Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 52

Fri, 01 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Critique of Mussar (Micha Berger)
• 2. Critique of Mussar (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: assisted suicide (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: assisted suicide (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: Critique of Mussar (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. "Does God Change His Mind?" (Richard Wolberg)
• 7. How Does One Reconcile the Following Incident? (Richard Wolberg)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 10. Re: planting during shmitta permitted (Dov Bloom)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: Critique of Mussar (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Critique of Mussar (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Polygamy (Joseph Kaplan)
• 16. Re: critique of mussar (David Riceman)
• 17. [Fwd: Re: critique of mussar] (David Riceman)
• 18. Mussar (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 19. Re: Critique of Mussar (Richard Wolpoe)
• 20. Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishna Brura [NishmaBlog] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 21. 'Keushah! Kedushah!' (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 22. pitum haketores (Gilad Field)
• 23. Terumah "From Copper to Silver to Gold" (Richard Wolberg)
• 24. Re: Mussar (Richard Wolpoe)
• 25. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (Richard Wolpoe)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:01:51PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: I do not think that one has to study mussar seforim to incorporate 
: the results of the movement into one's actions...
:                                To understand where I am coming from please 
: see
: "<http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=19683&;mode=a&sectionid=61&contentname=Frum_or_Ehrlich?&recnum=7>Frum 
: or Ehrliche?" The Jewish Press, October 20, 2006, page 1.

The way I formuilated things, your saying the ikkar of mussar is not
the notion of having a program for reaching qedushah, but rather the
holistic definition of qedushah. (With nothing said about the role of
tiqun hamidos.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 03:04 PM 1/29/2008, David Riceman wrote:

>A friend from Jerusalem stopped by last week, and we chatted for a few
>hours.  One of his remarks struck me as worth repeating here.  He told
>me that when he reads mussar sefarim he gets the impression of small
>mindedness; the concerns are very petty.  Whereas when he reads Rabbi
>Kook "ze mamash marhiv et hada'at."

>Any comments (I'll reserve my own)?

>David Riceman

I do not think that one has to study mussar seforim to incorporate 
the results of the movement into one's actions. Personally, I do not 
think that the theory is important today. There is so much to learn 
from the actions of the great master, Reb Yisroel Salanter. I find it 
interesting that there are so many stories about the life of RYS 
extant. One can learn a velt of mussar from these stories. Perhaps it 
is not necessary to read mussar seforim or to dwell on the 
theoretical aspects of mussar. To understand where I am coming from please see
"<http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=19683&;mode=a&sectionid=61&contentname=Frum_or_Ehrlich?&recnum=7>Frum 
or Ehrliche?" The Jewish Press, October 20, 2006, page 1.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080131/3196db2e/attachment.html 

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:48:20 EST
T613K@aol.com wrote:

[snip]

> However, bnai Noach are not allowed to commit suicide -- that  falls under 
> "not killing" in the sheva mitzvos.

Incorrect.

---Begin Quote---

It also appears to me, that a Ben Noah is not commanded [against
suicide], for it is derived from [the verse] "ach es dimchem
l'nafshoseichem", and it is not reiterated at Sinai, if so it is said
to Yisrael and not to B'nei Noah.

---End Quote---

-- Minhas Hinuch #34 s.v. v'hinei m'abed azmo la'da'as

There may well be a dissenting view, although the Machon Yerushalayim
edition of the Hinuch, which is usually pretty good about such things,
has nothing to say, but one certainly cannot flatly declare a prohibition
where the Minhas Hinuch admits none.

> --Toby Katz

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

R' MB:
> I would assert that Luz as described didn't exist. Not only does it
> fail the Rambam's test, but Luz is given in the Chumash as the
> original name of Beis-El (Bereishis 28:19). Aside from Luz being the
> "Home of G-d" in that sense, it's the bone that rests at the base of
> the skull, the connection between brain and body. Luz (chestnut?) is
> also the wood from which Yaaqov avinu made his spotted sticks. It is
> the name of a bone that never decays, and is associated with techiyas
> hameisim. And the name of a city never taken by Sancheirev or
> Nevuchadnetzar.

> And a city where no one lies.

> The moral message is blatant. No lying, no death, Yaaqov's financial
> success, the place where earth and heaven meet.

R' Dessler (vol. 4, page 210) understands Luz to symbolize Chessed, and also
seems to think that it really existed in Shlomo's time.

