Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 073

Tuesday, June 20 2006

• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Reading the Rambam (was Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto))
• Random thoughts on tatoos
• RE: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Marcus Aurelius and Rebbe
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• Re: Random thoughts on tatoos
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila

Here's another long post explaining something I obviously did not
explain adequately, to wit, the distinction between a "ground" and an
"instantiation".

Hazal say that God gave Mrs. Hanina ben Dosa the golden leg of her
paradisical table to sell so she wouldn't be poor. When she realized that
if she sold it her table in paradise would be wobbly she gave it back.
Hazal also say that R. Shimon b. Yohai showed his students a valley full
of golden coins and told them they could take as many as they wanted in
exchange for their Olam haba.

Both of these describe schar as what economists call "fungible": you can
get your schar in Olam hazeh or in Olam haba but not both. A little
thought reveals, however, that they say something more, that is, that
the schar in Olam hazeh is not the same thing as the schar in Olam haba.
It functions the same way, but it instantiates itself differently:
as a table leg in Olam haba, or as a commodity in Olam hazeh.

There's a similar thought in the midrash about the angels not wanting
Moshe to get the Torah. Moshe asked them what they wanted with laws
about theft and adultery. The midrash doesn't answer explicitly, but
the implicit answer is that Torah instantiates itself differently in
our world and the world of the angels.

That's what I mean by an instantiation. What's a ground? The Rambam says
that Avraham Avinu deduced that God exists because the galgal eternally
(tamid) conserves its angular momentum (AZ I:3, cf. YhT I:4). As I
explained in a previous post (citing MN I:71) this is an ad hominem
argument, since according to the Rambam God created the galgal with
its angular momentum, so it is not really eternally conserved. It did,
however, induce Avraham to believe that God created the world, after which
he no longer needed it. In other words, it was no longer instantiated
in Avraham Avinu's later life.

Here's a mashal hedyot. Long ago my friends had a premature daughter.
A hundred years before that she would not have survived, but they kept
her in a glass cage for a few months and now she's indistinguishable
from someone born at term. The glass cage was a ground of her existence,
but it's not instantiated in her current life.

I wrote:
> Tzimtzum is the
> ground for permitting differentiated existence. RSC seems to claim that
> it has an instantiation at each level of existence.

Now this doesn't precisely parallel my examples, since if tzimtzum ever
got undone everything contingent would disappear (see the commentary
on Petah #16 in KLH Pithei Hochmah). I was referring to the negative
sense that there is no instantiation of tsimtsum in each world.

How do I know that? I wrote:

> RSC seems to claim that it has an instantiation at each level of
> existence <snip> but I'm skeptical, if only because tzimtzum is never
> mentioned explicitly in the Zohar.

What I left inplicit is the observation that later kabbalists were willing
to elaborate on deeper ideas than earlier kabbalists. Why was the Ari
the first to discuss tzimtzum at length? If it has an instantiation
at each level, as RSC claims, there's no reason for the Zohar not to
discuss a lower instantiation of tzimtzum at length. If, however, it
is the ground for primordial existence, and not instantiated lower down,
that would explain why it doesn't appear explicitly in the Zohar.

Here is  RSC's summary of his position:
> OTOH, Tzimtzum as a process of he'elem is far more profound because
> it applies to *all* of Havaya, even the kutzo shel yud.

Here is his evidence:
> Here is a partial  translation (mine) of Heichalos Adam Kadmon, Heichal
> Aleph, Anaph Beis, Oss Dalet.

> "Know, that before the emanations were emanated and the creatures were
> created, the Simple Supernal Light filled all of existence not leaving any
> open space in the sense of empty space and a vaccum; rather, all was
> entirely occupied by the Simple Light of the Infinite One. There was no
> aspect of "beginning" and no aspect of "end" rather everything was solely
> the Simple Light, perfectly equal [in occupation throughout all of
> existence] and this is what is referred to as the Light of the Infinite.

