Volume 27: Number 121
Fri, 21 May 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Shmuel Weidberg <ezra...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 23:30:31 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
Surprisingly, the Torah was not given on Shavuos. The Torah was
supposed to be given on the 50th day of the omer, but Moshe added one
day so it was given on the 51st day of the omer which according to the
chachamim was the sixth day of Sivan, because that year both Nissan
and Iyar were Malei. However we celebrate Shavuos on the 50th day of
the omer and it is only because we have a set calendar that Shavuos
always falls on the sixth of Sivan which was the day of Matan Torah.
This is the Chok Yaakov's answer to the Magen Avrahams kushya in OC
Siman Taf tzadik dalet.
So it comes out that the Torah was NOT given on Shavuos but we
celebrate Shavuos on the day the Torah was given. And this was not
always the case. Before Hillel set the calendar Shavuos was not
necessarily celebrated on the day that the Torah was given!!
Gut Yom Tov,
Shmuel
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:13:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:30:31PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
: Surprisingly, the Torah was not given on Shavuos. The Torah was
: supposed to be given on the 50th day of the omer, but Moshe added one
: day so it was given on the 51st day of the omer which according to the
: chachamim was the sixth day of Sivan, because that year both Nissan
: and Iyar were Malei...
So it WAS given on Shavuos.
What the subject line should have said is that it wasn't given on the
50th day of the omer. But then, who said that's a problem?
(Which reminds me of the Lub Rebbe's position on the international date
line and omer. Leshitaso, one should observe the 1st day of Shavous
on their own 50th day. However, the YT sheini shel goliyos, which is
minhag avoseihem beyadeihem, is always 7 Sivan -- since that's when they
observed it in Bavel. Even if this means that someone who crossed the
date line one way has a day of chol between the two halves of Shavuos,
or the one who went the other way has both coinciding.)
The question about *Rabbi* Hillel's calendar not guaranteeing the two
coincide is addressed by the Maadanei Yom Tov. Why does the Torah say
"tisperu chamishim yom" if you're only supposed to cound 49? We
generally assume the 50th day is Shavuos. The MYT argues that it includes
day 0 -- the first day on Pesach. So the 50 days run from the start of
Pesach to erev Shavuos..
This is "zeman matan Toraseinu". Not the calendar date, but after 50
days of preparations.
They all must be temimos. No problem for us. But yetzi'as Mitzrayim was
at midnight. So in the first year, tisperu 50 yom had to start one day
lter. Thus MRAH delayed matan Torah to the day adter the 50 whole ones.
However we, who start the 50 whole days of preparation one day earlier,
we hit the zeman matan Toraseinu one calendar day earlier than they did.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:15:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on Yom
Kippur?
Why are we celebrating zeman matan Toraseinu is we weren't ready to
truly accept it until the 2nd luchos -- on Yom Kippur? And don't chazal
say that the Torah associated with the first luchos was different in
kind, tht the whole concept of TSBP starts with the 2nd luchos? (R'
Chaim Brisker famously discusses this notion.) So the Torah as we have
is isn't even what was given on Shavuos!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:15:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on Yom
Kippur?
Why are we celebrating zeman matan Toraseinu is we weren't ready to
truly accept it until the 2nd luchos -- on Yom Kippur? And don't chazal
say that the Torah associated with the first luchos was different in
kind, tht the whole concept of TSBP starts with the 2nd luchos? (R'
Chaim Brisker famously discusses this notion.) So the Torah as we have
is isn't even what was given on Shavuos!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:12:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
> Surprisingly, the Torah was not given on Shavuos.
This is according to the opinion in the gemara that yetzias mitzrayim
was on a Thursday. People often don't notice that at the end of the
sugya another opinion is given, that it was on a Friday. In that case
Mattan Torah (which lechol hade'os was on Shabbos) was on Shovuos.
Note that the machlokes over whether the date of Mattan Torah was the
6th or the 7th of sivan is irrelevant to this question. If yetzias
mitzrayim was on Thursday then Shovuos was on the day before Mattan
Torah, regardless of the date; if it was on Friday then Shovuos was on
Mattan Torah.
> So it comes out that the Torah was NOT given on Shavuos but we
> celebrate Shavuos on the day the Torah was given. And this was not
> always the case. Before Hillel set the calendar Shavuos was not
> necessarily celebrated on the day that the Torah was given!!
