Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 029

Sunday, June 5 2005

• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Math Puzzles
• Re[2]: Dalet Amos shel Halachah
• Deriving halacha from aggada
• Re: Shelo asani aved
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Hadas
• SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• halacha from aggadah
• innocents dying
• haskafa
• RE: kofrim who say tehillim

On May 22, 2005 David Riceman wrote: 
:> The Rambam says:
:> 1. lahash doesn't work.
:> 2. divrei torah heal the soul but not the body.
:> If saying tehillim heals through a third unmentioned mechanism haser
:> ikkar min hasefer.

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:33:02AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing
: the soul not the body for if so, what's the issur of uttering pesukim
: to try and heal someone? ...

Being effective and being mutar are two different things, no? Even those
(unlike the Rambam) who hold that kishuf was real acknowledge its issur --
even for refu'ah.

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:23:10PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: I don't necessarily agree although you may be correct. Kishuf is a very
: general term and to an extent, even the Rambam would have to admit that
: it works as demonstrated with the chartumey mitzraim.....

In Hil' AZ 11:16 the Rambam writes it was slight-of-hand. Even the issur
is to use slight-of-hand to lead people religiously astray. (Similarly,
the Radaq writes that the machasheifah fooled Shaul and didn't really
make contact with Shemu'el.) Of course, many rishonim and acharonim take
him to task for it.

Back to the first emails:
:> (I'm sure you're familiar with Arrow's theorem).  This is a known, though
:> disturbing, phenomenon in the SA.

: Arrow's theorem is irrelevant as the Michaber was an authority on his own
: and had a right to conclude his halachos based on a mixture of different
: shittos (although I concede that he rarely did so)...

I'm not sure how this is relevent. The theorem is that no voting system
can fit the following criteria:
- unrestricted domain: any combination of votes will produce a winner (and
  the same winner each time that same combination arises)
- non-imposition: there must be some way for each result to win
- non-dictatorship: no one voter will be guaranteed to win
- independence of irrevevant alternatives: adding another choice will only
  change the outcome if the new choice would be the winner. Otherwise,
  the one in the lead should still be the one in the lead.
- monotonicity: an individual ranking a choice higher should make
  that choice more likely to win

Nothing about our problem in particular. Does halakhah have a problem with
restricting the domain, or imposing, etc...? Halakhah is about finding
the right pesaq, not making the most number of voters content in a fair
manner. Nor would I see how the ability to create and legislate compromise
will make an unfair system fair -- it means you'd be compromising between
two unfairly chosen alternatives.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 I wrote: 
:> Lechishah is very distinctly described in the gemara as including
:> reciting pesuqim.

To which RSC commented (same email):
: Not necessarily. I contend that the Rambam, and for sure the SA,
: understood them as two distinct phenomena. See my post to David
: Riceman. The Gemara (RYBL in Shevuos and R' Akiva in Sanhedrin) can be
: understood as uttering pesukim *in addition* to lechisha...
...
: The difference is that lechisha really doesn't work. It's just uttering
: mumbo jumbo as opposed to certain sanctioned segulos such as kemios that
: really do work. Lechisha is not thaumaturgy in the strictest sense because
: lechisha is incapable of manipulating the forces of nature in any way. The
: Rambam calls it sichlus...foolishness and says that it is eino moil klum.

Given that RSR subsequently establishes that you were thinking of
something the Rambam calls choveir, not lechishah, can we reopen this
question? According to the Rambam (not RSC), what's the line between
tefillah (avodas H' and effective), lechishah (sichlus and ineffective)
and nechishah (assur)? And, what's the line in more contemporary pesaq
(and I assume Litta has a different answer than some other kehillos)?

On the spectrum: Many kehillos allow or even recommend kemei'os. In Litta,
they are frowned upon. IN the Rambam, even the writing that the rest of
us do on the back of a mezuzah is enough of a kemei'ah to be assur.

BTW, is sichlus muttar?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

RAM wrote:
> It turns out that I once posted (to Mail Jewish) a chart of ten distinct  
> ways of counting these days.

RMB added:
> I once posted an ammended version of your chart, as I understood the  
> sources at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n043.shtml#15>.
[12 methods are listed there.]

May I add a few remarks and another four methods:

 - The Mahril personally followed A, like R' Y. Luria later on -
   no giluech from Pesach until Erev Shvues including La"g.

