Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 070

Wednesday, August 17 2005

• Re: Is the World Good?
• Re: Some Theology
• TIDE
• Re: Pirke Avos 4:3
• Crowd Estimation
• Re: Torah shebaal peh
• Re: Har Habayit
• Re: Har Habayit
• Re: TIDE Redux
• Re: Kiddush Levana
• Re: Darchei shalom / eivah
• Re: Kiddush Levana
• Re: Darchei shalom / eivah
• RE: Darchei shalom / eivah
• The Humility of R Zechariah b Avkolus
• Re: Some Theology
• Tisha b'Av in America vs. in Israel
• RE: The Humility of R Zechariah b Avkolus
• Re: TIDE Redux
• Is the World Good?
• Har Habayit
• Fwd: MiOray HaAish - V'etchanan

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:07:32PM -0400, R' Zvi Lampel wrote in self-described
sarcasm (although I think he means tongue-in-cheek):
:> [The sound you hear in the background is your moderator thunking his
:> head in frustration for missing what should have been obvious.

: No need to thunk, since the whole chapter is possibly allegorical anyway,
: and may merely be a "necessary but not really true" belief. (Although
: since this posuk would chronolgically belong after the creation of the
: eitz hadaas, one cannot claim that it isn't talking about "good and evil"
: as-we-know-it.)

This points out the relevence of two issues I raised in defending the
not time as-we-know-it position:
1- In order for one to say that HQBH wrote it to convey a deeper truth, e.g.
the way REED understands the Ramban about sefiros (not that I follow how that
fits the Ramban either), the words themselves must be about a shallower truth.
Thus distinguishing time from good vs evil.

2- If there were a baal mesorah who already argued min hamesorah that evil
as-we-know-it couldn't have existed yet, perhaps. But with out an al mi
lismokh...

But on a different topic, I could argue that evil doesn't exist
altogether.

The navi writes "Yotzeir or uvorei choshekh, oseh shalom uvorei
es hara." Therefore one could argue that just as choshekh isn't a
thing,. but the absence of a thing, ra is the absence of tov, not
a thing-in-itself. (Unless the navi was referring to the primordial
choshekh, used so far only during makas choshekh, which has mamashus. But
it would make the lashon hoveh difficult.)

Also related is one of R' Tzadoq's positions that make it difficult for
me to relate to his shitah. He seems to say that evil doesn't exist outside
of people's self-delusions. I'll be writing about that in the following
post.

...
: As far as "Olam HaChoshech" is concerned, Rav Avigdor Miller ztvk"l
: often emphasized that "darkness" does not refer to gloom, but to the
: ignorance of many to the Light of Truth by those who view the world in
: a superficial way. Mesillas Yesharim treats it this way. (I'll have to
: examine what "Emek HaBachah" is all about.)

Obviouly R' Shelomo al-Qabetz wasn't suggesting that "miqdash Melekh
ir melukhah" had spent too much time in olam hazeh when he writes "rav
lakh sheves be'eimeq habachah" or that olam hazeh is the hafeichah from
which he calls "qumi tze'i". Both the hafeichah and the eimeq habachah
appear to be used in Lekha Dodi to refer to galus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:19:01AM -0400, RYG Bechhofer wrote:
: Should that have read? -
: "He is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's will and [Hashem]
: has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well."

: If so, may we conclude that the act, if it succeeds, is Hashem's will? If
: so, may we then say "Gam zu l'tovah?"

Even if it is philosophically true, I do not believe we may say it. We are
not permitted to explain away those events that cause feelings of aveilus.

Rn Rena Freedenberg commented:
: I don't know whether we would say gam zu l'tovah -- maybe it is more
: accurate to say Baruch Dayan haEmes? What did those who lived through
: the churban say when they saw the Temple burning?

I was about to invoke the Shoah to show that it's not something we should
say. In the grand scheme, after history is complete, it will have
contributed to the conclusion, which is tov. Thus, it is LE-tovah. But
it itself isn't tov, and thus the different berakhah. We must deal with
our experience.

But this ties into my tangent in reply to RZL's post about whether
evil exists.

In Izhbotzer thought, all your actions are min haShamayim. Thus
eliminating the conflict between bechirah chofshi and universal HP
(that's hashgachah peratis, for the newbies). However, it does so at the
expence of bechirah WRT actions. Your thoughts are under your control,
but not your deeds.

