Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 70

Thu, 22 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Mindfulness & Does Judaism Promote it (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 2. Re: Mindfulness & Does Judaism Promote it (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: "Watch Whom You Marry" (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Tum'at Yadayim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Yeshivat Shem Vaever (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Skeptics (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Borchu UVoruch Shemo between Borchu and Shmono Esreh (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Gentlemen and Ladies; Who Goes First? (Meir Rabi)

Responding to a number of points about Mindfulness made by various members.
   
  1) R. Wolpoe noted the "loud" tradition in Judaism.  Besides Chassidic dancing, a more appropriate metaphor is the Baal Shem and Shamanic tradition within Judaism.  (As a courtesy to a member who noted that I have a habit of not explaining references, I am certain that there is a Wikipedia entry on Shamanism.  However, Mircea Eliade wrote extensively about Shamanism as a cross-cultural phenomenon.)
   
  Moshe Rosman has written about the Baal Shem Tov as a shaman and Alan Brill has written about the Degel Machaneh Ephraim continuing this tradition.  It is not just about loudness.  It is about healing, coming into contact with death or the beyond or going to Heaven, losing you identity, etc.  
   
  However, this is very different from both meditation and mindfulness.
   
  2) R. Akiva Miller in quoted a defination of Mindfulness that includes a key work here: "non-judgmental".  Religious traditions that speak of Mindfulness speak of the ability to be fully present in the moment and non-judgmentally just perceive the moment unfolding around you.  I think that this can potentially contridict the viceral judgement that Judaism provides, whether by Halakhic definitions or the "right and wrong" "assur and muttar" that Judaism as it plays out in most Orthodox circles provides.  The idea that everything can be categorized and judged flies in the face of non-judgemental acceptance.  
   
  (I am not going to venture into Halakhic Man epistomology where everything is defined by Halakhic categories without acceptance for what it is.)
  
3) As R. Simon has, I believe, proven, Halakhic and practiced Judaism gives all of the tools that one needs to cultivate Mindfulness. However, many people are davka not Mindful.  Perhaps our Jewish cultures are they play out in the contemporary work specifically disencourage Mindfulness?
   
  Yonatan Kaganoff
   
   

       
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071121/ec061457/attachment-0001.htm 

To reiterate my own position, after having spent many hours talking to
JuBus (which admittedly is a very skewed sliced of Buddhism as a
whole).

Mindfulness is NOT a Jewish value. "Eizehu chakham, haro'eh es
hanolad" -- we don't want to encourage people being in this minute to
the exclusion of the consequences of what they're doing.

Buddhism inherently encourages "sheiv ve'al ta'aseh" (as RnSB put it)
because they look at the moment as a static thing, the here-and-now.
We view it as part of a flow into the future. (With its moments of
advance and of retreat and preparation, but always heading forward.)

They look at being, we look at becoming.

The Kotzker asked his Chassidim, "If you see two people on a ladder,
one on the fourth rung and one on the tenth, which is higher?? The
chassidim, probably knowing it was a leading question, answered the
obvious, "The one on the tenth rung." "No," the rebbe replied, "he
might be descending the ladder. It is the one who is climbing upward."

The Dalai Lama wouldn't ask you if you're ascending or descending, but
rather if you took the time to fully enjoy the view your rung uniquely
affords.

Life is an avodah. Plan, work, progress.

Buddhism asks its followers to focus on the matter at hand, and if you
do that, the future will be inherently taken care of. The Torah asks a
person to actively plan and work toward the future -- and therefore
you're not only thinking of this point in time and space, but
everywhere your action will ripple outward afterward.

When selling this to a Jew who still has emotional attachment to
Buddhism, I call it "Mindfulness 2.0" -- "be here now", but realize
how broad here and now are. Not because I believe we encourage or
value anything a Buddhist would consider Mindfulness but because I
think they are more willing to accept the idea if viewed as a
modification and enhancement rather than being brought as a stark
contrast.


To give credit where due, Rick Roberson, a Buddhist (non-Jewish) co
worker, helped me write this post. (He thinks my bias is blazing, but
the content accurate.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha


-- 
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 Wed, November 14, 2007 8:57 am, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: The difference is that marrying these two sisters was a necessary act.
: Rachel and Leah both understood how critical it was that they should
: both be mothers to klal Yisroel. HaShem *couldn't* protect Yaakov from
: this sin, because He too understood that it was necessary.