> And 'when' it arose in His simple Will to create the worlds, to emanate 
> the
> emanations, to cause to materialize the completeness of His works, His 
> names
> etc. behold then, He was mitzamtzem etc."

> This sounds to me like the Arizal understood the process of Tzimtzum as a
> retraction of the OES to create a chalal for *all* of existence. If RDR
> interprets differently, so be it.

It doesn't support his contention.

David Riceman 

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:59:29PM -0400, Moshe Shulman wrote:
:>NO dimensions? Isn't that just a negation?

: No. It is an acknowledgement that ruchniyos has neither length, breadth
: or height.

Which is a negative attribute or three. An attribute of G-d which asserts
what G-d isn't.

That's all philosophers allow for attributes of G-d Himself.

:>BTW, in and of itself, this is poorly phrased. A photon has zero rest
:>mass. A niggun doesn't have zero weight; discussing its weight is
:>meaningless. Zero dimensional is a point in a mathematical space (which
:>could be real space or not) that has a size of 0 -- not spacelessness.

: I would have used i-space, but that could give one the error that there
: could be a comparison to R, like the complex plane compares to the
: Real plane.

Still doesn't work. True negative attributes is not that He has length,
breadth and width of zero, but that Hashem is beyond the entire concept,
that speaking of His volume isn't meaningful. Like speaking of the mass
of a niggun in non-metaphoric terms. It's not of zero mass, it's outside
the entire topic of inertia, momentum and weight.

Similarly, Ein Sof could be taken to mean He is infinite, or that there
isn't even any feature of which to speak about His being infinite,
finite or zero in.

The Rambam's notion of negative attributes is the latter. Omnipotence
really means a total lack of impotence, there is nothing He can't do.
Not an infinitude of power. The Rambam neither believed in completed
infinities nor in such attributes.

IOW, the Rambam's (as one typical philosophical rishon) is far more
careful in not assigning G-d attributes than you seem to be ascribing
him, and certainly more than your phrasing (not commenting on intent)
of "zero dimensions".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>>> As far as looking for an earlier source, since the Arizal was the first
>>> documented marah d'shmatsah, he is the source.

>> Aren't you the one who told me that Massecheth Atziluth was written at
>> the time of King David?

>One and the same. Looks like RDR has me here. The only thing I can say is
>that Maseches Atzilus just makes a vague, one line reference to Tzimtzum,
>nothing like the Arizal's description. BTY, the reference in MA is to the Or
>Ein Sof, not Atzmus, another shining example of the fact that it is
>impossible to say that gedolim like the Gra and R' Chaim understood any
>differently (the preceding has nothing to do with the current discussion...I
>just felt like throwing it in)

I am not familiar with a sefer called 'Meseches Atzilus'. I know of a 
sefer Lemudei Atzilus What is it?

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

This is a long and boring post, which merely repeats things I wrote
before (apparently not clearly enough). It has almost nothing to do with
tzimztum kipshuto, and only a bit to do with Ikkarei HaEmunah. I hope to
write a second clarifying post more closely related to tzimtzum kipshuto.

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> I consider RDR's #1 inexplicable. Unfortunately,
> I see no possible way of continuing our dialogue in this sugya as I am now
> entirely unclear regarding my opponent's position.

Two introductory points:

1. Ad hominem argument means two different things:

a. An argument against a person rather than against a position. This is
a well known fallacy.

b. An argument against an opponent's unaccepted position, e.g., "I hold X
which clearly implies Z. But you, who hold Y, ought also to concede Z,
since Y implies Z." This is a legitimate form of argument well known
to us from the Holy Babylonian Talmud as well as other sources.

The Rambam uses this second type of ad hominem argument several times in
his philosophical writings. RSC misunderstood ad hominem arguments of
this second type, both those made by me and those attributed by me to
the Rambam. In this email I will henceforth use "ad hominem argument"
only in the second sense.

