Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 053

Sunday, May 28 2006

• Re: Nasi
• Re: Nasi
• Re: Malachim
• RE:Malachim
• Re: Lubavitch acosmism
• R Itche der masmid
• RE: Nasi
• RE: R Itche der masmid
• RE: Malachim
• Re: A Thought on Yom Yerushalayim
• Re: taking midrashim literally
• Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• Re: Kedushah
• RE: Lubavitch acosmism
• [YGB] Tzimtzum K'Peshuto
• chag habikkurim
• Al Naharos Bavel
• Avot and Mitzvot

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> Zerubavel was not the first Nasi. The first appointed Nasi was Yosi ben
> Yoezer the talmid of Antignos. He was a Cohen and he was a member of the
> Beis Din haGadol. The reason the Beis Din instituted the office of Nasi
> was due to the political upheaval of the times...

Wasn't the physical leadership of the nation and the kehunah gedolah even
split apart during the generation of Antig'nos? I thought that the change
between the dor of Antig'nos and the following one was only that the
positions of nasi and av beis din were alloted to two different people.

 - Joshua

I am totally thrown because I thought the first appointed nasi was Hillel.
That the point was to have a Perushi leader, rather than the Tzeduqi
priest-king. Hillel's matrilineal connection to beis david was therefore
a point in his favor in opposition to leadership by kohanim. After all,
the entire Tzeduqi philosophy was that kehunah held all power, and thus
they denied the Torah's role for rabbanim. Which is why the Chashmonaim
and they became one camp.

That was also why, I thought, the nesi'us may have been temporarily
bestowed upon others, but would always revert to Hillel's line.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

On May 26, 2006, at 00:37:23 -0400GMT, R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> On May 25, 2006, Rn Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Technically, everything in
>> creation that lacks free will is a malach in a certain sense.

> So are sticks and stones Malachim? How about goats?

What's the problem?
_`Oseh mal'akhav ruhhot_!

 -Stephen (Steg) Belsky

> There are dual traditions about Esther, and how she could have slept
> with Ahasuerus. Maybe more than just two, but the two I'm thinking of
> are instructional. One is that Hashem sent a malach to take Esther's
>place... Another is that "Esther karka hayeta". The two can actually
> be reconciled if we see her submission to Ahasuerus as a case of her
> bechira having been suppressed.

Esther 4:16 "Vechasher Uvadity Uvudity"
Rashi: ...shemeiachsuv sheani berotzon niveles liakum...

  Velvel

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> The "acquaintance" mentioned in the letter is probably REED.

> Huh? In 1949, the RL would intimate that REED was ignorant of qabbalah?

1939.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I would like to append a story to this email. R' Aryeh Carmel relates that
> R' Itchele (Yitzchok) Masmid

Slight mishearing there - he was known as "Itche der masmid". His real
name was R Yitzchok (Halevi) Gurevitch.

> was one of the "mofsim" of Chabad. He was
> a chasid of the Rashab (three Rebbe's ago incl. RMMS) and apparently,
> he knew everything! He once had occasion to visit London and stayed
> by Rav Dessler for several weeks. During that time, these two gedolim
> traversed the pathways of pinimius haTorah such that Rav Dessler reported
> that these several weeks were the most enriched of his life. But here's
> the kicker. R' Itchele was so enamoured with Rav Dessler's tefisa in
> penimius haTorah that his (Rav Dessler's) Rebbetzin reported that for
> the entire time that R' Itchele stayed with them, she didn't have to make
> his bed. He simply didn't sleep due to his excitement over Rav Dessler.

Not so quick. At the Cleveland wedding of one of R Itche's great-
grandsons, one of the RY of Telz (I don't remember his name) said that
R Itche once spent a few weeks at his parents' home, and his mother
reported the same thing - that his bed had not been slept in except
on Shabbos. R Itche was known in another context for not sleeping in
a bed - on Succos, he could not go to sleep in the succah, because he
was a Lubavitcher chassid, but he couldn't bring himself to go to sleep
outside the succah either, and it is a halacha that a person cannot
go 72 hours without sleep. So he would sit up in the succah learning,
with his feet in a basin of water to keep him up as long as possible,
until he would fall asleep involuntarily.

HYD.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On May 26, 2006, Joshua Meisner wrote:
> Wasn't the physical leadership of the nation and the kehunah gedolah even
> split apart during the generation of Antig'nos? I thought that the change
> between the dor of Antig'nos and the following one was only that the
> positions of nasi and av beis din were alloted to two different people.