Of course. Shovuos could be on the 5th, the 6th, or the 7th, so any
connection to Mattan Torah is purely coincidental. And presumably they
did not say "zman mattan torasenu" in davening then. This still has a
practical application: someone who has crossed the dateline, and misafek
is keeping today as yomtov, doesn't say "zman matan torasenu". (Two of
my cousins are actually in this situation right now; their granddaughter's
birth was much later than expected, so they're stuck in NY for yomtov, and
on Sunday night they counted 49 so last night they started their yomtov.)
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:30:31PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
> : Surprisingly, the Torah was not given on Shavuos. The Torah was
> : supposed to be given on the 50th day of the omer, but Moshe added one
> : day so it was given on the 51st day of the omer which according to the
> : chachamim was the sixth day of Sivan, because that year both Nissan
> : and Iyar were Malei...
> So it WAS given on Shavuos.
Shavuos is by definition the 50th day of the counting.
> (Which reminds me of the Lub Rebbe's position on the international date
> line and omer. Leshitaso, one should observe the 1st day of Shavous
> on their own 50th day.
True
> However, the YT sheini shel goliyos, which is
> minhag avoseihem beyadeihem, is always 7 Sivan -- since that's when they
> observed it in Bavel. Even if this means that someone who crossed the
> date line one way has a day of chol between the two halves of Shavuos,
> or the one who went the other way has both coinciding.)
If you meant this as a continuation of your presentation of the LR's
shita, then AFAIK it is false. He says nothing about when to keep
YT sheni.
If it's your own chidush then I disagree, because YT sheni is defined
not as a specific calendar date but as the day after YT rishon.
> They all must be temimos. No problem for us. But yetzi'as Mitzrayim was
> at midnight.
Mid*day*.
Micha Berger wrote:
> A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on Yom
> Kippur?
Or on the 7th of Adar? That is, after all, when we received the text
of the Torah as we have it today. Before that all we had were excerpts
and the mitzvos that it contains, but not the Torah itself.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:14:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] CRC: Revised whiskey alert - answers to some
4. The alert states a number of facts such as that a Jew owns these
companies and never performed mechiras chometz, however the language
implies there was a safek (halachic doubt)?
The somewhat ambiguous language came from the legal department but the AKO
Executive Committee and at least 8 Poskim associated with national
hashgachos had numerous discussions before releasing this alert, and were
convinced that there is no safek.
--------------------------------------
It would be interesting to understand the secular and halachic issues (or
prophylactic effect thereof) raised by the original statement and this
explanation (e.g. secularly-does the explanation eviscerate the legal
protection of the original statement? does the explanation imply gneivat
daat? etc.)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100518/c9275831/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:23:47 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] tachanun
<AFAIK the only time it can be said is immediately after shmoneh esrei,
and if you missed that opportunity you can't say it later.>
and after selichot
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:24:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tachanun
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 08:52 -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
> We paskin tachanun is "reshut" and thus are more liberal in dispensing
> with saying it.
> Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or both?
> example- you're visiting a friend and daven in a chaddishe minyan on a
> rebbi's yahrtzeit - do you say tachanun there? after you leave? not at
> all? is it your choice?
In Yalkut Yosef Siman 131, halacha 35, RYY rules that omitting tachanun
on the yahrtzeit of tzaddikim is a mistaken custom, and one who davens
in minyan that has such a custom should say tachanun any way (even
though the rest of the tzibbur is following the mistaken custom).
--Ken
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:11:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tachanun
I look at tachanun from the Vilna Gaon's perspective.
Leshitaso, there are two kinds of prayer -- tefillah and tachanunim.
(Perhaps Shema should be counted as a third.)
Tefillah is an excercise in becoming the kind of person who can relate
to the A-lmighty and has the right priorities. That's why we say what
AKhG ("umeihem kamah nevi'im") told us to say as developed by Chazal
and geonim. Also, why the verb is in the reflexice (lehitpallel).
Tachaninim are a person's raw reaching out to their Father in heaven.
They include the Yiddish techines that were collected for women. Also,
anything in the siddur written in the first person singular -- Modeh Ani,
E-lokai Neshamah, E-lokai Netzor, etc... Tefillah, expessing the ideal,
is said as part of the kelal. Anything in singular, therefore, has to
be tachanunim.
