Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 87

Thu, 26 Jul 2018

• 1. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Rav Avigdor Miller on The Learning Boy (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Rav Avigdor Miller on The Learning Boy (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Zev Sero)
• 7. Sho'el vs Loveh (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Sho'el vs Loveh (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Micha Berger)
• 10. Without Torah the land is not the Land of Israel (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. What is Jewish Art and Science? (Professor L. Levine)

Dear Ovedim,

Usually the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is read in such a way as to
consider the dislike of the party host for Bar Kamtza to exemplify sinat
chinam. After all, he could have accepted Bar Kamtza's offer to pay for
part of teh cost (or even all of them) and let him be.

However, thinking along the line of thinking raised by RMRabi, I want to
suggest that there is a lot of sinat chinnam in Bar Kmatza's reaction, i.e.
being willing to arouse the ire of the government against the Jewish
community for having been personally slighted. That is indeed a massively
disproprotionate response if tehre ever was one.

Generally, I do not read that story as being *the* reason for or cause of
the Churban, but rather to exemplify the deteriorating societal order
because of increasing sinat chinnam, which culminated in the political
assassinations between the different groups of zealots, as documented by
Josephus and as hinted at by one zealot leader to his uncle Rabban Jochanan
Ben Zakai (as recorded in the Bavli), AS WELL AS stressing that the Churban
didn't suddenly happen, but that there was a process of steady,
increasingly deteriorating relations between the Roman government and the
Jewish community, culminating in the Churban. The cessation of the imperial
sacrifice was such a step, which, according to Josephus, took place a few
decades before the Churban (don't recall exactly when, as I haven't read
Bellum Judaicum in years).

Thoughts?

Shenizkeh lir'ot bene'hamat Tsiyon,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/

<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/01/28/wir-missionieren-nicht-aber-warum-nicht/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180724/7414a7af/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:17:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine quoted a Q&A
by R Avigdor Miller which can be found at (I'm guessing the original
posting of the transcription):
<https://torasavigdor.org/rav-avigdor-miller-on-the-learning-boy>.

My own opinion is closer to that of Prof Levine's 2015 article
in The Jewish Press. (A simpler URL than the one he offered is
<http://bit.ly/2LjUdG4> or
<http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/the-obligation-to-support-a-family/2015/02/19>.

But I find it hard to believe that was R Avigdor Miller's intent. So
I was reading the answer with a fine tooth comb. And I noticed this:
...
:                     If a young man makes a condition with his kallah 
: that he will be learning forever no matter what, then he is not a 
: useful person at all. Forget about him.
: 
: Now, it could be that sometimes things work out. He might, let's say...
: But if he makes a stipulation beforehand - if he tells you, "I'm 
: never going to work," then I think that you should forget about him.

The question, "What should a girl do if her chosson says that he intends
to learn forever?" isn't exactly the same as the answer. The question is
about the chasan's intent, the answer is about a chasan who is determined,
not matter what. R Avigdor Miller appears to be fine with the aspiration.

So, he isn't so much against kollel as against marrying a man who says
in advance he won't work even if things aren't working out financially
at kollel. But it doesn't look like he wrote against life-long kollel
where someone can find the financial backing (a kollel with a generous
stipend or a teaching job).

I mean, would you really expect Rav Avigdor Miller's ideals to be that
far from contemporary Lakewood's?

I say contemporary Lakewood, since I am not clear on Rav Aharon Kotler's
position. I am told kollel was only for a few years; the stipend was shut
off -- beshittah, not only for rationing -- after a 5 year or so horizon.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

At 02:43 PM 7/24/2018, Micha Berger wrote:


>But I find it hard to believe that was R Avigdor Miller's intent. So
>I was reading the answer with a fine tooth comb. And I noticed this:
>
>The question, "What should a girl do if her chosson says that he intends
>to learn forever?" isn't exactly the same as the answer. The question is
>about the chasan's intent, the answer is about a chasan who is determined,
>not matter what. R Avigdor Miller appears to be fine with the aspiration.
>
>So, he isn't so much against kollel as against marrying a man who says
>in advance he won't work even if things aren't working out financially
>at kollel. But it doesn't look like he wrote against life-long kollel
>where someone can find the financial backing (a kollel with a generous
>stipend or a teaching job).
>
>I mean, would you really expect Rav Avigdor Miller's ideals to be that
>far from contemporary Lakewood's?
>
>I say contemporary Lakewood, since I am not clear on Rav Aharon Kotler's
>position. I am told kollel was only for a few years; the stipend was shut
>off -- beshittah, not only for rationing -- after a 5 year or so horizon.