KT,
MYG

R' David Riceman:
A friend from Jerusalem stopped by last week, and we chatted for a few 
hours.? One of his remarks struck me as worth repeating here.? He told 
me that when he reads mussar sefarim he gets the impression of small 
mindedness; the concerns are very petty.? Whereas when he reads Rabbi 
Kook "ze mamash marhiv et hada'at."

Any comments (I'll reserve my own)?

I'm not sure why there should be comments. Every Sefer speaks to every
person differently. I'll bet that your friend would not have done well in
the Ramchal's Yeshiva either - not as a negative reflection of him, just
that his Neshamah doesn't appreciate that Mehalech. 

KT,
MYG

"Does God change His mind?"

Malachi 3:6 declares, ?I the LORD do not change. So you, O sons of  
Yaakov, are not consumed.? The thought is similar to Jer. 30:11: "I  
will correct thee in measure, and will not utterly destroy thee."  
God's nature is unchangeable; He is ever the same, loving good and  
hating evil. Justice must therefore take its course and evil be  
punished; but in His lovingkindness chastisement is tempered with  
mercy God purifies B'nai Yisroel but will not utterly consume them.  
Many commentators consider this verse to be introductory to the posuk  
which follows wherein the navi rebukes the people for 'robbing' God,  
defrauding Him of tithes and other dues, and translates: "As I the  
Lord am not changed, so you have not ceased to be sons of Yaakov,"  
giving to Yaakov its original meaning of 'one who supplants and  
defrauds. (cf. Bereshis 27:36).

There are those who erroneously think this contradicts what is taught  
in other pesukim, such as Bereshis 6:6, ?The LORD was grieved that He  
had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.? Also,  
Yonah 3:10 which says, ?When God saw what they did and how they turned  
from their evil ways, He had compassion and did not bring upon them  
the destruction He had threatened.? Similarly, Shmos 32:14 proclaims,  
?Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster  
He had threatened.? These verses speak of the Lord ?repenting? of  
something, and seem to be contrary to verses that teach that God is  
unchanging. However, close examination of these passages reveals that  
these are not truly indications that God is capable of changing. In  
Hebrew, the word that is translated as ?repent,? or ?relent,? is the  
Hebrew expression of ?to be sorry for.? Being sorry for something does  
not mean that a change has occurred; it simply means that there is  
regret for something that has taken place.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080131/c2eacfd7/attachment.htm 

Mishpatim: Following the Majority Opinion
A story about Rabbi Akiva, when the famed second century Talmudic sage  
was a young scholar...
Rabban Gamliel, the head of Sanhedrin, hosted a gathering of scholars  
in the town of Jericho. The guests were served dates, and Rabban  
Gamliel honored Rabbi Akiva with reciting thebrachah achronah (final  
blessing). However, Rabban Gamliel and the other sages disagreed about  
which blessing should be said after eating dates. The young scholar  
quickly made the blessing - in accordance with the opinion of the  
other rabbis.

"Akiva!" exclaimed Rabban Gamliel. "When will you stop butting your  
head into Halachic disagreements?"

"Our master," Rabbi Akiva replied calmly, "it is true that you and  
your colleagues disagree in this matter. But did you not teach us that  
the Law is decided according to the majority opinion?" [Brachot 37a]

In truth, it is hard to understand Rabban Gamliel's criticism. What  
did he expect Rabbi Akiva to do? Why was he upset?

Two Methods to Resolve Disputes

In order to resolve legal disputes, there are two methods a scholar  
may use to decide which opinion should be accepted as law.

The first way is to conduct an extensive analysis of the subject to  
find out the truth. We examine the issue at hand, weighing the  
reasoning and supporting proofs for each view, until we can determine  
which opinion is the most logical.

However, if we are unable to objectively decide which opinion is more  
substantiated, we fall back on the second method. Instead of the  
truth, we look for consensus. We follow the majority opinion - not  
because it is more logical or well-reasoned - but out of the simple  
need to establish a normative position and avoid disagreement and  
conflict. If we are seeking consensus and peace, then the most widely  
held opinion is the preferred one.

Rabban Gamliel was critical of Rabbi Akiva because he thought the  
young scholar had the audacity to decide which opinion was the correct  
one. Therefore he castigated him, "When will you stop butting your  
head into these legal disagreements?" In other words, where did you  
get the idea that you could use your head - your own powers of logic  
and reasoning - to decide issues that are beyond your expertise and  
knowledge?

Rabbi Akiva responded that he hadn't presumptuously tried to decide
which opinion is correct. Rather, he had simply applied the second
method of resolving a legal dispute: deciding the issue by consensus,
according to the majority opinion.