I recently saw an article that argued that this point is more central
to R' Tzadoq than to the Mei haShiloach (R MY Leiner).

What makes a cheit a cheit was the sinner's belief that he is acting in
rebellion and against the Will of the Borei. Thus the whole fascination
with the meaning of han aveira lishmah and hora'as sha'ah amongst
some chassidisher derakhim (and RYGB). RCV in Nefesh haChaim writes
vehemently that no one in his day was at the madreiga where they could
know the Retzon haBorei well enough for this to be relevent. The Chozeh
of Lublin writes otherwise.

In which case, evil doesn't exist in action, only in minds. (Again,
not that I understand that R' Tzadoq.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

A comment to my blog:
> does the rov view TIDE as having equal validity to the other 
> hashkofos.i have a friend who is a big chossid of reb moishe 
> shternbuch, and while discussing the book 'daas torah' with him, reb 
> moishe remarked that he thought the book was great except for the fact 
> that it brought from RSRH, who is not a man de'omar (im not sure if 
> that's related to reb moishe's hashkafic collision with RSRH on 
> science/torah matters, or whether reb moishe being a nin veneched of 
> the gro is rather adduk to his mesorah. also, it is evident that the 
> litvish hashkofo was a hemshech of the gedolei ashkenaz with the gro 
> and reb chaim volozhiner being some of its foremost proponents.im not 
> sure if we can put RSRH on the same dargo. also as is evident from 
> nefesh hachaim the litvish hashkofo has a strong basis in kol; hatorah 
> kula esp. kabbollo. can rav hirsh, who personally admitted to not 
> being aquainted with kabbollo have a hashkofo to contend with nefesh 
> hachaim (its likey that RSRH was speaking from annivus). i was also 
> slightly uncomfortable with rav hirsh's criticism of the derech 
> hallimud of the mainstream gedolim, which he describes as 'man's 
> natural curiosity having lead him astray' (or something to that 
> effect-its in the 19 letters somewhere),especially when according to 
> many rishonim (eg rosh) the whole point of torah lishma is to get to 
> the omek of the sugya, and also it is impossible to be mevarer the 
> halocho without going leomek (how can u pasken in choshen mishpot 
> without the ketzos). i am aware that there where many gedolim who 
> criticised the derech halimmud but im not sure they meant what rav 
> hirsh meant. also how is rav hirsh mistader with the many maamarei 
> chazal that the nefesh hachaim brings expressing the ultimate 
> chashivus of talmud torah? also in light of the pesak of the 
> remo,which assers chochmos acheiros except bederech akroi, how is TIDE 
> and TuM mistader. on the other hand, what would the nefesh hachaim say 
> about talmidim who honestly arent cut out for full time learning-are 
> they never meant to lead a fulfilling life seeing as anything ppl do 
> apart from learning is beetzem bittul torah? and also according to the 
> nefesh hachaim are we meant to rely on goyim for all advances in 
> technology, society etc?(i personally am a semi TIDE-nik learning in 
> an israeli litvish yeshiva) anyone interested in discussing this 
> subject can email me on josephfaith@hotmail.com

In a message dated 7/20/2005 3:16:33pm EDT, sholom@aishdas.org writes: 
> So, nu? How far does that go? I hear plenty of scorn thrown about on
> Avodah and Areivim. How do we reconcile? (I'm particularly interested
> in those who often berate me when I criticize them for being too harsh --
> you know who you are).

Here is a simple guied that I have posted form time to time

You MAY scorn what a person  SAYS or DOES but NOT the person himself

This is in the psirit of hate the sin but love the sinner.

Each individual is a Tzelem Elokim but as humans we ALL are subject
to error.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

We were arguing on Areivim about the number of people who attended the
tefillah at the kotel (and well beyond) last week.

One of our chevrah asked me in person asked if this discussion (that
I started) is against the basic concept behind the issur of counting
Jews. To add to his question, the Ramban (p. Bamidbar) extends this to
estimations, and to using a surrogate to count when there is no purpose
for it. He might therefore assur the combination, using a surrogate,
such a floor space, to estimate.

R' J David Bleich has a discussion of the permissability of the
Israeli Census in the RJJ Journal. I haven't found the issue, so I
can't summarize.

-mi

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:46:53AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Sorry-I was specifically asking about "The current written texts will
: be of historical interest"  vs. perhaps gnizah?

