Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 92

Fri, 13 Jul 2012

• 1. treif anatomy (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Egel Zahav (Daas Books)
• 3. Re: Egel Zahav (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: Egel Zahav (hankman)
• 5. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (hankman)
• 6. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: Egel Zahav (Akiva Blum)
• 8. Re: Egel Zahav (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: The main idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 10. treif anatomy (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 11. Re: treif anatomy (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Liron Kopinsky)
• 13. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (hankman)
• 15. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Micha Berger)

<< : To the best of my knowledge this is a chiddush of CI and no one had
: mentioned this idea before.
: As such I am not sure that it is universally accepted.

The IM does. >>

Sorry, I was not clear - I meant the idea that after year 4000 things are
fixed forever is a chiddush of the CI.
I am not aware that RMF anywhere has anything similar. The specific halacha
for treif anatomy many people agree with. Rambam already implies that
trefot is different from other halachot. Rashba states that even if we have
witnesses that testify that an animal that was a terefah kived more than 12
months we dont beleive them (I really dont understand this). Most again
explain the Rshba as distinguishing terefot from other halachot.

Among other things I dont understand is that there is a machloket in the
gemara whether a terefa can kive more than 12 months
1) is this a machloket in facts?
2) does paskening that a terefah cant kive for more than 12 months alter
the physical facts to the extent that Rashba considers 2 witnesses as liars
based on this psak?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/fae33d5c/attachment-0001.htm>

I?m confused by this thread.

The original question, and the replies to it, are based on this premise:

> hence insisted upon the golden calf

(I?ve quoted longer snippets below for anyone who missed them)

This premise seems to be that the Bnai Yisroel people _chose_ to construct a
cow to replace Moshe.

I had thought that the pashut pshat of Ex 32:24 was that the cow was either
completely _not_ the specific intention of the people or at the most the
intention of _one_ person (?Micha? according to the Midrash), and that these
people, upon seeing this miraculous cow, were able to embrace it as a
familiar symbol that they could party ? er, rally ? around.

Therefore, until now I?ve understood that their problem was that Moshe had
been a tangible way for them to relate to Hashem, and with him gone, they
had a really hard time relating to Hashem, because they were addicted as it
were to the physical world. The cow gave them something physical that they
could relate to. And moreover, the ?they? we?re talking about is the Eruv
Rav, not the Bnai Yisroel.

What the participants in this thread seem to be saying is that they ? the
Bnai Yisroel - were looking for a leader and made a conscious choice to
create and follow an aigel.

There you have it ? I?ve exposed my ignorance. Will someone please set me
straight.

- Alexander Seinfeld


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:01 AM, <cantorwolb...@cox.net> wrote:

> The question is that since the people thought Moshe Rabbeinu was dead,
> they were in a panic and needed something to take
> the place of Moshe. They said they needed a leader and hence insisted
> upon the golden calf. So why didn't they say to Aaron:
> Your brother Moshe is dead. We want YOU to lead us. That would have been
> the most logical choice. Why then, didn't that occur to them?

On 7/12/12 2:28 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>wrote:

>> And the COW was the RIGHT type of leader??
> 
> They thought it was. The cow was Apis, the deity in the Egyptian pantheon
> that delivered people's petitions to the other gods. Moshe had an air
> of remoteness and loftiness, and they therefore replaced him with a
> messenger who was closer to divinity than humanity.

Yes.  It was different from them.

On 7/12/2012 11:55 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>> Ahron was already a leader, but he was the wrong kind of leader.
>>      
> And the COW was the RIGHT type of leader??
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/ad19ffcf/attachment-0001.htm>

R?Wolberg wrote:
: And the COW was the RIGHT type of leader??

RMB wrote:
They thought it was. The cow was Apis, the deity in the Egyptian pantheon
that delivered people's petitions to the other gods. Moshe had an air
of remoteness and loftiness, and they therefore replaced him with a
messenger who was closer to divinity than humanity.

