Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 056

Wednesday, June 6 2001

• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Hashgacha
• The Segula of Mezuza
• Mezuzot
• Re: The Segula of Mezuza
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Iyov
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Re: suffering and repentance
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• RE: Hashgacha
• Re: Hashgacha
• Behaalos'cho es haneros - Chasam Sofer z'l and the sefer Likuteio Chovor ben Chaim
• Re: orbidding the Permitted and Permitting the Forbidden.
• kedushei ketana
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)
• Re: Iyov
• RE: mixed dancing (reward and punishment)

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 03:16:30PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>: Question: which *Rishonim* clearly disagree with Ramban/Rambam?

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> In private email someone pointed me to Chullin 7b, "ein adam koeif
> etzba'o...
> So as I see it, the question is how can so many rishonim argue with
> what is befeirush in the gemara?

I actually used to believe not like the Rambam (partially because I
used to think that he was a daas yachid) but now believe like Rambam
(really Ramban) because I think that philosophically the questions on
the non-Rambam position are overwhelming (see Rabbi Carmy's article).
Also, I find it difficult to believe that nature is really a farce (as
per Rav Dessler), especially as modern-day science has uncovered so many
more of the laws of the nature than were known in the time of the gemara.

Note that many of us follow the Rambam WRT the non-existence of shedim
despite the fact that the gemara clearly believes in their existence.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

        Micha's point that if an onesh is NOT meant to wake us up,  what
purpose does it serve,  appears to be valid.  A tzara,  however,  may or
may not be directed toward a specific aveira;  the churban habayis was
nish'al lechachamim velo pirshuhu,  linevi'im velo pirshuhu,  ad
shepirshuhu HKB"H be'atzmo.  What were the people supposed to learn from
something even the nevi'im could not explain?  General teshuva?

        OTOH,  there seem to be times that the reasons are *supposed* to
be clear.  Look at the reaction of the goyim in parashas Nitzavim:  they
will ask..........and they will answer.  They will know the reason, 
without nevi'im,  etc.

        One more question, how does one define a tzara that befalls kelal
Yisrael?  The current matzav in E"Y,  clearly yes.  Is the collapse of a
wedding hall in the same category?   A major car accident?  I can agree
that tachaluei yeladim R"L requires a ta'anis,  but what about tachaluei
yeled? What are the parameters that distinguish a tzaras hakelal from a
tzaras haperat?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[Bounced and edited down from Areivim. -mi]

From: "Feldman, Mark [in reply to me]
> I'm glad that you quoted Rav Dovid because otherwise I felt like I was some
> sort of apikores for questioning the seemingly "accepted" idea that the
> kashrus of one's mezuzos has a major influence on one's mazal.  Isn't that
> sort of idea completely kabbalistic/chassidish and completely against the
> Litvish way of thinking?

'Scuse me all you fine (Litvish) gentlemen (and WADR to RDL) - while I
quote from SA:

Mechaber: V'chol hazohir bo, yaarichu yomov v'ymei bonov,
                  v'im eino zohir bo - yiskatzru...
Taz (quoting Tur): ...ugedolah mizu, shehabayis nishmor al yodoh...
                    shehi nes godol...zocheh leha'arichas yemei bonov..

Would this be against "the Litvish way of thinking..."?

Shlomo B Abeles

[We've discussed the subject of whether the mezuzah itself or the mitzvah of 
mezuzah provides shemirah in the past. The source RSG mentions below, among
others, came up back then. See the thread titled "Shmiros" and its offshoots,
back in v3n171 or so onward. -mi]

From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
> 'Scuse me all you fine (Litvish) gentlemen (and WADR to RDL) - while I
> quote from SA:

> Mechaber: V'chol hazohir bo, yaarichu yomov v'ymei bonov,
>                   v'im eino zohir bo - yiskatzru...
> Taz (quoting Tur): ...ugedolah mizu, shehabayis nishmor al yodoh...
>                     shehi nes godol...zocheh leha'arichas yemei bonov..

> Would this be against "the Litvish way of thinking..."?

Bravo ! Gut GeZagt !