2. One of the classic problems of religious philosophy, going back at
least to Philo, is "the problem of attributes". That is, what do we
mean when we (or the Bible) assign descriptions to God. One opinion,
rejected by the Rambam, is that of "essential attributes". People who
believed in essential attributes thought that attributes of God describe
something about God's essence. The Rambam held that this belief is false,
but need not be heretical if it is kept within bounds. Several passages
in the MN are ad hominem arguments against excesses related to the
doctrine of essential attributes.

Aristotle's position (as understood by the Rambam) is that the world's
existence is a necessary consequence of God's existence. Since the
world is not simple it follows that for Aristotle necessary existence and
simplicity are different. I claim that the Rambam disagrees with this and
holds that only God is simple and only God is necessarily existent and
that the two properties are consequences of each other. RSC disagrees
and holds that the Rambam held that simplicity and necessary existence
are independent properties, though both apply only to God.

I wrote:
> RSC argues that, nonetheless, the Rambam accepts Aristotle's position
> that necessity is independent of simplicity. I, however, don't think
> this could be the case. After all, if God is simple and necessary and
> these two properties are distinct, then He has two properties and is
> not simple.

RSC responded:
> RDR claims that I improperly argue that the Rambam accepts Aristotle's
> position that necessity (#1) is independent of simplicity (#2) but this
> is not due to my personal reading of the Rambam. AFAIC, it's obvious. In
> 1:1-4 the Rambam says nothing about simplicity. He speaks only about
> independence and concludes with the pasuk Hashem Elokim Emes. Many
> halachos later, he delineates the idea of simplicity (2:9-10) and
> concludes with his famous "He is the knower, He is the known and He
> is the Knowledge". He brings no pesukim to back his conclusions there
> and claims that this idea of simplicity is impossible to comprehend and
> almost impossible even to express. OTOH, when it comes to independence,
> he makes no such claim and in fact, 1:2-3 makes it clear that the Rambam
> felt that the doctrine of independence is clearly understandable.

I responded with two arguments that RSC thought contradicted each other.
On the one hand, I cited MN II:1 where the Rambam uses arguments from
simplicity much like the one I used above. This implies that my argument
was legitimate, since to the extent that use of a doctrine in argument
implies its comprehensibility, the Rambam also held it is comprehensible.

On the other hand I cited MN I:56-57 that both simplicity and necessary
existence are incomprehensible. RSC failed to notice that MN I:56
is an ad hominem argument directed against people who believed in
essential attributes, and that MN I:57 argues that, in fact, necessity
and simplicity are the same property.

I also argued that RSC made an ill founded diyyuk since the Rambam himself
wrote (MN I:71), and the Abarbanel confirmed, that his arguments for the
necessary existence of God were ad hominem, directed against people who
believed the world is eternal. I failed to add that, as a consequence
of that (see the proof above), those same people must believe (like RSC)
that necessity and simplicity are independent.

I hope this clears things up,
David Riceman 

In a post on usenet, this caught my eye:
> I have a friend who has recently had tattooed on both arms, inside the
> elbow, right where an IV would go in, an image of a caduceus, ringed
> with great big text "ALLERGIC TO IODINE AND CONTRAST DYE".

> He's got it stamped all over his charts at the medical clinics he goes
> to, but the ****ing stupid ***kers at every single ****ing hospital
> seem to refuse to read charts, and he's come too close to death too
> many times on that issue.

> The most recent time, he was admitted while unconscious, the
> radiologist techs flipped thru his chart, somehow "didn't see" the
> allergy warning, and was literally seconds away from pumping him full
> of iodine based contrast dye when his friend came screaming into the
> room, after running down the hallway, and stopped them.

I am pretty confident that even if the friend were Jewish there would
be no halachic problem with this, since pikuach nefesh would override
the issur of ketovet kaaka. But I have a few questions:

1. Had he not had these actual experiences, or heard about them first
hand, would he be justified in getting the tattoo merely out of fear
that such things could happen? IOW, how certain must the danger be before
one is allowed to transgress a lav?

