Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 87

Thu, 26 Apr 2007

• 1. Re: Judaism abhors extremism, as tempting as it may be (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: When do the malachim come (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: When do the malachim come (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Judaism abhors extremism, as tempting as it may be (Doron Beckerman)
• 5. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Why so many details of tzora'as in the Torah? (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Doron Beckerman)
• 9. general bewilderment (David Riceman)
• 10. Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Ilana Sober)
• 11. Re: Religious Zionism, Between Rav Kook and Rav Soloveitchik - by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Director of Zomet Institute (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Self-awareness as a Middah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Why so many details of tzora'as in the Torah? (Micha Berger)

I am befuddled by Prof. Levine's posting from the Chazon 
Ish. "Extremism" is neither a virtue nor a vice, much like a gun or a 
knife, or, for that matter, a pen or an antibiotic. It all depends on 
what you use it for.

If one is talking about Shmiras Hamitzvos, for example, is there any 
among us who would advocate moderation? I sure hope not. But for 
SPECIFIC mitzvos in SPECIFIC situations, we are indeed told "Al t'hi 
tzadik harbeh" - that one must be on the lookout for situations where 
mitzvos might conflict, and be careful how those conflicts are 
resolved. But always, one must always be an extremist to do (or at 
least, to try to do, or to want to do) the Ratzon HaShem.

Akiva Miller

 
 
RMB wrote:
 
>>The machloqes seems to me to be whether Dodi is the Shechinah,  and
Kallah is the neshamah yeseirah, or the other way around.  <<
 
>>>>>
I've always understood Dodi in this song to refer  to your fellow Jew, each 
saying to the other, "Come, let us greet the  Shabbos."  
 
And I've always understood "the kallah" (=the Shabbas queen) to be  either a 
metaphor/personification of the Shabbos for poetic purposes, or the  angel in 
charge of Shabbos, the way the Sar shel Esav, say, is the angel in  charge of 
Esav.
 

--Toby  Katz
=============





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070424/d3bf0fc8/attachment.html 

RMB wrote:
> The only thing I would add is that since the Mequballei Tzedas often
> said Qabbalas Shabbos in the woods, which door would they face then?

The notion that the mequbalim would go to the woods seems to be an urban 
legend. When I visited Tzefat two years ago I found out that apparently, the 
field that the Ari would go to was a plot of land - within the city walls 
IIRC - that had been purchased to build a synagogue, but no funds had been 
available for the actual building project.

I would appreciate confirmation/contradiction of this comment.

Also, I doubt the interpretation of Lekhah Dodi as being about the bond of the 
Shekkhinah with the neshamah yeteirah (unless I don't understand the latter). 
AFAIK, the kallah is the Shekhinah and the Dod the sefirah of Tiferet. The 
whole ritual is about bringing about a zivug, as can be attested by the 
content of Kegavna, an excerpt of the Zohar, which Nussach Sefard included in 
Qabbalat Shabbat. More details on zivugim can be gleaned from Shut Rav 
Pe'alim part I, O"C 1.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

R' Daniel Israel requests:

> Not having access to the sefer, it would clarify a lot if someone
could post what the original Hebrew is that is being translated as
"extremism."  Also what is the hebrew for "Just as simplicity and
truth are synonymous"? <

The Hebrew for extremism is "Kitzoniut".

The Hebrew for "Just as..." is: "K'Sheim SheHaPashtut V'HaEmet Hem Shemot
Nirdafot".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070424/62568d0c/attachment-0001.htm 

> On Thu, April 19, 2007 5:38 pm, R Doron Beckerman wrote:
> : Let us take a hypothetical of an 18 year old of average-ish
> : intelligence who seriously learns Torah B'Taharah, decent Hasmadah,
> : with no Parnassah concerns, and with no aspirations of 
> becoming a Rabbi.
> 
> : This person could be a great medic if he would train, but 
> he does not : want to give up the time needed for that course because
he wants to
> : continue learning for  the foreseeable future.
> ...
> : By age 40 or so, he'll be a Baki in a good few Massechtos, and he'll
> : have a good knowledge of Halachah, but he has no Rabbinical 
> skills. There are people aged 25 in Yeshivos who know far more than he
does.
> 
> : Has this person fulfilled his mission in life from a TuM 
> perspective?
> 
> I think the only problem from a TuM perspective is that he 
> had no justification for defying the Rambam's ban on living 
> off one's learning.
> 

I don't think you are right here - that is a Torah u'parnessa
perspective, not a TUM perspective.