I would like to add that there may also be "Al Tashkain B'Ohalecha Avla"
ramifications to keeping unkosher mezuzot around the house, especially
if they are posted on the door. Also, why hasn't anyone mentioned the
VERY famous story of Onkelos, although I grant you he was probably not
a Litvak.

Stuart Goldstein

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:39:42PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Mechaber: V'chol hazohir bo, yaarichu yomov v'ymei bonov,
:                   v'im eino zohir bo - yiskatzru...
: Taz (quoting Tur): ...ugedolah mizu, shehabayis nishmor al yodoh...
:                     shehi nes godol...zocheh leha'arichas yemei bonov..

: Would this be against "the Litvish way of thinking..."?

The mechabeir is clearly refering to the MITZVAH of mezuzah, not the
cheftzah itself. The Tur (and therefore the Taz) is less obviously
so -- unfortunately "mitzvah", "mezuzah", and "kevi'ah" (as in the berachah)
are lashon nekeivah, so you can't tell what "al yadah" refers to.

(Mesorahnikim: Why is the mechabeir using "bo", belashon zachar?)

The idea that mitzvos are rewarded midah kineged midah is not at issue.

Although, as seen in another thread of this discussion, I personally would
refer more to the purpose of the reward than stopping my explanation at the
concept of sechar.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I wrote:     
> Then Rav Huna was right that his colleague's were being choshed him for doing 
> an aveirah.  They should have just answered like the Rambam did in MN (3:51) 
> that Rav Huna was not thinking of HKBH at that time so he did not merit
> hashgachah peratis.  He did not do anything wrong.  He just wasn't thinking of
> Hashem.
     
Moshe Feldman wrote:
> First, according to Rambam, isn't not thinking of Hashem doing something
> wrong?

Is it?  Source?

> Other rishonim, such as Ramban, who generally accept the Rambam's distinction
> between hashgacha pratis vs. klalis, do not say that hashgacha pratis depends
> on knowledge/thinking of Hashem but on tzidkus, zechiyos, or simply the
> propensity to examine one's actions in light of suffering.

See p. 123 of Dr. Berger's article that even tzaddikim do not have constant 
hashgachah peratis.

Gil Student

I had mentioned on Areivim that there are mefarshim who hold that Iyov
suffered as a punishment. I did not have the chance last night to go
through all of the mefarshim on Iyov, but here are citations from the
Metsudas David where he says that Iyov was punished because he did not
rebuke the people of his generation. These cites are to the summaries
that the MD has at the end of each section.

Iyov 35:12,16; 37:24; 41:26

I shmoozed briefly with my rav about this and he said that it is
a befeirush Chazal with which most of us are familiar in one form
or another. The gemara in Sotah 11a says that Paroh had 3 advisors.
Bilaam advised Paroh and was killed. Iyov was silent and was punished.
Yisro ran away and merited to have descendants sit in the lishkas hagazis.

Gil Student

Moshe Feldman had asked on Areivim whether Hashem would send a message to
non-believers if they will not listen to it. I had responded that they
might listen to it and that they will not have an excuse when they get
to Shamayim that Hashem did not tell them they were doing something wrong.

Rav Saadia Gaon discusses this in Emunos VeDeyos (4:5, Kaffih ed. p. 160)
and gives six reasons why Hashem will send a message to non-believers.
His first reason was my second above. See there for the other reasons.

Gil Student

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:38:46PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: So my argument was that *of course* Hashem sends punishment to *believing*
: Jews to cause them to repent.  And that is what the Rambam was talking about
: when he said that misfortune obligates one to repent.  But if, from a
: practical perspective, *non-believing* Jews are extremely unlikely to view
: calamity as a message to repent (instead, they view such calamity in
: naturalistic terms), does it make sense that Hashem would punish them to
: send them a message which they are unlikely to hear?

The Rambam's objection is different, that such people aren't connected to
the Seichel that is beyond teva. But to address your question, I have a
few objections:

1- Teshuvah isn't only in bein adam laMakom. Someone can continue to not
   believe in G-d and still become a better person bein adam lachaveiro,
   as well as in those mitzvos the ba'alei mussar would call bein adam
   linafsho (e.g. arayos, anivus, lack of ka'as...)