CM notes:
If I recall correctly, the Ramban learns that the Shor was the choice as an
alternate face of the Merkovo from the pnai adam represented by MR that
they thought they had just lost. Of course I always wondered, well what was
wrong with the pnai nesher or the pnai ari? Perhaps RMB?s use of the
Egyptian pantheon might explain the preference? (Anyone know if the nesher
or the ari are also part of this pantheon?) I rather suspect that the
Ramban must be frowning right about now for trying to use this pantheon to
explain his peshat in chumash and mixing merkovo and pantheon in one
breath.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/7a75d9ea/attachment-0001.htm>

R?nTK wrote:

My husband wants to know whether you really could use these LED lights as 
Shabbos candles, and could you make a bracha "lehadlik ner shel Shabbos" 
over them? An LED light is not a ner -- or is it? 

CM notes:
However you answer the question you actually asked ?whether ?an LED light
[is or] is not a ner? I think there is a threshold question of fact you
need to investigate first. Since the purpose of ner Shabbos is to enhance
oneg Shabbos so you do not eat your seudas Shabbos in a dark room, does
this LED usefully illuminate the room and enhance ?oneg? or is it like the
LEDs on my modem or other electronic gear that just serve as an indicator
for ?on? or ?off? but do not usefully illuminate the space they are in.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/af769ef1/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> But we're not discussing "borei me'orei ha'esh"; we're
> discussing "lehadlik ner shel shabbos kodesh" or "shel
> yom tov", etc.  And there the mitzvah is the provision
> of practical light by which one may walk around
> without hurting oneself, and see what one is eating.
> A LED provides this just as well as a candle.

(I would add that we're also not talking about Chanukah, where Pirsumei Nisa demands fuel that burns on a wick.)

I've long felt exactly as RZS explained. Which is why I'm indebted to this
posters in this thread for pointing out the problems posed by the wording
of the bracha.

I'm now of the opinion (not that my opinion counts for anything, of course)
that there should be no problem whatsoever as regards fulfilling the
mitzvah of light in one's home on Shabbos by use of an LED or other
electric light. But at the same time, I can also see that one might not be
able to use the words "l'hadlik" or "ner" when doing that mitzvah,
depending on how one defines those words. (I don't know Hebrew (or Lashon
Hakodesh, for that matter) well enough to opine on whether those words
require something to burn.)

I would compare the situation to saying "l'his'atef b'tzitzis" on a garment which is worn, but worn in a manner other than atifah.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM, <cantorwolb...@cox.net> wrote:

> I have the following question.
> If the people believed Moshe was dead and therefore they needed another
> leader,
> why didn't they ask Aharon to be their leader instead of the egel? OR, why
> wouldn't
> Aharon OFFER to lead them, rather than make an idol? Even though he had
> great
> humility, his being a leader (even for a day or less since he knew Moshe
> was returning),
> would be preferable to their sin.


 Rashi (shemos 34:1) says they really wanted many gods. So MR was great as
a leader. But now they had a opportunity for leadership change, and as good
as Aharon may have been, well, there was only one of him.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/db52ff1e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:16:08PM -0400, hankman wrote:
: If I recall correctly, the Ramban learns that the Shor was the choice
: as an alternate face of the Merkovo from the pnai adam represented by MR
: that they thought they had just lost...

I built a whole theory based on the following pieces:

- The eigel has strong similarity to Yerav'am's religion.
    + Aharon: Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim!
              (Or: Eilah E-lokekha Yisrael... ?!)
      Yerav'am: Hinei elokekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim!

    + Eigel vs two parim -- at least their both cows
      Note also that Aharon says "eileh" about one eigel, Yerav'am says
      "hinei" about two. Although the two were on opposite ends of his
      malkhus, so maybe he was just referring to the one in front of him.

- Yerav'am's religion bears strong resemblence to the cult of Apis
    + The Egyptians also had two temples with golden bulls in front
      on opposite ends of the country

    + Yerav'am moved Sukkos to the middle of the 8th month -- when the
      Egyptian cult had its holiday.

- Keruvim have much to do with cows

    + In Yechezqeil 1:10 the chayos have 4 faces: man, lion, ox, eagle
      In 10:15, it's keruv, man, lion and eagle
      The ox in one vision is a keruv in the other.

    + Apis was a god who was a bull (or a man with a bull head) who pulled
      the cart of prayers up to the other gods, and their blessings back to
      man.
      The Chalean messenger god had the body of a bull with a human face
      -- and was called Kiruv.
      Lehavdil, the keruvim are also a conduit -- the amud ha'eish appears
      between them.