Even those pesaqim overturned by a future Sanhedrin would be no less
Torah than the da'atei yachidim in shas.

I guess that would translate into asking whether the hora'as sha'ah
is involved in disseminating a written text, or in learning from it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

R' Micha Berger commented <<< ... RYBS, who recommended that if you
really want to put a kvitl into the kotel (not that he saw the point),
to do it using a pen. That kedushas Har haBayis extended ad ve'ad bikhlal
to the walls. >>> and then <<< I didn't think that included the kotel
plaza and the room on the side of the kotel ... >>>

I'm unclear what's confusing you. Keduhas Har HaBayis *doesn't*
include the Kotel plaza, but it does include the airspace of the walls
themselves. That's why RYBS didn't object to standing on the plaza,
only to inserting one's fingers into the wall.

(OTOH, and maybe this is what RMB is thinking of, I have heard some
point out that the wall is on a slight forwards diagonal, such that if
one stands right next to the wall at plaza level, he is directly above a
potion of the wall which is several meters below him. And if the border of
Kedushas Har Habayis extends vertically from where the buried wall begins,
then everyone who stands near the Kotel is in violation of the Mikdash's
airspace. In fact, if we can presume that the shiur is a mashehu, then
even if the border of Kedushas Har Habayis is a vertical from where the
*exposed* wall begins, then touching that diagonal wall already crosses
that border.)

I have half a mind to send this to Areivim, inasmuch as (except for
my aptitude for geometry) I really don't know what I'm talking about
here. Can anyone cite any other poskim?

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:15:24PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger commented <<< ... RYBS, who recommended that if you
: really want to put a kvitl into the kotel (not that he saw the point),
: to do it using a pen. That kedushas Har haBayis extended ad ve'ad bikhlal
: to the walls. >>> and then <<< I didn't think that included the kotel
: plaza and the room on the side of the kotel ... >>>

: I'm unclear what's confusing you. Keduhas Har HaBayis *doesn't*
: include the Kotel plaza, but it does include the airspace of the walls
: themselves...

I'm not confused, just semi-articulate.

What I meant was that the location where RYBS would have assumed someone
was putting a kvitl (i.e. in the part of the kotel that has the plaza or
the room beside it) includes area R' Yisrael Medad quoted as permissable
according to RYMT:

: and to jump forward, Rav Yehiel Michel Tuchachinsky wrote, in his
: monumental Ir HaKodesh v'haMikdash, Sec. 5, p. 80: that in this pre-Ben
: Davidic period, we will be able to build synagogues on the Har Habayit,
: once we have the permission of the authorities [and he was writing during
: the pre-state period] as the area is quite large - 250 cubits to the
: south are free all along the east-west axis of 500 cubits.

The two seem to be in disagreement. RYBS apparently doesn't let you put
your finger into the kotel in places RYMT would permit us walking just
on the other side. As I wrote, this quote is "In contrast to RYBS..."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:47:19AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> This is also a potential difference between TIDE and TuM. TuM's more
:> academicly oriented "mada" leads one to ivory towers, not grass roots
:> humanism.

: While I agree that TIDE is more utilitarian I do not concede that the
: ivory tower of Mada precludes humanism when it is combined with the
: necessary component of Torah as is the very concept of TuM...

WADR that's not what I was trying to argue. Rather, in TIDE, which is
about being a holy member of human society, humanism is a fundamental
component. The more acedemic TuM does not imply as central of a role
for humanism.

: Mada by itself has no inherent ethos. It is merely a discipline to be
: studied for its own sake... simply to attain knowledge...

Exactly my point.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> A gentleman of my acquaintance came to me most agitated this morning
> because he had seen people saying kiddush levana last night (i.e., in
> the nine days, so as not to lose the opportunity). I told him I had
> seen this practice done by choshuveh rabbanim, but to his request for
> a printed source, I had no answer.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is wrong with saying kiddush levana during
the nine days?

Jeff

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Both these concepts are employed by the gemara for both Jews and
: Non-Jews. Is anyone aware of any discussion of the source of these
: halachik concepts? (it seems the gemara as far as I can tell takes them
: as a given.) Is there any difference in their force?

There's a "mishum eivah" where the other party is a Jew? That surprises
me.

