Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 12

Thu, 10 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: economics 101 (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: economics 101 (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: economics 101 (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: economics 101 (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: A Three-Day Journey (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: economics 101 (Micha Berger)
• 7. What is Meshal haQdmoni (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: economics 101 (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: economics 101 (Micha Berger)
• 10. FW: Shituf (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: economics 101 (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: economics 101 (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy? (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:35:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> In Baba Mezia 40 the gemara states that one cannot make a profit of more
>>>> than 1/6

>>> On food.

>> Onaas mamon applies to all commodities except avadim. As long as there
>> is a shaar (a going rate, which is why I used the word "commodities")
>> and it's metaltelim.

> This has nothing to do with ona'ah.  You are confusing two completely
> unrelated topics.

I don't know why you say that, but in any case, it doesn't make onaah
evaporate either. So brass-tacks, the profit is limited either way.
But I have no idea why you think there are two issurim about profits of
1/6 and they're unrelated.

What BM 40 is discussing is cases where a barrel might absorb enough
(and depending how the barrels are lined), or dregs might constitute
enough, etc... to constitute onaah. How much is considered a normal part
of the deal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

I asked:
> My question is that with such a setup, the TC effectively
> *is* living off charity. The question might be answered by
> pointing out that it is a kavoddik non-blatant sort of
> charity, but I don't know if that makes such a difference,
> especially if it is well-known.

R' Zev Sero answered:
> It's no different than choosing to buy Israeli products even
> if they're more expensive than similar products from other
> countries.

Thank you. You've put it in much better perspective.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50ee31ddbbca131dd7d84st04vuc

On 9/01/2013 7:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>> This has nothing to do with ona'ah.  You are confusing two completely
>> unrelated topics.
>
> I don't know why you say that, but in any case, it doesn't make onaah
> evaporate either. So brass-tacks, the profit is limited either way.

There is no ona'ah here in the first place.  Profits are not cheating.
They are a perfectly honest part of business, open and above-board.

> But I have no idea why you think there are two issurim about profits of
> 1/6 and they're unrelated.

What two issurim?  I have no idea how you associate this entire topic with
ona'ah.


> What BM 40 is discussing is cases where a barrel might absorb enough
> (and depending how the barrels are lined), or dregs might constitute
> enough, etc... to constitute onaah. How much is considered a normal part
> of the deal.

No, it is not.  It has absolutely not the faintest connection to that.
You really need to read it more carefully.  The main topic of the gemara
is how much ullage one can expect in various foodstuffs.  If one stores
a kilo of wheat, or a litre of wine, how much should one expect to find
after a reasonable period?  It depends on what kind of food it is, and
what it's normal to store it in, and the climate, and all sorts of other
conditions.  There is no shiur of 1/6, it's whatever it is.  If the normal
rate of loss in a particular place, for a particular good, is 1/2, then
that is what it is, and if it's only 1/20, then that is what it is. Where
are you seeing anything to do with ona'ah?

Anyway, that's not the bit we're discussing here anyway.  The bit we're
discussing here is on 40b.  The gemara discusses Rav Yehuda's retail
practise, and notes that he made a profit of 2/3 of a zuz on a 6-zuz
barrel of wine, and asks why he didn't make more.  He could lawfully
have made a profit of 1.2 zuzin, so why did he charge so little?  Why
did he charge 1/6 of a zuz per kuza, when he could have charged 0.18?

Now RET would say perhaps the market price was 1/6, so he *couldn't*
charge .18, but Tosfos explains that "probably Rav Yehuda would have
found customers who would be willing to pay more", which sounds to me
like the suggestion I made earlier that people are willing to pay more
in order to support a talmid chacham.

In any event, as you see the topic in this little sugya-ette at the
top of 40b is also not ona'ah, nor is it any longer about ullage (though
it follows from that), but about Shmuel's limit on how much profit one
may make on food.  And the reason there is a limit is not yosher but
Ahavat Yisrael, "vachei achicha imach".


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Dear felloow Ovedim,

I notice some posters are confusing two similar but unrelated sugyot, which
is why posters wonder how we can turn a profit and how prices are set.

There is a din Torah of prohibiting onaah. That concept is NOT RELATED TO
PROFITS, but to market proces, which is set by supply and demand. On items
for which there is a market price (milk, flour, fuel), one may not
overcharge or underbid by more than 1/6th.

Then, there is a different sugya, which is no longer in force, and that is
that our Sages wanted to guarantee that foods remain affordable AND
available. Hence, regarding some basic products, there is a prohibition to
earn more than 1/6th. Small items, however, like eggs, that cost too much
for handling and will otherwise not reach market, are freed from this
limit, and operate under a different regime of max., 1/2 profit.