So I suggested that Kirub and Apis worship are actually the worship of the
keruvim. As per Hilkhos Avodah 1:1 -- all AZ started out by worshipping
Hashem's ministers. Yeravam revived the old religion, the one the eirev
rav taught the masses in the maaseh eigel. This served his purpose, he
was able to tell his subjects they didn't need to go to Y-m. You don't
need to go to approach the amud ha'anan above the aron when your entire
homeland is bein hakeruvim. How very democratic -- Qorach would be proud.

They misunderstood Moshe's role. Rather than thinking of him as Moshe
Rabbeinu, someone who could teach us how to serve Hashem ourselves, they
saw him as a middleman. In the role of a keruv. So they made themselves
a keruv, the eigel hazahav, to be their conduit to HQBH.

Longer explanation at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/06/angels-and-idols.shtml

Which is why my first suggestion in answer to Cantor Wolberg's question
was that Aharon, being a man of the people, wasn't what they're looking
for. Even though they probably associated Moshe's mouthpiece and the
vehicle for a couple of the makkos with leadership, it was the wrong
kind of leadership. They didn't someone from within.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:28:14PM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
:  Rashi (shemos 34:1) says they really wanted many gods. So MR was great as
: a leader. But now they had a opportunity for leadership change, and as good
: as Aharon may have been, well, there was only one of him.

Many gods -- like Yerav'am's gold bulls and Aharon's "eileh"?

I'm not sure you have that citation right. Maybe you mean 32:1, "asheir
yeilekhu lefaneinu"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RJB:
<<And yet this formulation is entirely God-centered in both aspects. 
What about our fellow man? Hillel and Shimon haTzadik would disagree 
with an entirely God-centered formulation, I think.>>

RAM:
<<Of course, this has been done before, as RJB quoted Hillel (Gemara 
Shabbos 31a).>>

Look at Rashi there (s.v. "D'alach sanei ..."); you'll see that
it's ambiguously phrased -- it could be construed as God-centered or
human-centered.

David Riceman

"The example usually given is the permissability to be mechalel Shabbos
to save a baby after 8 months even thugh chazal thought such babies are
not viable. ALTHOUGH, I mentioned a month ago the Y-mi Yevamos 24b which
indicates that this is only true of 9 month babies. 7 month babies could
be born late in the 8th month and are viable. And since you never know
which a baby is, I think this Y-mi is a basis in Chazal for saying you
save the baby because it's safeiq piquach nefesh."

I don't understand. Didn't Chazal mean SOMETHING when they said that
fetuses in the 8th month are not viable?  Or was it only a theoretical
statement (that now appears scientifically incorrect) that never had any
practical application?

As an aside, I've thought for a long time that "nishtaneh hatevah" is a concept that separates MO from Chareidim.

Joseph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120712/07b6ac0a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:27:29PM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
:> The example usually given is the permissability to be mechalel Shabbos
:> to save a baby after 8 months even thugh chazal thought such babies are
:> not viable. ALTHOUGH, I mentioned a month ago the Y-mi Yevamos 24b which
:> indicates that this is only true of 9 month babies. 7 month babies could
:> be born late in the 8th month and are viable. And since you never know
:> which a baby is, I think this Y-mi is a basis in Chazal for saying you
:> save the baby because it's safeiq piquach nefesh.

: I don't understand. Didn't Chazal mean SOMETHING when they said that
: fetuses in the 8th month are not viable? Or was it only a theoretical
: statement (that now appears scientifically incorrect) that never had
: any practical application?

When you say Chazal, you mean specifically the opinion one finds in the
Bavli. Apparently, this was not consensus in EY. I don't know it the
consensus is that a 7 month baby may be born a month later and be viable,
or that there was no consensus either way. Machloqes between EY and
Bavel, perhaps?

The speaker in the Y-mi is R' Zei'ra (R' Zeira in the Bavli), who lived
in Bavel before joining the discussion in the Y-mi. And it's clear from
the quote that he heard the idea that an 8th month baby is not viable;
he "just" limited it to those babies who should have been born in nine.

I would conjecture R' Zeira saw no other way to account for experience --
he knew of 8 month babies who did live.

: As an aside, I've thought for a long time that "nishtaneh hatevah"
: is a concept that separates MO from Chareidim.

