Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 11

Fri, 13 Oct 2006

• 1. Re: 12 Step Programs (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 2. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Chazarta Hashas (M Cohen)
• 4. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Schooling for women (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Yetzer HaRa channeled for good? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Chazarta Hashas (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Zev Sero)
• 9. [Fwd: Re: Rambam on corporality] (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. YK Selichos [Shacharis, Musaf, Minchah]? (RallisW@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Schooling for women (was 12 steps) (SBA)
• 12. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (SBA)
• 13. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (saul mashbaum)
• 14. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (saul mashbaum)

R' MB:
> Quote #2:
> :>> 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
> character
> :>> 7. Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings
> 
> To which I commented:
> :> It just smells Xian. Something about turning to a deity for salvation
> :> rather than one redeeming oneself. Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz meyir'as
> :> Shamayim. We could and should ask for Hashem's help... But to ask Him
> :> to do it for us?
> 
> RMYG:
> : Ayin Maharsha Berachos 10a, s.v. Chatai'im K'siv, who seems to say that
> : asking Hashem to return one's self in teshuvah is part of Ha'rotzeh
> L'Taher
> : M'sayin Oso. Ayin sham.
R' MB: 
> AISI, the Maharsha speaks of assistance -- "mesayin", not of "letting go
> and
> letting G-d".

I don't see it that way. I understand him as saying that one can ask Hashem
to return one's self in Teshuvah, and Hashem will consider that a legitimate
request, and help him (presumably including removing his shortcomings) under
the rubric of M'sayin Oso. I understand M'sayin Oso as excluding a complete
spiritual makeover with no effort on the supplicant's part (as I think you
do) in the context of your standard Bah L'taher, who is taking concrete
steps to Teshuvah and needs some assistance. I think that the Maharsha, when
he applies this Chazal to someone who isn't doing anything other than
Davening to Hashem to make him return in Teshuvah, does not mean to limit
this person to getting only assistance. If his prayers are answered, he will
get a full spiritual makeover, without doing any other instigation by
himself.   
 
> I find it interesting that I was not bothered by #1, but no.s 6 & 7 hit me
> the
> wrong way, but RYMG responded in the reverse. To return to what RMYG wrote
> on
> #1:
> > Don't we believe that a person can master his actions? And, if it's past
> > our nekudas habechirah, then aren't we not responsible?
> 
> The first question is simply another version what I asked on no.s 6 and 7.
> Li
> nireh it is one thing to say we lost control over something, and saying
> that
> we have no control over anything. After all, being addicted should
> definitionally mean that the person's nequdas habechirah is nowhere near
> the
> issue. That's why to me #1 is less problematic.

I had understood that step as saying we have no control. It sits much better
with me now that you explain it as saying we lost control.

> And why is someone not responsible for something past one's nequdas
> habechirah? Isn't he responsible for where the nequdah is? Does a ganef
> not
> have to stop his geneivah, even if it's a kind of theft that he was raised
> thinking "doen't really count" and "everyone does it"?

The backstory to this qhestion was from a JO from some years ago which had
an article (IIRC from R' Breuer) which I understood as saying that one is
not responsible for actions which are past one's Nekudas Habechirah. If my
memory is correct (always a debatable proposition!) then you are disagreeing
with him. Does anyone else remember this article? 

> (Although really lehefech: Isn't the point of shemiras hamitzvos to move
> the
> nequdah which in and of itself is the cause of sechar?)

This reminds me of a Kash'ye on the Mishna of Mitzvah Goreres Mitzvah. If
so, then one who does one mitzvah shouldn't get s'cher for the second, and
the reverse by Aveiros. Also, why doesn't this Mishna take away from our
Bechirah? The answer I remember getting is that someone said that Ein Hachi
Nami, everything goes back to the firast mitzvah and Aveirah that one does.
I remember being a bit dissatisfied, but it was said (IIRC) in the name of a
Rishon. Any thoughts?

KT and GM,
MYG

From : T613K@aol.com[mailto:T613K@aol.com]

R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
>>[The Sfer HaIkarrim writes:] "The Torah is called a 'testimony' ('aidus' --Ex. 25:21 and Ps. 132:12). This is to signify that the Torah must be understood by pashtus (the normal meaning of its words), just as the testimony of witnesses:..."<< 

RTK:
>> Nevertheless we do not translate "Etzba Elokim" or "Yad Hashem" literally. So it's not always so pashut what pashtus is.<<

ZL:
Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon gives a clear exposition of the parameters of "peshat" and when and how the conventional, primary meaning of a word can and may be abandoned:


From the Introduction to Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon's Full Commentary on the Torah:

"It is impossible to interpret the Torah without mastering the three pieces of information that bring loyal Jews (baalei emunah) to perfection in their performance (shleimus ha-avodah): the muskal, the kasuv, and the mekubal. I will now establish how to interpret the Torah and the other prophetic works.

