Emden held this to be the case. (actually,
it is a bit more complex, but similar).

Arie Folger

The recent incident of a yeshiva bachur showing disrespect to a priest
in Yerushalayim has revived discussion regarding the concept of "Kol
Letzanuseh Asira milvad Letzanuseh d'Avodah Zarah." Over the last few
days, I heard/saw two interesting things about this:

1) R' Reisman brings b'shem R' Tzadok that when the gemara says that
making fun of avodah zara is mutar, it does not mean to limit this to
avodah zara. Rather, the gemara means to teach is that it is mutar to
make fun of *all aveiros*, and the gemara used avodah zara merely as
an example.

2) In the sefer Lekach Tov on Parshas Lech Lecha (p. 57-58), the mechaber
quotes the medrash about Avraham destroying all of the idols in his
father's store and telling Terach that the biggest idol beat up all of
the smaller idols.

Q -Why does the medrash bring down this story? Why is it necessary for
the medrash to tell us that Avraham acted in such a manner? And why did
Avraham act in such a "leitzanusdik" manner? Was it really necessary?

A - This teaches us an important lesson: It is not enough to work on one's
positive midos and try to become a better eved Hashem just by focusing on
the performance of mitzvos. If one does only that, it leaves the yetzer
hara an opening to try to trap us, by reminding us of the pleasures of
aveiros. To combat this, it is essential in one's Avodas Hashem to also
focus on aveiros and remind ourselves how silly and absurd they are. And
when the gemara says that "it is mutar to make fun of avodah zara"
(and, like R' Tzadok says *all aveiros*), it doesn't mean that one *can*
make fun of aveiros, but rather that one *should* make fun of aveiros.

In other words, there is an affirmative obligation to mock those things
that are contrary to Torah values. (Of course, this does not mean that
one should spit in a priest's face; it may be sufficient to do so in a way
that no one else notices, since the primary purpose is *for ourselves*.)
That way, when one is faced with the temptation to engage in non-Torahdik
behavior, one will be remind himself "I can't do that - that's a foolish
thing to do!"

So, even though Avraham had come to recognize the RBSO and that "Ein Od
Milvado," Avraham still needed to mock the avodah zara to make it crystal
clear to himself that the RBSO created/runs the world and believing in
avodah zara is stupid and absurd.

The Lekach Tov brings several examples. If one is working on the midah
of humility, it is not enough to recognize the qualities of modesty, but
one must also recognize the bad attributes of ga'avah. Or, for example,
if one is working on believing that the tachlis of creation is Olam Haba,
then it is not sufficient to focus just on Olam Haba, but one must also
work on being "mevatel Olam Hazeh." He brings an anectode told over by
talmidim of R' Yechezkel Levenstein when he was mashgiach in the Mir in
America. R' Chazkel told his talmidim that when they walk the streets
of New York, they shouldn't look at the store windows which remind them
of the American way of life, but one should talk in learning instead.
If one couldn't talk in learning the whole time, then spend the time
talking about "bitual Olam Hazeh."

The ramification of this idea is that when one is faced with reacting
(or not reacting) to non-Torah behavior, one cannot simply err on the
side of caution and political correctness and keep quiet. Instead, one
must react and mock such behavior. Of course, one must be very careful
when making such a response in public, and there are times when this
reaction should remain internal - but it is crucial that we at least
remind ourselves how foolish such behavior really is. Aside from the
"Aseh Tov," it is important for our Avodas Hashem that there also be a
"Bitul ha'Ra."

KT
Aryeh

The dveykus (Chassidim) vs. shleymus (Misngadim) debate is blatant in the
respective interpretation of "Gedola Hachnasas Orchim yoser me'Kabbolas
Pnei Shechinah (Shabbos 127a), cited by Rashi at the beginning of the
parashah on "Be Adoni." The Alter from Kelm (Chochmah u'Mussar vol. 2 pp.
191-192) expresses (what I think is) the simple interpretation: "Lo
haMidrash ikkar elah ha'Ma'aseh" (Avos 1), and one therefore forsakes
the tremendous spiritual Oneg of Nevuah and Yedias Elokus to imitate
Hashem Yisborach and be meitiv, for this is the Ratzon Hashem.

On the other hand, the Maor Eynayim, for example, here and in Parashas
Vayakhel, explains that the reason that Hachnosas Orchim is greater
is because it consists *both* of dveykus - since mitzvah is me'lashon
tzavta and one therefore experiences Kabbolas Pnei Shechinah in the
act of Hachnosas Orchim as well - *and* Ha'alo'as HaNitzotzos by kiruv
tachas Kanfei ha'Shechinah (note that the kiruv is not explained by the
principle of Chesed and Hatavah but by Ha'alo'as Nitzotzos).

