Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 060

Thursday, June 1 2006

• RE: source for stmnt attributed to Rav Herzog z"l
• Re: Doctor's fees
• Re: source for stmnt attributed to Rav Herzog z"l
• How to find people - Haftoro of Naso
• Tikkun Leil Shavuot
• Haftorah
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto

Pinchus Klahr asked:
> Anyone know a source for a statement attributed to Rav Herzog z"l,
> to the effect that "we <have a mesorah that klal yisrael will NEVER be
> driven out of Eretz Yisrael a third time" ?

RHS has made a similar statement (see his essays about the Medina in
his sefer) based on the Ramban al Hatorah. The Rambam writes that the
tochacha in Bechuksai refers to the Galus of Bayis Rishon and the tochacha
in Ki Savo refers to the Galus of Rome (Bayis Sheni). The tochacha in Ki
Savo ends with geula. We see from here that there will only be 2 exiles
and after the end of the second exile the Geula will come.

RTK
> If the doctor is not Jewish and gives discounts to Jews but not to
> non-Jews, then he is guilty of religious discrimination. However if
> the doctor /is/ Jewish and gives discounts to Jews, well, hey, we're
> all family, right? Remember Yisrael Saba, our Zeida Yakov?

and RZS
> Huh? I don't understand this at all. Since when are non-Jews family?
> Are you talking about a doctor who is a ger?

>> Otherwise, it is religious discrimination and that is subject to
>> legal action.

RZS
> Since when is it anyone's business what someone charges for his services,
> or what discounts he chooses to give?

1. Both Jews and nonJews (ze sefer toldot adam) are family (and according
to sefer breshit the difference is at most 10 generations....).

2. I am not a lawyer. However, I don't think that the government
would view anyone treating Jews differently from non Jews as treating
family rather than the general population - but would view it (and in
my view, appropriately) as discrimination. That is different than your
third cousin....

3. RZS lives in Australia. In the US, it is illegal to charge someone
differently based on a number of criteria, such as race, gender, religion,
national origin - so it is the government's business. As most patients
come in with insurance, and the insurance company knows what you charged
them, there is a database.

[RZS doesn't live in Australia, although he once did. -mi]

I would add that for most insurance companies, it is illegal for the
physician to refuse the copay (that is, if it is an HMO with a $10 copay,
one is not allowed to refuse it. If it is a percentage (eg, physician
bills 400, insurance says reasonable charge is 300, and will pay 80%
(240), the physician may accept only 300, but he is not allowed to take
only 240 and refuse the copay - because then the insurance company
will claim that the bill was for 240, and they should have paid 80%
of 240..... (people have been sued..) Therefore, what you charge is
really their business. (this is something new over the last 15 years -
before billing insurance only was widely done)

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 03:13:08AM -0500, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Pinchus Klahr asked:
: >Anyone know a source for a statement attributed to Rav Herzog z"l,
: >to the effect that "we <have a mesorah that klal yisrael will NEVER be
: >driven out of Eretz Yisrael a third time" ?

: RHS has made a similar statement (see his essays about the Medina in
: his sefer) based on the Ramban al Hatorah...

I know R' Herzog said it, but I didn't reply until now because I lack
a primary source. The notes of R' Amital's comments when Yitzchaq Rabin
was killed <http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rya1-rab.htm> include RYA
citing RYH as saying this to reassure the yishuv during Rommel's approach.

Second, toward the end of his life, my grandfather made a similar
first-hand comment to me. Back then, my grandfather wanted to stay
in Palestine, given RYH's reassurances. My grandmother was convinced
otherwise by her parents, and they fled to the US. (My grandfather did
return, but not until 3 decades later.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

I'm inspired by something mentioned "incidentally" in the Haftoro this
Shabbos.

When Zalalfunis [1] informs Manoach that a holy man gave her instructions
regarding Shimshon's upcoming birth, Manoach wants to talk to the fellow.

How does he go about finding somebody whose name he doesn't even know?

"Manoach prayed to Hashem: Please Hashem, let the holy man you sent
visit us again"

He [apparently] didn't even try ask around to see if anybody knew him.

Amazing! When is the last time it occurred to you to say a kapitel
Tehillim [as your first choice] when you wanted to meet somebody?