That's a consequence of "Garnel"'s idea that the primary chiluq has
become autonomy vs authority. (More than the original split over how
to respond to encounters with modernity.) If you give much more weight
to authority, you will be more willing to suspend judgment to justify
following what they wrote. If you give more weight to autonomy, you'll
gravitate toward shitos that better fit your personal common sense.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM, hankman <hank...@bell.net> wrote:

>   CM notes:
> However you answer the question you actually asked ?whether ?an LED light
> [is or] is not a ner? I think there is a threshold question of fact you
> need to investigate first. Since the purpose of ner Shabbos is to enhance
> oneg Shabbos so you do not eat your seudas Shabbos in a dark room, does
> this LED usefully illuminate the room and enhance ?oneg? or is it like the
> LEDs on my modem or other electronic gear that just serve as an indicator
> for ?on? or ?off? but do not usefully illuminate the space they are in.
>

I'm not sure how relevant this would be. (Although my assumption is they do
give off a fair amount of light, like many LED flashlights today).

In a fully lit room, where one woman has already lit candles, while it is
preferable for any other women who want to light to light in a different
place in the house, we (I think this is only for Ashkenazim but I don't
remember) hold that tosefet ohr is enough of a reason to make a bracha over
an additional lighting. Further, if the room was fully dark without the
LEDs and they gave off just enough light to avoid tripping over something
on the floor, that would also presumably be enough light. Most LEDs, even
small ones on electrical devices, would provide this level of light.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120713/0bf68595/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: In a fully lit room, where one woman has already lit candles, while it is
: preferable for any other women who want to light to light in a different
: place in the house, we (I think this is only for Ashkenazim but I don't
: remember) hold that tosefet ohr is enough of a reason to make a bracha over
: an additional lighting..

For that matter, most women today are lighting candles in an area already
well lit by the room's electric lighting. RHSchachter suggested that these
be shut off and turned back on too. IIRC but I'm not certain I do recall
correctly, he too said it was on the order of preferable, not mandatory.

:                         Further, if the room was fully dark without the
: LEDs and they gave off just enough light to avoid tripping over something
: on the floor, that would also presumably be enough light. Most LEDs, even
: small ones on electrical devices, would provide this level of light.

There are cars with LED headlights. LEDs can be quite bright. The
tealights in question are comparable to real ones.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

:-)BBii!
-Micha

RLK wrote:
: Further, if the room was fully dark without the
: LEDs and they gave off just enough light to avoid tripping over something
: on the floor, that would also presumably be enough light. Most LEDs, even
: small ones on electrical devices, would provide this level of light.
RMB noted:
There are cars with LED headlights. LEDs can be quite bright. The
tealights in question are comparable to real ones.

CM responds:
Both RLK and RMB have basically responded: Yes, these LEDs give off plenty
of (enough) light. In my post I posited this as a fact threshold which RMB 
has answered in the affirmative. RMB responded that there are some types of
very bright LEDs. RLK responded that even the small LEDs typically used on
audio and electronic equipment (power on etc.) give off enough light so you
would not trip in a dark room. In my experience perhaps in the immediate
vicinity (say 5-6 inches) from the LED there is some illumination but this
falls off very rapidly. I would ask if in fact the level of illumination is
discussed by the poskim wrt ner Shabbos, whether extremely low and very
local (within a few inches) levels of illumination suffice for Oneg Shabbos
(and therefore for ner Shabbos)? 

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120713/a032ec7e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 01:27:09PM -0400, Gidon Rothstein wrote:
: 1) What is the indispensable core of Judaism (Yiddishkeit)? and

: 2) How can we identify that core in ways that anyone committed to Orthodoxy
: would have to agree must be part of the center? That second discussion
: shows why I would be leery of using any one statement in the Gemara (or any
: one central idea, such as *hatavah*) as the essence of the religion....

And for everything I've written already, on this I feel the book
succeeds. IOW, R/D GR does succeed in showing that awareness of Hashem's
presence and our being ovedei H' must be part of hatavah, or (more
obviously) deveiqus, or... It is the one thing consistent in all the
usual formulations of a Mission Statement.

Which segues to...

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0300, Simi Peters wrote:
: It seems to me that we can talk about the main idea of Judaism in
: terms of two things: (1) the message of Judaism to the world (which
: also includes us) and (2) the main idea of Judaism in terms of what a
: Jew is supposed to be and do.