Let me recall a conversation I had with R. Miller many years ago 
after we had finished learning the Gemara in Kiddushin that says a 
father is required to teach his son a skill so the son can earn a living.

I asked R. Miller, "But we don't see today's yeshiva boys being 
taught the wherewithal to earn a living.  Why not?"'

He replied, "Look at my shul.  All of the fathers are 
professionals,  some doctors, some lawyers, some accountants, some 
teachers, and some in business,  but none of their sons will be able 
to do this.  What will happen to them?  How will they support a family?"

Then he paused for a moment and said, "Look at my son Shmuel.  He has 
a wealthy father-in-law,  so this will be good enough for him and for 
his children.  But what will happen to Shmuel's grandchildren?" (R. 
Shmuel Miller has a large family.)

He said all of this to me,  and never said anything like it 
publicly.  But from this I have deduce that he was not in favor of 
"Kollel forever" and felt that a husband was responsible to support 
his family.   Based on this I think he would not have much 
disagreement with my article at 
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/the-obligation-to-support-a-family/2015/02/19

BTW,  this was not the only thing he said to me personally and never 
sad publicly.  It was not uncommon for him to make public statements 
which, when I privately "challenged" him about, he modified.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180724/a7b5f0d0/attachment-0001.html>

> Usually the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is read in such a way as
> to consider the dislike of the party host for Bar Kamtza to exemplify
> sinat chinam. After all, he could have accepted Bar Kamtza's offer to
> pay for part of teh cost (or even all of them) and let him be.


R Avigdor Miller's take is very different.   He rejects the entire 
notion that this story is about sin'as chinam, or that the churban was a 
punishment for it.

According to him the only person to blame here was Bar Kamtza.  The host 
was right to expel him, the rabbanan were not only right to approve it, 
but had he not done so they would have left in protest, and would have 
been right to do so, and the way he reacted only goes to prove what a 
rasha he was. Further, R Zecharia ben Avkolos was right, as evidenced by 
the fact that the chachamim accepted his arguments.

And the gemara's point in telling the story is not to discuss the 
*reasons* for the churban, but to show that whatever the reasons were, 
the immediate *cause* was ridiculously trivial random events, such as a 
messenger getting confused between two similar names, a wagon happening 
to break down at just the wrong time & place, etc.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:19:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: R Avigdor Miller's take is very different....

: According to him the only person to blame here was Bar Kamtza.  The
: host was right to expel him, the rabbanan were not only right to
: approve it, but had he not done so they would have left in protest,
: and would have been right to do so, and the way he reacted only goes
: to prove what a rasha he was. Further, R Zecharia ben Avkolos was
: right, as evidenced by the fact that the chachamim accepted his
: arguments.

And yet, R' Yochanan, who attributes the churban to this incident, says
in mid-story (Gittin 56a; whether he interrupts himself or R' Ashi put
it in the middle):
    "mipenei anvanuso shel R' Zekhariah ben Avqulis
    hecheriva beitianu
    vesarfah es heikhaleinu
    vehigliseinu mei'arzeinu".

Rashi on "anvanuso" -- "savlanuso, shesaval es zeh velo horgo."

Doesn't sound like he thought that if the chakhamim agreed, they were
right to do so. Or that he was in the right.

Maharam Shif ("anvanuso") wondes why we aren't plaming the chakhamim,
shelo micho beyado as the true causers. He answers that they couldn't
have known the heizeq, whereas we can.