Who made it necessary? Everything from sexual reproduction to the need
for am an hanivchar to the dialectics involved that Rachel veLeah
embody to... are all on the table, things HQBH could have set up
differently Are you saying HQBH protects tzadiqim from sin, but not to
the extent of tailoring the necessary to avoid the need for sin?

Victor Frankl notes the value of every action inherent in the idea
that the entire universe is different because I chose to fill this
moment and place with this rather than that. Perhaps someone could
argue, Izhbitzer style (certainly NOT mine), that every cheit is
necessary.

On Wed, November 14, 2007 8:55 pm, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: From the above statement and many similar ones, we can conclude (like
: it or not) that in Judaism, the ends may very well justify the means.

I think it's fair to say that Judaism demands you assess all the
consequences of your actions, immediate and delayed, and weigh the
pros and cons.

"The ends justify the means" is an emotionally loaded concept. It got
that way because it was used to disparage people who value the ends
more because they are the ends, and therefore unfairly overlook all
the suffering caused along the way.

But the difference between ends and means is codified in halakhah.
Mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, in contrast to asei docheh lav -- ends do
not justify means.


Yaaqov avinu couldn't rely on areivus to justify the claim "vetaryag
mitzvos shamarti". There weren't that many people keeping kol haTorah
kulah for every mitzvah to come up. Shemirah, though, means taking
care not to violate -- thus the /sh-m-r/, the implication of
describing a lav, etc... Tehirus, not zerizus. Quite easy for issues
that don't come up.

AISI, Yaaqov had to choose his ben Noach duty to both sisters over his
"chumrah" of keeping mitzvos not yet given. Therefore, he was just as
much a shomer mitzvos as RGDubin is shomer shabbos when he takes a
Hatzalah call.

I think, BTW, this also relates to the signs Rachel shared with Leah.
Yaaqov had to take precautions to avoid the situation, as he should
take all efforts to avoid needing to break his shemiras hamitzvos.
From Rachel's perspective, the greater value was on Leah's happiness.
Thus, they had to come up with a sign, and it had to be Rachel, not
Yaaqov, who would destroy its effectiveness by sharing it.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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 Mon, November 19, 2007 11:08 am, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: From: Galsaba@aol.com
: <<Takanat Chachamim that Sefer Torah makes hands to be secondary
: Tumeah.Sefer Metamei Yadaim Lihyot Sheniyot.
:
: What about the Seffer Torah itself.
: Is it Tamei? or just Metamei?>>
:
: The difference being....?
:
: <<The Gemara (Berachos 22a) where R. Yehudah ben Beseira said, "The
: words of Torah do not receive Tum'ah". This is learned from Yirmiyahu
: 23:29 - "are not all my words like fire, said Hashem?". Just as fire
: does not receive Tum'ah, so too the words of Torah cannot become
: impure - also, the Beis Yosef OC 88 DH v'Aha.>>

: This is intended, both in the Gemara and in the Shulchan Aruch, to say
: that when a PERSON is tamei, he may still learn Torah.  Nothing at all
: to do with touching KISVEI HAKODESH, whose tum'ah (one of the 18
: gezeros in the 1st perek of Shabbos) is for a completely unrelated
: reason.

The case in the gemara in Berakhos 22a is of a baal qeri learning from
a seifer Torah. Yes, the gemara concludes that learning doesn't
require Taharah, but the fact is, RYbB didn't tell him to be careful
about touching the seifer.

It is also unclear, going further in the beraisa, how far this can be
generalized. There are shitos that allow mishnah only (R Yonasan bar
Yosef, R' Meir), neither (R' Yehudah b Gamliel, ver I), both (ver II).

The ra'ayah from Yirmiyahu is clearly about the words being ones of
Torah "are not all My words like fire?" -- it wouldn't make sense if
the topic were speech in general.

Given that at the time of the beraisa's quotes, both were TSBP, it can
not be ruled out in principle that tum'ah doesn't affect words.
Rather, it would seem to be about miqra, and possibly even the
physical scroll.

Which may be why Shabbos 14a describes the gezeira as being about a
seifer Torah being metamei. MideOraisa, only a tamei can be metamei.
But this is a gezeira. If one wants, one could have said the chakhamim
made everything that touches a seifer Torah tamei. But it seems from
the zav that the seifer Torah itself was placed mideOraisa outside the
realm of tum'ah.