- Danny

[1] צללפונית - BB 91a, as per Lemichse Atik by R' Chaim Kanievsky

Source Material on adoption available at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/adopt2.pdf> 

KT
Joel Rich

I have a question which came up this past Shabbos. Usually, the haftorah
always follows the theme of the Maftir. On Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh, we
read a special maftir which is followed by the Haftorah as found in the
theme of the Maftir. Yet on three Shabosim there is no special Maftir,
and yet we read a special Haftorah. These are 1) Like this past Shabbos,
Haftorah of Mochor Chodesh, 2) Shabbas Shuvah and 3) Shabbos Hagodol. The
question that was raised is why are these three Haftorot different from
the others?

Here is the answer as I see it. If you analyze the pattern you find that
the special maftir only applies to an actual holiday. All the Regalim
and Chanukah are holidays; hence, there is a special maftir when it
coincides with Shabbos. Machar Chodesh, Shabbos Shuvah, and Shabbas
HaGodol are secondary to something else. Machar Chodesh is secondary to
Rosh Chodesh, Shabbos Shuvah is secondary to the Y"N and Shabbos HaGodol
is secondary to Pesach. Hence, since they are still important, they
have their own Haftarot. Nevertheless, since they are still secondary,
there is no special Maftir. You could say the same regarding Shabbos
Chazon and Nachamu (which is secondary to Tisha B'Av).

Now I will ask (and answer) another question along these lines. Why did
the Sages decide on a special Haftara for Erev Rosh Chodesh? No other
"erev" gets a special reading when the holiday specifically falls
on a Sunday. (The operative word is "specifically"). The special
haftarot above are done irrespective when the holiday falls. Whereas
Machar Chodesh has a special haftorah ONLY when Rosh Chodesh falls on
Sunday. For instance if Shavuos falls on a Sunday, there is no special
"Erev Shavuos" Haftorah. If Pesach falls on a Sunday, there is no "Erev
Pesach" Haftorah. (Of course, there is the Shabbos HaGadol Haftorah,
but that is done always the Shabbos before Pesach regardless of what
day Pesach begins. Regarding Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Succos, this
wouldn't apply, since they can never begin on a Sunday. Why then is
Erev Rosh Chodesh the only "Erev" occurring on Shabbos (specifically)
that has a special Haftorah?

Though there is no definitive answer, the best answer I've seen is perhaps
it is because Rosh Chodesh is so understated and often ignored. This
became a way — in addition to Rosh Chodesh benching — to say: Hear ye,
hear ye, tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh. It seems that the connection is mainly
in the opening words.

Rabbi Jacobs points out in his "A Haftara Companion" that there are some
lessons we learn from this passage in the Navi, and the knowledge makes
us more aware of the special nature and sanctity of Rosh Chodesh. We
see that Rosh Chodesh was celebrated with a special meal which was to be
eaten in a state of ritual purity. Many have the custom today of marking
Rosh Chodesh with a special meal.

The Haftara also serves as a source of the minhag of abstaining or
reducing one's work on Rosh Chodesh. Rabbi Jacobs refers to a deeper
connection between Rosh Chodesh and the Jewish People (which might explain
why we take the extra opportunities to highlight Rosh Chodesh). The
cycle of the Moon alludes to Jewish History. For 15 days (or so) the Moon
increases in brightness and fullness, corresponding to the 15 generations
from Avraham Avinu to Shlomo HaMelech. This is followed by 15 days of
decline, matching the 15 generations from Shlomo to the destruction of
the Beit HaMikdash and the Babylonian exile. But this is followed by
MACHAR CHODESH. Tomorrow will see the brightening of the Moon and the
fate of the People of Israel. The cycle continues until the Complete
Redemption, when the Moon (and Klal Yisrael) will be completely restored.

Chag Shavuos sameach.
Richard Wolberg

On May 30, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. To
>>explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is heretical
>>no less than saying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by anything
>>else. "Leis machashavah tefeesah bei klal" means that nothing *at all*
>>can be said about the essence of the Boreh (we refer to Him as Boreh
>>as pertains to his kesher to our world as Creator...
>>                         The only reason RYGB qualified his words is
>>because Rishonim like the Ra'avad toned down the Rambam's condemnation
>>of one who corporealizes Hashem but essentially RYGB is correct regarding
>>the crux of the matter.

...
> I wish to make few comments which reveal a tefach and hid a thousand
> tefachim. First, the first thing that the Ari does in Eitz Chaim is
> ask a few questions. Unless one understands what the questions are
> one cannot understand the answer. Second, Tzimtzum is a mashal, the
> question is about the nimshal. Third atzmus is not a divar gashmi,
> chas v'shalom. To imagine that is kafirah.