The way I remember it is that the offices of Kehuna Gedolah and Nasi were
segregated due to the abuse of Yoseph ben Toviah and due to the decision
of our leaders at the time that only a Torah personality could be trusted
with the leadership of the nation hence the office of Nasi being filled
dafka by a member of Beis Din but I might be wrong. If I have time, I'll
look it up. Also, please see R' Avigdor Miller's account in Torah Nation
(somewhere...I can't quote you the page) for a historical perspective
of the times.

Simcha Coffer  

On May 26, 2006, Zev Sero wrote:
> Not so quick. At the Cleveland wedding of one of R Itche's great-
> grandsons, one of the RY of Telz (I don't remember his name) said that
> R Itche once spent a few weeks at his parents' home, and his mother
> reported the same thing - that his bed had not been slept in except
> on Shabbos. 

Ahhh... but in Rav Dessler's house he didn't even sleep on Shabbos! :-)

Simcha Coffer

On May 26, 21006, Steg Belsky wrote:
> What's the problem?
> _`Oseh mal'akhav ruhhot_!

The word Malachim has two meanings. 1) Angels 2) Messengers. (Medrash
Rabba Bereishis 75:4, Zohar Chelek Aleph 166a) The word Malachim in this
context means the latter as Rashi comments ad loc.

Simcha Coffer

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 05:24:26PM -0400, Lisa Liel wrote:
:> The call to remind Edom ... is also a call for them to remember 
:> Yom Yerushalaim, a day in which they join the union to serve G-d 
:> wholeheartedly.

: I don't see that.  You left out the fact that King David made it very
: clear what it means to remind Bnei Edom of Yom Yerushalayim.  It
: means "Ashrei she'yocheiz v'nipetz et olalayich al ha-sala"...

That's about benos Bavel, not Edom. So, "zekhor H' livnei Edom" means
something else.

:                                                               And to
: take your drash further, destroying those who refuse to allow us to
: live in peace is precisely how we attain the peace of Yerushalayim.

Second, as already noted, the pasuq is phrased as descriptive, not
presciptive.

Third, Edom's cooperation with Bavel at the end of Bayis Rishon means
that they'll necessarily be in our way before Bayis Shelishi?

But what I found more interesting is the question of whether the Yom
Yerushalayim in the past or in the future? Since Edom weren't at churban
Bayis Rishon, their crying "Aru aru" wasn't exactly on the day Y-m
fell. For that matter, "ha'omerim" is lashon hoveh. It's a description
of Edom, not of what Edom did at some point in time.

R' Yehudah assumes the kapitl refers to bayis sheini as well. And,
does so in Chazal's lingo of associating Rome with Edom. In which case,
YY could refer to 9 beAv of the 2nd churban.

The CR, when they named 28 Iyyar, presumed the pasuq was referring to an
eschotological event -- the future. It would still be referring to din,
given the follow up with Bavel, but the day that din is manifest, not the
day of the cheit. I was working from that angle, trying to give meaning
to contemporary YY observance based on what yeru + shalayim connotes.

The truth is that HQBH seems to single out Amaleiq as being the lone
nation to need destruction before the eschaton. Other nations are supposed
to become part of that "agudah achas la'asos retzonekha beleivav shaleim"
that RDL invokes in order to define true shalom.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 05:54:38PM -0400, T613K@aol.com quoted the
introduction to RAFeldman's "The Juggler and the King":
:     The commentaries differ as to whether or not these accounts are
:     to be taken literally. Some maintain that they are accounts of
:     incidents which actually happened to Rabba....
...

And she comments:
: In the title story, Rabba saw a man (the "juggler") pouring wine from
: one cup to another while jumping from one donkey to another -- while
: the donkeys were on opposite banks of a river. The king heard what
: the juggler was doing and had him put to death.

I recommend the book, but after reading it, see the appendix, the Gra's
Peirush al Kamah Agados itself. RAF only addresses a small portion of
the text.

But taking the medrash of the juggler literally is pretty problematic.

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda, their creator god, fathered two
spirits. Spenta Mainyu, who chose good and Angra Mainyu (a/k/a Ahriman),
is evil. (Later, the Avestas fold up the two AMs into one concept,
creating a more literal dualism.)

The juggler is Hermon ben Lillith. The Gra identifies Hermon with
Ahriman. Literal events involving AZ???

