Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 179

Fri, 25 Oct 2013

• 1. Re: Mesorah (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Mesorah (Zvi Lampel)
• 5. Re: Mesorah (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Mesorah (Zvi Lampel)
• 8. Fwd: Who is Eliezer? (Micha Berger)
• 9. 50,45,40 (saul newman)
• 10. Rav Hirsch m'makom request (M Cohen)
• 11. Re: 50,45,40 (Zev Sero)

On 10/24/2013 1:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:06:49AM -0400, R Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> ... Abarbanel invokes a kabalistic
>> concept of incorporeal angels being "mislabeish" into corporeal beings,
>> a concept evidently foreign to the Rambam.
> RMB: I want to focus on the Abarbanel for a moment. I don't know where the
> Abarbanel gives this opinion. ... The Abarbanel says that HQBH could
> give bodies to mal'akhim if He so desired, but it would seem from his
> commentary on Vayeira he appears to reject the idea that HQBH did indeed
> accomplish these visions that way.
You're right. When I wrote the Abarbanel ''invokes'' that explanation, I 
did not mean to say he advocated it. He presents it as one of the 
opinions he had heard, the other one being that these three beings were 
humans.
...

RMB: ...As for the Abarbanel invoking a qabbalistic tradition, I find this notion
difficult.

See my next comment

>   ...OTOH, I wouldn't consider the notion of mal'akhim being melubashim
> begufos to require buying into qabbalah any more than the notion of
> human neshamos being melubashim would.
>
> Tir'u baTov! -Micha 

But in rejecting this approach he does write, ''v-amnan, ha-daas 
ha-sheyni mei-hislabshus --daati noteh l'kabel osso, aval heun tavi [?] 
sheh-ha-chacham ha-mekubal ya'a'nneni eich ya-a-min v'yavin 
ha-hislabshus ha-zeh....'' So apparently he does attribute this shittah 
to a ''chacham ha-mekubal,'' which I thought indicates a kabbalistic 
chacham, although perhaps he just means a chacham who ''accepts'' this 
idea.

Zvi Lampel

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:07:26PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> RMB:
>> ...As for the Abarbanel invoking a qabbalistic tradition, I find this notion
>> difficult.
...
>>   ...OTOH, I wouldn't consider the notion of mal'akhim being melubashim
>> begufos to require buying into qabbalah any more than the notion of
>> human neshamos being melubashim would.

> But in rejecting this approach he does write, "v-amnan, ha-daas  
> ha-sheyni mei-hislabshus --daati noteh l'kabel osso, aval hen tavi
> sheh-ha-chacham ha-mekubal ya'a'nneni eich ya-a-min v'yavin  
> ha-hislabshus ha-zeh...." So apparently he does attribute this shittah  
> to a "chacham ha-mekubal," which I thought indicates a kabbalistic  
> chacham, although perhaps he just means a chacham who "accepts" this  
> idea.

The Abarbanel was on the Scholastist side of the Maimonidian
Controversy. E.g. He wrote Rosh Amana to defend the 13 iqarim against
the attacks of R' Chasdai Crescas. So I found the idea of the Abarbanel
preferring qabbalah unlikely.

That said, the Abarbanel was willing to cite Christian opinions -- he
was that strongly an adherent of qabel es ha'ames memi she'omro. Usually
his polemics were against their position, the Abarbanel spent much ink
on anti-missionary effort. But at times he will complement their opinion.

And I also am not sure that the idea of an angel clothed in a body needs
to be more qabbalistic than the idea of a human soul clothed in a body.

As for the word "mequbal", I don't think it meant a Qabbalist. According
to the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2008)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0
011_0_10514.html
the earliest use of "qabbalah" to refer to yesodei hatorah was by the
Roqeiach (late 12th cent, early 13th), around a century before Abarbanel.
Did "mequbal" become a title for a master of sod yet? In any case, in
Abarbanel's work, "qabbalah" very consistently means "al pi mesorah",
as in "hadavar hamequal". So I think a better first asumption is that
Abarbanel "hereby signs that the traditionalist scholar would answer"
him about how to understand this hislabshus. Rather than invoking a
qabalistic tradition, he is saying he likes the idea but doesn't know
how it fits mesorah.