I understood things as per RAL: Mishum eivah is a derivative of piqu'ach
nefesh. It therefore implies
    that the other party is capable of including people capable of
    violence.
Darchei shalom is broader in scope and more fundamental in value. It's
    a manifestation of vehalakhta bidrakhav.

-mi

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:51:25 PDT Sterling Touch <sterlingtouch@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is wrong with saying kiddush levana
> during the nine days?

The RMA says not to 426:2

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Micha Berger wrote:
>There's a "mishum eivah" where the other party is a Jew? That surprises
>me.

>I understood things as per RAL:
>Mishum eivah is a derivative of piqu'ach nefesh. It therefore implies
>    that the other party is capable of including people capable of
>    violence.
>Darchei shalom is broader in scope and more fundamental in value. It's
>    a manifestation of vehalakhta bidrakhav.

Eivah is not necessarily related to pikuach nefesh. In the following
sugya -- eivah concerns the relationship between father and child.

Bava Metzia 12(a-b) "GEMARA. Samuel said: For what reason has it been laid
down that an object found by a minor belongs to his father? Because when
he finds it he brings it hurriedly to his father10 and does not retain
it in his possession.... Samuel merely gave the reason of the Tanna of
our Mishnah, but he himself does not hold that view.15 And does R. Jose
hold the view that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself
in accordance with Biblical law? Have we not learnt: An object found by
a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor [may not be taken away from them
as the law of] robbery is applied to them out of consideration for the
public good [darchei shalom].16 R. Jose says: It is actual robbery.17
And R. Hisda says: It is actual robbery because of an enactment by the
Rabbis; the difference is as regards reclaiming the object by law?18
--... In this case] the right to take possession has been conceded to one
who really has no such right.1 For what reason? -- [Because] the poor
themselves are pleased [with this concession], so that when they are hired
[as labourers] their children may also be allowed to glean after them.

Now this [Samuel's view]2 differs from that of R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R.
Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: [By] MAJOR [we do] not
[mean one who is] legally a major, nor [do we mean by] MINOR [one who is]
legally a minor, but a major who is maintained by his father is regarded
as a minor, and a minor who is not maintained by his father is regarded
as a major.3"

Rashi (12b) states that Rav Yochanon's view is that the father gets to
keep the son's lost objects because of Eivah -- in a case where the son
is supported by the father. Rashi on (12a) states that a child obtains
ownership of a lost object because of darchci shalom

> There's a "mishum eivah" where the other party is a Jew? That surprises me.

It took me by surprise I must say   as well.
See yoma 12b   re kohein gadol  and
   ketubot 58b re husband/wife

Kt
Joel rich

The Humility of R Zechariah b Avkolus Gittin 56a

Why does Rashi point to R Z b Avkolus not having Bar Kamtza executed
rather than his banning the offering of the blemished sacrifice?

Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:19:01AM -0400, RYG Bechhofer wrote:
>: Should that have read? -
>: "He is nothing more than a puppet fulfilling Hashem's will and [Hashem]
>: has hardened his heart and blocked his ears as well."

>: If so, may we conclude that the act, if it succeeds, is Hashem's will? If
>: so, may we then say "Gam zu l'tovah?"

>Even if it is philosophically true, I do not believe we may say it. We are
>not permitted to explain away those events that cause feelings of aveilus.

Why not?

What is the geder of this prohibition?

>Rn Rena Freedenberg commented:
>: I don't know whether we would say gam zu l'tovah -- maybe it is more
>: accurate to say Baruch Dayan haEmes? What did those who lived through
>: the churban say when they saw the Temple burning?

>I was about to invoke the Shoah to show that it's not something we should
>say. In the grand scheme, after history is complete, it will have
>contributed to the conclusion, which is tov. Thus, it is LE-tovah. But
>it itself isn't tov, and thus the different berakhah. We must deal with
>our experience.

This is not at all the same. No one, B"H was killed, no level of 
kedushah or form of Avodas Hashem lost - all these comparisons are out 
of order.

And, as RMBexplains in the part of the conversation I have deleted, 
everything is good.

Even the...

YGB

I have the sense that American Jews view Tisha b'Av as commemorating
primarily the destruction of the bais ha'mikdash, while Israeli DL view
it as commemorating primarily our galus from EY (with the destruction
of the BhM being just part of that). (To be fair, I'm in Israel just
2 years, so perhaps I'm not portraying fairly the DL view.) After all,
Eichah and Sefer Melachim barely refer to the BhM and the tochachah also
does not focus primarily on the BhM.

