Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 73

Sat, 24 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: proofs of G-d (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Apikores? (David Riceman)
• 3. hasgacha pratit (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: proofs of G-d (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Apikores? (ygbechhofer@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Mindfulness and does Judaism value it (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 7. Apikores? (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Brocho of "Al Mitzvas Tefillin"... "Boruch Shaym Kevod Malchuso L'Olom Voed"? (RallisW@aol.com)
• 9. Re: proofs of G-d (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: proofs of G-d (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: proofs of G-d (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Tum'at Yadayim (Arie Folger)

R Joel Rich wrote:

At 20:19 22/11/2007, you wrote:
>Yes, but iiuc the cheshbon is that the rov am will more likely be moved
>by it (and I suppose that the smaller [and I think growing] group of
>philosophers will understand and keep quiet for the sake of the
>perceived greater good)


1) Secrets always get out.
2) More importantly, why do we assume that the amcha has to be told a 
story in order to get them to repent? Why "make up" a cause and 
effect when they could be told to do what the halacha says to do when 
tragedy strikes? There are so many dangers involved in saying things 
which no knows if there are true or not.

KT
Ben

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Why is it so difficult for so many to believe in the concept of Hashgachah
> Pratis (without getting into if it is correct according to the Mesorah or
> not)? Is it because of conflicts with Bechirah?
>   
It's because what actually happens in the world seems to conflict with 
God's justice -- tzaddik v'ra lo is a tremendous problem.  See Chavel's 
introduction to the Ramban's commentary on Iyov.

David Riceman

<<Why is it so difficult for so many to believe in the concept of Hashgachah
Pratis (without getting into if it is correct according to the Mesorah or
not)? Is it because of conflicts with Bechirah?>>

Mainly because it goes against common sense and modern science.
We know from physics that objects fall due to gravity. According to
the Baal Shem Tov
no leaf falls or any action occurs without G-d decreeing it.
Seems somewhat silly for G-d to decree what we know will happen anyway.

For humans it conflicts with the old idea of good and evil. I find it
hard to believe that
the truly evil people who live to 100 have a some virtue that the
kollel boy who dies at 20 has.
Furthermore, it is obvious that eating well, exercise and other
healthy habits causes a person
to live longer while shemirat mitzvot has no such obvious effect.

Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim is bothered by all of this as is Ramban and others.
The "easiest" answer is that schar mitzvah is for the next world and
this world we are governed
by laws of nature with a few exceptions such as tzaddikim and G-d's
miracles in special cases.

The idea that people perished in the Holocaust because because of
their sins seems absurb.
In worse is to claim that the great rishonim died in the crusades
because of their sins or the
various great rabbis that died through gezerot Tach ve-Tat (Chemilnikzi).

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

R Joel Rich wrote:

At 20:19 22/11/2007, you wrote:
>Yes, but iiuc the cheshbon is that the rov am will more likely be moved

>by it (and I suppose that the smaller [and I think growing] group of 
>philosophers will understand and keep quiet for the sake of the 
>perceived greater good)


1) Secrets always get out.
2) More importantly, why do we assume that the amcha has to be told a
story in order to get them to repent? Why "make up" a cause and effect
when they could be told to do what the halacha says to do when tragedy
strikes? There are so many dangers involved in saying things which no
knows if there are true or not.

KT
Ben

-----------------------------
I agree with you but given that this does not seem to be happening I am
being mlamed zchut on the approach being taken/condoned.
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.

The Bechhofer position is that the Besht admittedly mounted a 
revolution. But since this revolution was so successful, the Hanhaga 
Elyona had to change. I don't know whether Hashem wanted to change the 
Hanhaga and therefore sent the Besht, or the Besht wanted to change the 
Hanhaga and therefore launched his campaign, but the result is the same 
in any event.

KT, GS,
YGB

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>  
>>     
>
> Besides the citation of Rav Dessler and Shomer Emunim I mentioned last 
> time, the Malbim, Netziv, Meshech Chochma also agree with the view of 
> the Rishonim. It is nonsense to assert that we have to stop studying and 
> accepting the views of these gedolim because they are now viewed as 
> kefira by some individuals or groups.
>
> Daniel Eidensohn
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071123/eb3efad1/attachment.htm 

Again responding to a number of posts at once:
   
  1) A am grateful for R. Micha Berger for clarifying his original post and position.  I find his ideas about avodas hashem always insightful and personally meaningful. 
   