(Which speaks to RZL's longstanding interest in the topic of how much
various rishonim are willing to be machadesh in parshanut, particularly
when it doesn't fit Chazal's take.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Since I did end up rpelying on list, let me tack on what I wrote RZL
in private email.

I think the Abarbanel's phrasing is a play on Iyov 31:35:
    Mi yitein li sheima li
    hein tavi Shakkai ya'aneini
    veseifer kesav ish rivi

In which case, the difficult wort "tavi" is like the name of the letter,
"tav", meaning an identifying mark (in Kesav Kenaani, a tav looks like
"+', which is where "t" comes from, and in Poenician it's "x" -- Kesav
Ivri was somewhere around that kind of shape). Later the word "tav"
grew to include one's signature. But idiomatically, the Abarbanel is
literally begging for someone to help resolve this mystery so that he
could finally be comfortable with his inclination to side with shitah 2.

Which is why I wrote here:
: Abarbanel "hereby signs that the traditionalist scholar would answer"
: him about how to understand this hislabshus. Rather than invoking a
: qabalistic tradition, he is saying he likes the idea but doesn't know
: how it fits mesorah.

Back to what the Abarbanel's actual position was:
The Abarbanel might be distinguishing between Avraham seeing mal'akhim,
which could be bederekh nevu'ah, and explaining how a non-navi
(e.g. Lot?) did.

The Abarbanel might like the notion of a mal'akh dressed in a body to
explain the latter, where you can't use his understanding of the Rambam's
position about nevu'ah meaning a perception of the metaphysical.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

>
>
>
>
> RMB: And I also am not sure that the idea of an angel clothed in a body needs
> to be more qabbalistic than the idea of a human soul clothed in a body.
It's different. The former, as Abarbanel explains it, is the idea of the 
semi-physical nature of the angel itself metamorphosing into a physical 
body through the  gathering together of the loose physical elements into 
something solid. The latter is the spiritual soul being located within 
the physical body.
>
> RMB: As for the word "mequbal", I don't think it meant a Qabbalist. According
> to the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2008)
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/e
> jud_0002_0011_0_10514.html
> the earliest use of "qabbalah" to refer to yesodei hatorah was by the
> Roqeiach (late 12th cent, early 13th), around a century before Abarbanel.
> Did "mequbal" become a title for a master of sod yet?
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
The Abarbanel certainly uses ''mekubal'' to mean a Qabbalist. For 
example, in his prologue to Breishis, he refers to ''Ramban and the 
group (''kahss") of mekuballim'' who take the ''Shamayyim'' to mean the 
upper [spiritual] heavens, and not the place of the galgalim; and 
despite his Scholastic leanings, he writes regarding the four rivers of 
Breishis: ''The mekuballim made remazim in this whole narrative--albeit 
with belif in the peshat of the verses...but it is not my intention to 
speak at length on their words , for I have not studied the chochmas 
ha-kabballah, and the daas ha-kedoshim lo eidah.''

ZL

On 10/24/2013 7:21 PM, Zvi Lampel wrote:
>
>> RMB: And I also am not sure that the idea of an angel clothed in a 
>> body needs
>> to be more qabbalistic than the idea of a human soul clothed in a body.
> It's different. The former, as Abarbanel explains it, is the idea of 
> the semi-physical nature of the angel itself metamorphosing into a 
> physical body through the  gathering together of the loose physical 
> elements into something solid. The latter is the spiritual soul being 
> located within the physical body.

I think it depends on what you think an angel is.  In a sense, anything 
in creation that lacks free will is an angel.  A malach, or messenger.  
A tool to carry out Hashem's Will.  Rocks and stones and planets and 
stars are all malachim in that sense.  And if Hashem overrides a 
person's free will, temporarily, then while his free will is gone, he's 
an angel as well.  So it doesn't require any sort of physical or 
semi-physical metamorphosis.

Lisa

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:21:14PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> The Abarbanel certainly uses "mekubal" to mean a Qabbalist. For example, 
> in his prologue to Breishis, he refers to "Ramban and the group ("kahss") 
> of mekuballim" who take the "Shamayyim" to mean the upper [spiritual] 
> heavens...