Poskim have ruled that this takana is void nowadays, as it depends on the
particular needs of a particular market, and nowadays, markets operate
differently. See Pitchei Choshen for details. However, the spirit of this
taqana remains in force, in the form of maximum priceds for a slew of basic
products, at least in many countries.

The din of onaah, OTOH, is a deoraita, and always in force, AS LONG AS
THERE IS A REAL, LIQUID MARKET. E.g., there is no really liquid market of
all cars, as a Rolce Royce is not interchangeable with a Fiat Punto.
Instead, the market is semi liquid, as all Lincoln Town Cars of the same
year are pretty much the same car (let's ignore momentarily the optional
equipment), thus, one dealer in NYC may not sell such a car at 1/6th above
the price of the other dealers. Regarding items for which traders are
makpid on even small deviations from the price, there will be onaah even
with less than 1/6th, e.g. currency markets (but not the change agent at
the airport, who operates in a different market than the trader at a
currency exchange), stocks, commodities...  Pitchei Choshen also suggests
that where there is a price set by the manufacturer, anything above that is
onaah.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130110/00e99bf3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:

> On 9/01/2013 6:09 AM, Akiva Miller wrote:
>
>> 7,8) In Sefer Sh'mos, both last week (5:3)*and*  this week (8:23), Moshe
>> asks Par'o for no more than a 3-day furlough. And these were not merely
>> Moshe speaking on his own initiative, but at Hashem's command (3:18)! Even
>> as late as after the ninth makkah, in 10:24-26, Par'o still thought that
>> the exodus would be less than total, and Moshe refrained from correcting
>> this misimpression.
>>
>
> See the chizkuni on this point. But it doesn't answer the general theme,
just the specific case.


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130110/1ebcb278/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:42:00AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: There is a din Torah of prohibiting onaah. That concept is NOT RELATED TO
: PROFITS, but to market proces, which is set by supply and demand...
: Then, there is a different sugya, which is no longer in force, and that is
: that our Sages wanted to guarantee that foods remain affordable AND
: available....

As I said, I don't see them as the same din, but I also fail to see
how you consider them unrelated. (Which is what I asked Zev in my prior
post on the thread.) As I read the Rosh (and the Me'iri's word choice),
Shemuel is discussing a derabbanan definition / extension of ona'ah.

But the Me'iri explains BM 40b in terms of ona'ah. He opens, "Hamokheir
tzarikh sheyimkor be'emunah uvelo ona'ah...."

I also fail to see how you're defining profit. The SA (CM 231:20) quotes
the Rosh (unattributed, but on our daf) that applies Shmuel's idea in
relation to sha'ar. Isn't that the same standard as the deOraisa, but
here applied derabbnan to how much markup one may add for labor?

So that in effect, even on a high-labor item, if it's a necessity the
most you can charge is 1/3 above sha'ar -- 1/6 mide'Oraisa for parts,
and 1/6 a derabbanan limit on labor. Whereas if it's a non-necessity,
then you can charge what you want for labor, and it it's a low-labor
item, necessity or not, such that it's meaningless to charge for the
effort of selling it you can only charge up to 1/6 above.

But in any case, how can the deOraisa limiting sell price in relation
to value /not/ limit profit? You must be discussing something different
than I'm thinking because I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the word
"profit".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

Dear Ovedim,

Rashi cites Meshal haQadmoni, but I never thought too much about what that
source is. Today, I stimbled across the following page, from a manuscript
exhibit in New York: http://bodleian.thejewishmuseum.org/?p=41

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130110/d4c2481d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> But the Me'iri explains BM 40b in terms of ona'ah. He opens, "Hamokheir
> tzarikh sheyimkor be'emunah uvelo ona'ah...."
>

It's still a separate din, merely using the form of onaah. Bear with me.

>
> I also fail to see how you're defining profit. The SA (CM 231:20) quotes
> the Rosh (unattributed, but on our daf) that applies Shmuel's idea in
> relation to sha'ar. Isn't that the same standard as the deOraisa, but
> here applied derabbnan to how much markup one may add for labor?
>

Mideoraita, if you run an efficient operation or manage to import goods
very cheaply, you can run a 1000% profit, and it bothers no one, as long as
the net result is that you sell within the norm.

But in any case, how can the deOraisa limiting sell price in relation
> to value /not/ limit profit? You must be discussing something different
> than I'm thinking because I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the word
> "profit".
>

Profit is markup above cost, while onaah is markup above going price.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130110/ad2be30f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:36:51PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Profit is markup above cost, while onaah is markup above going price.