"These three items are [also] the basis understanding Scripture [itself]. Now, in any language, every statement may contain words that tolerate a single meaning, and words that tolerate multiple meanings. The statements in the Torah, being written in one of the world's languages, are no exception. This being so, an obligation (chovah) rests upon anyone attempting to expound upon the Torah, to explain all its words according to their conventional/primary meaning (k'pashtan), as they square with the muskallos that preceded it and the mesorah that came after it, as words that have absolute meanings (k'millim sheh-hein baalos masma'os muchlatos). Any word whose attributed meaning contradicts one of these [two] factors unquestionably has another meaning.

"If I would further clarify this, I would add that it is proper for every person of understanding to always grasp the sefer Torah according to the peshat of the words that is mefursam [conventional/widely-known/familiar] among those who use that language, and [take the meaning that is] used more. For the goal of every written work is that its ideas be wholly grasped by those who hear it [read]. The only exception is if the chush (sensory perception) or the seichel contradicts that terminology, or if the peshat of that terminology clearly contradicts another verse, or contradicts the mesorah of the prophets. If one sees that letting the words retain their peshat meaning would lead to one of those four things I established [denial of muchash or muskal, denial of peshat of other pesukim, or denial of the mesoress], one is obligated to know that the statement in question is not meant kepashto, but has a word or words not meant to be true in all aspects. And [one is obligated to k
 now that
  when correctly interpreted, utilizing one of the several categories of figures of speech, the verse must agree with the muchash, the muskal, the pashtei hapesukim [i.e., of the other pesukim which can retain their pashut meaning without objection--ZL] and the mesoress."

RSG then brings examples to  illustrate the four factors, each of which is necessary to allow, and forces, one to relinquish the conventional/primary meaning of a word:

Eve described as the "mother of all life" in the conventional/primary sense contradicts the muchash, because the words would then imply that the lion, ox, donkey and all the other creatures are offspring of Eve. Therefore the word "life"must e modified to mean "human life."

"Hashem is a consuming fire" (Devarim 4:24) in the conventional/primary sense contradicts seichel.

In the conventional/primary sense, Hashem's saying that when giving maaser "you shall test me through this" (Devarim 6:16) contradicts the pesukim prohibiting testing Hashem.

In the conventional/primary sense, "Do not cook a kid goat in its mother's milk" implies that only cooking a kid goat in its own mother's milk is prohibitted, whereas the mesorah teaches us that we are probitted not only to cook, but also to eat, other animals, together with other milk. "This requires us to search the verse for some borrowed forms of words by which we can explain how the verse can match the mesoress.

---------------


 y to def
 ine it is the conventional.

RMB (and Rav David Gottleib) have already pointed out that the rishonim would not regard archeological-type "proofs" of what existed in the past to be the "muskal" RSG and others refer to, and to be in fact inferior means for establishing the truth. They therefore would not relinquish the conventional meaning of words on such basis.

Zvi Lampel

See Teshuvos v'hanhagos (Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch) chelek alef, tshuva kuf vav
(that allows learning l'chatchila (if you answer amen at end of each brocha)
during CH if the rest of the minyan is not listening/answering properly to
CH anyways)


I personally always thought that the heter was based on the svara that if
you can't concentrate on the Chazarta Hashas anyways, it's better to learn
than yoshiev batel.

otoh, RMF's sevara of 'can't do since others may learn from you' w/ indicate
that even if you can't concentrate, yoshiev batel is preferable.


btw, I doubt that any posek is going to give a heter to learn during CH in
print, because of the great chalisha it w/ cause to CH



wrt to your question of why do we see people doing it and not being
corrected; either as above or nafsho chashka.. or mutav shyeheyu shogigin..

Mordechai Cohen

Micha Berger wrote:

> It depends which order one has the Ushpizin in. I know of three: Yoseif
> at the end, in spherotic order

In this order, Yosef, representing Yesod, is sixth, not last.


> Yoseif after Yaaqov, historical order; and
> Shelomo instead of Yoseif, at the end

This is the only set in which David is not last, and therefore could
be the "lead ushpiza" at a sheva brachot.  Though I'm not sure why he
could only bench on his day as leader; they all come every day, don't
they?


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

As an example of shaas hadchak, I wrote:
> Perhaps schooling for women might be in this category.

R"n Shoshana Boublil responded:
> I must say that this has always bothered me. The idea that
> teaching women Yiddishkeit in an organized way is only b/c
> of "sha'at had'chak". Even more so, after learning the
> G'mara that in the time of Chizkiya, when they checked,
> they couldn't find a "Tinok o Tinoket" who didn't know all
> Torah SheBe'al Peh including Tohorot. ... So, when did the
> Jewish nation take on the surrounding non-Jewish influence
> that led to keeping women (mostly) ignorant? ... If Hashem
> created the world and everything in it, and He gave the
> Torah, why the fear of women learning Torah that exists
> even today?