2- There are physical causal connections between ma'aseh and onesh that
   can motivate people to improve. When a child burns their hand on a
   stove, they are less likely to touch it again. When a nation loses
   people in a building that should never have passed inspection, one
   hopes that inspection rules will be tightened, graft will be better
   prosecuted, etc....
   
3- If someone believes in "karma", or just in a nebulous sense of "the
   universe" being just, they would be motivated to teshuvah. Even without
   conscious belief in the Provider of that justice.

4- "There are no atheists in a foxhole", and more Americans pray in Los
   Vegas and Atlantic City than anywhere else in the country. ("G-d,
   give me a two!") Few people, if any, are so sure of their disbelief
   that they don't respond even on an emotional level.

   Which is why I refered to "conscious belief" in #3.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I actually used to believe not like the Rambam (partially because I used to
> think that he was a daas yachid) but now believe like Rambam (really Ramban)
> because I think that philosophically the questions on the non-Rambam position
> are overwhelming (see Rabbi Carmy's article). 

I only had time last night to flip through Rabbi Carmy's article and remind 
myself of its contents, so I may be mistaken.  But my impression is that Rabbi 
Carmy was criticizing all forms of theodicy, even the Rambam's rationalistic 
version.  He argued that it was arrogant to try to understand why things happen 
- to essentially judge Hashem - particularly when it is done nonchalantly and 
dispassionately.  Rather we should focus on how to react to events.

However, I am not sure how we are supposed to know how to react unless we have 
an approach to theodicy.  In his article, Rabbi Carmy used the Rambam's approach
(I think he said "for example" when he chose the approach) to show how one 
should react.  But one needs that Rambam's approach before one knows how to 
react.  In our case also, we need to know why the tragedy happened in order to 
know how to react.  

> Also, I find it difficult to believe that nature is really a farce (as per Rav
> Dessler), especially as modern-day science has uncovered so many more of the
> laws of the nature than were known in the time of the gemara.

Who says those laws will also apply in the future?  I think it was Bertrand 
Russell who said that there is no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

According to Rav Dessler, the laws only apply because HKBH constantly renews 
them.  All that we are discovering is how complex this constant renewal is.
     
> Note that many of us follow the Rambam WRT the non-existence of shedim despite
> the fact that the gemara clearly believes in their existence.

I think the Rambam is not CONTRADICTING the gemara but reading it allegorically.
R. Avraham ben HaRambam says (I think) that sheidim and mazikin really refer to 
unsavory humans who are dangerous.  I don't know if that can explain every 
gemara, but al allegorical reading can go very far.  How can you allegorize "Ein
adam nokeif etzbao ela im kein gozrin alav milma'alah"?

I'm sure the Rambam was aware of these gemaras.  But what did he do with them?  
Did he just say that this is aggadata and he is not bound by it?
     
Gil Student

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>> Other rishonim, such as Ramban, who generally accept the Rambam's distinction
>> between hashgacha pratis vs. klalis, do not say that hashgacha pratis depends
>> on knowledge/thinking of Hashem but on tzidkus, zechiyos, or simply the
>> propensity to examine one's actions in light of suffering.

> See p. 123 of Dr. Berger's article that even tzaddikim do not 
> have constant hashgachah peratis.

Presumably the explanation of this is simply that "Ayn tzadikim ba'aretiz
asher yaaseh tov v'lo yechta."  So tzaddikim don't have constant hashgacha
pratis because they periodically sin.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
>         One more question, how does one define a tzara that 
> befalls kelal Yisrael?  
<snip> 
> I can agree that tachaluei yeladim R"L requires a ta'anis,  but what 
> about tachaluei yeled? What are the parameters that distinguish a tzaras 
> hakelal from a tzaras haperat?

I would think that in almost all cases, tachaluei yeled is a tzaras haperat.
Sometimes, I get the impression that people think otherwise, if a death a
particularly tragic.  Can anyone explain the logic behind such a view?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:41:17AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: I would think that in almost all cases, tachaluei yeled is a tzaras haperat.
: Sometimes, I get the impression that people think otherwise, if a death a
: particularly tragic.  Can anyone explain the logic behind such a view?