I will concede the possibility that the Me'iri could have used the word
"ona'ah" not as a halachic buzzword, but "profiteering" in a colloquial
sense. (But then I blame him for any confusion I might be having.) We
also have to explain why the Rosh on our amud ends up in the middle of
the SA's discussion of formal (buzzword) ona'ah.

(FWIW, I think of the profit of the sale as the difference between
the money and the value. The difference between cost and value is the
unrealized P&L of the initial purchase of the item and/or of the labor
invested to complete the product, or just change in market pricing. Not
part of the profit of the sale.)

Now, on to what I am still not on the same page as you with:

This issur is also in relation to sha'ar, not cost. As the Rosh notes,
between the deOraisa and Shemu'el, the limit on charging for essentials
that take significant work in shipping and handling ends up being 1/3
of the sha'ar.

I see Shemu'el in terms of preventing that smarmy informercial and
magazine ads of announcing a price of $19.99 and then in buried in
fine print (after the gov't required it) you find out that there is
another $7.99 for "shipping and handling". Similarly, there is a sha'ar,
and there is fair shipping and handling, but don't take a necessity,
with an inelastic demand curve, and force people to pay through the
nose for S&H.

And this is entirely the profit of a seller. Production is part of the
value of the product. E.g. no one suggests that a farmer can't sell
his flour for more than 1/3 above the price of his seed grain. That's
figured into the sha'ar.

Zev's original point, that you can make any money you want on the labor
involved in sales except for selling food -- modified to read staples
-- is essentially accurate. However, there was still a limit on profit
on other merchandise, and still a limit on profit on staples today, in
cases where the effort involved in a sale isn't big enough to be billable.

And I still believe that Shemu'el's 1/6 is measured the same way as the
first deOraisa 1/6, and therefore comes to 1/7 in today's language, not
20%.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB writes:
>The Tosafos in question are Sanhedrin 63b d"h "asur le'adam" and Bekhoros
> 2b d"h "shema yischayeiv lo aku"m shevu'ah".

> Actually, see RJDBleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and
> Me'iri" pg 239 in "Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought" published by SUNY in
> 1992.
><http://books.google.com/books?id=m0yhkWuqIqYC&;pg=PA239>

>RJDB notes that R' Tam can be read either way, but that the weight of
> mesorah since is to take him as saying. IOW, there is one way to read it
> that is more natural to Lisa and RMJB, and then there is the Noda
> beYehudah's way. (Fn 7 is not in the Google preview, and I couldn't find the
> mar'eh maqom in the NbY myself.)...

Um, I don't think RJDB is saying this about the Noda BeYehuda (I agree
he is not very clear) but the opposite. The Noda BeYehuda is (as the
item from R' Doniel Neustadt you cited earlier correctly points out)
in the other camp, ie he holds that shituf is also assur for non Jews,
and therefore reads down the Tosphos. R' Neustadt quotes the "Rama,
O.C. 156 according to Pischei Teshuvah, Y.D. 147:2; Mor u'Ketziah 224;
Sho'el u'Meishiv, Tanina 1:51; Seder Mishnah, Yesodei ha-Torah 1:7"
as being the ones who do not consider shituf to be idol worship for
non Jews. Surprisingly he leaves out what I think most people consider
to be one of the strongest voice for this position, that of the Shach
(eg Orech Chaim siman 151 si'if 1) who explicitly links the permission
in the Rema to sell things connected to non Jewish worship with the
permission to form partnerships (based on Tosphos).

So I think rather RJDB is saying that the majority accept the literal
reading of the Tosphos, but that the Noda BeYehuda accepts an alternative
reading, which he agrees does not strain the plain meaning of the text
and is followed by a number of latter day authorities.

So I think you are correct in saying that there are two distinct readings,
and that the weight of the mesorah is with the idea that shituf is not
prohibited to non Jews (and that is what Rabbanu Tam is saying), but it is
rather that the Noda B'Yehuda who is the most significant voice on the other
side, disagreeing.

So in that sense I agree with RZS that:
>I think you're misreading RJDB.  The NB's view, as he explains it, is
> exactly what RLL just wrote.  

On the other hand, I would disagree with RZS's further comments that:
> And really, if you look at the gemara and the Tosfos, it's pretty clear
> that it is correct.  Neither the gemara nor the Tosfos is talking about
> beliefs, >but only about oaths.  The only part of the Tosfos that touches on
> what is permitted to nochrim is the line at the end where he dismisses the
> concern >for lifnei iver, and what one is causing the nochri to do is not to
> believe or worship but to swear, and we don't find *that* issur applying to
> nochrim.