And that, to answer RGD's question, is the difference.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

Last week we were looking at the nature of Yeshivat Shem vaEver. RRJ
cited R Kanievsky as saying they taught yir'as Shamayim.

The Rambam seems to turn the yeshivah into a Plato-like Academy of
philosophy -- a group of thinkers who came together to share thoughts,
debate, and hone their minds, or to listen to the more skilled do so.

Given the Rambam's emphasis on yedi'ah (to touch another thread), I
think this is very similar.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

... and since I just raised the topic in my previous post...

On Fri, November 16, 2007 3:47 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: While  I concede that the Rambam was into philosophy etc. I think WADR
: you are focusing on the tree and not the forest, the means and not the
: end

: The Tachils  accocrding to Rambam  is "da'as es hashem"  [as in
: Yirmeyahu  "hakseil vado'a osi"
: Yeshaya: "D'aas es Hasehm kemyaim layam kechashin.
: Shir Hashirim in toto, etc.

: The Tachliss aisi is a form of GNOSIS....

Do you see that in the Rambam?

Judging from Yesodei haTorah 2:1-2, AYH is built upon machashavah,
contemplating everything He does for us and the Wisdom inherent in it.
And this connection is "miyad" -- not via a middle step.

In the Moreh II:18 and III:50, it's having the "Form" of HQBH in one's
mind that makes one fully human (WRT hashgachah) and gives one a
connection to the Borei. No mention of knowing Him as something
different than knowing about Him.

This is the same Rambam who uses the expression "small soul" (in
Arabic) to mean someone of lesser intelligence. Such as those who
shouldn't pick up his Moreh.

I find the Rambam's cerebralism both blatant and a bit off-putting.
(But the latter is primarily because this is Shuby's dad writing.) To
the extent that I tried finding a way out. I couldn't find support for
something as extreme as what RRW writes.

But I would note that the Rambam calls character traits "dei'os"; he
assumes that people are sufficiently rational for personality to
follow thought. (Which is in consonance with Aristo, FWIW.) Thus, his
da'as not only means intellect, it means intellect as it shapes your
essence.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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 Mon, November 19, 2007 11:01 am, R Gershon Dubin wrote:
: From: RallisW@aol.com
: <<BTW What is the most neglected Omein in Tefilloh? Either V'aazor or
: V'Sigoleh and the following ...vnomar Omein before Krias HaTorah>>
:
: Any omein before a tefila, such as:
...
: omein,  Hallel
...

My father taught me to avoid saying "amein" to the birkhas hamitzvah
on Hallel, or on birkhos hamitzvos that one plans on making oneself.
Something he learned from RYBS.

Why aren't you yotzei the chazan's berakhah? You couldn't be, or else
your berakhah is levatalah? Mitvos einum tzerikhos kavanah, so you
can't rely on not intending to be yotzei. Rather, to avoid being
yotzei, one must have negative kavanah in mind -- specific intent not
to be yotzei.

Who wants to practice such negative kavanos? Better to say the
berakhah with the chazan and avoid the issue.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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 Fri, November 16, 2007 1:38 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
:> Since in these more affluent times, many poseqim (and English guide
:> writers) are chosheshim for the Shelah (ma'aser kesafim deOraisa) or
:> the Maharil (deRabbanan), I wonder if one can blindly rely on this
:> tiny shiur lemaaseh.

: This itself is the current *minhag*; and that same minhag is also that
: this maaser can go not just for actual tzedaka defined narrowly, but
: for any good cause within the broad definition of "tzedaka".

I presumed that a 173 pg guide (preview available on books.google.com
at <http://tinyurl.com/35yxj9>) on exactly how to take maaser kesafim
(as just one example) was proof that poseqim who replied to the survey
to be cited the book were pasqening lechumrah lehalakhah, not saying
one should be machmir qua minhag.

Historically, Ashkenazim gave maaser. But nearly all of us did so in
the form of taxation by the autonomous kehillah. It's hard to separate
that from Torah to know if it was considered din, minhag, or a decree
of tuv'ei ha'ir. It would therefore be hard to find Ashkenazi
acharonim discussing the problem -- most people had no choice.