I never looked at it that way, and men's reliance on their wives for 
many halachos (kashrus, nida, etc.) proves that the women *did* learn 
what they needed.

The difference was in the manner or style of the learning. Men (who 
seem to be typified as outgoing) learn in a public setting - a shiur, 
a classroom, etc. Women (who seem to be typified as inward) learn one-
on-one. This setup (in my understanding) lasted for many thousands of 
years, until women stopped being the homebodies that they had been 
previously, and they needed the more public sort of schooling to 
compete with the other influences that they began to encounter.

I suspect that the perception shared by R"n Boublil and many others 
may have been caused by the unfortunate delay between the cause and 
the effect. Outside forces had been subtly creeping up on us for a 
very long time, and by the time we realized it, and implemented a 
women's school system to solve it, a whole generation (or more?) of 
women had missed out.

No one thought that having unlearned women was a good idea. But the 
leadership was caught by surprise, and did not realize how much 
learning the new generation of women was missing out on. The 
leadership had (and still has) a wise resistance to new ideas, but 
because of how long it took them to figure out a proper response, the 
public mistakenly interpreted their cautiousness as an endorsement of 
the status quo, that the ignorant women would remain so.

Akiva Miller

On Tue, October 10, 2006 2:55 pm, Ken Bloom wrote:
: That too, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise about the language of
: Yetzer HaRa here. But AIUI, it's a general principle applying to
: whatever part of the yetzer hara. When avodah zara was removed, so was
: nevuah, when arayot were removed, so was the good that comes with it.

: But R' Shlomo Argamon mentioned to me that he thought that yetzer
: harah was something that could be channeled for good, that the term
: Yetzer HaRa corresponded to the animalistic soul, and it was something
: that was meant to be channeled for good (as opposed to something meant
: to be conquered). So when the yetzer hara for arayot was removed,
: that meant it could no longer be channeled for good either.

I just cited RSSchwab on the siddur, on "vekhof es yitreinu" that the YhT
could be used for ill, so why not?

Chazal comment on "bekhol levavekha" -- "bishnei yitzrekha" (kayadua from
Rashi). There are two ways a person can take that:

1- That the YhR can be channeled for good, and thus one can love Hashem bekhol
levavekha.

2- That overcoming the YhR is a good thing, and thereby one can love Hashem
using their YhR. This is the only way I can understand "uvekhol me'odekha". It
doesn't mean my property and other resources love Him. I don't know if in some
kabbalistic way my lawn mower does, but I do not think that's peshat. Rather,
the pasuq is "You shall love Hashem using [not "with"!] your whole heart, your
whole life-soul and all your resources."

IOW, does the departure of the YhR for AZ cause the departure of nevu'ah, or
does the end of the battle against the YhR end man's ability to reach nevu'ah?

I'm inclined toward the former when thinking about Shema, but the latter in
understanding the medrash.

In Igeres haMussar, the YhR, which is also called simply the "yeitzer" is
associated with impulsivity and pleasure gratification, and the word "seichel"
seems to be used interchangably with YhT. More like animal pleasure principle
vs human mind - tzelem E-lokim.

And if the YhR were an inclination toward evil, that would mean that man
inherently knows good and evil, regardless of upbringing -- they are different
structures in his psyche. So then, what's the excuse of a tinoq shenishba?

Last, grammatically, "yeitzer hara" is not "yotzeir ra". It is described as a
"form-maker which is evil" not "that which makes evil forms".

This seems to indicate that whatever it's an inclination for, the YhR isn't a
mechanism pushing man to evil qua evil. And thus, there is certainly room to
say that at times it can be harnessed productively.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:49:48 -0600 M Cohen <mcohen@touchlogic.com> 
wrote:
>I personally always thought that the heter was based on the svara 
>that if you can't concentrate on the Chazarta Hashas anyways, it's 
better 
>to learn than yoshiev batel.
>
>otoh, RMF's sevara of 'can't do since others may learn from you' 
>w/ indicate that even if you can't concentrate, yoshiev batel is 
preferable.

One could, in principle, satisfy both shitas by doing mental 
chazara.  I am assuming here that l'chatchila you should be 
listening with k'vannah, not thinking about other things.  
Although, from the fragment of RMF's t'shuva here it is possible he 
might hold that one could do mental chazara in any case if there is 
still a minyan answering amen.  (OTOH, if everyone held by such a 
psak, how would one determine whether there is a minyan with 
k'vanah on the chazaras haShats?!?)