MS also mentions Eikha Rabba. I found the maaseh at 4:3. In the medrash,
it was RZbA who could have been mocheh the shaming of BQ at the party,
and didn't. And it's Rabbi Yosi who says "anvanuso shell RZbA sarfah
es haheikhal".

Although the two sources disagree on how a middah was expressed,
it's a chiddush to say the cause is the middah, without trying to
place blame on it, declaring this anvanus to be flawed.

I once blogged about why the gemara talks about "anvanus" rather than
the more usual term "anavah". It is interesting that the only usage of
"anvanus" is also by R' Yochanan, and the concept is positive (Megillah
31a):
    Every place you find Gevuraso shel HQBH
    you will find Anvanuso.
    This idea is written in the Torah, repeated in nevi'im, and said a
    third time in kesuvim...

Humans, though, appear to be better off being anavim than anvanim.

Given the grammar, "anvanus" appears to be the middah of being a humble
person, rather than "anavah"'s reference to humility itself.

Back to Zev's email:

: And the gemara's point in telling the story is not to discuss the
: *reasons* for the churban, but to show that whatever the reasons
: were, the immediate *cause* was ridiculously trivial random events,
...

Pseudo-random, as you obviously mean from context. (Or maybe the
whole word "random" needs to be rethought in light of universal
hashgachah peratis. But here it's hashgachah kelalis, so I'll punt
on that.)

The Maharshah (CA on Yuma 9b "avel miqdash 2") refers to the story
of qamtza and bar qamtza as an example of the sin'as chinam the gamra
mentions there.

R' Avigdor Miller can disagree with the Maharsha and Maharam Shif. But
he has a burden of proof your quick retelling doesn't provide.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 25/07/18 12:41, Micha Berger wrote:

> And yet, R' Yochanan, who attributes the churban to this incident, says
> in mid-story (Gittin 56a; whether he interrupts himself or R' Ashi put
> it in the middle):
>      "mipenei anvanuso shel R' Zekhariah ben Avqulis
>      hecheriva beitianu
>      vesarfah es heikhaleinu
>      vehigliseinu mei'arzeinu".
> 
> Rashi on "anvanuso" -- "savlanuso, shesaval es zeh velo horgo."
> 
> Doesn't sound like he thought that if the chakhamim agreed, they were
> right to do so. Or that he was in the right.

Where do you see this?  R Yochanan is simply pointing out a fact, not 
passing judgment.  You are the one inserting a value judgment, that the 
price paid for this purity of principles was too heavy, and they should 
have compromised their standards in order to avoid paying it.  Who says 
that is right?  One could just as easily say the opposite, that this is 
an example of how one must do the right thing even if the result is a 
churban.


> Although the two sources disagree on how a middah was expressed,
> it's a chiddush to say the cause is the middah, without trying to
> place blame on it, declaring this anvanus to be flawed.

I don't see why it's a chidush to simply not insert words that aren't 
there.  The onus of proof is surely on the one wishing to insert something.



> The Maharshah (CA on Yuma 9b "avel miqdash 2") refers to the story
> of qamtza and bar qamtza as an example of the sin'as chinam the gamra
> mentions there.
> 
> R' Avigdor Miller can disagree with the Maharsha and Maharam Shif. But
> he has a burden of proof your quick retelling doesn't provide.

His proof is simply from the the gemara, which lists this as the first 
of a series of three incidents.  He simply insists that one must read it 
in that context.  Anyone who wishes to read this one as a morality story 
must do the same with the other two, and yet nobody attempts this.  If 
the other two incidents are about the causes of disaster rather than the 
reasons, then this must be too, and all those who take it out of that 
context must be understood not as giving pshat in the gemara but as 
using the story homiletically for their own mussar drashas.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

What's the line between a borrower who is a sho'el, and one who is a
loveh?

Because AhS yomi today hit upon a nafqa mina -- CM 125:12.

Yeish mi she'omer that if the loan date arrives and the amlveh isn't in
town, the loveh can avoid culpability for loss due to oneis by returning
the loan by picking a third party and returning it via shelichus --
zakhin le'adam shelo befanav. (Making sure to use a language that makes
him the malveh's sheliach leqabalah.) Like a sho'el (as in siman 340).

