Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 102

Monday, August 14 2000

• Re: learning on tisha bav
• Fwd: Haaros - Parshas Va'eschanan, 11 Av, 5760
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: V'atoh Kodosh
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Re: Rav Ovadia statement
• Moshe saw Israel
• megilas Eicha
• re:learning on tisha bav
• Re: Abortion less than forty days

On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 05:40:15AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Also it seems that we are noheig to begin some of the prohibitions (at least 
: partially) after chatzot on erev tisha bav but not others, any ideas on why 
: the early start and why only some?

I heard R' Freundel of Kesher Israel talk about this last Shabbos. His
explanation AIUI:

The burning of Bayis Sheini started after chatzos, at the end of Tish'a
B'av. Just when we are noheig to ease up on the aveilus?! Perplexing,
no?

When something terrible is pending, we are preoccupied with the pending
disaster. Once it began, we have to move on and start planning on how to
survive it.

My two cents:

One example that fits particularly well is limud Torah. Learning Torah (other
than topics like this one) falls into the category of surviving the churban
and galus now that they are upon us. Certainly R' Yochanan ben Zakkai thought
so.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Haaros
Rabbi Yaakov Bernstein
Beis Medrash Chofetz Chayim Kiryas Radin
Project Genesis

The Ancient Mourning

Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av have certain similarities in their practices, yet
they are essentially different. Although both are full day fasts and have
similar prohibitions, they stand for different ideas. Laws which illustrate
the differing functions of the two days include the following:

On Tisha B'av, learning Torah is basically not allowed, and we sit on the
ground as mourners. Yom Kippur, on the other hand, represents the day in
which the Torah was given the final time (following the Eigel Hazahav --
the Golden Calf).

The reason for similarity of practices of Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av is that
both are days of introspection and self-improvement or "Teshuva;" however,
Tisha B'av is a time of mourning over the past, while Yom Kippur is a time
of rejoicing over the future.

Since the Gemara says that the first Bais Hamikdash was destroyed because
they did not say the brocha for the Torah properly, it is fitting that Torah
learning would be forbidden at the time commemorating the destruction. This
is not a time of connection, of spiritual attachment, but a time to reflect
and consider our ways.

Yom Kippur, on the other hand, is the greatest time of connection and
spiritual attachment -- the day the Torah was finally given to Yisrael.

The Past

In the recorded lectures of Rav Yerucham Levovitz, we find that Tochacha --
ethical reproof -- deals with past events. The worst thing is for a person to
see himself as righteous. He should learn to constantly see his errors, until
he realizes that he is not the tzadik (righteous leader) that he thinks he is.

Moshe reproved the people, time and again, without break. He had nothing
positive to say about them. In reality, over the course of many years, they
made very few mistakes. However, Moshe would not give them the benefit of
the doubt, but contantly reminded them of their errors. This is the goal,
actually -- to constantly remember our mistakes, as Dovid Hamelech (King
David) said: "My sin is always before me."

The Medrash states: "One who reproves a person, will afterwards find favor,
more so than one of smooth speech..." The verse is praising Moshe, who
reproved Yisrael and kept them from haughtiness. The opposite is true of Bilam,
who praised the people sweetly, and brought them to pride and carelessness.

Midos Chamura Me'aveiros

Nesivos Shalom [R' Shalom Noach Barzovsky zt"l, the Slonimer Rebbe, who passed
away yesterday. -MSB] described why Pirke Avos is studied. People think that
the main requirements of the Torah are its mitzvos. Although we often hear
about the middos -- qualities of character -- these seem to be too subtle
for the common man. It is enough to work on the basic Torah requirements.

This is what people feel, but it is not so. Just as we will be judged for
fulfilling the mitzvos, so, too, we will be judged for our qualities of
character. In fact, the Rabbis were more stringent with middos than with
mitzvos. So we find, "Anyone who becomes angry, it is as if he served
idols." "Regarding someone who is haughty, Hashem says, 'There is not room
for both of us.' " Such strong statements were not said in relation to mitzvos.

The Daas Torah has an entire section on this subject (end of Bamidbar). Rav
Moshe Cordevero showed that the Torah is addressed to the intellectual soul;
therefore, it mainly discusses mitzvos. The character qualities are based
on the animal soul. However, the animal soul is more fundamental; hence,
character qualities are more stringent than mitzvos. The Daas Torah compares
it to a house. We normally look at the house by the external aspects visible
to the eye. However, a beautiful house with poor foundations is not very
valuable. Damage to the surface may destroy the entire house. Correcting
flaws in the foundation will be costly, difficult work. However, a house
with a strong foundation will withstand damage and continue to be useful
for generations.

Similarly, the animal soul and the character qualities are the foundation,
and are more basic than performing the commandments.

The Daas Torah advances an idea as to why the Torah rarely commands character
qualities. The Torah is essentially needed for those things that we would
not have thought of on our own. However, character attributes are common
sense. There is no need to make commandments for them. In a similar manner,
the people of the world are judged for character qualities, even though most
of the Torah does not apply to them. If they are not warned, how can they
be punished? The answer is that moral qualities are common sense, logical
matters, and everyone is obligated to be aware of them.

The second Bais Hamikdash was destroyed because of "sinas chinom" -- baseless
hatred. Such a horrible tragedy occurred, because of faults of character.

In a message dated 8/9/00 5:53:56 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> There is a distinction I'd like to make between cause, blame and purpose.
...

Cause, blame, purpose: 

The "cause" of an event is phenomenological, and can be proximate, distant, 
or intervening. "Blame" is a term for the social or political process by 
which human beings assign psychic guilt or social culpability to (usually) 
other people when bad things happen. There is no such thing as legal "blame," 
or halachic blame. HaShem presumably is superior to the entire process of 
pinning blame on anyone for anything. (Cf. the measured and formalistic 
concept of legal or halachic *responsibility*, which includes the ideas of 
sin and legal liability. That's where Judaism comes in. To judge 
responsibility, we need Torah. Without Torah, anyone can assign blame.)