[adapted from Ein Ayah vol. II, p. 176]

There are two issues which are troublesome. Number one: If Rabban
Gamliel honored Rabbi Akiva, even if Rabbi Akiva did the incorrect
thing, Rabban Gamliel's public reprimand was humiliating and certainly
bordered on his being malbin pnei chaveiro berabim (Bava Metzia 59a;
Sotah 10b). Secondly: Rabbi Akiva did exactly how Rabban Gamliel taught
him. So it seems as if Rabban Gamliel turned on his own teaching, as
well as on his brilliant pupil. Also, Rabbi Akiva showed himself to be
much greater than his teacher in his humble response.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080131/89eaf70b/attachment.html 

On Areivim, we had the following exchange, regarding Tzaros:
R'n CL:
> > That to my mind is no casual naming.  The assumption embodied in the
> > name is that where you have more than one wife, you have trouble and
> > strife.  You
> > don't really need to say any more than that to indicate disapproval.
R' ZS: 
> Not necessarily; it may be a headache and an unhealthy situation if
> not handled correctly, but that's not to say it's inherently
> undesirable;
> there may be compensating benefits.

It seems to me that Chazal generalized when it came to human nature
intersecting with Halachah. For example, IIRC, it's a Mishnah/Gemara in
Eiruvin that says that if a man is in his daughter-in-law's house for
Shabbos (and he is also in the Techum of his own house) that he isn't Koneh
Shevisah by his DIL's house because DIL's and FIL's don't get along, and
he's keeping his options open - he might need to go home on Shabbos, in case
of a fight. Now, what if we have a fellow who gets along fine with his DIL?
Doesn't matter, the Halachah doesn't change. Same as with R'n CL's example -
we still won't believe the second wife to be Mattir the first wife even if
they are the best of friends. The Halachah doesn't change.
How do we interpret this? Are Chazal saying that the underlying human nature
is absolute? It might appear that the FIL and DIL get along, but there is
some predisposition to argument that will always remain? Or do we say that
even though in this situation the two are best friends, Lo Plug? 
Seems to me that R'n CL would pick the former, and R' ZS would pick the
latter.

KT,
MYG

It seems to me that Chazal generalized when it came to human
natureintersecting with Halachah. /////////////////

yes and the interesting question ( a la R'YBS) is when were they making
sociological observations subject to change and when were they stating
ontological truths?Ktjoel rich

Since R Yosef is one of the 2 chairs of the Shmitta C'tte that organized
the heter mechira, and it fits that he allowed planting only by a goy
even on sold-by-heter-mechira plots.

The original heter mechira in 5649, promulgated by a Beit Din of 3 and
aggreed to by R Yitzhok Elchonon, prefered the melachot d'orita (zeria,
zmira, ketzira, betzira plus plowing) to be done by a goy even after the
mechira unless the farmer was poor and couldn't hire goyim. This point
was a matter of dispute, where R Shmuel Mohliver, one of the 3 in the
BD was explicit that there was no problem doing these melachot d'oraita
after the heter and wrote a long tshuva about that. At least one of the
others on the BD seemed to prefer not, and that was the formulation.

So R Yosef (not ROY but his son, Avraham, Chief Rabbi of Holon ) was
following in a well trodden path if he stipulated that the planting
should be done by nochrim even on sold-to-a-goy plots.

R' Joel Rich:
> yes and  the interesting question ( a la R'YBS) is when were they
> making sociological observations subject to change and when were they
> stating ontological truths?

That discussion was regarding Tav L'Meisiv Tan Du, right?

KT,
MYG

At 08:44 PM 1/31/2008, Micha Berger wrote:
>The way I formuilated things, your saying the ikkar of mussar is not
>the notion of having a program for reaching qedushah, but rather the
>holistic definition of qedushah. (With nothing said about the role of
>tiqun hamidos.)

It is hard for me to believe that if someone put real effort into
modelling the actions of RYS that the result would not be that he
would end up with good midos, whatever this means. Indeed, if one
takes the dictum of RYS that "The other person's gashmius is your
ruchnius." seriously, I cannot see how he would not end up with good
midos.

Then again, I am reminded of the following story.

There was an older unmarried fellow who was approached by a Shadchan 
and asked what he was looking for in a prospective wife.  He replied 
that he wanted the most nasty and abrasive woman that could be found. 
When asked why, he replied, "It says that a man who is married to a 
bad wife gets a big share in the world to come. That is what I want."