And they argue with this "mi she'omer" because it is more fundamentally
not like a sho'el. A sho'el, as soon as he returns it, it is in the
posession of the mash'il. But a loveh has to return it to the malveh
himself.

Details of the nafqa mina aside, it hit me that I would translate both
sho'el and loveh as "borrower" and have no idea how a given act of
borrowing would make someone one and not the other.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Problems are not stop signs,
mi...@aishdas.org        they are guidelines.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Robert H. Schuller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 25/07/18 15:42, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:


> Details of the nafqa mina aside, it hit me that I would translate both
> sho'el and loveh as "borrower" and have no idea how a given act of
> borrowing would make someone one and not the other.

You are correct that in English the same words, "lending" and 
"borrowing", are used for these two very different kinds of 
transactions.  Usually English is the most flexible of languages, having 
different words for even subtle shades of distinction, but in this case 
we have two concepts that are very different, and have different words 
in Hebrew, but English lumps them together.

She'eilah means borrowing an item that is to be returned.  The item at 
all times remains the lender's property, and the borrower merely has 
permission to use it.  The Torah has no objection whatsoever to charging 
money for such a loan, but if so it becomes a "sechirus", and in return 
for the money the owner assumes liability for unavoidable damage, but 
not for theft or loss.  Nor does shemittah turn the lender's property 
into the borrower's.

Halva'ah means that the lender gives the borrower an item with no 
expectation of it ever being returned.  On the contrary, it becomes the 
borrower's property, and the expectation is that the borrower will use 
it up, destroy it, give it away, etc.  However, in return for this 
"gift", the borrower assumes an obligation to give the lender an 
identical item on an agreed-upon date.  Logically such a service should 
also cost money, but when both parties are Jews the Torah demands that 
it be given and received for free, and shemittah cancels the borrower's 
obligation to the lender.

Think of the difference between borrowing a book or a car, and borrowing 
$100 or a dozen eggs, and the difference will be obvious.  When you lend 
someone money you expect him to spend it, and you would be astonished if 
he were to give you the same money back.  When you lend eggs you don't 
want them back!  Even if he hasn't eaten them, they won't be fresh.  You 
expect him to give you different money or eggs.  Therefore the laws of 
ribbis and shmitah apply.  But when you lend your car or a book, you 
don't want a different one back, even if it looks exactly the same; you 
want *your* car or book, and will be upset if he substitutes someone else's.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:36:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >Rashi is pointing out his making a wrong choice. Not just that he
: >happened to do X which led to Y which led 2....
: 
: Where do you see that in the Rashi?  Rashi does nothing more than
: translate the word "anvosonuso" as "his tolerance".  I don't see how
: you're reading into it a value judgment.

"Savlanuso".

... and then continues: "shesaval es zeh, velo horgo." By saying he did
X, and didn't do un-X, isn't the attention being focused on his choice,
rather than on just that X "happened to" cause Y, which led to...?

In Rashi's hands, R' Yochanan is saying the BHMQ fell because RZBA let
BQ live because he chose savlanus and didn't choose killing him. How
is that not a blame statement?

And even without Rashi... Why does the story get interrupted by identifying
a single tanna's role in the causal chain? Two versions of the story, both
interrupting in different places to make different statements about the
role of the same middah? And you think that it's just another a-moral
statement about the illusion of happenstance like all the other steps in
the causal chain? I don't see it.

: As for the Maharsha, I pointed out the flaw in that approach, that
: it requires reading the other two incidents as morality stories too,
: and nobody attempts to do so.

Except if he too (as I read the emphasis in Rashi) saw the statement
about anvanus as telling you this one story is a morality lesson.

And who said nobody attempts tp treat the others that way? See the
self-same Maharsha. (We're talking about someone who took "ve'es hama'or
haqatan" and the shrinking of the moon as a morality lesson after all.
He might even assume every aggadita is.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Devarim 4:5.


Note the emphasis on the fact that HaShem gave us EY so that we may observe the Torah in its entirety. YL


4:5 See! I have taught you statutes and [social] ordinances as God, my God, made it my duty, so that you
may act accordingly in the midst of the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.