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Zvi Lampel wrote, quoting R Saadia Gaon:
 
> In the conventional/primary sense, Hashem's saying that when
> giving maaser "you shall test me through this" (Devarim 6:16)
> contradicts the pesukim prohibiting testing Hashem.

"Uvchanuni na bazot" is not Devarim 6:16, it's Malachi 3:10.
Devarim 6:16 is "lo tenasun et Hashem".

RSG seems to say that the contradiction must be resolved by
reinterpreting the pasuk in Malachi, so that it doesn't really
allow testing Hashem.  I was taught the exact opposite, that
this is an exception to the rule, and one is allowed to test
Hashem in this particular case.  

Both Malachi and his audience were familiar with the pasuk in
Devarim, as are we, and nevertheless Hashem told him to call
on his audience to test Him, and this was written ledorot,
so the contradiction is resolved in favour of the latter.
Although it's only "divrei kabbalah", and can't contradict
"divrei torah", we find a similar exception in the Torah itself,
in parshat Behar, where Hashem promises that if we keep shemita
and yovel, He will make the harvest of the 49th year last for
3 years instead of one.



-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R' David Riceman wrote:
>
> 
> And it is that problem that the Rambam responds to with the idea of 
> progressive education.  Why teach premises which could lead the unwary 
> to heretical conclusions? Because they are the fastest way to even 
> more important true conclusions.
>
At this point I don't see that we are disagreeing except for one issue. 
You don't see anything wrong with having a Divine program (Torah) which 
typically results in the masses having heretical beliefs from which they 
must be given progressive education. I find it very problematic.

Daniel Eidensohn

I don't know if this subject been brought up before, first of all, why even  
in the "frumest" shuls are Selichos not recited during Shacharis, Musaf, and  
Mincha, and second of all, why are they not printed in most Machzorim? 
 
According to Rabbiner Benjomin S. Homburger Shlitoh of the Mochon Moreshes  
Ashkenaz, one of the iqorim of YK is the recitation of Selichos. He said it's  
not so simple that one should daven in a shul which does not recite them.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061012/60326310/attachment.htm

<toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>I must say that this has always bothered me. The idea that
>teaching women Yiddishkeit in an organized way is only b/c of
>"sha'at had'chak".
>
>Even more so, after learning the G'mara that in the time of
>Chizkiya, when they checked, they couldn't find a "Tinok o
>Tinoket" who didn't know all Torah SheBe'al Peh including Tohorot.
>>

The sefer Chassidim explains that dinim that apply to females may - and 
indeed
must - be taught to them. And as taharos was part of everyone's daily life
in those days, even girls had to know the halachos.

The issur of 'ke'ilu melamdo tiflus' refers to 'omek talmud vetaamei 
mitzvos'.

Anyone wishing to understand this sugya, should have a look in the
3rd part of VM - Maamar Loshon Hakodesh - especially chapters 41-43.

SBA 

From: Micha Berger <>
It depends which order one has the Ushpizin in. I know of three: Yoseif at
the end, in spherotic order; Yoseif after Yaaqov, historical order; and
Shelomo instead of Yoseif, at the end, in both historical and spherotic
order 
>>

The Gerrer rebbe Rav Simcha Bunim Alter ,
AKA the Lev Simcha, used to say that it is his ushpizin EVERY night...
"Zman Simchoseinu"...

SBA

RABlum:

>>
 Dovid Hamelech in this case is the only one who couldn't take a
 brocho. His is the last day, so since the wedding was before YT, SB
 are over.
>>
All the ushpizin are considered "present" on all nights of succot. 

Furthermore, I believe that there is a "heichei timtza" in which there could be sheva brachot on Hoshana Rabba. I believe that if a wedding takes place in the late afternoon, but the seuda and sheva brachot are at night, the sheva brachot start from the night. Thus, if a couple were married erev Succot, but the wedding meal was leil Succot, their sheva brachot end on the seventh day of Succot, Hoshana Rabba.

Chag Sameach.

Saul Mashbaum

RABlum:
>
 Dovid Hamelech in this case is the only one who couldn't take a
 brocho. His is the last day, so since the wedding was before YT, SB
 are over.
>>

RMBerger:
>>
It depends which order one has the Ushpizin in. I know of three: Yoseif at
the end, in spherotic order; Yoseif after Yaaqov, historical order; and
Shelomo instead of Yoseif, at the end, in both historical and spherotic
order.
>>

I believe that RMB is mistaken about the position of Yosef, according to the first order cited. Yosef is sixth, corresponding to yesod; David Hamelech is seventh, corresponding to malchut. 

In addition, the psukim after each of the hoshanot on Hashana Rabba (today) correspond to the sfirot, in order. Furthermore, there are t'chinot after each of the hakafot of Simchat Torah which mention the seven biblical characters who make up the Ushpizin, in the order of the sfirot.

Chag Sameach

Saul Mashbaum

 




------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."