Among Sepharadim, maaser kesafim simply wasn't done. The Rosh
discusses his own accepting it as a personal chumrah.

But drifting back on topic... I really took the spate of English
books, and really more their citations of modern poseqim, to mean that
we had a new pesaq on the rise that *halachically* require maaser.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

Micha Berger wrote:

> Historically, Ashkenazim gave maaser. But nearly all of us did so in
> the form of taxation by the autonomous kehillah.

AIUI the tax was only 5%, and the other 5% was "ish es kodoshov
lo yihyu".


> Among Sepharadim, maaser kesafim simply wasn't done. The Rosh
> discusses his own accepting it as a personal chumrah.

Remember that the Rosh was an Ashkenazi.  The chiddush was that he
not only continued giving maaser when he moved to Spain, but asked his
sons, who presumably kept minhagei Sefarad, to do so as well.

 
> But drifting back on topic... I really took the spate of English
> books, and really more their citations of modern poseqim, to mean that
> we had a new pesaq on the rise that *halachically* require maaser.

Perhaps so, but that itself is merely the new minhag.  And it has to
be taken on its own terms -- hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir -- the
same minhag that has made maaser kesafim mandatory also permits it to
be used for any mitzvah or worthy cause, not just for feeding hungry
Jews, clothing naked ones, and sheltering homeless ones.  The core
requirement of 1/3 shekel per annum -- that, AFAIK, must be spent on
actual tzedaka in its strictest definition.


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

On Wed, November 21, 2007 6:30 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Historically, Ashkenazim gave maaser. But nearly all of us did so in
:> the form of taxation by the autonomous kehillah.

: AIUI the tax was only 5%, and the other 5% was "ish es kodoshov
: lo yihyu".

Depends when and where.

Skipping to the part about which I disagree:
:                                                              The core
: requirement of 1/3 shekel per annum -- that, AFAIK, must be spent on
: actual tzedaka in its strictest definition.

See the AhS YD 251:5, which says that someone who has food for his own
table isn't allowed to rely on this minimum. And someone who has
sufficient money "vaday dechayav bitzdaqah maaser or chomesh". Efshar
lomar he too held it was lehalakhah, not just minhag.

(AhS Yomi is at YD 395. EhE starts a week from tomorrow -- good time
to join!)

With berakhos that none of us ever experience the AhS's first
category, vesheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

R' MB:
> But drifting back on topic... I really took the spate of English
> books, and really more their citations of modern poseqim, to mean that
> we had a new pesaq on the rise that *halachically* require maaser.


One Posek I know refuses to refer to Maaser Kesafim as Chiyuv, and tells
people that when staring to give Maaser Kesafim, they should do so B'li
Neder.

KT,
MYG

Micha Berger wrote:

> :                                                              The core
> : requirement of 1/3 shekel per annum -- that, AFAIK, must be spent on
> : actual tzedaka in its strictest definition.
> 
> See the AhS YD 251:5, which says that someone who has food for his own
> table isn't allowed to rely on this minimum. And someone who has
> sufficient money "vaday dechayav bitzdaqah maaser or chomesh". Efshar
> lomar he too held it was lehalakhah, not just minhag.

1. If it were really lehalacha then it wouldn't depend on the person's
circumstances.  Rich or poor, if maaser is a core halachic obligation
like shabbos or kashrus then he must give it.  If necessary the kupas
tzedaka must give him enough that he can give maaser back to it, just
as it must give him enough for arba kosos, tefillin, etc.  The fact
that he only requires it of someone who can afford it shows that it
isn't really a law, just a very strong minhag.

2. Note that he says "...o chomesh".  Now AFAIK nobody claims that
chomesh is an actual halachic requirement, even of the richest Jew.
I don't think it's possible to call one who can afford it and doesn't
a law-breaker, or to compare him, say, to one who doesn't hear the
megillah or light shabbos candles.  I can't believe that's what the
AhS means.  So when he says "chayav" here he's not talking literally
-- just as when we say the maaser/chomesh must go to "tzedaka" we're
not talking literally.

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

 

Rabbosay,

 

Rashi tells us that YaAkov would direct the males to go before the females,
unlike Esav who directed the females first.

Yet when YaAkov gets the family introduced to Uncle Esau, the ladies go
first until Yosef steps in front of his mother.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071122/18b1ccd0/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 70
**************************************

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..."