RSRiskin repeatedly spoke to us in HS about how Judaism is Divine
Anthropology not Humans' Theology. IOW, we live among religions that try
to explain higher realities and more centrally, G-d. However, Yahadus
is HQBH describing man. (RNWeinberg would often refer to the Torah as
a User Manual, I thought of this idea as being along the same lines.)

I guess somewhere along the way picked up a perspective that led me
to instinictively identify Judaism's Main Point with something the Jew
(or Noachide) could turn into a Mission Statement. Perhaps the previous
paragraph explains some of the roots of why. (Since it's "instinctive",
I'm not asserting I know exactly where my attitude came from, or even
that I am right. Just that I feel convinced.)

There is a third possible contender for what one means by "Main Point",
central truth. This I believe is incomprehensible. Not because of any
pegagogic limitation on HQBH's part, but because at some point you get
too close to theology for humans to comprehend the answer. (For that
matter, this is the Maharal's approach to machloqes in general, but
that's a whole nother thread.)

So, at my current point in thinking about the topic, I would say:

1- There is a central message to Yahadus, and we should be able to figure
out what it is from the Torah. Presumably this is about including Hashem
in our plans, actions, and perspective on what happens to us.

So, can we say is there some small, managable list of ideas that clearly
and incontravertibly are Hashem's Central Message in the Torah? I believe
so, because:

a- A message must be comprehensible by the resipient to be a
message. Speaking of our limitations in comparison to Hashem's Thought
wouldn't apply to messeges.

a- Human beings respond well to such things. It's hard to be an idealist
when the ideal is a list of 10s of thousands of dinim with no unifying
forest for the trees.

I feel R/D GR's book succeeds in deriving it.

2- The central truth of Judaism is at least as subject to machloqes as
anything else. Because whatever it really is as per Hashem's Thought,
all humans can have are human-sized slices of the whole.

A metaphor I like using for explaining the plurality on this level.
(I think it explains things in a way that the famous Five Blind Men and
the Elephant [which I presume you know already] does not.)

If you shine a light on the face of a cube, you get a square shadow.

If you shine it on the corner, the shadow is hexagonal.

Hashem's "Machashavah" is to 3D as our havanah is to 2D. And so, Beis
Hillel insists that the halakhah is "square", Beis Shammai insists it's
"hexagon", and both are actually describing the same Divine "Thought".

This is the Maharal's approach to eilu va'eilu altogether, but that's
a very different (and oft repeated) thread.

3- There are probably as many possible Mission Statements as people. Not
just in terms of a person's situational role -- how the grand scheme
dictatate my actions and role in history because of where and when I
live, how I meet, etc.. But also in terms of how the diversity of ways
of descriving the Central Truth combined with individual inclinations
will generate a multiplicity of ways to describe the categorical
(non-situational) mission. Chassidus might emphasize deveiqus, or bitul
as the way to acheive deveiqus. Slabodka meanwhile is talking gadlu
ha'adam. TiDE...

Here I would use a different mashal to explain the plurality. "Mi yaaleh
behar Hashem..." Someone standing at the foothills on the east of the
mountain will head west. Someone to the mountain's north will head
south. All are going for the same goal -- upward, as close to the peak
as they are capable of.

People have different talents, different challenges and different
interests. If they are too different, that is likely to push them to
prefer different models of the Central Truth as well. But even if they
do share the same model of the ultimate Grand Unified Theory of Torah,
will still end up with different Mission Statements. Simply because they
are standing at different places in relation to the goal.


R' Rothstein's book addresses issue #1 (the message). I (for reasons I
tried to psychoanalyze above) have been more focused on #2 (the truth)
and more so -- since I consider the truth something we can only model,
not understand -- #3 (the mission). Or as I put it to him, I would have
written two different books, rather than the goal he set for himself.



On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:35:04AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RLL:
>> It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't,
>> maybe that's something to work on.

> You have rephrased what RAM and I are arguing about.  I advocate
> "multiple hierarchies", i.e., that human life does not have a single
> goal, towards which all actions are aimed...

Do believe HQBH intended things to be that way?