See also the distinction between tefillah and baqashah
in BB 123. I discuss this chiluq at more length at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/01/prayers-and-requests.shtml>
Turning to our Father with the needs actually on our mind is
called tachanunim. An ideal time for tachanunim is immediately
after tefillah, as we find in the above-mentioned list of tannaim's
requests. As well as tachanun. Tefillah is always in the plural,
placing ourselves in the context of the community. Tachanunim, like
E-lokai Netzor, can also be in the singular. Because E-lokai Netzor
exists as a framework for what should essentially be spontaneous,
we have a long tradition of adding various requests to it, rather
than preserving the tanna's coinage untouched.
Just as the tachanunim we say as part of regular davening has this
element of a pre-written framework, of tefillah, we allso do not call
for pure tefillah with no element of personal outpouring. We ask
for the health of a sick friend with an insertion in "Refa'einu",
or Hashem's help showing our children how to embrace the Torah's
wisdom in "Atah Chonein", etc... "Whomever makes their tefillos
fixed has not made their tefillos into tachanunim."
This inseparability of these two types of worship might be an
implication of the opening words of Mesilas Yesharim....
Tachanun is a framework for the actual mitzvah, not the mitzvah itself.
A matbei'ah to help codify something whose essence defies the concept
of codification and a matbei'ah.
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 08:52:09AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: We paskin tachanun is "reshut" and thus are more liberal in dispensing
: with saying it.
Only the framework, not baqashos.
Which is why it's possible to ask:
: Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or both?
If someone is on their own, does he need a trellis about which to grow
his tachanunim or not?
That I believe is the essence of the machloqes acharonim.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity?
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Derech Eretz Kadmah LaTorah
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 05:56:50PM -0400, Yosef Skolnick wrote:
: <http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/becoming-your-best-self.ht
: ml>
: It appears we aren't the only people in the world who have a focus on self
: improvement. We are the only one that have a focus on torah though....
I think the primary difference is whether one is trying to become the
person they want to be, or study Devar Hashem in order to become the
person He wants us to be.
Both are using methodology, often the same methods (Ben Franklin's
connection to Cheshbon haNefesh has been noted, but there are also cases
of independent development of similar ideas), but they have drastically
different definitions of "improvement".
: I
: believe a decent explanation of Derech Eretz Kadmah LaTorah is that Derech
: eretz is so pashut (in both senses) and that the torah is meant to refine
: those sensitivities as well as often to redefine which ones we are supposed
: to be concerned with. It can't be that our entire existence is meant to
: work on proper middos, that is supposed to be something that comes from
: proper living...
Actually, I disagree. I think all of Torah really is "mah desani lakh,
lechaveirkha lo saavod", and thus really does boil down to Derekh Eretz.
But we don't know how to get from that overarching principle to actual
behavior in real-life situations. There are times when the right answer
isn't the intuitive one.
Metaphorically speaking: Physicists are looking for a Grand Unified
Theory, a Theory of Everything. Assuming it exists and is someday found,
everything that happens in the universe could be explained in its terms.
However, that doesn't mean that someone could sit down with this theory
and deduce anatomy, brain structure, and psychology.
That's why we need access to the RBSO's wisdom, why Hillel then sends
the prospective ger to go learn.
: We aren't meant to go to
: a vaad and become perfect overnight. That is not what the veadim are for!
: The veadim are meant to be a means for which we can have a guided organic
: growth.
Organic growth was something the Torah is supposed to supply us. The need
for conscious attention to developing the attitudes and priorities HQBH
wants us to have comes from not breathing them in the air of the homes
and communities we grew up in. Nisqatnu hadoros. With each generation,
a little bit of Sinaitic Culture is lost. And needs to be manually
replaced the hard way.
The Alter of Novhardok uses this notion in the title essay of Madreigas
haAdam to explain why RYS saw a need to found Mussar, even though no
parallel need was seen in the generations before this. In his lexicon,
the Haskalah created a gap between the yeshiva (the Torah as studied)
and the ir (the life of the street).
Toras imekha slowly slipping into mussar avikha.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:01:04 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
It may have been given on Yom Kippur but the application of TSBP is
celebrated in Shavout with the story of Rut.
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
> A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on Yom
> Kippur?