 - He taught his bocherim D - from Pesach until after La"g.

 - Shito F isn't only Frankfurt, but Germany before the churben in
   general. The rationale is simple: all days from Pesach to Shvues except
   for days on which Tachnun isn't said. (NB: On Pesach sheini, it is said.)

 - The usual custom at the time of the Mahril was shito L - from R"ch Iyer
  until after La"g

 - ... or, according to the Mogen Avrohom's understanding, shito M: from
   after R"ch Iyer until La"g.

 -Shitous N and O are variations on L and M, resp., according to those
  poskim (Mahri"v) who allow shaving on Friday in case La"g is on Sunday.

Shito O has only 14 days, and something between this and 19 (L) was common
davke in those medines that had a local and fresh memory of the crusades.

The longest shito in comparison keeps 50 days (incl. afternoon of
erev Pesach and Erev Shvues until daytime), or in theory, 51.5 days,
if Erev Shvues is a Shabbes and you don't allow shaving on Friday. This
would be the seventeenth method (*P), but I've never learned anyone who
paskened thus.

Here's the chart (fixed font only):

                              A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
                Pesach        X X X X
             Isru Chag        X X X X X
        24 - 29 Nissan        X X X X X X
     1st day R"Ch Iyar        X X X X     X X       X   X
     2nd day R"Ch Iyar        X X X X     X X X     X   X
          2-15/17 Iyar        X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
     16 Iyar on Friday                              X X
           Lag Ba'omer        X X n X n   n   n n n X X
               19 Iyar        X X   n X X X X X X X
            20-29 Iyar        X X     X X X X X X X
            R"Ch Sivan        X X         X X X X X
               2 Sivan        X X     X   X X X X X
      1st Yom Hagbalah        X n     X   n X X X X
 2nd, 3rd Yom Hagbalah        X       X     X X X X
          Erev Shavuos        n       X       n n X

All the methods include the 5th of Iyar. All the methods include the
afternoon before La"g bo-oumer.

ELPh Minden

The following two discussions of math topics in gemara were posted
on scjm. Betei'avon!
<http://www.math.umd.edu/~jmr/MathTalmud.html>
<http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~raumann/pdf/45.pdf>

-mi

Thursday, June 2, 2005, 7:18:55 PM, [Micha] wrote:
MB> My question was, if halakhah alone is sufficient to make a home for the
MB> Shechinah, then why was keeping only halakhah without lifnim mishuras
MB> hadin cause for galus haShechinah?

1. Lifnim mishuras hadin is also part of halacha
2. The situation after churban is neither desirable nor sufficient.
3. According to my understanding, the gemara is not even talking about
the Shechinah.

-- 
Best regards,
 Nethanel                            mailto:subscriber@nethvil.com

We do not derive halacha from aggadita (Yerushalmi Peah 13a) and this
was codified in the Teshuvot haGeonim. R. Zeira called books of aggadita
"sifrei kismei" (Yerushalmi Maasrot 7b). There were a number of those
schooled in aggadita but (as you say in Chinese, "a zeyre shvach"
in halacha (Yerushalmi Maasrot 3a; Yerushalmi 4th perek in Yevamot;
Yerushalmi Brachot 62b on Yaakov Ish Kfar Nevuria).

Aggadita have a hidden meaning and are not to be taken literally (Shiltei
Gibborim on RIF Avoda Zara, "idehem"; Rambam Peirush haMishnayot to
Perek Chwelek in Sanhedrin; Chiddushei haRashba Brachot 6a, 32b; Bava
Batra 74a).

KT
Josh

Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> If we mean eved Canaani, then why say this in addition to "shelo asani
> goy"?

Because an eved has more mitzvot than a goy; almost as many as an isha.

> Why not also "mitzri" or "amalaki"?

Do they have fewer mitzvot?

> (It also would raise the
> interesting question of what a eved Canaani would say if he was freed.)

This would be the same issue as what a ger says.  If a ger says "shelo
asani goy" then an eved meshuchrar can say "shelo asani eved".

> OTOH, if it means (as I always assumed) eved Ivri

Of course it means eved kenaani.  An eved ivri is obligated in the same
mitzvot as a free man.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R' Avi Burstein asked <<< Would this point have any bearing on the whole
downloading music issue? >>>, thus suggesting that it is okay to download
copyrighted music etc etc

R' Micha Berger pointed out <<< One can still ask about hasagas gevul
(for Jewish music), >>>

I'm not sure exactly what it is that RMB is suggesting we ask. I think
his point is that even if the sound of Jewish music cannot be stolen
per se, the issur of hasagas gevul might still apply.