I still think "traditionalist" fits better than "Qabbalist". IOW, the
Ramban and the group of traditionalists are those who follow the Torah
without Scholastically trying to make it jibe with then-current notions
about how the world works.

E.g. this example also doesn't require Toras haNistar -- shamayim as
a metaphysical "place" is all over shas. And the Abarbanel is simply
addmitting that his teachers all used Scholastically based hashkafah so
he didn't know the details of the other approaches. Not that the other
approaches were al pi nistar.

But at this point, I may be fairly accused of nit-picking. My real
question is whether identifying sod with Qabbalah was something that
evolved from the Roqeiach onward, or a linguistic victory of the
Anti-Maimonidian Qabbalists.

(BTW, I abuse the word "Scholastic" to refer to a tendency in Jewish
Thought rather than the usual idiom of speaking about philosophy vs
Qabbalah. I think saying the philosophers vs the Qabbalists is making
a bigger error because it plays down the fact that Qabbalah *is itself*
a philosophy and many muqubbalim treated it with the same philosophical
rigor and need for logical rationality as the alleged "rationalists". I
saw writers try to make the same point by calling R' Saadia, the Rambam,
the Ralbag et al as Rabbinic Kalam, comparing to Muslims rather than
Notzrim and therefore more historically accurate, but less useful to
most English speakers.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 10/25/2013 8:31 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I think it depends on what you think an angel is. In a sense, anything 
> in creation that lacks free will is an angel. A malach, or 
> messenger...... So it doesn't require any sort of physical or 
> semi-physical metamorphosis.

As I wrote, the possibility that the melachim who visited Avraham were, 
indeed, human messengers, aka prophets, is one of the possibilities the 
Abarbanel cites. However, the discussion RMB and I are having is about 
the second possibility Abarbanel cites, that each malach was, in his 
words, a seichel nivdal. Following common usage, I termed that 
"angel." In that sense, the problem arose that Abarbanel discusses: 

Given such type angels are non-physical, they are thereby imperceptible 
to the five senses. So how did Avraham see and interact with them? One 
solution Abarbanel discussed (but rejected) is that angels are not 
totally non-physical, but are imperceptible beings because the atoms, so 
to speak,they are composed of, are so greatly separated from each other. 
When people do see them, it is because Hashem compacted those atoms into 
a form to the extent that the angels became perceptible. This is called 
the seichel nivdal (angel) becoming "mislabesh," "enclothed" as a body.

What you say about anything being able to be called a malach when it is, 
in your words --

> A tool to carry out Hashem's Will. Rocks and stones and planets and 
> stars are all malachim in that sense

-- is supported by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim. (Although he considered 
the stars and planets to be living entities possessing bodies composed 
of non-earthly elements, albeit not as ethereal as the galgalim that 
carry them.)

> And if Hashem overrides a person's free will, temporarily, then while 
> his free will is gone, he's an angel as well. So it doesn't require 
> any sort of physical or semi-physical metamorphosis.

> Lisa

A fascinating technicality: The Rambam holds (based upon biblical,
Talmudic and Midrashic sources, of course) that whereas angels (in the
common sense) unquestioningly follow Hashem's orders because they do
not have the free will to disobey?; or because intellectually they are
so above exercising the possibility?) they do have, and do exercise,
the free will to decide upon details as to how to go about following
those orders. They have missions, but are free to choose how to carry
them out where such instructions are not provided.

 Zvi Lampel
 // 

An atypical short vort (in that it's not short) by RRYE, sent today to
his mispallelim. Related is the intended topic for this week's derashah,
"Frum Jew versus Frum Jew in a battle to the death!".

Personally, I think the problem inheres in the gap between being a shomer
Torah umitzvos and being frum. As per "Watering the Weeds -- Changing
the System", a chapter in R Daniel Eidensohn's Daas Torah: Child and
Domestic Abuse vol. I (pp. 220-233)
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/WateringTheWeeds.pdf>. (I base myself on Rava,
R' Papa, the Gra and RCVolozhiner.)