>
> Why are we celebrating zeman matan Toraseinu is we weren't ready to
> truly accept it until the 2nd luchos -- on Yom Kippur? And don't chazal
> say that the Torah associated with the first luchos was different in
> kind, tht the whole concept of TSBP starts with the 2nd luchos? (R'
> Chaim Brisker famously discusses this notion.) So the Torah as we have
> is isn't even what was given on Shavuos!
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 00:08:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Torah was not given on Shavuos!!
Ben Waxman wrote:
>> A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on Yom
>> Kippur?
> It may have been given on Yom Kippur but the application of TSBP is
> celebrated in Shavout with the story of Rut.
That's putting the cart before the horse. We only read Ruth then
because it's the time of mattan torah, or because it's David's
yortzeit, or because it's harvest time, or some such reason. It's
not as if anything in the story took place on the 6th of Sivan.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:46:53 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] chazakah and probability
We have several times discussed if chazakah depends on actual statistics
The gemara in Nida brings a chazakah of Raba that a boy/girl at the age of 13/12
has a chazakah that they have physical simanim needed to be an adult.
Tosafot brings a proof (see also shev shematza) from the fact that a boy/girl
can make a vow a year before they become an adult even though we don't know
whether they will have hairs in a year from then.
Nevertheless, SA followed by MA and other poskim state that we do not allow
a bar mitzvah boy to be motzi others in a Torah law unless we have
evidence (R Akiva Eger 2 witnesses) that the boy has simanim. Examples
are parshat zachor, kiddush to be motzi women who have not davened maariv,
halitza etc.
The question is why is this chazakah different from other chazakot?
If we assume the reason is that many bar mitzva boys don't have hair why is
that different from tav lemetav etc?
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:00:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] question regarding a Shach
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:06:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: This question has come up before but I'd like to get your input. The
: Schach in YD 119:20 writes that someone who does not eat something
: because of minhag avotav/haqpada can eat it when being hosted by someone
: who does eat if "he sees a heter b'devar"...
The Shakh opens just with a discussion of mi shenizhar, not minhag avos,
and says mishum eivah outranks personal chumeros.
Then he seems to say explicitly that when it comes to minhag avos or
benei midanaso shenohagin kein, this is not true. However, given that
one can ascertain that the keli isn't ben yomo, you could use the keilim
that your minhag would not permit.
The very end, besheim haRaavan, the Mordekhai and the Agudah, is
not only where he believes his former minhag has no basis, but he is
currently not in the location where that's the minhag. IOW, it's not
a case like today where we carry a minhagei avos with us. Rather, it's
talking about a Hungarishe Yid who is spending a few years in Germany,
and is offered something Yekkes permit and he himself doesn't understand
why Hungarians wouldn't.
Again, this is arguably less-than-real-minhag.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:00:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] question regarding a Shach
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:06:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: This question has come up before but I'd like to get your input. The
: Schach in YD 119:20 writes that someone who does not eat something
: because of minhag avotav/haqpada can eat it when being hosted by someone
: who does eat if "he sees a heter b'devar"...
The Shakh opens just with a discussion of mi shenizhar, not minhag avos,
and says mishum eivah outranks personal chumeros.
Then he seems to say explicitly that when it comes to minhag avos or
benei midanaso shenohagin kein, this is not true. However, given that
one can ascertain that the keli isn't ben yomo, you could use the keilim
that your minhag would not permit.
The very end, besheim haRaavan, the Mordekhai and the Agudah, is
not only where he believes his former minhag has no basis, but he is
currently not in the location where that's the minhag. IOW, it's not
a case like today where we carry a minhagei avos with us. Rather, it's
talking about a Hungarishe Yid who is spending a few years in Germany,
and is offered something Yekkes permit and he himself doesn't understand
why Hungarians wouldn't.
Again, this is arguably less-than-real-minhag.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:09:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] counting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:31:13AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In a shiur I heard the question was raised how count the Jews are
: counted several times in the desert to show how dear they are to G-d and
: OTOH we have a prohibition to count Jews as we see that King David was
: punished and we dont count people for a minyan
: One can find technical differences but they don't really explain what is the
: meaning of counting.
Ein berakhah ela bedavar haneelam min haayin.
My own guess is that this is because human knowledge can change a
potential event from being considered good fortune to being neis nigleh.