Well, the Shadchan eventually found someone who was "suitable," and 
they got married.

A couple of months later the new chosson came to the Shadchan and 
said, "What have you done to me? You know the kind of woman I was 
looking for. However, my wife it the perfect mate. She is always 
cheerful. The house is always spotless. When I come home from shul 
there is a delicious breakfast waiting for me. Lunch is always on 
time and excellent as is dinner.  She never says an unkind word and 
never argues with me. What have you done to me?"

The Shadchan was surprised and so she went to the new kallah and 
said, "You know, before you were married you were known as not being 
the nicest woman in the world. Now your husband tells me that you are 
the perfect wife. What is going on?"

She replied, "He is not going to get Olam Haba because of me!!!" >:-}

Yitzchok Levine 

On Fri, February 1, 2008 10:31 am, Prof. Levine wrote:
: It is hard for me to believe that if someone put real effort into
: modelling the actions of RYS that the result would not be that he
: would end up with good midos, whatever this means. Indeed, if one
: takes the dictum of RYS that "The other person's gashmius is your
: ruchnius." seriously, I cannot see how he would not end up with good
: midos.

I considered one of the principles the belief that you can't end up
with good middos without consciously working on good middos. Deciding
to follow the actions of RYS isn't enough to be capable of emulating
them.

Also, RYBreuer's call for "Glatt Yosher" (the link RYL posted) doesn't
address all middos. Ahavas H', yir'ah, bitachon, etc... are middos
too.

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

R' Joel Rich:
> yes and  the interesting question ( a la R'YBS) is when were they 
> making sociological observations subject to change and when were they 
> stating ontological truths?

That discussion was regarding Tav L'Meisiv Tan Du, right?

KT,
MYG

==================================================
Correct - but of course the gemara and poskim quote many rov's and I
have little idea how to tell which is which (although R' YBS seemed to
say that one was due to a pasuk). I asked R' Rosenzweig in the context
of his chulin shiur and got a smile.

I also wonder how chazal decided based on anecdotal evidence when to
declare a rov like rov mumchin etzel shechita and would they consider
other factors (e.g. meat in a small town where people had an aberrant
predilection to shecht without knowledge0

KT
Joel Rich

RMYG asks about fathers-in-law and daughters-in-law "Are Chazal  
saying that the underlying human nature
is absolute? It might appear that the FIL and DIL get along, but  
there is some predisposition to argument that will always remain? Or  
do we say that even though in this situation the two are best  
friends, Lo Plug?"  And RJR comments "yes and  the interesting  
question (a la R'YBS) is when were they making sociological  
observations subject to change and when were they stating ontological  
truths?"  Assuming, as RMYG does, that RJR is referring to Tav  
L'Meisiv Tan Du, it seems to me that one cannot compare RYBS's  
analysis of Chazal's view of a woman's desire to marry (which, he  
argues, is an ontological and not sociological, observation)  to  
other situations (e.g., FIL and DIL) because RYBS's analysis (which I  
still don't really understand) is based on a pasuk in Beraishit.  I  
don't recall any pesukim about the relationship of FIL and DIL.   
Thus, the question that I have is, if I am correct, it would seem  
that Chazal were making a sociological observation to which, in their  
time, lo plug would apply.  But what if that observation is not true  
any longer; i.e., that today FIL and DIL usually have a very good  
relationship.  (I'm not saying that's true, but it could be so let's  
assume it for purposes of my question.)  In that situation, what  
would the halacha be?

Joseph Kaplan 

I wrote:
> A friend from Jerusalem stopped by last week, and we chatted for a few 
> hours.  One of his remarks struck me as worth repeating here.  He told 
> me that when he reads mussar sefarim he gets the impression of small 
> mindedness; the concerns are very petty.  Whereas when he reads Rabbi 
> Kook "ze mamash marhiv et hada'at."
I told my friend was that he wasn't the target audience.  My friend is 
(hard as this may be to conceive) even older than I am.  He's a 
grandfather who runs his own business.  During the flourishing of the 
mussar movement the target audience was teenage boys who intended to 
spend several years intensively studying Torah and ignoring everything 
else.  Books that are "marhiv et hada'at" are precisely those to be 
avoided when you're trying to become a specialist; they're more 
appropriate for another stage in life.

The solution I should have suggested is not to avoid mussar sefarim, but 
to find the general principals and apply them to his own situation.   Of 
course some books are more useful for that than others....