"Purpose" is elusive. We ask, What was HaShem's purpose in allowing (or from 
Rav Ovadia's point of view, causing) the Holocaust to take place? "Purpose" 
means lots of things. Sometimes it is used as a synonym for "motive." People 
have motives (not always ascertainable); if HaShem has them, they are 
ascertainable only to the extent He chooses to reveal them. Sometimes 
"purpose" is used as a synonym for "meaning," which signals the start of the 
endless and meaningless discussion of the meaning of "meaning," which means 
nothing in terms of Avodah.

Sometimes "meaning" is used as a synonym for "design" or "plan." So we ask, 
What was HaShem's plan when He allowed the Holocaust to happen? What was His 
plan, His design? What was He getting at? Beats me. And it ought to beat 
everyone else, too. In the case of the Holocaust, we can talk about cause and 
blame, but not purpose. Not while we live in this world.

David Finch

In a message dated 8/10/00 9:12:02 AM EST, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> It is interesting to note that only on Tisha B'Ov night following Kinos and
> Purim nightfollowing the Megilla - we say V'Atoh Kodosh and Kaddish Sholom
> without Tiskabel.

tisha bav is compared by RYBS to shiva

Joel Rich

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:03:28AM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:                 "Blame" is a term for the social or political process by 
: which human beings assign psychic guilt or social culpability to (usually) 
: other people when bad things happen. There is no such thing as legal "blame," 
: or halachic blame.

I was thinking of blame as in "X is to blame for the holocaust" similar to
fault, guilt or culpability. Legally, it would be culpability, no? IOW, being a
cause because of a choice to violate the law or insufficiently protect against
such a violation. Beis din would have to make such a determination as well.

HKBH, OTOH, is concerned with a whole different criterion. Who knows how He
judges people? But there is still a notion of being a cause because you did the
wrong thing vs being an unwilling pawn, doing the right thing but your plans
backfired, etc... IOW, not all causes imply guilt.

: Sometimes "meaning" is used as a synonym for "design" or "plan." So we ask, 
: What was HaShem's plan when He allowed the Holocaust to happen?

Wrong question. The Holocaust impacted in many ways. It's not "What was His
plan?" but "What were His plans?" R' Ovadia cited something he holds the
Holocaust accomplished. That doesn't mean it was the only purpose, or even
the primary purpose. Just *a* purpose. A piece of the puzzle we /are/
able to grasp.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 8/10/00 11:33:03 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> R' Ovadia cited something he holds the Holocaust accomplished. That doesn't
> mean it was the only purpose, or even the primary purpose. Just *a* purpose.
> A piece of the puzzle we /are/ able to grasp.

That's where I disagree. We only delude ourselves when we think we can
"grasp" a piece of a puzzle as overwhelming as that of the Divine role in
the Holocaust. Scripture (Iyov, Koheles) makes clear that delusions of this
sort are not so much errors of understanding as they are errors of mortal
arrogance, or at least of hebail.

Put differently, there is no Chief Rabbi of the universe. No posek can posken
beyond the limits of the human mind, of our own feeble existence.

David Finch

From this week's OhrNet:
TO LONG

"Ascend to the top of the cliff, and raise your eyes westward, northward...
and see with your eyes, for you shall not cross this Jordan" (3:27).

Moshe wanted dearly to enter Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, did Hashem iatantalizela
him by commanding him to climb the cliff and gaze at the Land that he would
not enter? Moshe is associated with the power of Netzach, Eternity. Everything
that Moshe did was forever. He took us out of Egypt, never to return there
as slaves; he taught us the Torah which we study and observe until this
day. Therefore, Hashem wanted Moshe to gaze upon every blade of grass of
Eretz Yisrael, so that throughout our long exile, the Jewish People would
never lose that longing for Eretz Yisrael that Moshe felt when he stood on
the top of that cliff gazing into the Land.
				- Heard from Rabbi Yerucham Uziel Milevsky zt"l

Our shul has a new megilas Eicha,  which is written in a way I have never
seen:  each posuk is a parasha unto itself (I think stuma,  but I did
have to lein).  Has anyone seen this or have an explanation?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>>Is it lchatchila better not to learn on tisha bav and the suggested topics
are just bdieved?<<

We discussed once on avodah (vol 1 #13-14) whether the chachamim were mafkia
miztvas T"T on 9 Av and there is just a heter of devarim ra'aim as a way to
pass the day, or is there still a mitzva of T"T is learning. The fact that
we say birchas haTorah points to the latter, but if the beracha is on the
cheftza shel Torah (like the GRI"Z writes) there is no ra'aya. There is a
Shibolei HaLeket who writes not to say birrchas hatorah.

>>>If not, what if one knows that one will feel simcha from learning<<< 

The Aruch HaShulchan accepts it a given that one will inevitably have simcha
in learning, but the fact that it is devarim ra'aim overrides that emotion
(at least to the nefesh, like Rambam in Hil Geirushin).

-CB

At 09:57 PM 8/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Rav Moshe brings proof to the fact that it is an issur retzicha even before
>forty days, from the Rishonim who hold that one may be mechalel Shabbos to
>save a fetus even before forty days. ...

Without looking at RMF inside, for now, the reason why we are Mechallel
Shabbos for Hatzolas Nefashos is because: "Challel alav Shabbos achas kdei
she'yishmor Shabbosos harbei" - so it does make sense to say that it is not
retzicha if you abort it, yet it is still permitted to save it on Shabbos.
Perhaps I am remembering the TE's refutation of RMF.

KT,
YGB

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]