Perhaps you should have hidden all 1001 of your tefachim. I never
implied that tzimtum was not a mashal or that Atzmus is a davar gashmi
chs'v. You missed my point entirely. The point is that *just as* saying
that Hashem has a guf is heretical, saying that tzimtum applies to his
Atzmus is equally heretical although obviously timtzum is not a physical
process. The common denominator between them is a form of limitation of
the Ein sof. As far as my comment re the Ra'avad, I was merely saying
that the Ra'avads shita is that one who corporealizes Hashem (obviously
more egregious than saying that tzimtzum occurred in Atzmus) due to
mistaken notions in the pesukim is not considered a technical heretic
and thus the same line of reasoning can be applied to one who makes
the more subtle error of applying tzimtzum to Atzmuso Yisbarach. This
perhaps is why RYGB used the term "almost" heretical.

By the way, the saying R' Chaim Vital uses about his Rebbi is "migaleh
tefach, michaseh alpayim amah" not a thousand tefachim.

> I would like to state that unless you have learned seforim like Shomer
> Emunim HaKadmon, Shefah Tal and others like which explain the yesodus
> AND had a Rebbe who instructed you, it is best to refrain from discussion
> of subjects that were not meant to be discussed openly.

It is best to refrain from speaking about them in public regardless but
the olam has decided to do so and apparently you seem to be jumping
in too. If you feel the olam is erring by discussing this subject,
I suggest you take it up with the moderator.

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 30, 2006, Mark Levin wrote:
> I would suggest approaching the concept of literal tsimtsum with
> the thought experimental of an infinite hotel. Imagine a hotel with
> an infinite number of rooms and all of them are occupied. 10 guests
> arrive. To make splace, the proprietor asks everyone to move up by 10
> rooms so as to evacuate 10 rooms for the new guests. These 10 rooms
> are certainly real and yet a aprt of teh infinite hotel. This shows us
> that it is possible to isolate a finite set from an infinite set without
> detracting from the infinite in any fashion. F.e any set of numbers is
> a part of the infinity of numbers but nonetheless finite and independent.

Actually, the Chovos haLevavos (shaar haYichud) disagrees with you. He
maintains that anytime you can add to something or subtract from it,
it does not have the true qualities of infinity. Thus, when we say
that Hashem is infinite, it is not like your hotel because since I can
close down ten rooms, I can add ten rooms. And if I can add ten rooms,
than the number of rooms it had before the addition could not be a truly
infinite number of rooms. Thus, says the CL, the definition of infinity
when it comes to the Boreh is...'indivisibility'. Thus, nothing can be
detracted from Hashem and therefore nothing can be added to Him.

Simcha Coffer

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:08:19PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: On May 30, 2006, [R Meir] Levin wrote:
:> I would suggest approaching the concept of literal tsimtsum with
:> the thought experimental of an infinite hotel. Imagine a hotel with
:> an infinite number of rooms and all of them are occupied. 10 guests
:> arrive. To make splace, the proprietor asks everyone to move up by 10
:> rooms so as to evacuate 10 rooms for the new guests...

: Actually, the Chovos haLevavos (shaar haYichud) disagrees with you. He
: maintains that anytime you can add to something or subtract from it,
: it does not have the true qualities of infinity...

It's provable that one can map 1:1 the set of integers to the set
of even integers. After all, for any even integer y, there is an
integer x = y/2, and for every integer x, there is an even integer
y=2x. So, the number of integers and the number of even integers
is the same, they have the same cadinality. Even though for any
finite range, there are only half as many evens as integers. See
<http://www.answers.com/topic/transfinite-number#Encyclopedia> (from
the Columbia on-line encyclopedia).

So I'm wondering... How is this even a topic for debate? It's like finding
a rishon who argues that pi must be exactly three. It's demonstrably
false.

Rather, I think the question is whether the ChL is actually speaking of
the concept of inifity, rather than G-d as Absolute, including Absolute
Unity. After all, Absolute Unity precludes having parts, even infinite
ones.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

On 6/1/06, S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On May 30, 2006, Mark Levin wrote:
>> I would suggest approaching the concept of literal tsimtsum with
>> the thought experimental of an infinite hotel. Imagine a hotel with
>> an infinite number of rooms and all of them are occupied. 10 guests
>> arrive. To make splace, the proprietor asks everyone to move up by 10...