Moreover, interestingly, the Kol Mevaser here asks how Avraham Avinu knew
this principle (from the Alter's perspective, of course, the question
does not even begin!). He answers in the name of the Rebbe Reb Bunim
that Avraham Avinu's limbs were all synchronized with and reflected
Ratzon Hashem. Hence, if he felt the urge to run ("Va'ya'ar va'yaratz")
at the time the Orchim were coming, his eivarim themselves taught him
the principle of Gedola etc.

YGB

In a message dated 10/26/2004 4:37:58pm EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> Yes, he does but the first as pshata and 2nd as drash. The original
> question was regarding pshat and that is what I was adressing.

While the original asker did not say he was looking for Pshat, I
introduced it based on the L. Rebbe's Kllolim on Pirush Rashi. One of
the Kllolim according to the L. Rebbe is that when Rashi brings Agada
in his Pirush it is because it answers something left unanswered in
Pshat. IMHO in our case note how Rashi in the first Pshat says "vZehu
*Nishar* to prove that he can be called Al Pi Pshutoi Shel Mikra "Polit",
however in the Second Pshat he says "vZehu *mYeser* haRifo'im", in other
words there were other survivors and he remained from those, according
to the Pshat that he survived the war who else did? how ever if Rifo'im
refer to Nfilim there were those who survived the flood of Dor Enosh
see Rashi Breishis 6:4, and he remained from those who survived (OTOH
"Polit" fits better with first Pshat).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

The Bach (O"C 124) gives several reasons for members of the kahal not
repeating all(or parts) of the amidah with the chazan. Any ideas why
this is often ignored?

KT
Joel Rich

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 09:08:47PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: Opening the current thread, R' Micha Berger responded: <<< All you need
: is a single vocabulary and grammar. It needn't sound the same for the
: same sentence to mean the same to all. >>>

: It might be interesting to see Rav Moshe Feinstein's views on the topic
: of the original pronunciation, found in Igros Moshe, OC 3:5.

: He starts off pointing out that chalitzah is pasul if not said in
: Lashon HaKodesh....
: On the other hand, he also says that it is *not* "mistaber" that multiple
: pronunciations were used prior to Churban Rishon.

As already noted, lo zochisi lehavin what RMF does with sheivet Efrayim's
lack of distinction between shin and sin, which seems to be a ra'ayah
muchreches against RMF's "mistabeir".

: He resolves the apparent contradiction above in the middle of the first
: paragraph. If I understand it correctly, he says that "each pronunciation
: *is* Lashon HaKodesh, even though only one is the *true* one. If a large
: kahal reads the letters and words with the nekudos of Lashon HaKodesh
: with a kavua [permanent? established?] pronunciation, then it too *is*
: Lashon HaKodesh, even though it is different from the pronunciation
: which they had spoken and with which the Torah was given."

This sounds leshitaso with RMF's conception of eilu va'eilu. Both are
divrei E-kolim chaim even if only one is true, given from Sinai.

...
: He continues: "But we don't know which is the true pronunciation, so one
: is not allowed to change from how his ancestors davened, since according
: to their kabala, their pronunciation was the true one, and how can one
: change to a pronunciation which is not true according to the kabala of
: his ancestors?" (Is it significant that he uses the word "kabala" and not
: "minhag"?) ...

I think so. "Minhag" is often used to refer to a community's pesaq,
but technically it refers to extra-halachic practices. I /think/ RMF
is speaking about it being his ancestor's position lehalkhah, even WRT
a deOraisa like chalitzah.



In the thread "Words and their opposites", on Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at
11:18:19AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:                                       I remind all that the language
: of Tanach does not show much progression over almost a 1000 years,
: if you accept traditional dating of all books (as we must but that's
: another discussion).

One progression that demonstrates the true dating, and is difficult
for the document hypotehticians to explain is the emergence of the
prefix "she-".

We don't find it at all in chumash.

In Shofetim, we get "sha-", with a patach (qamatz where the word begins
with a letter that won't take a dageish). One example already cited on
this thread is the "sha'Atah" (cap A since we it [exclusively?] comes
up in tefillah to refer to Hashem Yisbarakh) found that Gide'on uses
when speaking to a mal'ach. Similarly, "ad shaqamti Devorah".

However, from Shir haShirim onward we do find "she-", with a segol.

Demonstrable evolution from the dor hamidbar to Shelomo haMelekh.