  So MB does say that Judaism does not have Mindfulness 2.0.  Rather we don't have Mindfulness.  So someone, Jewish or otherwise, who seeks Mindfulness should seek it elsewhere.  Personally, I find it difficult when people in Jewish education or Kiruv tell people that Judaism teaches something that it does not or has a value is that is not manifest in most Orthodox Jewish communities.  
   
  I find it disturbing when when young idealistic Jewish activists who have been active in liberal, left-wing political causes, are told by Kiruv professional that these ideas could be find in Judaism, when the Kiruv worker knows, quite well how politically and culturally right-wing most Orthodox Jewish communities are.
   
  2) Many strains of Buddhist teach the idea of non-Judgementally, contemplating the moment and the world and cultivating compassion for all suffering creatures.  This aquisition of true compassion can and often does lead to acting to relieve suffering in the world.  I believe that propotionally, at least as many Western Buddhists as Western Jews are involved in relieving suffering in the world.  
   
  (I don't think that this is the forum to discuss the four vows of the Buddha, but if anyone wants we can get into that topic.)
   
  3) I think that there is a distinct LACK of mindfulness and inner-cultivation within many Jewish communities.  Of course, as members of the list have pointed out, this should be the case.  We should constantly strive, strive, strive. It's just a matter of striving for the right things (e.g. mastering shas, being a better Jew) and not the wrong things (e.g. material wealth).  
  Of course a Buddhist would say that this cycle is bound to end in want and misery as desires are left unfulfilled and people are left without inner peace.. 
   
  4) Perhaps, if inner-peace and Mindfulness was more of a Jewish value, many of the problems within the Jewish communities (Orthodox and otherwise) could be avoided.  Of course, this then means that these values are just a stepping stone towards another problem (which many members of the list have expressed a comfort with).
   
  Have a good Shabbos,
  Yonatan

       
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071123/ae89f687/attachment.html 

At 09:17 AM 11/23/2007, you wrote:
>Besides the citation of Rav Dessler and Shomer Emunim I mentioned last
>time, the Malbim, Netziv, Meshech Chochma also agree with the view of
>the Rishonim. It is nonsense to assert that we have to stop studying and
>accepting the views of these gedolim because they are now viewed as
>kefira by some individuals or groups.
>
>Daniel Eidensohn

Whenever I see the words apikores or kofer bandied about, I recall 
the following. The followers of Shabbatsai Tzvi were called Ma'aminim 
and those opposed to him were labeled
kofrim. Thus it seems to be that there may be times when is it not at 
all bad to be put in the category of a kofer or an apikores. >:-}

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071123/075133f0/attachment-0001.htm 

I understand that if one CH"S recites a brocho l'vatolo one should say  
"Boruch Shaym Kevod Malchuso L'Olom Voed", in order to remedy the situation  
somewhat. This is only the remedy b'diovad. 
 
How can one use this method every weekday when laying tefillin, especially  
when some are of the opinion [Rashi], that there is only one brocho  of "Al 
Mizvas Tefillin"? 
 
I understand that if one tightens the Tefillin Shel Yad on the  arm only, 
reciting the brocho of "L'Honiach Tefillin, and then puts on the  Tefillin Shel 
Rosh one does not recite Boruch Shaym at all? This is how the  Shulchan Oruch 
instructs us to put them on, without making the hefsek of  winding the strap 
around the arm. 



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071123/b60e04da/attachment-0001.html 

RMYG and RnTK were kind enough to inform me my most resent attempt to
post failed. Pity, it was a long one. Let's see what I can remember of
it.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I find it strange that Rav Abramsky would assert that Rav Dessler
: was an apikorus...

We seem bound to repeat this thread, even though one iteration
(launched by the RNS ban) lasted for well over a year. So, to
summarize my position as developed so far...

1- Halachic process doesn't apply to true or false, but to determining
law. And so it usually doesn't apply to aggadita. HOWEVER... there are
cases where someone's beliefs about issues of aggadita impact the
halakhah -- stam yeinam, geirus, counting toward a minyan, etc... The
Rambam carefully rejects halachic process in cases where there is no
lemaaseh, he doesn't phrase it in terms of aggadita vs halakhah.

This is RGStudent's "Crossroads of Halakhah and Aggadah" idea,
developed here and later published as a book review of R"Dr Marc
Shapiro's work on the ikkarim.