> Actually, the Chovos haLevavos (shaar haYichud) disagrees with you. He
> maintains that anytime you can add to something or subtract from it,
> it does not have the true qualities of infinity. Thus, when we say
> that Hashem is infinite, it is not like your hotel because since I can
> close down ten rooms, I can add ten rooms. And if I can add ten rooms,
> than the number of rooms it had before the addition could not be a truly
> infinite number of rooms...

The infinite hotel was only a mashal. I'm sure RML didn't intend to
imply that Hashem is infinite only in so far as the set of integers is
infinite. IMHO limiting Ein Sof to Aleph-null would be as much kefira
as limiting it to 17, vd"l

On May 31, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> It's provable that one can map 1:1 the set of integers to the set
> of even integers. After all, for any even integer y, there is an
> integer x = y/2, and for every integer x, there is an even integer
> y=2x. So, the number of integers and the number of even integers
> is the same, they have the same cadinality. Even though for any
> finite range, there are only half as many evens as integers. See
> <http://www.answers.com/topic/transfinite-number#Encyclopedia> (from
> the Columbia on-line encyclopedia).

> So I'm wondering... How is this even a topic for debate? 

It's not. That's precisely my point. The concept of infinity as
applied to mathematics is not the concept of infinity as applied to the
Creator. Thus, the mashal from the hotel is invalid because in the case
of the hotel, a room can be removed as opposed, li'havdil, to Hashem
where nothing can be removed (indivisibility). Consequently, it doesn't
work as a mashal of how tzimtzum kipshuto can exist and yet apply to
Atzmuso chs'v. I'm not sure where I went wrong in my original explanation.

> Rather, I think the question is whether the ChL is actually speaking of
> the concept of inifity, rather than G-d as Absolute, including Absolute
> Unity. After all, Absolute Unity precludes having parts, even infinite
> ones.

I would agree with this presentation except to say that the CL *does*
say that he is defining the true (i.e. essential) concept of infinity
which is why I qualified it as such.

Simcha Coffer

At 11:08 PM 5/31/2006, S & R Coffer wrote:
>On May 30, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> I have avoided any discussion of the subject as I feel that it is
>> inappropriate to discuss Kaballah on the Internet. However since the
>> person made the above comment and at best it is a sign of ignorance,
>> I wish to make few comments which reveal a tefach and hid a thousand
>> tefachim. First, the first thing that the Ari does in Eitz Chaim is
>> ask a few questions. Unless one understands what the questions are
>> one cannot understand the answer. Second, Tzimtzum is a mashal, the
>> question is about the nimshal. Third atzmus is not a divar gashmi,
>> chas v'shalom. To imagine that is kafirah.

>Perhaps you should have hidden all 1001 of your tefachim. I never implied

Possibly, but since some were accusing certain Kabbalists of being kofrim,
I thought it important to state a few things. Also I notice that many
posters are just saying things that they have no real understanding
of. They seem to be scanning seforim, and coming to conclusions that
if they had read and understood they would see were the opposite of
the truth. (I think some of what has been said about the leshem is a
good example.)

>that tzimtum was not a mashal or that Atzmus is a davar gashmi chs'v. You
>missed my point entirely. The point is that *just as* saying that Hashem has
>a guf is heretical, saying that tzimtum applies to his Atzmus is equally
>heretical although obviously timtzum is not a physical process. The common

Tzimtzum itself is a mashal.

>denominator between them is a form of limitation of the Ein sof. As far as

I think that depends one whether you understand what the nimshal is or not.

>my comment re the Ra'avad, I was merely saying that the Ra'avads shita is
>that one who corporealizes Hashem (obviously more egregious than saying that
>tzimtzum occurred in Atzmus) due to mistaken notions in the pesukim is not
>considered a technical heretic and thus the same line of reasoning can be
>applied to one who makes the more subtle error of  applying tzimtzum to
>Atzmuso Yisbarach. This perhaps is why RYGB used the term "almost"
>heretical.

The Raavad is clearly dealing with an issue that has nothing to do with
the issue here, and is a much more serious problem.

I have read much of this discussion from Chabad sources on tzimtzum
k'peshito and I think it is really more confusing of the issues then
clarifying. After all the Ari discusses tzimtzum in a two dimensional
world (BTW the RMK in Pardes has it as three dimensional.) I think the
less said about this the better, it is only confusing people. The main
issue is to understand that HaShem is beyond any physicality, and that
his Hashgochah permeates this physical world.