2. I've seen people with necklaces or bracelets warning about a
penicillin allergy. Presumably this person didn't feel that was enough,
and that a tattoo would be more likely to be noticed. Does that extra
security justify breaking a lav, or should we say that a bracelet would
be sufficient?

3. IIRC, the Rambam lists this issur under the category of AZ, because it
was a pagan practise. Does that make it "avizrayhu deAZ", and therefore
pikuach nefesh would not override it? Surely not, but why not?

4. If someone feels the need for such a tattoo, should he make sure sure
the tattooist is not Jewish? With doctors, we say go for the most skilled,
and pay no attention to whether he's Jewish; but here the skill of the
tattooist would not seem to be relevant to the pikuach nefesh aspect;
even if he did a poor job as far as the aesthetics go, so long as no
infection resulted the pikuach nefesh is just as effective. So perhaps
he is required to find davka a tattooist who eino metzuveh.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On June 19, 2006, Micha Berger writes:
> No, I'm saying that when RDR explains the Rambam's shitah, he gives an
> understanding that includes all of the Rambam's approaches. To do so,
> he points out how the Rambam here explicitly takes an "even if you were
> to believe" approach.

I would actually accept the above representation but that's not what RDR
said (without boring the olam with further quotes). If that's what he meant,
we can lay this thread to rest.

Simcha Coffer

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
 > I'm off to New York for a wedding shortly. No time for research. Bl'n 
 > in a week or two...hopefully. Meanwhile, perhaps some other kindly
 > souls on Avodah can come up with a ma'amar Chazal indicating that
 > "v'ess achicha ta'avod" was fulfilled with R and A.

My search found this idea written by R' Tzadoq haCohen. [Poqed Aqarim 
page 31]. R' Tzadoq writes (translation and paraphrase mine -jf) that 
the blessing of V'es Ahikha Ta'avod is fullfiled if/when Eisav merits 
the opportunity to be of servitude to Ya'aqov, as did Antoninus to 
Rabee, per the Gemara in Avodah Zara 10b.

Jacob Farkas

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:08:47AM -0400, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>:>The philosophers -- R' Saadia, the Rambam, R' Yosef Albo -- all have a
>:>negative theology, that all attributes that sound like we're attributing
>:>to Hashem are really statements of what He isn't (or of how his actions
>:>appear, or of our relationship to Him, etc... depending on the rishon).
>:>Specifically because they do NOT allow for the idea that Hashem really
>:>has attributes. See Moreh I:51-60.

>: They do allow in a negative sense. In Kabbalah Ayn Sof is like a black
>: box. We cannot really say anything about AS.

>The words "Ein Sof" themselves describe a negative attribute, or the
>negation of all attributes. For that matter, so is "We cannot really
>say anything about AS." As is your later comment:

As is a positive comment not a negative one. There are various reasons
why we use the term AS.

>: Obviously the idea of 'higher' and 'lower' is a difficult one in a
>: 0-dimensional context.

>NO dimensions? Isn't that just a negation?

No. It is an acknowledgement that ruchniyos has neither length, breadth
or height.

>BTW, in and of itself, this is poorly phrased. A photon has zero rest
>mass. A niggun doesn't have zero weight; discussing its weight is
>meaningless. Zero dimensional is a point in a mathematical space (which
>could be real space or not) that has a size of 0 -- not spacelessness.

I would have used i-space, but that could give one the error that there
could be a comparison to R, like the complex plane compares to the
Real plane.

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

R' Ken Bloom wrote:
> Sha'ar HaKavanot Dav Nun -- Samech Ayin Dalet: brings the
> discussion about the 12 gates. Kesher Gadol Siman Yud-bet Ot
> Tet: discusses that the nusach of the sepharadim can ascend
> through all twelve gates.