But if that is so, wouldn't hasagas gevul also apply to the shiurim
which Hillel heard from the roof? The yeshiva had an income based on the
admission fees, and Hillel found a way to hear the shiur without paying
admission. In what way would hasagas gevul apply to listening to music
without paying the fees, and not to a shiur?

Here's a similar case: The yeshiva restricted the audience to specific
individuals (in Hillel's case, the criteria happened to be those who
paid the admission fee), yet Hillel arranged for an additional person
(namely himself) to hear the shiur anyway. Does this mean that it is okay
to surreptitiously make an audio tape of a shiur which the rebbe intends
to be only for his talmidim, and then let others listen to the tape?

These other cases are getting weird. I'm wondering if Occam would suggest
that the Yeshiva specifically allowed others to listen to the shiur for
free as long as they were not inside the beis medrash, but Hillel is
the only one who availed himself of that loophole. Or maybe the reason
that he's the only one we hear about because others used the loophole
but only in the summer, while Hillel (if I remember the story correctly)
was the only one to get himself covered in snow.

Akiva Miller

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:19:50AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: But if that is so, wouldn't hasagas gevul also apply to the shiurim
: which Hillel heard from the roof? ...

In Avos 4:5, the very same Hillel prohibits making a parnasah off Torah.
So, how could there be hasagas gevul?

There's a whole discussion (mentioned in the shiur notes I already
pointed the chevrah to) about whether there can be hasagas gevul on
sefarim. The answer is yes, and in fact there is a cheirem specifically
covering it because of HG. However, this is to protect the publisher,
who invested money -- not the author.

Last, Hillel didn't deprive them of income by going to the roof. His
alternative was not learning and they still wouldn't be paid.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:55AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> The only question is why is having
:> more mitzvos the reason for a berakhah -- is it the mitzvos themselves,
:> some consequence of them, and if the latter, which consequence?

: You are repeating one part of the question I have been asking...

I know. My point was to dismiss the other part, and then clarify that I
wasn't dismissing the whole thing.

:                                ... If it is better to have more Mitzvos,
: there must be some superior consequence to having more Mitzvos...

Or, mitzvos themselves are the primary value. Not derived from some
consequence. If one could have yir'as hacheit (not to be confused with
yir'as ha'onesh) why can't one have simchah shel mitzah which has nothing
to do with consequences?

:                                                            ... (which I
: Taynah there must be if men are making a Bracha thanking God about it
: and is why I assume the latter in your above statement)....

Say someone can have either an X or a Y. He would like to have both, but
it's impossible. Shouldn't the person who has X thank G-d for having X,
and the person who has Y thank G-d for having Y?

We thank G-d for having more mitzvos. Women thank G-d for being more
like His Ratzon. Each is a beautiful thing. One shouldn't feel upset
for having one because it's mutually exclusive with the other. And each
justifies a berakhah for the people who have it. Even if the exchange
is a zero-sum game, one still should be happy with his/her positives.

:                                                     .... That, in my
: mind flies in the face of the concept of God's dispensation of equal
: justice to 50% of His human creations.

I still think you're turned 90deg. Justice means that each person is
treated fairly WRT other possible versions of his choices. Not that each
person is treated equally.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:37AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> I don't know that I was quite so philisophical as RDR, but basically I
:> figured, well if that's a known segulah, why shouldn't I give it to him?

: Sounds like the placebo effect - If I believe it will work, it will.
: But if one is self-aware (as moderns are to an extent and certainly
: Briskers) it's hard to just say , do it, don't think about how it works.

"Certainly Briskers"? Briskers bedavka try to avoid giving reasons and
meanings to halakhah. Halakhah stands on lomdus and lomdus alone.

A Brisker wouldn't do it because (a) the Rambam wouldn't, and (b) it's
not halakhah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:36:22AM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:>> ...knowledge of ikkarei hadas [not roots of myrtles!].

: > First, interesting pun. There may be a kavanah in there for next sukkos.

: What's the relationship between samech and tav that you could explore
: before Chag HaSukkos? AFAIK, L'shon haQodesh punning works with
: similarities between roots (see Prof. Clark's RSRH dictionary), not
: sounds (and not branches, either ;-)); L'shon Chachomim punning works
: with homographs (charus/chairus, banayich/bonayich, etc.), not homophones.