It is therefore appropriate to speak of what we pasqen today.

2- Pesaq doesn't go backward in time. Just because we now consider
something assur doesn't mean we're condemning historical gedolim. This
is true whether speaking of kashrus or of any of the above halakhos.

Which is why Rabbi Hillel is still Rabbi Hillel, despite not believing
in bi'as hamoshiach. (BTW, note that when the calendar is credited to
him, it is implied that Rabbi Hillel expected a reconstituted
Sanhedrin to exist before the calendar started failing. This fits
Rashi's shitah that R' Hillel expected a messianic era, not a person
who would be melekh hamoshiach.)

3- Besides, being a kofeir requires rebellion. The lack of a critical
belief is the shiur of how rebellious the person must be to qualify as
a kofeir. But someone who comes upon a krum hashkafah through honest
acceptance of the ideas of the Torah and reaching wrong conclusions is
not a kofeir, apiqoreis or meshumad.

And so, R' Hillel and anyone else wouldn't qualify anyway.

4- Pesaq has to accurately reflect metzi'us. IOW, if someone pasqens
that belief XYZ is kefirah, he is presuming (1) it is false, and (2)
it is too far from the core belief necessary for the AYH of the kelal
and the individual. (I mention kelal because the incomplete list of
halakhos  involving kefirah I gave above were how one person is
supposed to treat another.)

And so, if XYZ happens to actually be true, is the pesaq relevent? And
thus, how can anyone apply the pesaq to themselves? If someone is
declared a kofeir for believing XYZ, then he believes they were wrong
in the metzi'us by presuming XYZ is false, and the pesaq is simply
beta'us!

5- Pesaq has to fit the heuristic. You can't take a shitah that
follows rov/kol rishonim and at least a mi'ut of notable acharonim and
declare it outside eilu va'eilu. There is nothing in the system that
could outweigh that kind of thinking.

Even if we believe they were wrong on the aggadic level, there is no
way we can have the authority to turn that incorrectness into a
halachic statement. There is simply nothing an acharon can do against
rov rishonim halachically. At most we could decide the belief is
wrong, but of no halachic consequence to those who are mistaken.

--



In the past we quoted the Or haChaim on why the brothers threw Yoseif
into a pit rather than kill him outright. They wanted to give HQBH
room to save Yoseif bederekh hateva. If they killed him outright, they
would never know if Yoseif deserved to die *or if their bechirah
caused his death*.

--


because (not despite!) of my secular education.

A- Chaos theory. This is that bit about how a butterfly flapping its
wings in Africa can be the difference between whether or not there is
a tornado in Kansas. History is a complex place where everything is
interconnected in feedback loops that often magnify the effect of the
microscopic.

In short, thanks to Chaos Theory, I do not think that Hashgachah Minis
and HP are seperable concepts. The Besh"t's example of a leaf that
fell on this side rather than that will perforce eventually have
macroscopic effects that will impact at least one human being.
Similarly, anything that impacts one person will somehow definitely
touch the lives of others. Things ripple outward. "For want of a
horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost."

B- So far, the belief is that Quantum Mechanics implies that under it
all, the laws of physics only define probabilities. Okay, group
together populations of particles in numbers we can't imagine and the
statistics are so close to certainty as to make no difference. (If you
flip a coin 10 trillion times, the odds of getting something so close
to half heads and half tails as to be unnoticeable different is very
very high.)

I say "so far" because Joy Christian (that's his name) seems to have
found an algebra for which Bell's Inequality doesn't hold, and it may
all be a hidden variable after all. I won't bother explaining that, as
it's long, involved, off topic, and an answer to a question you
wouldn't have if you didn't follow my comment. Back on topic.

If the universe is statistical in any way, HP and teva do not
contradict. The laws say X must happen P percent of the time, but HQBH
could combine QM and chaos theory to get whatever results He wants by
just choosing which cases are that P.


My biggest problem is understanding how to define the difference
between HP and teva. HQBH created both. The rishonim discuss a
difference in terms of teva as a hypostatis, a seichel interposed
between HQBH and us. Fits Aristotilian and neo-Platonic metpahysics,
but we have no equivalent. Who acted, Hashem, or that seichel? In
today's physics, teva is a feature of the geometry of the universe. It
inheres in space, time, matter and energy. An attribute, not a beryah.