-micha

----- Forwarded message from "R. Y. Eisenman" <ra...@ahavasisrael.org> -----
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:08:35 -0400
From: "R. Y. Eisenman" <ra...@ahavasisrael.org>
Subject: The Short Vort- Who is Eliezer?
To: mi...@aishdas.org
Reply-To: "R. Y. Eisenman" <ra...@ahavasisrael.org>

The (Long) Short Vort

Good Morning!

Today is Friday the 21st of Marcheshvan 5774 and October 25, 2013

Who is Eliezer?

Part One
"""" """

There is a cute question to ask your third grader or your wife or your
Rabbi regarding this week's sedra, Chayei Sora.

We are all familiar with the story of how Avrohom sent his slave to
fetch a wife for his son Yitzchok.

This slave is the protagonist and main character of this week's
parsha.

And of course we know that the name of this slave is non-other than
Eliezer.

However, the trick question is, how many times is Eliezer mentioned by
name in the parsha?

Of course the answer is zero. He is referred to Eved Avrohom and
nothing more.

Why his name is deleted and not mentioned explicitly is not the
subject of this essay.

Many of you are familiar with this fact and you may even have your own
answers to the question.

Part Two
"""" """

However, what would you say if I told you that Eliezer had another
name and that name was Og!

Yes, I kid you not; Eliezer's 'other name' was Og the wicked king of
the Bashan who attempted to kill no one less than Moshe.

Now many of you are convinced that I have gone mad (for this and many
other reasons) as how can I confuse the Tzaddik and devoted servant
Eliezer with the blood thirsty evil giant named Og?

However that is exactly what Chazal (our sages) tell us!

In Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer (Chapter 16) it states explicitly that after
Eliezer successfully completed his matchmaking duties, he was freed by
Avrohom and he eventually became the king of the land of Bashan and he
was Og!

And so too we find that Chazal inform us that while he was still
enslaved to Avrohom, one day his tooth fell out and because of his
gigantic size, Avrohom was able to use the tooth as a bed for him to
sleep in! (Massechta Sofrim 1:2). We see once again that Eliezer was a
giant even before becoming king of Bashan!

However, this claim that Eliezer was Og seems to be contradicted by
the fact that there are other sources in Chazal (the sages) which
indicate that Eliezer was one of the chosen seven who entered Gan Eden
while still alive. (See Massechta Kallah chapter 3). However, this is
difficult to accept as we know that Moshe personally killed Og (see
Brochus 54b).

Furthermore, it clearly states in the Talmud (Yoma 28b) that Eliezer
was the prime student of Avrohom; the man who communicated Avrohom's
teachings to the world.

How then can this man who is referred to as a Tzaddik (Pisikta Rabasi
16) be Og who is referred to as a rasha (evil man) by Targum Yonoson
ben Uziel (Bamidbar 21:34)?

How can this man be both a tzaddik and rasha; a hero and a villain; a
man who enters Gan Eden while still alive yet is killed by Moshe for
malice and cruelty towards the Jewish people?

And although there are those who attempt to put forth explanations
which claim that they are not indeed the same person; rather, two
different individuals with the same name; however, Rav Yonoson
Eibeshitz in his classic Yaaros Devash (1: Drush 5) states explicitly
that they are one and the same. Eliezer the loyal servant and devotee
of Avrohom was also the evil king Og who terrorized the Jewish people
and attempted to bring about their downfall.

How can this be?

How can all of these variant and mutually exclusive biographical
anecdotes be of the same person?

Is he a tzaddik or he is a rasha; how can he be both?

Part Three
"""" """""

Truth be told I cannot reconcile all the texts and greater minds than
me have attempted to deal with this perplexing issue (see Daas
Zekainim in this week's parsha).

However, perhaps there is one point which I can contribute to the
discussion and as usual THE THOUGHT IS MINE AND MINE ALONE. IT IS NOT
DAAS TORAH AND IT IS NOT DAAS OF THE GEDOLIM; IT IS DAAS ATZMI (MY
OPINION) AND ACCEPT IT AS SUCH.

I will not intend to make an attempt to reconcile the actual facts;
after all, either Eliezer enters Gan Eden alive or he is killed by
Moshe, I see no way to reconcile these two ostensibly mutually
contradictory claims.

However, perhaps what I can contribute is the following.

Perhaps Chazal were sending us a message by specifically mentioning
these conflicting and mixed messages about the true identity of
Eliezer.