Incidentally the person who made the remark about Ramhal was on the 
mark.  My friend mentioned (using different terms) that he found 
Ramhal's outlook too Cartesian to take seriously.

David Riceman

 -------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
Subject: Re: critique of mussar
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:04:28 -0500
Size: 988
Url: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080201/4282da76/attachment-0001.eml 

R' David Riceman: 
A friend from Jerusalem stopped by last week, and we chatted for a few
hours.? One of his remarks struck me as worth repeating here.? He told
me that when he reads mussar sefarim he gets the impression of small
mindedness; the concerns are very petty.? Whereas when he reads Rabbi Kook
"ze mamash marhiv et hada'at." Any comments (I'll reserve my own)?

Just a thought...
I'm reminded of the phrase 'Can't see the forest from the trees' which
refers to being too close to the problem to see the solution. Perhaps
your friend was thinking that the mussar sefarim reflect this saying,
whereas Rav Kook sees the bigger picture.

Another way of looking at it is that when you are a child, your parent
disciplines you and you could say you're given mussar every day, every
hour (if you're lucky or unlucky, however you look at it). When you
become mature (whenever that is), then the parental mussar ceases and
hopefully, you are now able to see the bigger picture and Rav Kook's
hashkafa takes over.

Shabbat shalom.
ri

On Feb 1, 2008 10:56 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Also, RYBreuer's call for "Glatt Yosher" (the link RYL posted) doesn't
> address all middos. Ahavas H', yir'ah, bitachon, etc... are middos
> too.

FWIW I just finished the bio of Rabbiner Hirsch. Apparently this credo
started with him

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/3d7e1390/attachment-0001.htm 

Dear Readers,

I have just completed reading the Biography of Rabi Samson Raphael
Hirsch. Apparrently Rabbiner Hirsch bemoaned the fact that the Shulchan
Aruch[1] was in 4 parts and Thereby people were not being holistic in
that they neglected vast tracts of Hosehn Mishpat etc, in their behavior.

While the Mishna Brura pointedly commented on ONLY Orach Haim because
he felt that this was the primary legal text for Jewish People [see
hakdamah to the Mishna Brura.] [2]

There you have it in a nutshell. If you ever meet Jews who are
meticulously observant in their observance of Davening, Shabbos and
Pesach, - whilst also being boorish, dishonest, and downright sleeezy
in business - they are ;probably following the Mishna Brura.
OTOH, if you meet well-rounded people who observe only the basics of
Halachah, but are essentially honest, straightforward [glatt yosher] -
then they probably pasken like Rabbiner Hirsch!

Notes:
[1] Although it is popular to attibute this arrangemnt tot he Shulchan
Aruchr - It was actually the Tur who subdivid his work in 4 [actually
4 majors with Orahc Haim sub-divided into 3] and into the the simanin
later used by R. Y. Karoet. al.
[2] Ironically the MB himself was a Ba'al Musar and would probably
"rue the day" that Jews went off in this mis-direction!

--
Posted By Rabbi Richard Wolpoe to
NishmaBlog<http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2008/02/rabbiner-hirsch-and-mishna-brura.html>at
2/02/2008 10:12:00 PM

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/754a13f4/attachment-0001.html 

Prof. Yitzchok Levine wrote an article, the following of which is the
conclusion (the link was part of his last posting). It is well worth
the read:

Rav Salanter's concern for others obviously knew no bounds. The following
story illustrates this:

He was amazed that people were oblivious of the weighty obligation
devolving upon them to bring benefit to others and who treated their
responsibilities so lightly. People go out of their way to confer
the merit on others to perform some mitzvah, but never take the
trouble to make others happy. 'Many times,' he would say, 'I have
seen a person pass by a synagogue, and those inside call out to him,
'Kedushah! Kedushah!' They invite him to participate in the performance
of a mitzvah. Yet never in my life have I seen a person pass by a
house where a meal is being eaten, and the family inside calling out,
'Dinner is served' and invite him to join them.' (Page 244.)

Rav Yisroel Salanter was a gaon and tzaddik who clearly lived his
life on a very high plane. There are few people living today who can
even hope to reach his high level of moral behavior, let alone attain
it. This does not, however, absolve us from trying our best to emulate
his meritorious deeds.

Frumkeit should not be enough for us. We also need to permeate our lives
with ehrlichkeit, so that all of our words and deeds are done in the
spirit of living lives that are a Kiddush Hashem.