With a modern understanding of how the world works, The only
difference seems to be whether we attribute His decision to the
individual case, or to a general rule set into motion nearly 6,000
millenia ago. Did Hasehm decide on 9/11 to save this tzadiq and allow
that one to perish, or did He create a world in which that would be
the outcome if people chose to do what they did that morning? Hashem
doesn't have a concept of time, so mitzido, it's the same decision no
matter when we attribute it to. If we view it in terms of 6 millenia
beforehand, we're saying that HQBH knew when He set up teva, that He
was setting up a universe in which hu yichyeh, vehu yamus.

To put it another way... Is it defying HP when Hashem chooses to allow
an evil person's bechirah delay another person's sechar va'onesh? Or
to allow the bechirah possible through hester panim, and thus allow
the expected natural event to occur? Aren't those too His deciding
what should happen? When speaking of the Borei who set everything into
motion, isn't His decision not to act the same thing as His decision
to set things up so that that inaction would have a particular
outcome? In which case, didn't the Aibishter really act, as part of
the "set up"?

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:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> : I find it strange that Rav Abramsky would assert that Rav Dessler
> : was an apikorus...
> 
> We seem bound to repeat this thread, even though one iteration
> (launched by the RNS ban) lasted for well over a year. So, to
> summarize my position as developed so far...

Here's another factor that wasn't mentioned in your summary: Litvaks,
of which Dayan Abramsky was one, have a tendency to use terms such as
"apikores" or "sheigetz" non-literally.  It is very possible -- indeed
likely -- that he would still accept such a person's testimony, drink
his wine, and treat him with respect in public, while regarding the
belief this person holds as very bad indeed.  (Can this relate back to
our recent discussion about non-literal uses of the terms "chayav" and
"tzedaka"?)

The chiddush of his statement -- whether it really was a psak or merely
a "psak" --  lies mostly in the fact that he was not a chossid, and
therefore could be automatically expected to take the Baal Shem Tov's
position as so muchrach that everybody must accept it, but in this case
he did.

As for the question of rishonim and acharonim and yeridas hadoros,
that model doesn't fit the Baal Shem Tov, whose rebbe was Achiyah
Hashiloni.

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

>R' Joel Rich wrote:
> > Yes, but iiuc the cheshbon is that the rov am will more
> > likely be moved by it (and I suppose that the smaller [and
> > I think growing] group of philosophers will understand and
> > keep quiet for the sake of the perceived greater good)
>
>But unfortunately, the following generation will not have the 
>context for that understanding, and the result is that they'll 
>follow the INcorrect understanding.
>
>Akiva Miller

There is an even bigger problem that my wife pointed out to me: When 
positing an cause and effect when in fact no one really knows the 
cause, the people who are motivated to repent will  basing their 
avodat Hashem based on a fable, and maybe even on a lie. Do we really 
want that?

Ben

I asked:
> : Which "both were TSBP?" You mentioned Mishnah, what is the second TSBP
> : component being discussed according to you?

RMB answered:
> I wrote that the beraisa continued with a three way machloqes about
> whether someone tamei should learn (1) mishnah and/or (2) gemara.

Aha. In the time of the Beraita, there was likely no published mishnah, hence 
the terms likely refer to halakhah pessuqah and sevarah, both transmitted 
without a book.

> : Pardon me, but I didn't understand you. What proof do you have from a zav
> : that the ST doesn't biblically contract tum'a?
>
> The sugya about a Torah not being metam'ei (Berakhos 22a, as cited in
> the opening post) started with the story of a ba'al qeri who was giving
> a shiur, and he was speaking haltingly. The presumption was that he was
> nervous because he was teaching while tamei, and therefore R' Yehudah ben
> Beseira steps in to reassure him that the words of Torah do not become
> tamei. The BQ was reading from a seifer Torah. RYbB doesn't comment
> about his holding the seifer. So it would seem the zav was not metamei it.

Thanks for the correction, I now understand that you mean that a BQ isn't 
metam? an ST. Well, why should he. After all, *IIRC*, a BQ is a vlad hatumah, 
which shouldn't be metame keilim. A ST is a keli, I would presume.

Hence, an ST might very well be meqabel tumah (in fact, I don't see why not) 
but the BQ wouldn't impact it.

As I wrote, IIRC.

KT, good week
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 73
**************************************

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..."