RSRH's position (and that of a number of contemporary linguists) is that
related roots have related meaning, but "related" means "phonetically
similar". Typically two wores that differ by one letter, and the two
shorashim have phonetically related letters in that place. There are
also a few more rules, like the way /klh/ can become "okhel" or /bnh/
becomes "even". Or the leading ayin in animal names like "akhbar".

(I have no idea how to apply that to das, for which I don't know a
three-letter shoresh.)

So there is meaning to phonetic puns.

Second, the words of chazal are about leshon Tanakh, not their own
language. "Cheirus" and "banayikh" are from Tanakh; chazal are making
a statement, but not about their own version of Hebrew. They too are
using phonetic similarity to add kavanos to saying a pasuq.

Where I did go wrong was in mistaking samekh and tav as phonetically
related letters. Samekh is dental, made by hissing through the teeth.
Tav is lingua-dental, made with both the tongue and teeth. The
Ashkenazi "sav" doesn't fit that pattern, but it's unlikely to be an
old pronunciation. I couldn't find a samekh-tav connection in any of
the words collected by R' Prof M Clark nor my own collection of Hirsch's
study of shorashim. (We have a number of chiluqim, even though my index
cards have citations.)

The family seems to be zayin, tzadi, samech, and shin. The parallel
lingua-dental to the samech-shin pair is tes. Those are the only
letters that one can make a Hirsch-style connection to a samekh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

Me:
> Yes, men have a higher status than women in the Torah's hierarchy.

RHM:
> That's interesting. You accept being a second class citizen.

Me again: The problem with "second class citizens" is that, in a
democracy, all citizens are completely equal and should be treated
identically. So if you are "second class" you are not getting your due
as a "citizen."

But the concept of a state in which all citizens are treated identically
is not, to the best of my knowledge, precisely the Torah's ideal
society. The Torah assumes and prescribes social hierarchies - including
kohen/levi/yisrael and man/woman. There is nothing wrong, in such a
society, with different roles or with a hierarchy of such roles.

The Torah also tells us that each human being is b'tzelem Elokim,
and demands that we take special care of those lowest on the ladder -
widows, orphans, the poor. It is certainly forbidden to take advantage
of power and status to oppress or abuse others. There IS equality before
the law - the judge cannot show favouritism either to rich or to poor,
and presumably not based on gender either.

 - Ilana

Igros Moshe YD IV 17.19 page 197

Concerning the issue of ben/as niddah

"Since there is no issur but is it a desirable thing [not to be a ben/bas
niddah], one can rely on the presence of good middos to say the person
is not a ben/bas niddah. Even if it is known that the mother did not go
to mikveh - but it is possible that she went bathing in the sea or the
large swimming pool that are built in hotels and resorts. The majority
of them are not posul doreissa and therefore the tevila is kosher min
HaTorah. That is sufficient that her children should not be considered
ben/bas niddah..."

Daniel Eidensohn

RMB wrote:
> My real problem is that I ironically find that RYSE and R' Meir Shapiro
> are apparently in agreement with the notion that we do not accept the
> Rambam's ikkarim (or some derivative of them) as definitive pesaq for what
> is kefirah. Mind you I have worked with batei din legeirus, and AFAIK
> that is what's followed lemaaseh. I'm trying to understand different
> shitos on the limits of what is O, and what is beyond eilu va'eilu.

This exact point was made by Rav Willig at the latest RCA convention,
when he said "whomever adds to the ikkorim weakens them". His point was
that we should stick to the thirteen, period, or the definition of kfirah
and, by extension, emunah will become unworkably flexible.

Arie Folger

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:55AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
> :                                ... If it is better to have more Mitzvos,
> : there must be some superior consequence to having more Mitzvos...

> Or, mitzvos themselves are the primary value. 
> Not derived from some
> consequence. If one could have yir'as hacheit (not to be confused with
> yir'as ha'onesh) why can't one have simchah shel mitzah which has nothing
> to do with consequences?