Rather it is a disagreement about the nature of people and their
purpose.

Look, let me give an extreme example.  My computer is (at least when
attached to the Bar Ilan CD) Baki in all of Shas, Rishonim, Achronim,
teshuvas, what have you - at least if you know how to ask the right
questions.  But "knowing" Shas/Rishonim/Achronim in the fashion of my
computer does not fulfil a person's mission in life.  There needs to be
more than that.  Torah and mitzvos needs to be integrated into a
person's life.  One clear way of doing this  is if a person is going on
to be a Rav, he will be applying the Torah he has learnt to assist
others (and that requires developing his understanding).  Same is true
if he goes on to be a Rosh Yeshiva or teacher.  But if he sits in his
ivory tower of a yeshiva and learns b'Hasmada, how ultimately does he
differ from my computer (except that my computer does it better)?  The
answer that I think everybody would give is that it is not just having a
photographic memory that is important, but it is that something extra
that human beings are capable of adding called understanding that can,
if done properly, make this learning valuable.  Now, and this is where
TUM differs, a TUM perspective believes that this thing called
understanding is better achieved by interacting with the world at large,
and not just with Torah only.  It is closely linked to the confrontation
idea that you were articulating in a previous post.  While I tend to
agree that it cannot be  clearly seen from RYBS's article with that
title, it is a pervasive idea within the TUM world.  That is, people are
required not just to be like computers, but to develop an understanding
of the world and their place in it, through the lens of Torah, and that
to do that, they need to interact with the outside world and its ideas
and realities.  One way of doing that is work in practice in the real
world, and nothing is more real than working as a doctor.  Another way,
if one's skills do not lie in that area (to be a good medic one needs
all sorts of skills, a steady hand to be a surgeon etc that a particular
person may not have) but they do lie in the mind, is to study and
compare and contrast other forms of learning (philosophy, science,
history, geography) in order to gain a clearer understanding of Torah
that is not just a form of computer regurgitation.  From a TUM
perspective, the same level of understanding just cannot be achieved by
remaining in an ivory tower yeshiva setting for one's entire life, and
hence by doing so this fellow has just not fulfilled his mission in
life, which is to develop his understanding to the utmost extent
possible, no matter how hard he works at learning b'hasmadah and how
many mesechtos he is Baki in.

Regards 

Chana

R' Dov Kay asked:
<Why does the Torah shebichsav spend so much time spelling out the details
of tzora'as relative to other, more practically relevant areas of halacha
<(eg hilchos Shabbos)?

We can ask this about many things. For example the Torah describes in
excruciating detail the design of the mishkan and then repeats it for
the building of the mishkan. Considering that the whole mishkan is not
even l'doros there is a tremendous amount of the Torah Shebkisav
devoted to it. On the other hand take a mitzva we do every day,
tefillin, the Torah devotes basically 1 pasuk to it giving us no
details at all of what tefillin should be, look like, etc. These are
just 2 examples, there are many more. I would be interested to know if
any of the mefarshim had a principle explaining why certain mitzvos
the Torah goes into detail and why some not.

 
  From a TUM perspective, the same level of understanding just cannot be
achieved by remaining in an ivory tower yeshiva setting for one's entire
life, and hence by doing so this fellow has just not fulfilled his
mission in life, which is to develop his understanding to the utmost
extent possible, no matter how hard he works at learning b'hasmadah and
how many mesechtos he is Baki in.

Regards 

Chana

_______________________________________________
Well said but might I add that LA"D that there's an extension that one's
hishtadlut in olam hazeh (be it employment as a Dr. or a plumber;
efforts to feed the poor) informs on his learning in a way that
leverages it as well (or else why don't we all strive for ben azzai's
celibacy). Imho this is true on a philosophical basis (e.g. the flip
side of Rabbi P Paretzky zt"l admonishment to his talmidim - I can't
believe HKB"H will allow a better result in life to one who cuts shiur
to study for finals) and on a practical level (ruba dleta kamman vs. ita
to one who studies probability theory, sociology etc.)
Of course finding the proper balance is a big port of this "mission in
life" and does not lend itself to pat answers.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

>I think the only problem from a TuM perspective is that he had no
justification for defying the Rambam's ban on living off one's
learning.<

I was not aware that this Rambam still had adherents in any practical sense,
after the words of the Chofetz Chaim (Biur Halachah 231, and Shem Olam,
Shaar Hachzakas HaTorah Perek 11) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (YD II:116 -
especially harsh critique of this approach) on this matter. While I am aware
that these Poskim are not necessarily paragons of Tu"M, I find it surprising
that on a matter of such critical importance, the two most influential
Poskim in post WWII Jewry (though the Mishnah Berurah was written before,
the influence of that Sefer was, I think, primarily post WWII) are ignored
to the point of Tu"M considering their arguments null and void to the point
of "no justification".