If so, then perhaps we can just create a new parent ideal which combines
those hierarchies into one. Starting with something like: Hashem made
us to be autonomous creative beings who...

If you believe Hashem made us so that we should value other pursuits
as ends in themselves (and I'm not asserting that, just paraphrasing
my understanding of your point), then that too is part of the ideal of
being what He made me to be.

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:54:42PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Rn Simi Peters:

:> It seems to me that we can talk about the main idea of Judaism in
:> terms of two things: (1) the message of Judaism to the world (which
:> also includes us) and (2) the main idea of Judaism in terms of what a
:> Jew is supposed to be and do.

:> It seems to me that the message of Judaism in the first sense is
:> "ein od milvado". This isn't a purely theological statement,

: I have trouble with that

(I must confess that it was so clear to me from years of prior discussions
on this and other e-fora that this concept is one RJB has been gnawing
on and trying to work through, I was expecting a reply from him as soon
as I saw RnRP's post.)

:                          as a fundamental - it's too open to interpretation.
...

Is that a problem? Can't we have a fundamental concept, but one that
we can't get a complete handle on and so different people understand
different ways? And that the essence isn't in the details of this
understanding or the other, but what they all perforce will have in
common.

:> As far as the second main idea of Judaism (in terms of what a Jew
:> is supposed to be and do), it seems to me that "Kedoshim tihiyu" is an
:> explicit statement of that. The Meshekh Hokhma's definition of this
:> mitzva encapsulates its essential meaning: to dedicate everything to
:> God--our time, our energies, our possessions, our relationships, etc.

: And yet this formulation is entirely God-centered in both aspects.

True. But my same set of questions apply.

E.g. as I already quoted from my translation of RSSkop, he sees avodas
Hashem as being meitiv others as He would. That this is what it is we
are to commit to when we speak of qedushah as "dedicat[ing] everything".

: What about our fellow man? Hillel and Shimon haTzadik would disagree
: with an entirely
: God-centered formulation, I think....

Hillel may or may not. Rashi offers two possibilities as to whether Hille
refers to "chaverkha" or "Chaverkha" with a capital Ches.

: I think it's fruitless to argue that God is more important than Man (self
: and/or other) in Judaism, or that Man is more important than God - that
: way lies the distinction between ethical and ritual mitzvot, and the
: possibility of discarding one or the other depending on one's predi-
: lections.

Well, the main point could be that there are three primary values -- our
relationship with HQBH, with other people, and self-refinement. Which is
how the Maharal explains Torah, Avodah and Gemillus Chassadim, but in a
different order. Something similar is the Maharsha's take on the pasuq in
Mikhah (in his commentary on the quote from R' Simlai), and possibly Dr
Birnbaum (and AishDas's) Da'as, Rachamim, Tife'res.

DRT was certainly Dr Birnbaum's attempt to phrase the Mission Statement.
See my recent blog post
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/07/daas-rachamim-tiferes.shtml>.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:25:30PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: Of course, this has been done before, as RJB quoted Hillel (Gemara
: Shabbos 31a). But, notably, it's only a partial quote. The tag line is
: critical: "Go and learn." And I suspect that's what led him to conclude,
: incorrectly, that it leaves G-d out of the equation.

More than that... I'm saying that after reading R/D Gidon Rothstein's
book, I realize that the majority of Torah is about keeping in mind that
it's not only good as Hashem defines it that we should share with others,
but good because it's His. As D' Birnbaum put it (quoting my translation
in above link):

    The stream of Love that flows from under the Throne of Glory works not
    only in a direct manner, but also in an indirect way; in particular
    Hashem yisbarakh made man to rule with his physical love. The love of
    G-d readies man and adapts him to sacrifice all the urges of his heart
    for the sake of lofty things and moving ideals, and all his senses
    and feelings are pulled and drawn after what is high and uplifted,
    pure and holy...

Not "simply" to have an empathetic instinct, to be a conduit of His Love.

: But the contradiction is an illusion, created by putting too much
: emphasis on the sound bite, and a failure to Go And Learn.

As I wrote above, I think people need slogans and soundbites for
motivational reasons. I think that was R' Simlai's whole point, and
R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai's. Below I'll outline a half-baked idea I'm
mulling over related to this problem.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:48:53PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Your theoretical construct is a pastiche.  We have a principle (mitzva -
: aveirah) which classifies acts as hiyuvim, issurum, and neutral.  We
: have a second principle (for God's sake) which classifies acts as
: virtuous or not.