Mitzvos themselves can be the primary value but they cannot be the
only value existing without any Schar at all. Schar is inseparable from
Mitzvah observance. Without it,why should I do any Mitzvah? What's my
motivation? If I don't do any, so what? Of what consequence is it? There
... has to be... some form of Schar. We may not know what that Schar is
or how it benefits us but we have to know it exists. It may not be humanly
possible to understand what that Schar is. But it has to be there in some
way or Mitzvah observance is useless. If God wants us to do Mityzvos but
our Neshamos do not gain what-so-ever then there is no purpose to Mitzvos.

As I think about it and try and organize and articulate my thoughts,
I guess what I am trying to say is that Schar VeOnesh is integral to
Mitzvah observance. It is impossible for me to imagine God mandating
Mitzvah observance without Schar VeOnesh. It would be the same as saying
that God created a universe where there was no Olam HaBah and that the
Neshama is destroyed after death... or that all of mankind is equally
rewarded in Olam HaBah irregardless of what we do here on earth.

I cannot make sense of such a universe. I cannot separate Mitzvah
observance from Schar VeOnesh. It is beyond my ken. To me Mitzvah
observance and Schar VeOnesh are as inseperable from each other as the
sun is from light. In fact I could sooner undertstand that then the
concept of Mitzvah observance without Schar VeOnesh.

That doesn't mean I think all of our actions should be for the purpose of
getting Schar. There is a higher concept of doing a Mitzva not because
you want the Schar but because you love God. But if you take away Schar
VeOnesh entirely, it just wouldn't make sense to me, why one should ever
do Mitzvos at all? There has to be the concept of Schar. Then one can
Darshan and say, the best way of doing Mitzvos is... not to look at the
Schar but to do it becuase of Ahavas Hashem. But, Schar ...MUST... exist.

Once the concession is made that Schar must exist, then it must
be dispensed fairly by God. Values have to be placed on Mitzva
observance. For example, it cannot be that one who toils exccesively
learning a piece of Torah so he can undertand it to the best of his
ability is rewarded equally to one who is brilliant and understands the
same piece of Torah effortlessly. Devinely dispensed Schar VeOnesh must
be based on Divine Justice. It therefore, cannot be that that 50% of
humanity is at a disadvantage... having less Mitzvos to do and therefore
less Schar.

...
> Say someone can have either an X or a Y. He would like to have both, but
> it's impossible. Shouldn't the person who has X thank G-d for having X,
> and the person who has Y thank G-d for having Y?

Absolutely. But that is not what is being done here.

> We thank G-d for having more mitzvos. Women thank G-d for being more
> like His Ratzon. Each is a beautiful thing. One shouldn't feel upset
> for having one because it's mutually exclusive with the other. And each
> justifies a berakhah for the people who have it. Even if the exchange
> is a zero-sum game, one still should be happy with his/her positives.

I agree, but the Brachos are not the same. The Bracha for men should
have been SheMarbeh es Mitzvosai... or something like that. SheLo Asani
Isha implies a specific problem with being a woman and that men should
be grateful to God for not making them women. The way the Brachos are
composed seems to give the upper hand to men and not, as you indicate,
that each sex has a Bracha to reflect seperate but equally beautiful
modalities.

One might answer by saying Ein Hachi Nami but since the composer of the
Brachos wrote the Brahcos of "SheLo Asani Goi" and "SheLo Asani Eved", the
composer of the Brachos wanted to maintain the same lyrical flow. Fine,
I might accept that. But then why was a woman's Bracha not composed as
"SheLo Asani Ish"? They could then appreciate their own "beautiful thing"
(as you put it)with the same Nusach HaBracha as men.

Just thinking out loud.

HM

> I know there is a machklos the Noda B'yehudah Yoreh Deah II: 161
> VS. R.Akiva Eiger in Berachos, Perek 5 if you can learn Halachos from the
> Agados in the Gemara.the Noda B'yehudah the writes that we cannot learn
> any Halachos from Agadah, even when there is no contradiction from another
> Gemara since there only there to teach Musar and concepts of Torah,
> not halacha.On the other hand we find R.Akiva Eiger who says we can
> rely on agadah to learn halacha if it was not discussed in the Gemara.
> So I want to know if there are any examples of a real Halacha (rather
> then a minhag) that's learned from agadah.

A famous case is the aggadah that Ben Sira was born from semen that
impregnated his mother in a bath. It has been used by some poskim in
the discussion on artificial insemination. Of course others disagree
because it is an Aggadah!

-- 
Eli Turkel

>> Don't we have a rule that a person only dies for his own sins?