>What I think most people miss when they read this Tosfos is the context of
> the previous page, 63a, to which RLL alluded.  That's where "shituf"
>is defined for this context, and it doesn't refer to any kind of belief; it
> means, literally, combining Hashem and something else in the same phrase.
>And it is *that* which Tosfos says was not forbidden to Bnei Noach.

While I agree that the context of the previous page in the gemora at 63a is
highly relevant, and is the place where shituf is defined - I would say the
opposite, that it clearly does refer to matters of belief.  The situation is
where the Bnei Yisrael say regarding the golden calf "this is your god that
brought you up [in the plural, with an extra  vav] from the land of Egypt" -
and Rabbi Yochanan says were it not for that extra vav, the Jewish people
would have been completely destroyed.  And Rashi explains - why were they
not completely destroyed, because they did not deny Hashem completely they
just referred to him in partnership with another thing "shitfuho bdavar
acher" - ie according to Rabbi Yochanan even for Jews, worshipping in
shutfus is a lower level of issur than worshipping another god entirely, and
that is what they were doing vis a vis the golden calf, by acknowledging
that there was in fact another who had brought them out of Egypt in
partnership (namely HaShem).  And Rabbi Shimon disagrees, and says no -
based on the pasuk bilti l'Hashem levado.

But since bilti l'Hashem levado is only a commandment for Jews, one can
learn from this that for non Jews, so long as Hashem is involved in there
somewhere, it is permissible, and that is how those who learn the tosphos
are learning it.

And that is why I would also disagree with:
> In any case, I think RJDB makes a major error in the first paragraph of the
> page when he writes "clearly the doctrine which the Tosafot seek to
> legitimize for non-Jews is Trinitarianism.  I don't see that at all in the
> Tosfos, who refers only to their saints, "kedeishim shelahem", which is
> clearly a cacophemism for "kedoshim".

Most people understand this as two separate aspects. The issur on an
oath to an idol being caused by a Jew is an independent issur from lifnei
iver - it is due to the pasuk - lo yishma al picha - and that means,
no matter what the intention of anybody, if you cause an idolatarous
name to be spoken, then you have violated an issur. So first, to allow
for partnerships, there needs to be no actual idolatrous name spoken
(that is the kedeishim shelahem portion), which is the first section
of tosphos, and relates to the pasuk lo yishma al picha. And second,
there is a potential problem of lifnei iver, if in fact non Jews are
forbidden in the belief in which they stand. This is independent of
lo yishma al picha. In order to allow a Jew to form a partnership
therefore, Tosphos has to deal with both issurim, one is not enough,
and that is why the second half of the tosphos deals with lifnei iver,
and it is the lifnei iver aspect that people understand as not being a
problem because they are not commanded on shituf.

Regards
Chana

So would the rules of tzedaqa apply? If I spend 300 shekels on groceries 
in the TC's store, and the same groceries would cost me 200 shekels in 
Rami Levi, does this mean that I spent 100 shekels on tzedaqa that could 
be applied to my chiyuv?

Ben

On 1/10/2013 1:35 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 9/01/2013 3:38 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
>> My question is that with such a setup, the TC effectively*is* living
>> off charity. The question might be answered by pointing out that it is
>> a kavoddik non-blatant sort of charity, but I don't know if that makes
>> such a difference, especially if it is well-known.
>
> It's no different than choosing to buy Israeli products even if they're
> more expensive than similar products from other countries.
>

On 10/01/2013 3:42 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
>
> There is a din Torah of prohibiting onaah. That concept is NOT RELATED TO
> PROFITS, but to market proces, which is set by supply and demand. On items
> for which there is a market price (milk, flour, fuel), one may not
> overcharge or underbid by more than 1/6th.

Correction: One may not deliberately overcharge or underbid *at all*.
Up to 1/6 is acceptable error, because everyone understands that it's
impossible to get it exactly right, and is mochel the difference.
At exactly 1/6 the money must be refunded, but the transaction stands.
At more than 1/6 the transaction is void.  But this is all bediavad,
after a good-faith error has been made; lechatchila one has an obligation
to get the price as accurate as one is able.


> Then, there is a different sugya, which is no longer in force,

Since when is it no longer in force?   It's of no practical effect because
it's no longer possible to make so high a profit as the halacha allows, but
at least in principle who abolished it and how did they have such a power?
AFAIK it's still in Shulchan Aruch, and is still binding halacha.  It's
just very easy to keep nowadays.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:56:26AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/bah5lbo

I know, 8 days is an eternity in email-list time.