R' Shabtai Sofer of Parmishla in (one of?) the first Ashkenazi siddurim
(1618) with niqud, shows a tendency to use Tanakh as a source. I
believe RSM already called it a hypercorrection. I am not sure whether
"sha'Atah" really qualifies, since we use "she-" for (nearly?) every
other case in the siddur. I suggested in Ashirah Lashem a kavanah,
meaningful regardless of the history. "Sha'Atah" could be conjugating
"Ha-Atah", the Divine Thou. This requires ascertaining if there is a
chol occurance of "sha'atah" in our siddur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Yet another YHE VBM reference. I'm just citing the Alter fun Slabodka's
definition because you can see where RAEK got the thesis of Be'Iqvos haYir'ah.

 mi

 ----------------------------- Original Message ------------------------------
Subject: JEWISH VALUES -02: The Fear of God Part 2
From:    "Yeshivat Har Etzion Office" <office@etzion.org.il>
Date:    Tue, October 26, 2004 4:31 am
To:      yhe-values@etzion.org.il
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
            JEWISH VALUES IN A CHANGING WORLD
                 By Harav Yehuda Amital

The htm version of this shiur for easy printing is available at:
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/values/01b-fear.htm>

    LECTURE #1b: THE FEAR OF GOD IN OUR TIME
                       Part 2 of 2
....
     Rabbi  Nathan  Zvi Finkel ("the Alter of  Slobodka")
related to this phenomenon ("Sichot ha-Saba mi-Slobodka,"
pp. 54-56):

   We  have  become  accustomed  to  think  that  the
   concepts  of  fear  and joy are far  removed  from
   each other, opposites that cannot coexist: he  who
   is  afraid  is not happy, and he who is  happy  is
   not  afraid.  When, however, we reflect  upon  the
   matter from a Torah perspective, things look  very
   different.   We would see that not only  are  fear
   and  joy not enemies, not only does one not negate
   the  other, but just the opposite: they  reinforce
   and   complement  each  other.   A  person  cannot
   acquire  fear  without at the same time  acquiring
   joy, for the one cannot exist without the other.

    The  Alter  of  Slobodka adduces proof from  the  law
regarding  ma'aser sheni, the second tithe,  about  which
the Torah states (Devarim 14:22-23):

   You  shall surely tithe all the increase  of  your
   seed,  that the field brings forth year  by  year.
   And  you  shall eat before the Lord your  God,  in
   the  place which He shall choose to place His name
   there,  the tithe of your corn, of your wine,  and
   of  your  oil, and the firstlings of  your  herds,
   and  of  your flocks; that you may learn  to  fear
   the Lord your God always.

It  is explicitly stated here that the ultimate objective
of  bringing the second tithe to Jerusalem is  to  attain
the  fear  of  God.   What does  this  mean?   The  Alter
continues:

   According  to  the  general understanding  of  the
   fear  of God, it should follow that when a  person
   would come to Jerusalem to learn the fear of  God,
   he  would  immerse  himself in grief  and  sorrow,
   dread  and worry; his eyes would issue forth  fear
   and  sadness,  and  Jerusalem  –  the  city  which
   instilled  the  fear  [of God]  –  would  go  into
   mourning; thousands of people would cast  off  the
   vanities  of the world and of life, they would  go
   about  all  day long with angry faces, wrapped  in
   bitter   thoughts,  and  creating  a   frightening
   atmosphere and an environment full of sadness  and
   worry  that kills life and the yearning for  life.
   How could it be any different?

     However, we all know that the Torah continues with a
very   different  description  of  the  atmosphere   that
prevailed in Jerusalem (verses 24-26):

   And  if  the way be too long for you, so that  you
   are  not  able to carry it; because the  place  is
   too  far  from you, which the Lord your God  shall
   choose  to set His name there, when the Lord  your
   God  has  blessed you: then shall  you  turn  [the
   produce]  into  money, and bind up  the  money  in
   your  hand,  and shall go to the place  which  the
   Lord  your God shall choose; and you shall  bestow
   that  money  on  all that your heart  desires,  on
   oxen,  or  sheep,  or wine, or  strong  drink,  or
   whatever  your  soul requires: and you  shall  eat
   there  before  the Lord your God,  and  you  shall
   rejoice, you, and your household.

The Alter of Slobodka concludes:

   The   Torah  is  not  describing  life   that   is
   restricted  or  petty, a life of crude  and  cheap
   desires  that run about in man's heart and confine
   him  in  narrow and suffocating straits.  A  Torah
   life  is  illuminated by God's light; it opens  up
   wide  expanses  before man, broadening  his  heart
   and  soul.  His eyes will see all the worlds,  and
   his  thoughts will encompass eternity.  A life  of
   Torah  is  so pure and pleasant that it  does  not
   contain   even  the  slightest  unpleasantness   –
   spiritual or material.

Translated by David Strauss
...
Copyright (c) 2004 Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.

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


[ 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         ]