My sense is that from the Israeli DL perspective, galus is the primary
punishment to Jews for violating cardinal sins, as we see in the Tochacha.
In addition, in the parshios of the arayos we find that violating cardinal
sins causes the land to become defiled, leading to the land spitting
out its inhabitants. And this fits in with the fact that Tisha b'Av is
the date of the cheit ha'meraglim, which is a sin with respect to EY,
not the beis ha'mikdash.

Based on this, it is not surprising that the view of the Israeli
DL community is that voluntarily living in galus today--even one as
prosperous as America--is problematic, as galus is supposed to be a
punishment, not a benefit.

I did hear a shiur on my yishuv (by R. Yechezkel Lichtenstein of Bar
Ilan)contrasting the attitude of the Talmud Bavli to that of the Talmud
Yerushalmi WRT to whether or not it is permissible to make aliyah. We all
are familiar with R. Yehuda's statement in Kesubos 110b (mentioned with
respect to R. Zeira) that it is forbidden to make aliyah, based on the
3 shevuos. We are less aware of the fact that the Eretz Yisrael-based
Midrashim take the opposite position. See Shir HaShirim Rabah 8:3
s.v. "rabbanan pasrei kra b'olei gola" where R. Zeira (the same amora
mentioned in Bavli Kesubos) is criticized because he is a Babylonian and
the Babylonians are responsible for the churban beis hamikdash ha'sheni:
R. Sheilah darshened the pasuk "im choma hee" (the *same* pasuk used
by R. Yehuda to forbid aliyah b'choma)--if only the Babylonian Jews had
made aliyah at the time Ezra, the second beis hamikdash would not have
been destroyed. See a somewhat similar statement in Yoma 9b made by
Reish Lakish to a Babylonian amora.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Meir Rabi 
> Why does Rashi point to R Z b Avkolus not having Bar Kamtza executed
> rather than his banning the offering of the blemished sacrifice?

Why does the gemora report both or why were both considered? I posited
that killing him would be more clear cause and effect and thus much
less likely to lead to ziyuf hatorah than bringing the korban thus more
"anavah' in not going that route but I didn't see this discussed so it's
what my rabbeim would call a "belly svara"

KT
Joel Rich

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: While I agree that TIDE is more utilitarian I do not concede that the
>: ivory tower of Mada precludes humanism when it is combined with the
>: necessary component of Torah as is the very concept of TuM...

> WADR that's not what I was trying to argue. Rather, in TIDE, which is
> about being a holy member of human society, humanism is a fundamental
> component. The more acedemic TuM does not imply as central of a role
> for humanism.

>: Mada by itself has no inherent ethos. It is merely a discipline to be
>: studied for its own sake... simply to attain knowledge...

> Exactly my point.

I grant your point. But taken in its totality TuM is at least equal to
TIDE. Humaism may not be the central component of TuM but in the end it
is Torah that emphasizes it for its adherents

The advantage that I would cede to TuM is in a different area than
humanism. Since there is a greater emphasis on Mada in TuM, in theory it
could and should, lead to a better... or more comprehensive understanding
of worldly knowledge thus impacting on all facets of Torah observance
and undertanding of Torah.

My favorite example of this is RAL's essay in which he says that his
understanding of certain portions of Navi through his study was only
possible (in his own case) through the study of English Literature.
TIDE although having this same use for Mada as an aid to Torah, is
still less likely to advocate study of English literature as a way of
understanding Torah better. In a system which looks at Mada for its own
sake, however, a PhD in such studies is more likely, thus expanding the
horizens of ways to understand Torah and practice Mitzvos.

HM

Re the recent query: ?Where is there is source at all in Torah that
considers this world good?"

Interestingly, the very pasuk cited by R Meir Shinnar in response to this
query -- "And G-d saw everything that he created, and behold it was very
good" -- is cited by the Rambam (Moreh Nevochim 3:10) in the context
of a philosophical take on this issue (or, more correctly, a related,
broader issue).

Towards the end of the aforementioned chapter, the Rambam says, among
other things: "Rather, all G-d's deeds are absolute good ("tov muchlat"),
for he creates nothing except existence ("metzius"), and all existence
is good. And bad things are all a matter of absence ("he'eder") [of
good]." Later, just before citing the pasuk, he writes: "Thus, the truth
of G-d's action ["amitas peulas Hashem"] is entirely good..."