R' Micha writes:
> "I'm reminded of the story (urban legend) of R' Chaim Brisker bemoaning
the fact that Einstein didn't go into learning. However, one wonders
how differently WWII would have ended had relativity been discovered a
couple of decades later, and the US didn't get the bomb.

In theory it's easy to say the world would have been better off with
more learning. In practice, it's hard to see how this would be true in
Einstein's case. (Or Szilard, Teller, Simon or Curti, noted Jewish
members of the Manhattan Project.)"<

The whole thing is a bit counter-intuitive. When the Chofetz Chaim expresses
this idea (in Toras HaBayis 5) he says that if we would be asked, we would
say that Hatzalas Nefashos is more valuable, but the Torah tells us
otherwise.


This enters the realm of the unknowable - upon whom would the Korei HaDoros
MeRosh have bestowed the Chochmah of relativity had we had Chiddushe HaGR"A
Einstein Al Shas V'Shulchan Aruch. Or if that would have been how the war
ended.

R' Micha adds:

>The question as phrased is for the A-lmighty's accountant. Our
question is what to choose to do; not the value of a choice once made.
If the person's neti'os are to learn, then he has the most important
quality for learning -- cheisheq. (Not, as implied, intelligence or
memory.)<

I would agree, but it would seem that the choice one makes should depend on
the values of the options out there, and we have guidance that the Talmud
Torah choice is superior to all others, and this was the guidance given to
the Gaon by his father.

My relating to intelligence and memory was by way of questioning what was
meant by excellence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070425/02149c82/attachment-0001.html 

I've been puzzling over three recent threads, and I thought I'd stuff them 
all into one post.

1.  Someone suggested that the poskim of 100 years ago just knew that 
electricity was assur on Shabbos without knowing why.  I would have thought 
that this is contrary to the halachic process as described, e.g., by Rabbi 
Feinstein in the introduction to his responsa, where he says that it's the 
arguments, not the conclusions, which are of primary importance.

2.  Someone cited Rabbi Karelitz about the benefits of extremism.  This is, 
of course, a mahloketh between the Rambam and R. Haim Vital, but I'm 
surprised that no one observed that it requires a great deal more subtlety 
and wisdom to be a successful extremist than to be a successful moderate 
(except, of course, in extreme times).  What was the date of the letter, and 
to whom was it written?

3.  I've never read Rabbi Lamm's book defining Torah UMadda, but I had the 
impression that the fundamental question was whether science and humanities 
had more than instrumental value (IIRC many years ago Rabbi Clark cited 
Rabbi Lichtenstein on this list arguing the affirmative).  The discussants 
here seem to presume that the answer is no, and instead are arguing whether 
Torah has more than instrumental value.

David Riceman 

RMB: I'm reminded of the story (urban legend) of R' Chaim Brisker bemoaning
the fact that Einstein didn't go into learning. However, one wonders
how differently WWII would have ended had relativity been discovered a
couple of decades later, and the US didn't get the bomb.

I am wondering if this is a fair question. Can't we say - harbeh shlichim
lamakom - if the US hadn't gotten the bomb, HKBH would have engineered the
end of the war differently. Perhaps, in an alternate history, the Allies
would have won without killing so many Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree with the basic premise that many Jews who did not go into learning
have made great contributions in other fields - whether to humanity in
general or on a smaller scale to their own patients, clients, students, etc.

- Ilana

On Sun, April 22, 2007 4:41 pm, Rt Shoshana L. Boublil forwarded from
Machon Zomet a devar Torah by R' Yisrael Rozen:
: There can be no doubt that the two approaches are not the same! It is
: written, "Chabakuk came and put them all on a single basis" [Makkot
: 24a]. We will also use a single unified basis for the approaches of
: the two rabbis towards Eretz Yisrael. As far as Rav Kook is concerned,
: this is "the start of the redemption," while for Rav Soloveitchik it
: is "a missed opportunity."

RYBS doesn't say the opportunity was missed. Rather, an opportunity we
must make sure not to miss.