If we take the approach (which is the simple reading of the text of
the Midrashim) that Eliezer and Og are indeed the same person, then I
believe Chazal were sending us an important lesson about the reality
of man and they specifically allowed these mixed messages to
'co-exist' although they are mutually exclusive in order to drive
home the lesson they were imparting.

CHAZAL IN DEPICTING ELIEZER IN SUCH DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT ROLES WERE
SENDING US THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR THAT PEOPLE, INDEED ALL PEOPLE-
ARE COMPLEX.

Too often in life we fall prey to the normal human desire and need to
make everything and everyone fit into simple and neat preconceived
boxes of either piety or evil.

Example Number One
""""""" """""" """

Take for instance the child molester.

How often have we heard when a prominent person, perhaps even a rebbe
or a rabbi is accused of the 'unspeakable' we suddenly hear a chorus
of supporters coming forward to claim, "I know this man well. He is
a Talmid Chochom and a Frum Yid, there is no way he engaged in the
horrific acts you are accusing him of committing."

The victim is the 'evil one' as often they have left the path of
Torah (can you blame them?) and now they are conveniently placed in
the box of 'evil'.

However, as time goes on, the allegations become fact and the
suspicions become reality. And the perpetrator was indeed a respected
Eliezer in the morning while being an evil Og in the evening.

Why was there a knee-jerk reaction by so many to disregard the
allegations?

Why did not they attempt to analyze the facts?

The reason is simple. People have a need to have their lives and the
personalities who occupy a place in their lives fit into convenient
and easily defined boxes.

The need to have our lives defined by these neat and clearly marked
boxes in so great that it causes otherwise intelligent and thought-out
people to declare, "Don't bother me with the facts; this man is a
Tzaddik. After all, his name is Eliezer and he the greatest student of
Avrohom Avinu. It is impossible that he has a secret life in which he
is Og the King of Bashan! It can't be; I knew from him Avrohom's tent;
he is not an evil man, you are talking a loshon hora!"

However, low and behold, the accuser is correct!

The same person who is the morning was giving a Torah shiur based on
the teachings of Avrohom Avinu, at night was committing the worst
evils imaginable and attempting to destroy Jewish children as he was
simultaneously Og!

Example Number Two
""""""" """""" """

I learned early on in my rabbinate that those congregants who appear
put together and at peace are quite often in the privacy of their
homes actually the most dysfunctional of people!

People are complex; indeed, so complex that you cannot even begin to
unravel and explain the apparent contradictions of their lives.

Great people who for years occupied positions of prestige and respect,
so much so they often were picked to publicly represent our most
esteemed institutions were eventually exposed to be closeted 'Ogs'.
How does this occur?

People are complex and the sooner we accept this difficult to accept
fact, the sooner many of our greatest challenges can be dealt with in
the spirit of Chazal. However, as long as we ignore Chazal and
continue to cling to non-Torah ideas that Eliezer is always Eliezer
and Og is always Og, children will continue to be scarred and
spiritually and emotionally crushed for life. And too often children
will be continued to be abused by their very own parents as we see the
parents as upstanding members of the community and it is nearly
impossible to view them as Og.

Too often in the Jewish community we fail to take this lesson to
heart.

We fail in this lesson when we knowingly ignore evidence presented by
our children and our wives as they inform us that this 'great man'
bullied or hurt them as Og tried to hurt the Jewish people.

We fail to realize that sometimes Eliezer can be Og and Og can be
Eliezer. The same man can be Eliezer in the morning and Og in the
afternoon.

We must take the lesson which the Torah through Chazal is teaching us
and we must cease to continue in our non-Chazal simplistic approach to
people wherein we refuse to believe that Eliezer can be Og.

We must tell our sons and our daughters and our wives that even
Eliezer can sometimes be Og and we must tell ourselves that even
rabbis can sometimes miss the telltale signs which indicate that
Eliezer is also an Og.

Example Number Three
""""""" """""" """""

However, there is another and distinct lesson we must take from Chazal
here. Our sages who truly understood life are attempting to teach us
important lessons and let us allow our hearts to be opened to hear
their important lessons about the necessity to constantly realize that
all people are complex and never one dimensional.