But that only applies to people, not HQBH, as ein davar neelam mimeka.
There is no information added when He counts us.
I know you asked for a "real" answer, but this thought (not claiming
it's peshat) from R' Jonathan Sacks was too beautiful not to share.
Why are Jews counted by each contributing a machatzis hasheqel?
If you count the Jewish population, the number is small. How many are we
today? 13.3 million Jews? 0.2% of the world population?
If you count the *contributions* of the Jewish people, however,
everything we have given society since monothestic ethics, the dignity
of man, our constribution to the arts, sciences, medicine, commerce, and
our size is far far greater.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:11:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] onshin shelo min hadin
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:14:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I recently saw the Ran on Sanhedrin 91 in the din of kipa that he says
: explicitly that this is only a n emergency rule but one cannot make
: a permanent rule since even a prophet cannot introduce new regulations.
: Therefore the Ran concludes that kipa
: must be a halacha to Moshe from Sinai...
Why couldn't he consider it derabbanan -- of which there are many new
refulations?
And for that matter, even the 7 tuvei ha'ir have the right to punish in
ways not mandated in Mes' Makkos. So I fail to see the whole chiddush
involved in kippah, where we have an actual Sanhedrin running a Jewish
community in EY.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:14:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah and Life
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 01:53:31PM -0400, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: The following is from RSRH's essay Sivan I, The Collected Writings of
: RSRH Volume I.
: But why then is this celebration [of the giving of the Torah] itself
: on so small a scale, so quiet,
: and restricted in the Torah to the fleeting span of but a single day? And
: on that day itself the celebration is marked by scarcely one positive
: symbol, and is expressed merely in a negative way-by abstaining
: from doing any work!
See Gush's recent Shavuos email, RAL on Torah and Life.
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chag70/shavuot70-a.htm
Teaser:
Many people assume there is a contrast -- if not conflict --
between Torah and "life." In this view, "life" includes all the
practical, "serious" spheres whose participants contribute to
the world and help develop it. As opposed to them is the "Torah,"
with which young people who have not yet moved on to "real life"
amuse themselves. Unfortunately, echoes of this view are even to be
heard within the beit midrash. Many yeshiva students do not relate to
Torah study as "life" itself, but rather as preparation and training
for life.
In the chapter on the word "life" in his Studies in Words (Cambridge,
1967), C.S. Lewis points out that when a person speaks about "real
life," he refers to those elements of life which he values most
highly. Thus, for example, many people relate to a business deal
as an expression of "real life," while writing poetry or engaging
in philosophy are pursuits not deemed worthy of such a dignified
title. Lewis claims that the source of this mistaken distinction
is to be found in "the deeply ingrained conviction of narrow minds
that whatever things they themselves are chiefly exercised on are
the only important things, the only things worth adult, informed,
and thoroughgoing interest" (p. 292). He finds this distinction
unacceptable, since it means that "everything except acquisition
and social success is excluded from the category of 'real life'
and relegated to the realm of play or day-dream" (ibid.).
Lewis' analysis of the prevailing attitude towards spheres of secular
thought is all the more applicable when it comes to engaging in
Torah. Many Jews believe that the Torah is relevant only within a
constricted area, and they attempt to discover at which points this
area coincides with "life" -- the world in which they themselves are
engaged. In many cases people think this way even if they are not
aware of it. The frequently posed question, "What are you going to do
when you leave yeshiva and go out into the big wide world?" actually
reflects an attitude that regards Torah as a sphere external to
life. Obviously, such a view -- in which utilitarian activities
take precedence over the realm of thought -- is deficient from any
self-respecting religious and spiritual point of view. Of course,
we value yishuvo shel olam, developing the world, and the people
involved in it are certainly worthy of praise. But we must be firm
in our opposition to the view that engaging in divrei chokhma,
Torah and matters of the spirit, is not "real life."Many people
assume there is a contrast -- if not conflict -- between Torah and
"life." In this view, "life" includes all the practical, "serious"
spheres whose participants contribute to the world and help develop
it. As opposed to them is the "Torah," with which young people who
have not yet moved on to "real life" amuse themselves. Unfortunately,
echoes of this view are even to be heard within the beit midrash. Many
yeshiva students do not relate to Torah study as "life" itself,
but rather as preparation and training for life.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 121
***************************************
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..."