I have no problem with that.

But does he say that ONLY the nusach of the sepharadim can ascend through
all twelve gates?

Does he say that the nusach of the ashkenazim can NOT ascend through
all twelve gates?

And if so, does he explain why?

Akiva Miller

R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> I have a friend who has recently had tattooed on both arms, inside the
>> elbow, right where an IV would go in, an image of a caduceus, ringed
>> with great big text "ALLERGIC TO IODINE AND CONTRAST DYE".
>> He's got it stamped all over his charts at the medical clinics he goes
>> to, but ...                             he's come too close to death too
>> many times on that issue.

> I am pretty confident that even if the friend were Jewish there would
> be no halachic problem with this, since pikuach nefesh would override
> the issur of ketovet kaaka. But I have a few questions:

> 1. Had he not had these actual experiences, or heard about them first
> hand, would he be justified in getting the tattoo merely out of fear
> that such things could happen? IOW, how certain must the danger be before
> one is allowed to transgress a lav?

WADR, this story has the makings of an urban myth. Hospital workers are
generally cautious about what they do to the patients, as malpractice
is big bucks. I doubt they would be so careless as to ignore someone's
history outright. Should we assume that health care providers are so
negligent as to ignore the guy's record, why not assume that they will
ignore the tattoo?

...
> 3. IIRC, the Rambam lists this issur under the category of AZ, because it
> was a pagan practise. Does that make it "avizrayhu deAZ", and therefore
> pikuach nefesh would not override it? Surely not, but why not?

Rambam in Mishnah Torah [Hilkhos AZ 12:11] mentions the Issur of K'soves
Qa'aqa. That very chapter also discusses removal of Peiyos haRosh and the
removal of Peiyos Hazaqan. The aforementioned Issurim are independent
of AZ, even though their intent was to create a distance from worship
of AZ, by forbidding practices that were common to worshipers and their
priests. Would payos fall under the category of Avizrayhu?

> 4. If someone feels the need for such a tattoo, should he make sure sure
> the tattooist is not Jewish? With doctors, we say go for the most skilled,
> and pay no attention to whether he's Jewish; but here the skill of the
> tattooist would not seem to be relevant to the pikuach nefesh aspect;
> even if he did a poor job as far as the aesthetics go, so long as no
> infection resulted the pikuach nefesh is just as effective. So perhaps
> he is required to find davka a tattooist who eino metzuveh.

According to Rambam [Hilkhos AZ 12:11] the Issur is for the writer of
K'soves Qa'aqa. Having one written on oneself is not included in the
Issur, unless the person assists in the process. Otherwise, there is no
ma'aseh. This is the case for beard and payos as well [Hilkhos AZ 12:1].
There is a mahloqes whether this workaround is specific to malqos, i.e.
that by being a "bystander" without assistance one is spared from the
punishment of malqos, but all the while this person still committed
a Lav [hasagas harabad, ibid]. Others are of the opinion that if no
Ma'aseh is done, then there is no transgression of the Lav. [See kessef
mishnah, ibid.] However, there still may be an issur (d'rabanan? -jf)
While this mahloqes is mentioned WRT payos, the Shakh [YD 180:2 sk 4]
mentions that with K'soves Qa'aqa the same logic would apply.

Jacob Farkas

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R' Ken Bloom wrote:
>> Sha'ar HaKavanot Dav Nun -- Samech Ayin Dalet: brings the
>> discussion about the 12 gates. Kesher Gadol Siman Yud-bet Ot
>> Tet: discusses that the nusach of the sepharadim can ascend
>> through all twelve gates.

> I have no problem with that.
> But does he say that ONLY the nusach of the sepharadim can ascend through
> all twelve gates?
> Does he say that the nusach of the ashkenazim can NOT ascend through
> all twelve gates?

And, of course, the Hatham Sofer asks why Cohanim and Leviim don't use
their own nusah.

David Riceman 

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


[ 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         ]