Back to what I wrote on Mon, 15 May 2006 20:28:25 -0400:
: I would have thought the idiom is therefore asur, in that Catholics
: seem to see the world poised as a battle between their god and the
: devil. Wouldn't this make the devil a demigod, an AZ?

If we acknowledge the role of Zoroastrianism in how the Notzrim devolved
away from our beliefs, then the Notzri deity for good is identifiable as
an adaptation of SM, and the origin of "the devil" seems pretty obvious.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Virtually every shul will wait on the first night of Shavuous to daven
Maariv after Tza'as HaKochovim. Many may be surprised to learn that
this was not the practice in the Ashkenazic world in the time of the
Rishonim. Also, it was not the practice of some Achronim.

The selections at
<http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/maariv_on_shavuous.pdf> are taken
from the sefer Sheirushei Minhag Ashkenaz, volume 4, by Rabbi Benyamin
Shlomo Hamburger. Anyone interested in going back to the old-time
religion and having an early minyan this Thursday evening?

Chag Sameach!
Yitzchok Levine 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:30:21 -0400 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> Nor how your pasuq proves the role of havdalah in qedushah. It could
> simply show that qedushah carries an issur negi'ah.

Not in the context of that pasuk. But there are many pesukim that use
the shoresh KDSh as related to zenus; those discussing Yehuda and Tamar
are a starting point.

> The pasuq prohibing tevel (Vayiqra 33:15) is "velo yechalelu es qodshei
> BY..."
> Implied is either that
> the qedushah is bestowed by HQBH, and only gathered up by man,
> or
> One can be mechalel qedushah that doesn't yet exist by preventing its
> manifestation.
> The first possibility is problematic in either RGD's or my ta'am
> hamitzvah for qedushah. But it's smoother peshat in the pasuq IMHO.

Despite your m"m, I looked up the pasuk <g> and found the following in
the Ramban there:

He quotes this pasuk as the source for the isur of tevel, as you say,
expressing it as "ba'asidin litrom hakasuv medaber"

Sounds to me like it has nothing to do with kedusha of tevel, but is a
ribui hakasuv as stated.

A little later in the same piece he says:
    Because the derasha depends on the "asid litrom", "shehamuram hu
    hanikra kodesh, lo hatevel.

 From this he says, the hava amina is that tevel is NOT chayav bechomesh,
so the next pasuk vehisiu osam avon ashma is marbeh tevel for a chomesh.
He is quite clear that the kedusha is not intrinsic to the tevel and is
only due to its future state of kedusha.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On May 26, 2006, I wrote:
>> On May 25, 2006, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The "acquaintance" mentioned in the letter is probably REED.

> It is. 

I was asked off-list to provide evidence supporting my claim above
and I can't (other than hearsay) so I'd like to modify the above
statement. Based on my discussions with Lubavitcher acquaintances and
based on my exposure to Rav Dessler's writings on Tzimtzum, I am pretty
sure it was him but I do not know for historical certainty. Which is
probably how RZS reached his conclusion too so basically, all I did was
repeat his post. Sorry for the presumptuous display.

Simcha Coffer  

[This blog entry seems relevent to current discussion. -mi]

At some point in the past (I do not remember in regard to which post),
I had the following exchange:

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
To: [name deleted]
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:20:14 -0500
>At 11:45 AM 3/30/2005, you wrote:

>Hello-

>On your blog you [that's me- YGB] wrote:
>> Tzimtzum thus is the result - the void - which occurs after Hashem removed
>> His presence from the conscious dimension of existence (could be that
>> we speak about Tzimtzum with the tzaddi preceding the mem because we do
>> not, C"V, which to imply that Hashem truly extracted His presence from
>> the Beriyah, but rather that our perception is that that is the case.

> Is this a way of saying tzimtzum aino kipshuto? If that is what you
> meant to say then why write C"V as if to imply that tzimtzum kipshuto
> is somehow a heretical belief? (I would hope that is not what you meant.)
> [name deleted]

To which I responded:

I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto. To which
my correspondent just responded:

but see:
<http://www.afn.org/~afn19926/dvar.htm>

It is indeed worth looking there - note that the assertion that Misnagdim
held of tzitmtzum k'peshuto is not sourced. I continue to maintain
(along with Rav Dessler) that there is no such opinion.

The Torah uses the phrase bikkurim with respect to Korban Haomer, Korban
Shtei Halechem and the first fruits.