I am using the R Yosef Kapach edition, page 292. You may want to check
me on my reading and translation.

Yitzchok Brandriss

let me clarify:
Rav Tuchachinsky was talking about an area inside what is known as, for
convenience, the current Temple Mount compound which is much larger than
the original 500 square cubit Har Habayit (within which there are further
distinctions and delineations regarding entrance). RSYB was talking
about outside both sections as he was referring to the Kotel from outside.

and, of course, his is but one Rabbinical voice indicating that a blanket
prohibition and ban on all entrance to all areas is not rooted in Halacha
but more in the psychological or ideological orientation of the various
Poskim rather than a detached analysis of the various halachot.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Israel

R' Aryheh Kahn wrote in his weekly DT:
MeOray HaAish
V'etchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11)
The Prayer of Moses
by Rabbi Ari Kahn

Parshat V'Etchanan contains some of the most important teachings
of Judaism. Here we find the Ten Commandments taught for the second
time. Here we find the Sh'ma, "Hear O Israel," the quintessential
declaration of monotheism.
...
REJECTED PRAYERS

This concept of Moses having his prayers rejected is not an easy one for
us to understand. How can it be that Moses, the father of all prophets,
could not get his prayers answered?

Furthermore, if Moses cannot be allowed to repent and have his decree
altered, then what does the future bode for those who have not reached,
nor can they even imagine, his level.

There are various approaches to this issue in Talmudic, and Midrashic
literature. The Talmud understands that Moses' prayers did have an effect:

Rabbi Eliezer taught: "Prayer is greater than good deeds, for there was
never a man who had better deeds than Moses our Master, nonetheless,
Moses was only answered as a result of his prayer, for it says, 'Enough
for you! Speak no more to me on this matter' and right afterward it says
'Go on top of the peak...' (Talmud Brachot 32b)

The Talmud clearly understands that Moses' prayer were effective, albeit
not as effective as Moses would have desired. The implication is clear,
had Moses not prayed then he would not have climbed the peak and seen
the land. Moses did have his prayers answered, but it was not exactly
the answer which Moses had sought.

But why could Moses not achieve complete rehabilitation for his mistakes?

FINAL JUDGMENT

Another approach is that prayers can only be effective until the final
judgment has been decreed; at that point prayers cannot cancel the decree.

This is based on a passage of the Talmud (Rosh Hashana 18a) which explains
why at times prayers "work," and why at times they do not seem to. The
Sefer Chasidim (section 612, citing Rav Saadya Gaon) explains that Moses'
prayers were rejected, because his judgment had been finalized. This
idea dovetails with a number of teachings of the Sages, which indicate
that once this judgment was final nothing more can be said by Moses. (See
Avot d'Rebbi Natan addition 2 to chapter 4.)

It seems then that there is point where repentance is no longer effective.

Rabbi Reuven Margoliot in his notes to the Sefer Chasidim, cites a
teaching from the Zohar which states that this is true in terms of this
world, but as far as the next world goes, repentance can change one's
status (Zohar Mishpatim 107a).

If this is the case, then why would God have told Moses that he need
not pray? Rashi in his comments to the Torah addresses the point in
the Torah narrative when God says Rav Lach! "Enough for you!" Rashi
translates rav lach literally -- rav "a lot," lach, "awaits you" --
and then goes on to explain:

[This means] "there is a lot of good awaiting you," therefore Moses need
not pray anymore for his share in the other world.

The Sifri offers a completely different approach. According to the Sifri,
Moses did not heed God's request and continued to pray:

[Moses] did not adhere to God, and did not desist from asking mercy
from the Holy One blessed be He. Other people should certainly never
[give up and not pray] ... Even if a sharp blade is on a person's neck,
they should not cease to ask for mercy. (Sifri D'varim piska 29)

* * *

SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS OF PRAYER

Again, according to this approach our previous questions resurface:
Why did Moses' prayers go unanswered, and furthermore, why would God
discourage Moses from further prayer?

In order to answer these questions, we must re-evaluate what prayer is
and what are its spiritual dynamics.