You see that I have taught you statutes and social ordinances in accordance
with God?s command, so that you should observe them in the land
you are about to enter.

Thus you have been presented with a fact that is important for your
calling and for the significance of these laws, and that sets you and these
laws apart from all other laws and nations: You are the only nation in the
world that possessed laws before it possessed a land of its own. Furthermore,
these laws are the only laws that are not intended as a means for
building up a national existence and for achieving national independence
and prosperity deriving from the national land. Rather, these laws are the
sole end for which you were given all of the above. Every other nation
becomes a nation through its land, and afterward it creates laws for its
land. You, by contrast, became a nation through the Torah, and you received
a land for [the sake of observing] the Torah.

The laws of all other nations are the product of the nation?s unique
character ? engendered by its land ? and of the changing needs of the
nation?s development. But your lawgiver, the man from whose hands you
received your Law, has never even seen your land, never set foot on it. He
merely transmitted to you the Law, and his grave in the wilderness is the
Divine seal on the Law that he, the lawgiver, transmitted; his grave attests
that this Law is eternal and immutable.

The laws of the Torah are absolute, whereas you and your land are
conditional. The laws of the Torah do not change in accordance with
changes in your fortunes or in the fortunes of your land. Rather, your
fortunes and the fortunes of your land change in accordance with the
extent to which you are faithful to the laws of the Torah. With the Torah
in your arms, you now stand on the border of the land you are to enter,
in order that you may there observe the Torah in its entirety. With the
Torah in your arms, you will be temporarily exiled from the Land, but
again and again you will stand as a nation whose whole purpose is to live
for the observance of this Torah. Thus shall you await the moment when
you will be able once again to enter the Land, which was given to you so
that you may observe the Torah in its entirety. You are the people of the
Torah, not the people of the Land; the land is the Land of the Torah, and
without Torah the land is not the Land of Israel.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180726/e3c56d9c/attachment-0001.html>

The following if from part of RSRH's commentary on Devarim 4:6.  YL


4:6 So keep [it] and carry [it] out; for that is your wisdom and your understanding
before the eyes of the nations, who will hear all these statutes and will say: So it is, indeed,
a wise and understanding nation, this great people!


Many are the arts and sciences that are the heritage of other civilized
nations, whereas the Jewish art and science is the art and science of building
up all of personal and national life on the dual basis of awareness of
God and duty to one?s fellow men. This is the art and science of the knowledge
and actualization of the Torah, the art and science of truth and of
harmony in life.


<Snip>


Your knowledge and art of living will be regarded by the
other nations as your distinguishing feature. You will be living proof of
the words of the ancient seer:  ???????? ????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????????? : (Bereshis 9:27).
The art of beauty appealing to the senses is the heritage of other nations,
but the art of building tents, cities, states in which God dwells will be
found only among the descendants of Shem. Hence, if you will devote
yourselves to the knowledge and practice of the Torah, and live this way
before the eyes of the nations, your whole life will be a campaign for the
establishment of God?s kingdom on earth, built upon allegiance to God?s
Torah.


<Snip>


Other nations incessantly seek the standard of political wisdom that
would fit constantly changing conditions. However, the laws they create
are the product of human thought, which is shortsighted and perceives
only the superficial nature of things; hence, their laws are in a constant
state of flux, and what today is proclaimed as truth and justice is buried
tomorrow as pernicious folly.

Only the Jewish people has an eternal standard of duty for the whole
being and will of private and public life. With firm trust the Jewish people
subordinates to this standard the personal and national life of all times,
confident that through this subordination to God?s Torah it becomes
master of its own fate.

Like its Torah, its history, too, is given and set in advance. An entire
nation, including all its generations, devotes itself to the knowledge and
practice of the Law, and by virtue of this devotion Israel is a great nation
in the eyes of the nations. They hear of all these laws that shape Jewish
personal and national life, and acknowledge that this great nation is a
national society full of wisdom and insight!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180726/81d09614/attachment.html>

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



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


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


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)