Also interesting would be to compare these two to the non-messianic
forms of RZ held by R' Reines and by ROYosef. I believe all three
non-messianic RZs are distinct, but I do not know enough of these two
rabbanim's thought to know how.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, April 23, 2007 10:06 am, R Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
:   Is emotional or psychological self-awareness (and I would also
: include being in touch with one's emotional/feelings/etc.) considered
: a good middah to be acquired like humility, faith, not being angry,
: jealous, resentful, or envious, etc.?

:   Or could it be considered like a preparation, a hechsher for working
: on a middah, like a hechsher mitzvah?

I think it's more of a hechsher mitzvah.

To my mind, middos are "measures" of dei'os, and self-awareness isn't
a dei'ah. But it would be a matter of terminology -- how broad does
one define the term dei'ah?

FWIW, Alei Shur II has ve'adim on Hislamdus which discusses just this
-- self-awareness and later, being able to compare what you see around
you with what you see of yourself. Taking lessons from watching your
own behavior, and from watching what happens to you (including what
you learn). We have a copy on line at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/as/translations/as_mp05.pdf>
and a rough translation by myself for members of a va'ad who couldn't
follow the Hebrew at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/as/translations/as.shtml#mp05>

But perhaps the easiest way to become more self-aware is keeping a
cheshbon hanefesh. It is good practice. Although my son still catches
me being overly abrupt with people without noticing. So perhaps one
should think twice before taking my recommendations.

Self-awareness is certainly connected certain dei'os -- someone who
lacks menuchas hanefesh is too caught up in the emotion to analyze it.

:   Or, as a third option, it could be seen a valuable in making a
: person into a better or happier person.  And with self-awareness,
: one can better be an ovaid hashem.  (But is this just another way
: of saying a hechsher middah?)

I would think your third option is simply a category that includes
both of the former possibilities (middos or hechsher).

...
:   On the other hand, I have met people who lack self-awareness, but
: this has not stopped them from working on their middos, and being very
: good people.

I am sure it greatly hindered. It's very hard to whittle a piece of
wood when blindfolded.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, April 23, 2007 12:09 pm, R Dov Kay wrote:
: Tazria-Metzora always raise at least 2 questions in my mind:
: 1  Why does the Torah shebichsav spend so much time spelling out the
: details of tzora'as relative to other, more practically relevant
: areas of halacha (eg hilchos Shabbos)?...

To quote the Alei Shur just mentioned in my previous post:
> We can see what this hislamdus is in all the books of his Yad
> haChazakah. For example, someone who learns Tractate Nega'im in
> depth, and he toils at it and in the decisions of the Rambam in the
> Laws of Nega'im in great detail -- when he reaches the conclusion
> of the laws in the Rambam he will find there ideas burning with
> flames of fire on the prohibition of lashon hara -- and it is a
> though the blinds where torn from his eyes and he is compelled to
> realize that the entire tractate in truth deals with the book
> Chafeitz Chaim and the laws of malicious speech! And this student
> will be devastated, how he, with all his development of the
> tractate, didn't sense that he was busy with the severity of the
> law of lashon hara. And is it not an explicit verse in the Torah:
> "Watch the affliction of tzora'as to guard well and do etc....
> Remember what Hashem did to Miriam on the way as you left Mitzrayim"
> -- Rashi: "If you want to be careful not to be afflicted with
> tzora'as, don't utter lashon hara. Remember what was done to Miriam,
> who spoke about her brother and was afflicted." (Ki Tetzei, shishi)
> And it's good for someone who learned this, for he learned Tractate
> Nega'im, but without hislamdus...

It would seem the Torah wants us to spend a lot of time thinking about
the enormity of LH. (Or ga'avah, or any of the other chata'im
associated with tzora'as.)

: 2  When did tzora'as cease to be prevalent? ..

Today we have psychosomatic illness -- they aren't imaginary, but the
origin of the physical issue is an emotional one. High blood pressure
is often an example. Psychosomatic skin disorders are more common
among Holocaust survivors shlit"a.

I think of tzora'as as a spiritusomatic illness. But in order for such
a thing to happen someone would have to be sufficiently unified in guf
and neshamah for one to be able to impact another.

If speaking LH doesn't stress mind or soul, how would either (*)
influence the body.

*) Tangent: I do not believe that mind and soul are distinct things;
rather the mind is something the soul does, a facility referred to by
the label "ruach".

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 87
**************************************

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..."