When a person is ill, he turns to God in prayer. If the prayer is
accepted by God, then the person recovers. Superficially, it seems as
if God changed His mind, as if God can be "sweet talked" into backing
down from a previously stated position, so to speak. It also seems as
if God awaits in heaven for our words of supplication, and, if they do
not arrive, He wreaks His vengeance on us.

Furthermore, we are aware that God is an infinite Being who is by
definition unchanging; if this is the case, then how can God "change
his mind"?

The answer is subtle, yet simple. God does not change. Man does.

The man who fell ill was relatively alienated from God. The man who prays
is a man who is close to God -- he is not the same man who fell ill. He
has forged a new relationship with God, but God remains unchanged. Man
often believes that the reason that he prays is that he is ill; what he
does not understand is that the reason he is ill is because he has not
prayed, or searched for a complete relationship with God. Now that he
has prayed he no longer needs to be ill.

Let us consider Moses. Was his angst due to some type of spiritual
deficiency? The answer is of course not! Moses reached the most exalted
status which man can ever dream of. He was not spiritually lacking,
his prayers were no longer necessary. This idea is conveyed in the Zohar:

Rav Chiya said: "God said to Moses 'It is enough that you have been united
with the Shechina -- you can advance no further.'" (Zohar D'varim 260b)

Moses was unlike other people, there was nothing lacking in Moses'
spiritual makeup, therefore nothing needed to be healed. Moses did not
need to pray.

Even Moses' share in the world to come was assured, as we saw in Rashi
above. If we take this idea one step further, then we will gain great
insight into the rest of this Torah portion.

* * *

FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE

 From the Sforno we get the following teaching:

[Moses said:] "But God was angry with me for your sakes: For I desired
to keep you there (in Israel), so that you would never be exiled. But
He (God) had already lifted up His arm to disperse you among the
nations." (Sforno 3:26)

According to the Sforno, the object of Moses' prayer was not his own
spiritual well-being, it was the future of the community -- Moses was
motivated by a profound concern for his people.

This leads us to an astounding conclusion: Moses' remaining in exile was
not due to a lack in him. It was caused by the relatively low spiritual
level of his people.

We have seen on other occasions that had Moses entered into the Land of
Israel, the Temple never would have been destroyed, and Moses would have
been the Messiah. The only problem was that the people were unworthy.

The Sforno insists that this decree had already been made: "He (God)
had already lifted up His arm to disperse you among the nations." The
obvious question which then emerges is: When did this decree come into
existence? One possibility is that it happened during the Golden Calf
debacle. The Talmud teaches:

Had the tablets not been broken, no nation nor language would have
controlled them. (Eruvin 54a)

The cause for the shattering of the tablets was, of course, the Golden
Calf. Once the tablets were shattered the spiritual ability of the
nation was handicapped. Things had changed; the people had become
distanced from God, from the Shechina.

Now we can understand why the Ten Commandments are taught again in this
week's Torah portion. Moses wishes to turn back the clock, and take the
nation to the spiritual strata, which they enjoyed while standing at
Sinai, prior to the Golden Calf.

We can also understand why the Sh'ma is taught in the same Torah portion.
What better way to connect to God than via this ultimate statement of
acceptance of God?

In order for Moses to have a chance to enter Israel, he did not need
to fix anything in his relationship with God, his prayers were not
necessary. For Moses to enter the land, and more importantly for the
people to stay in the land, the people needed to change, to grow closer
to the Shechina.

Therefore, Moses is told by God to cease his prayers, and instead Moses
is told to take up what he does best: teach.

Moses gives a phenomenal "lecture" in the hope that this will lead his
students, his followers, back to God. Moses attempts to fix that which
was severed.

In the end, Moses' efforts fell short, but the "lecture" which he left
us remains. The people of Israel simply have to read this week's Torah
portion in order to get an idea on how to reunite with God, and to become
one with the Shechina. Just like our teacher, Moses.

======================================
Rabbi Ari Kahn, a student of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, is a graduate
of Yeshiva University. He currently divides his time teaching at Aish
HaTorah and Bar Illan University where he is the Director of Foreign
Student Programs. He frequently lectures in the US, England, and South
Africa on behalf of Bar Illan and Aish HaTorah.
You can contact him directly at: AKahn@aish.com
...
Article from http://www.aish.com, the website of Aish HaTorah.
...
(C) 2005 Aish HaTorah International - 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         ]