>> I would like to state that unless you have learned seforim like Shomer
>> Emunim HaKadmon, Shefah Tal and others like which explain the yesodus
>> AND had a Rebbe who instructed you, it is best to refrain from discussion
>> of subjects that were not meant to be discussed openly.

>It is best to refrain from speaking about them in public regardless but the
>olam has decided to do so and apparently you seem to be jumping in too. If
>you feel the olam is erring by discussing this subject, I suggest you take
>it up with the moderator.

Well if the moderator is reading this, then he should take it as a
suggestion.

[I am, but since rabbanim with knowledge greater than mine are
participating, I presumed an answer. -mi]

 --------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

On June 1, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> Perhaps you should have hidden all 1001 of your tefachim. I never implied

> Possibly, but since some were accusing certain Kabbalists of being kofrim, I
> thought it important to state a few things.

You're talking in riddles. You need to be more clear about what
bothers you. And if you choose not to discuss it in public, than you
should avoid making any comment at all. In any case, I didn't call any
kabbalists kofrim.

> Also I notice that many posters are just saying things that they have
> no real understanding of. They seem to be scanning seforim, and coming
> to conclusions that if they had read and understood they would see were
> the opposite of the truth. (I think some of what has been said about
> the leshem is a good example.)

Riddles my friend, riddles. Two views were stated. One was R' Daniel
Eidensohn's that the Leshem feels tzimtzum is a reference to Hashem's
essence and R' Y.G. Bechhofer that it refers to his emanations (Or). Which
one do you find problematic and why?

>> that tzimtum was not a mashal or that Atzmus is a davar gashmi chs'v.  You
>> missed my point entirely. The point is that *just as* saying that Hashem has
>> a guf is heretical, saying that tzimtum applies to his Atzmus is equally
>> heretical although obviously timtzum is not a physical process. The common

> Tzimtzum itself is a mashal.

So? What's your point?

>> denominator between them is a form of limitation of the Ein sof. As far
> as

> I think that depends one whether you understand what the nimshal is or
> not.

You think incorrectly. All of the musagim in kisvei Arizal are a mashal
as is well known but the infrastructure of the mashal is understood
to perfectly express the reality of the nimshal in a form that can be
grasped by our minds. If the mashal is problematic, it is not an accurate
description, on a human level, of the reality of the nimshal. No one
can relate to the reality of Atzmus nor can anyone fully relate to the
reality of Or Ein Sof as it is beyond our frame of reference but that
doesn't stop the kabbalists from discussing the issue on the level of
the mashal. All of the baalei shita I have seen (The Arizal, the Mishnas
Chassidim, The Shomer Emunim, R' Yaakov Emden, R' Yonasan Eibishitz,
The Gra, the Tanya, R' Chaim Volozhiner, Rav Dessler and the LR) all
discuss tzimtzum on the level of the mashal. There is no other way to
discuss kabbalistic concepts.

My bottom line point is if one wishes to apply tzimtzum, or any concept or
process whatsoever to the Boreh, it is automatically a form of limitation.
The reason is because any process or concept we can possibly conceive
is born of a limited mind and thus the concept is also limited. Saying
that it is only a mashal is meaningless because any nimshal, even the
most far-removed and spiritual one, is also a form of limitation of
Hashem. Any concept that any beriah, even the highest Malach or Saraf
can conceive of is a form of limitation of Atzmus Ein Sof. The truth is,
although we think of Hashem as spiritual, this only refers to the level
of Shechina, that is, Or Ein Sof. In reality, Hashem is entirely removed
from any concept at all, even the most highly refined spirituality. You
simplky cannot say anything about Him at all, whether biderech mashal
or nimshal. This is a fundamental point of kabbalah and is indispensable
in its proper explication. This is why I feel that the Gra and R' Chaim
could never have been referring to AES as the LR claims they were.

>> my comment re the Ra'avad, I was merely saying that the Ra'avads shita is
>> that one who corporealizes Hashem (obviously more egregious than saying that
>> tzimtzum occurred in Atzmus) due to mistaken notions in the pesukim is not
>> considered a technical heretic and thus the same line of reasoning can be
>> applied to one who makes the more subtle error of  applying tzimtzum to
>> Atzmuso Yisbarach. This perhaps is why RYGB used the term "almost"
>> heretical.

> The Raavad is clearly dealing with an issue that has nothing to do
> with the issue here, and is a much more serious problem.

I think I've explained the tzad haShaeva between them quite well. I'm
sorry you don't understand.

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         ]