Must people are not as radically different as Eliezer and Og, however,
all of us are complex and the sooner we realize and remember this the
better off we shall be.

I still recall when I was younger when Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt"l was
alive and sagacious and active. There was no major question which was
important to American Jewry which his opinion was not solicited. I
recall once explaining to a non-observant friend of mine that the
greatness of Rav Moshe was characterized not so much in that he was
always right; rather, it was that if you claimed you researched an
issue and you did not solicit the opinion of Rav Moshe, it was
understood that you just did not do proper research.

He was very respected and revered; however, was he never wrong? No one
ever claimed that.

This proper balance between respect and reverence coupled with the
recognition that even Gedolim are not infallible was recognized by all
and it did not diminish their greatness one iota.

Over the last twenty years this balance has been lost.

Nowadays as the glossy color pamphlets are distributed promising you
everything and anything as long as you give to this Gadol's favorite
charity the situation is basically one of where many gedolim are now
untouchable and dare I say: infallible.

This overinflated claim of near perfection and infallibility of the
Gedolim I believe is not only incorrect it a major cause for the
alienation of many Jews; both those who were brought up frum and
especially for those who were not.

An example of this is seen in the initial reports about the recent
demise of Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt"l.

The reports bordered on the extreme in their assessment of his
greatness. He was portrayed as unmatchable and as a person who
inspired all and was beloved by all.

Indeed, the initial official reports claimed that over 800,000 people
attended his funeral; this number has since been revised to less than
half of the original estimation.

Was Rav Ovadia great and inspiring? For sure; however, was he
infallible and above criticism? I highly doubt it.

A recently released poll in Israel found the following:

    "When asked how Rav Yosef had influenced "the way you perceive
    Judaism," 26 percent of Jewish Israelis answered "positively,"
    but 31 percent of secular Israelis -- a group that makes up close to
    half of Israel's Jewish population -- said "negatively." (Panels
    Politics poll quoted in
    http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/divided-we-stand )

The fact that Rav Ovadia Zt"l is portrayed as just about infallible
and (very) near perfect is caused by this simple and non-Chazal
estimation of people which necessitates one to assume the person under
consideration is either totally perfect or just regular at best.

Recently there has been much discussion as to the fact many people
(young and old) are 'off the derech'.

Indeed, one recent article stated:

    Rav Yitzchok Fingerer, Rav and Rosh Kollel of Brooklyn Jewish
    Xperience (BJX), Brooklyn's Kiruv and Chizuk Center in Flatbush and
    author of the acclaimed Hashkafah book "Search Judaism", says that
    there is an onslaught of frum people that are closet atheists who no
    longer believe in Hashem and are no longer Shomer Torah u'Mitzvos.

    Many of these people are married and even have children and in many
    instances their wives and children have no idea of their spouse or
    father's secret identity. BJX believes that the Torah must be the
    first address where people turn to with their questions and not
    secular sources or organizations such as Footsteps that are rabidly
    anti Yiddishkeit. BJX's rabbis and faculty are exceedingly tolerant
    and open minded and their classes refreshingly openly deal with
    Emunah/Hashkfah and Machshava issues.

    Rav Fingerer feels that if more attention was given to Emunah and
    Hashkafah in Yeshivos, the drop out and off the derech rate would
    drastically decrease.

    - See more at: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=194877

While I do not disagree that the reason people leave Yiddishkeit is
complicated, and I do agree with Rabbi Fingerer that more emphasis
should be placed on 'hashkafa'; however, perhaps an equally
contributing reason for the drop-out rate is the fact that people are
complex and gedolim are even more complex and until we begin to teach
this lesson we will continue to observe that when people find out that
their favorite ( previously thought of 'perfect') rebbe is indeed
not that perfect, he or she becomes disenchanted and leaves the Torah.

When children and adults are taught that Rabbonim in general and
gedolim in particular are angelic and beyond reproach; when they find
out that these previously thought of respected Rabbonim, therapists or
Roshei Yeshiva have been arrested by the FBI is it any wonder they
leave Yiddishkeit?

When the rebbe is simultaneously the perfect baby and the perfect
bathwater are we surprised that when the rebbe is found to be complex
and human and sometimes even Og-like that the babies together with the
bathwater go down the drain?