Which is necessary for defining cases which aren't themselves classifiable
as categorically wrong or right, but may be part of an individual's
fulfillment of "qedoshim tihyu" or "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov" which
require having a definition of the virtues of qedushah, yashrus, and tov.

: But why two principles? Each one by itself fully classifies all acts.
: As far as I can tell your only excuse is that you don't approve of the
: concept of a neutral act, but can't jettison the first principle  (the
: Hovoth HaLevavoth expresses a view similar to yours, but one which does
: not suffer from this particular problem).

Issur and chiyuv are categorical. If they covered every possibility, there
would be no variety, no human component to avodas Hashem after the poseiq
does his job.

...
: Your argument, unlike RAM's RMB's and RLL's, is independent of motive.
: So lets try a reductio ad absurdum.  Could one not argue similarly that
: since, according to the Rambam, all non-religious action is fated
: (that's how he construes "hakol biydei shamayim hutz miyiras shamayim"),
: any neutral act I perform counts as a virtuous act?

Tangent: Where does the Rambam say this? He is one of the rishonim who
do not believe that everything a person experiences is HP how could he
then say that every thought from the kind of person who isn't in the
middle of meriting HP /is/ biydei Shamayim?

: RMB:
:> That's why I replied with RSSkop's comment about being able to
:> sanctify recreation, if the recreation is truly and honestly -- without
:> fooling oneself -- in order to be more fit at one's tafqid.

: I think RMB's attitude is closer to the mark, but I'll critique it
: anyway.  The Ba'alei Mussar like to advise people to specialize in one
: particular mitzvah (cf. Avos 4:11), and do that particularly assiduously
: and meticulously.  Of course its impossible for one person to do that
: with all mitzvos, since they compete for resources and attention.  RSS
: himself says that he is describing how to implement the mitzva of
: kedoshim tihyu particularly meticulously. But what of the person who
: chooses to specialize in a different mitzva which takes less time?

Actually, RSS says qedoshim tihyu is *it*, not just /a/ mitzvah. Which can
make sense, "qedhshah" isn't as specific as "akhilas matzah", after all.
Here's the relevent quote, right after discussing the Toras Kohanim and
the Ramban on "Qedoshim Tihyu":
    And so, it appears to my limited thought that this mitzvah includes
    the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our lives. All of
    our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for
    the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or
    enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And
    as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable
    purpose which is that a person straightens his path and strives
    constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then,
    anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and
    soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through
    this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does
    for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. But if he
    derives benefit from some kind of permissible thing that isn't needed
    for the health of his body and soul, that benefit is in opposition
    to holiness. For in this he is benefiting himself (for that moment
    as it seems to him), but to no one else does it have any value.



When I worked at Bank of America, they started an initiative to raise
the quality of process in the firm. This meant complying to standards for
processes like Six-Sigma (firmwide) and CMM level 3 (in technology). As
an off-topic observation: a development process that is both 6 Sigma
and CMM level 3 compliant is onerous, takes over a manager's life,
makes him miserable in that his day has nothing to do with technology,
the business it supports, or even helping the team reach landmarks. The
process becomes an end in itself and his entire day. Until finally it
pushes him to quit. Anyway...

One Six Sigma idea I did like was that BofA took on a Hoshin Plan. I'm
not going to go into the full thing of what a Hoshin Plan is, just one
of its concepts I think could be of value in Avodas Hashem.

In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for
the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could
help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division.
His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc...

This way, the individual programmer knows that he is developing an XYZ
because it fits the team's goal of A, which fits the group's goal of B,
and so on all the way up to the firm's goals which must reflect its
Mission Statement.

Picture if one Elul (or maybe even on a Hebrew birthday -- vedai
lachakima beramiza <grin>) we did this for our Avodas Hashem... Picture
being able to tie why you're going to the store to what it is you plan on
accomplishing in your life's avodah. I think it would be very powerful in
making all of life, even recreation or side interests, holy -- however
it is you define holiness.

Of course, this requires belief that everything is supposed to be part
of the avodah, in the ideal, but I think I wallpapered over that problem
already.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 92
**************************************

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..."