Anyone know of the source for some minhag I have seen where people have
the pitum haketores written on a klaf in ksav ashuris? I have even seen it
posted on a shul (where you would normally see modim d'rabanan or the
like).  Is there any mekor for this in shas or the rishonim?

thanks,
gilad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/57692d76/attachment.htm 

The outer courtyard had copper bases with silver hooks. In the courtyard
the altar and basin are made of copper. The walls of the
inner sanctuary are gold on silver bases, and inside the sanctuary  
everything is gold. Lesson: As one comes closer to God, there is a  
progression from the copper to the silver to the gold.

As I see it, when we are born we're on the outer courtyard and with some
mazel, we have a good enough base and foundation to bring us to
'copper.'  Next, with the proper training and sincerity we reach the  
walls of the inner sanctuary, bringing us to the 'silver' level of our  
sacred lives. Finally, when that fateful day arrives and we leave this  
world, we hopefully, will have made it to inside the sanctuary, having  
successfully progressed ultimately to the 'gold' and full potential of  
our souls.

We then will have arrived as close to God as possible, experiencing true
Divine bliss.

ri 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/a857f298/attachment.html 

On Feb 1, 2008 12:31 PM, <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:

> R' David Riceman:
> A friend from Jerusalem stopped by last week, and we chatted for a few
> hours.? One of his remarks struck me as worth repeating here.? He told
> me that when he reads mussar sefarim he gets the impression of small
> mindedness; the concerns are very petty.? Whereas when he reads Rabbi
> Kook "ze mamash marhiv et hada'at."
> Any comments (I'll reserve my own)?

Different Strokes for Different folks!
A friend of Mine in yeshivas Ner Israel was recommended to read
Tehillim. It upset him greatly. Therre are times in my life I found
Tehiloim a bit boring to be honest. yet during that same era of my life
I found Mishle very fascinating and downright calming. It was like having
a wise old master sitting next to me and guiding me..

To me Mesillas Yesharim is a "handbook on how to become a Gadol."
Since I have given up upon being a Gdaol a long time ago, I'm not sure
how much that Sefer would help me now.OTOH I would give it to ny yong
illuy with potentiall

I have generally liked Orchos Tzaddikkim but I must confes the last
time I went though it I found his advice trivial. I guess my life has
gotten a bit too complicated or sophisticated for that sefer to do me
good. Maybe I need to impmlify but fright now the Sefer did not click

I tried to get into Hovos Halevavos but - as a friend of mine had warned
me - I found it way too Medieval. I found a lot of imagery about kings
etc. just disconnect to our American way of life.

One of the Best Machshava books for me has been Sefer Hachinuch. I
really feel he presents Torah as document of true compassion and Kedusha
{mamleches kohahim v'goy Kadosh mixed with ahavas habriyyos] I also lke
the Hinuch Hamekutzar nad the Chofetz Chaim's Sefear Hamtizvos Hakatzar
for a quick dose of Halachas?Machshava.

I found Shemoneh Perkaim very good. I wish I had done it at a yonger
ago a long time ago. Most of Rambam on Teshuva/Deios is excellent -
Also the Masechtos Ketannos of Avos Derabbi Nosson and Derech ERetz are
very good, too

I am also doing Chofetz Chayyim Yomi [Halacha] as well as Shemira Halashon
Yomi [Mussar] I cannot think of a better Sefer on Ahavas Yisrole than the
Shmiras Halshon. And since I am upset at times by the bitter diviseness
between Jewish factions, I find Shemiras Halashon really speaking to me
very loudly and clearly. everyone should go through one cycle at least
once in their life.

Mussar Sefarim are like Medicines, You need to take the right dose of
the right sefer at the right time etc. B"H there is an entire apothecary
filled with many choices.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/a5bf1759/attachment-0001.htm 

On Feb 1, 2008 10:58 AM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
> Correct - but of course the gemara and poskim quote many rov's and I
> have little idea how to tell which is which (although R' YBS seemed to
> say that one was due to a pasuk).  I asked R' Rosenzweig in the context
> of his chulin shiur and got a smile.

> I also wonder how chazal decided based on anecdotal evidence when to
> declare a rov like rov mumchin etzel shechita and would they consider
> other factors (e.g. meat in a small town where people had an aberrant
> predilection to shecht without knowledge0

That's why A poseik needs the 5th Heilek of Shulchan Aruch at his disposal
at all times. A knee-jerk reactor to a text, code, or Teshuva will not
make a great poseik,

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080202/d1bc9871/attachment.html 

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


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

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 52
**************************************
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..."