When Rav Shteinman gets beat up in his house by an "avreich" are
you surprised people leave the faith????

Was the alleged assailant motivated by the fact that his political
faction for the last two months has been vilifying and demonizing Rav
Shteinman so much so that the assailant felt he was doing a Mitzvah by
attacking a 99 year old sage? Was this man brought up with the
'hashkafa' that you are either an Eliezer who is Avrohom's favorite
Talmid or you Og, the evil king who was killed by Moshe?

Perhaps if this young man who was reported to be married, with four
children and the son of a Rosh Yeshiva (How crazy can we claim he is?)
was educated with the teachings of Chazal that people and even great
people are complex; he would have not been so quick to angelicize his
rabbi and demonize Rav Shteinman?

In Summation
"" """""""""

The fact that we fail to recognize the complexity of the human
condition wreaks havoc and is a destructive force in today's Judaism.

It causes

1- Pedophiles to continue to prey upon our children. This occurs for two
   reasons:

  a- People who are accused are automatically cleared of the accusation
     based on the non-Chazal teaching that Eliezer can never be an Og.
  b- Rabbinic leaders who mistakenly (not out of malice, but of ignorance)
     transferred suspected (or often confirmed) pedophiles to other
     communities facilitated the furtherance of abuse in our communities.
     The fact (and I know this because they have told me as such) that
     the students of these rabbinic gedolim continue to advocate this
     same misguided and outright wrong approach to pedophilia simply
     because they know their rebbe said it and their rebbe can never be
     wrong is hurting our children.

2- The fact that we continue not to adhere to the teachings of Chazal
   and assume all of our rabbinic leaders are infallible which in itself
   is incorrect, is a major catalyst for people to abandon Torah Judaism.
   If we would teach as Chazal did that sometimes an Eliezer can be an
   Og, we would realize that even if this person is to be disregarded
   this does not mean that all of Torah should be abandoned. After all,
   people are complex and only Hashem is perfect.

My hope is that we should re-asses our 'only white' or 'only black'
approach to Judaism and adopt the teachings of Chazal which advocates for
the recognition that even when the person is no one less than Eliezer,
he can also be Og and this recognition should lead us to a more nuanced
and accurate assessment of our Rabbonim and hopefully a greater allegiance
to Hashem as He and He alone is indeed perfect.

Sometimes was are Eliezer and sometimes we are Og, the challenge of
life is to be more like Eliezer and less like Og; and by doing as such
we may not achieve infallibility; however, we do achieve true greatness.

Ron Yitzchok Eisenman, Rabbi, Congregation Ahavas Israel, Passaic, NJ

This message was sent to: mi...@aishdas.org

Below is your personal link to update your preferences or to change your
subscriptions for specific lists (do not share this link with others):
...

>>>This answers the above. Ten is a minyan, the minimal amount that
constitutes a community. Singular tzaddikim can't change a city, so Sedom
was lost when there wasn't a group that could be built on


---- but since  45  works  ,   so should  36, 27  etc ...    and  what's
the big nafka mina  between  9 and  8  , for example ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131025/5a79a523/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone asked me the following..

 

"Do you know where Rav Hirsch talks about how it's no accident that on the
third day of creation the waters were gathered into oceans and also dry land
was revealed, 

because only when you have a boundary, then things can start to flourish"

 

Can anyone an accurate m'makom where this quote is from?

(and so I can get his exact wording)

 

Thanks, mordechai cohen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131025/e4458180/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/10/2013 12:19 PM, saul newman wrote:
>>>>This answers the above. Ten is a minyan, the minimal amount that
> constitutes a community. Singular tzaddikim can't change a city, so Sedom
> was lost when there wasn't a group that could be built on
>
>
> ---- but since  45  works  ,   so should  36, 27  etc ...

And indeed Rashi says that's why he didn't ask about 9.  Once Hashem agreed
that 45 would count as 50 he already knew that 9 would count as 10.


>   and  what's the big nafka mina  between  9 and  8  , for example ?

9 is a minyan counting Hashem, and He agreed to be counted in each of
these minyanim.  8 is nothing.


-- 
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


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


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 179
***************************************

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