The first fruits are brought from Svuot to Succot. It is a machkloket
Rashi & Tosafot whether the first fruits are brought on shevuot itself
or only the next day.

Rashi in several places that Shvuot is Chag Habikkurim because of the
Shtei Halechem.
However this could equally well be applied to the 16th of Nissan.
Why is Shevuot designated as chag Habikkurim when the Omer is brought
earlier and the first fruits are brought beginning the next day and only
the shtei halechem occurs on shvuot itself.

 --
Eli Turkel

> But I do distinctly remember him saying that if Avraham Avinu was
> not metsuvah to wear tsitsis, how could he wear them on Shabbos without
> transgressing hots'ah? So he either did wear tstsis, not keeping Shabbos,
> or didn't, not keeping the mitzvah of tsitsis.

If he wasn't metsuvah in tzitzis then he wasn't metsuvah in hots'ah.

When Yaakov did the whole event with the sheep he was fulfilling the
mitzvah of tefillin. How? Every mitzvah manipulates certain kochos and
birurim above. He understood that he could accomplish the same effects
that we accomplish with the black boxes, by manipulating the sheep,
and thus he fulfilled the essence of the mitzah.

I've seen this in sifrei Chassidus and Sod but don't remember
where. However R. Aryeh Kaplan discusses this approach in The Inner Light.

cbk 

Thu, 25 May 2006 from: "Lisa Liel" <lisa@starways.net> wrote:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:21:19 -0400, "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote: 
>> Rav Avigdor Miller zt""l explained that the avos did literally 
>> keep the mitzvos; but since, unlike us, they were not metsuvah...

RLL:
> ...it's not reasonable to take the midrash of the Avot keeping the
> actual mitzvot of the Torah literally. It really isn't.

> R' Avigdor Miller makes it extremely clear that his history books are 
> didactic history. 

This was not from Rav Miller's sefarim, but from a live shiur.

I can understand that one might consider this Chazal in the category
of non-literal, even if it's not in the realm of contra-Scripture, or
physically or theologically impossible. I think it comes down to how
one was taught, and what sefarim one was exposed to.

My experience indicates that the rishonim and acharonim did take the
maamer literally in its basic sense. (For instance, the Ramban, who
restricts the Avos' keeping of the mitzvos to when they were in Eretz
Yisroel, to answer how Yaakov could have married two sisters.) It turns
out that Rav Miller's explanation comes from the sefer Nefesh HaChaim
(end of Shaar Aleph, perek 21; and more explicitly, after Shaar Gimmel,
end of perek 7).

This approach (which Rav Miller actually depicts in less esoteric terms
than the Nefesh HaChaim, who speaks in terms of the Avos somethimes
doing things against the mitzvos for the sake of "tikun olomos") limits
the literalness of the Chazal by saying, as R. Micha Berger put it, that
actually the Avos could not have kept all the mitzvos in all places at
all times.

Rav Miller, as RSC wrote, strove to keep things rational, and even
sometimes dismissed with a wave of the hand (the literal meaning of)
Midrashic statements that he considered contradictory to reason and/or
Scripture (such as the idea that galus Mitzrayim was a punishment for
Yosef's brothers selling him).

Rav Miller's additional quandary about Avraham Avinu wearing tsitsis on
Shabbos was precisely meant to illustrate that the Chazal must be limited
somehow, although some posters have seemed to find ways to answer it to
support a literal take.

[Email #2. -mi]

My experience indicates that the rishonim and acharonim did take the
maamer literally in its basic sense. (For instance, the Ramban, who
restricts the Avos' keeping of the mitzvos to when they were in Eretz
Yisroel, to answer how Yaakov could have married two sisters.)

On the other hand, the Rambam in his Hakdama L'Payrush HaMIshnayos
("Hakdama L'Seder Zeraim") in his long piece about the Aggada "Ain
L'Hakadosh Baruch Hu B'Olomo Ella Dalet Amos shel Halacha" (he doesn't
have the girsa, "since the Destruction of the Bes HaMIkdash") asks
rhetorically: "And in the time of Shem and Eiver [who were in the time
of Avraham] and afterwards, when there was no halacha, would we be able
to say that HKBH had no part in this world at all?!"

I guess one can argue this either way, based on why the Rambam chose
to speak of the time of "Shem V'Eiver," and not of "Avraham;" and what
precisely he meant by "and afterwards."

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]