> A later example that rejects such a rule can be found in the Or HaChaim
> on Bereishis 37:21, where he writes that because human beings are endowed
> with bechira, they are capable of killing innocents.

According to most rishonim that most human actions are governed by nature
and not by divine intervention except for the Tzaddik it is clear that
innocents die.
My question dealt with the interpretaion of dreams which seems to be
supernatural.

In the same vein a recent daf yomi stated that a wife dies because of
her husbands false vows. While I can understand the punishment of young
children for the sins of their parents I do not understand why a wife
gets punished for her husband's sin.

kol tuv,
-- 
Eli Turkel

I am now reading the recently released book "Emergence of Ethical Man"
based on manuscripts of RYBS.

In the beginning he shows that Judaism stresses the connection of man
to nature in contrast to Xtianity that stresses that man is above nature.

In the beginning he mentions that his viewpoint is not that of many
medieval and modern Jewish thinkers. He then states

"Yet the consensus of many, however great and distinguished, does not
prove the truth or falseness of a particular belief. I have always felt
that due to some erroneous perception, we have actually misunderstood
the Judaic anthropology and read into Biblical texts ideas which stem
from an alien source."

In the first section that I have read virtually all of his quotes are
from Tanach (mainly bereshit) and a few chazal and basically no rishonim.

It is clear that RYBS would never treat a halachic issue in the same
manner by ignoring rishonim and basing a psak on pesukim. Rather it is
obvious that RYBS treats haskafic problems differently than halakhic
questions.

BTW even in the attack of Gra on Rambam for his opinions on philosophy
it is clear that the Gra makes the same distinction. Though Gra may on
occasion disagree with a Rishon he does not use such extreme languague.

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

On May 30, 2005 David Riceman wrote:
> I clearly left myself open to misunderstanding by coining the phrase
> "transactional zechuyos" without defining it.  What I meant was A
> transferring a zechuth to B without B having done some action to merit it.

Actually, I read you loud and clear.

> Zechuth Avoth is a red herring. The Avoth started a grand labor, and we are
> their heirs and partners, and, by virtue of that, we have done something to
> deserve to inherit their zechuyoth 

Anyone born into the am yisrael is born with z'chus avos although he will
not have an opportunity to be mishtatef with the Avos in their labours
until he is thirteen. Zchus avos has nothing to do with hishtatfus
although one can lose his zchus avos if he does not perpetuate it with
hishtatfus. Zchus avos comes from the term "zakus" purity. Thus, by
virtue of our being descended from the avos, we have inherited certain
traits that make our natures more amenable to spiritual attainment and
improvement than another who was not born with these traits. The Ramban
explains that the avos had the power to "genetically" alter their future
progeny with their Herculean acts of spiritual perfection. Thus, zchus
avos is a transactional zechus in the fullest meaning of the term.

> I gave one example of transactional zechuyoth - someone klopping in shul so
> that we should all say tehillim for someone ill whom most of us don't even
> know.  

And IIRC, I responded that the mechanics for this transactional zchus
work much the same way a bracha works. Rav Dessler explains that a
brachah from a tzadik (like birchas Yitzchak) works because the misbarech
becomes a medium for the aliyas hatzadik who is nisbatel to Hashem in his
thanksgiving to Him for bestowing the blessing on whom he (the tzadik)
blessed. Tehilim for a sick person can work much in the same way.

> Here's a second: once many years ago someone asked me to dedicate
> that day's learning to the merit of someone recently deceased.  I showed him
> the Rambam in H. Yesodei HaTorah which says that one's portion in Olam HaBa
> depends on one's knowledge of God, and asked how my learning could help this
> recently deceased person.

Then how would the Rambam explain "bra mizakeh abba"? 

The answer is that there are two types of olam habba. One is called
sachar and the other is called sheleimus. Sachar (reward) can come
to anyone, even indirectly, for good deeds that he performed in olam
hazaeh or even good deeds that were performed on his behalf in which
case the mechanics of "transactional zechusim" i.e. being a medium for
another's accomplishments, such as a father, would come into play. The
other, sheleimus (perfection) can only be attained by one's own personal
limud haTorah (i.e. knowledge of Hashem) like the Rambam says. R' Chaim
Volozhin, despite condoning a Yissachar Zevulun arrangement, always said
that Yissachar's sheleimus could never be transacted to Zevulun.

Gut voch
Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]