> We see that the Ba'al Ha-Tanya accepts the Vilna Gaon's description of 
> his views as panentheism. However, he defends this theological view as 
> authentically Jewish while the Vilna Gaon rejects them as heresy.
>
> In particular, the Ba'al Ha-Tanya portrays himself as the defender of  
> tradition and the Vilna Gaon as the radical philosopher, the innovative 
> theologian trying to determine on his own the nature of God
>
> See the above URL for the entire post.

Iz nisht azoi pashut to assume the Gra himself didn't believe in
panentheism.

We discussed the machloqes about the nature of tzimtzum way back in the
early days of the list, and again about 6 years back.

The Baal haTanya holds that tzimtzum is an illusion. It's the *apparent*
absence of the Ein Sof Himself that makes it possible for the other to
exist. But the existence of others is itself an illusion.

According to the Litvisher understanding of the Gra (the LR's take on the
Gra aside), the Gra taught that there was an actual tzimtzum, but of the
Retzon Hashem, not of HQBH Himself. Thus, G-d is unchanging, but the world
is a relative "vacuum" of Divine Will. See Michtav meiEliyahu, vol 5, pp.

Notice this places the machloqes on two issues -- both verb and noun. The
Ba'al haTanya's tzitzum is only in how it looks to us, and his noun is
the Ein Sof. REED's version of the Gra has the verb as being an actual
"contraction", but the noun is of Retzon H'.

According to this, the Gra was also panentheist -- the universe is of G-d,
but not directly of His Will. Existence is the fact that we act according
to our own rules rather than a direct expression of his Ratzon. (I say
"direct", just as I earlier said "relative vacuum", because it is His
Will that we not simply do what He would have. That both natural law
and our ability to defy moral law means that it takes time for His goal
to emerge.)

R Masmid wrote of R' Dessler's position to the LR (he had been a guest
of REED's), to which there is a letter in reply written in 5699.

The LR believed REED played down the machloqes to the point of
misinterpreting the Gra. (It's unclear he knew whose opinion he was
critiquing.) According to the LR, the Gra held of tzimtzum kepeshuto --
meaning tzimtzum actually occured, and involved the Atzumus of the Ein
Sof. This is highly problematic as it seems to be saying that creation
constituted a change in HQBH Himself.

However, the LR adds that R' Chaim Volozhiner (Nefesh haChaim 3:7)
disagreed with the Gra and sidered with the tzimtzum-as-illusion.
REED explains the Gra's words in a way that doesn't require
assuming a machloqes of such magnitude between rebbe and
talmid. Also, if you look at the first kelal of the Gra's 10 kelalim
<http://www.hashkafacircle.com/Asarah_Klalim.pdf>, you'll see that the
Gra /defines/ the entire enterprise of the Ari's Qabbalah as being about
describing Ratzon, hashgachah, and Hashem's Actions. So anything he says
on the subject can't be about the Ein Sof Itself. KNLAD.

(This kelal of the Gra appears to dovetail Lurianic Qabbalah with the
Rambam's position on describing Hashem's attributes. The Rambam says
that all "attributes" are either descriptions of what He isn't, or of
how He acts. The Gra allows the Ari to fit that, by placing the entire
discussion in terms of how He acts.)

And REED doesn't seem to be alone in understanding the Gra this way.
When R' Tzadoq discusses who holds of the problematic idea of tzimtzum
kepeshuto of the Ein Sof (Seifer Zikhronos 3:13) he mentions the
Yosher Leivav. Including the Gra would have been so obvious if he
thought it was appropriate, I cannot believe R' Tzadoq had the LR's
understanding fo the Gra.

The way I personally read NhC 3:2,4,7, it seems to me RCV held of the
concept the REED attributes to the Gra -- actual tzimtzum of His Will,
and (although I don't see this in REED) that causes an apparent tzimtzum
of His Essence. And it might not be "causes" as much as two descriptions
of one idea. I see 3:7 the same way the LR did (yay me!) but given
3:2 and 3:4, I do not take this as a complete description.

Another diference between REED's description and the LR's is on the noun
plane. R' Dessler discusses the tzimtzum of Retzon H', the LR gives the
two options as Ein Sof and Or Ein Sof. I'm not sure Ratzon and Or refer
to identical concepts.


So, as I said, it seems to me that the Gra too did not believe in Hashem's
literal tzimtzum, and therefore existence is of Him -- albeit not His
Will or perhaps not His Or Ein Sof. But in any case, panentheism.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)