Lishitasi, there is no surprise here.

I said that every event is looked at from the perspective of each person
that it impacts. Everyone from the parents to someone who is saddened
by the long list of names read in a shul halfway across the globe. Of
course, each according to its measure.

I mentioned yesterday an idea my father told over after he heard it
from RYBS one Tuesday night at Moriah. That a Mi Shebeirach transforms
a personal tzarah into a communal one, and RYBS used the notion of
maximizing the number of people impacted as the mechanics for it.

So yes, a tzarah with a greater kol reaches more people. Therefore,
it must be that more people needed to hear that kol.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

An interesting vort in the name of the Chasam Sofer z'l, in the
sefer Likutei Chover ben Chaim (by his talmid muvhak Rav Chezkiya Feivel
Flaut z'l - the Shuron Rov)  which may be more relevant to the Torah-
Umada/TIDE-types on this list than the usual CS-niks.

On 'Behaalos'cho es haneiros', and using the posuk from Mishlei - "Chochmos
Bonso Beiso Chotzvo Amudeho Shivo', he explains that this refers
 to the Sheva Chochmos: Handoso (which although today means engineering,
I am told is really geometry), Chochmas Hateva, Music, Chochmas Ham'locho -
mechanic(?), chemistry and astrology with the Chochmo Elokus merumaz by
 the Ner Emtzoi in the Menora.

The CS says that someone who is 'oisek' in the 6 other chochmos - and wishes
to receive s'char for it (and also not be punished for bitul Torah) should
be mechaven that he is studying/using them to be an aid for Chochmas
Hatorah.

And he thus explains the posuk 'Behaalos'cho es haneiros' - if you wish to
be 'maalah' the other 6 neiros (=chochmos), then make sure that they go -
'el mul pnei hamenorah', and that they are only 't'feilim' to the 'ner
emtzoi' - which is the Torah...

Utilising this pshat, the LCBC explains the Rashi on "Vayaas kein Aharon" -
'lehagid sh'vochoy shel Aharon sheloi shinoh...' (and the obvious question:
Is it really such a  great praise for Aharon that he did not divert from the
instructions of Hashem...?)

He explains by saying that some people initially study the other chochmos
with the pure kavono that it should assist them in understanding the
Chochmas Hatorah. Unfortunately the result is often different and
they are so absorbed in these chochmos that they abandon
chochmas haTorah.

However, Aharon Hakohen, (who obviously knew all the chochmos),
ensured that 'el mul pnei hamenora he'eloh neroseho' - he was 'nichnas
besholem veyotzo besholem' - and always remained with the same kavonos -
and 'lo shinoh' - for him these chochmos were always the tofel and not
ikkar..

***
Talking of  the Likutei Chover ben Chaim (I wonder how many on the list have
heard of him?), let me give some interesting background to the
sefer and its author.

As mentioned, he was a devoted talmid of the CS and his seforim are full of
divrei torah from his rebbe. He originally published  the11 volumes in the
period of 5637 till 5652. Over the years they became a real y'kar hametzias
and remained so - until a very choshever teyerer yid, Reb Yaakov Akiva
Lowinger OH of Boro Park, undertook to reprint them.

My first-hand knowledge of this comes from being a ben bayis by RYAL whilst
studying in NY in the 60's - when his home was my (American) home.

And "b'rom zochur osoh ish latov..."
I remember how he often used to say that he has a dream to reprint these
seforim - as the mechaber sadly had no offspring and he felt that it would
be letovas nishmosoy - 'divreihem hem hem zichronom'.

(As can be seen by the brochos (to this second edition) by the gedolei hador
[the Satmar Rebbe, RM Feinstein, the Mattersdorfer Rav, Papa Rav,
Vienner Rav, RCF Rosenberg [Debreciner dayan] RFF's relative - zecher
kulom livrocho and LHVB"C - RS Wosner shlit'a], the sefer was very well
known and regarded by  earlier generations.)

Reb Akiva Lowinger carried this idea in his head for many years until he
succeeded in his goal.

But it wasn't such a simple task. First, he had to find clear copies of all
11 chalokim which in itself was no mean undertaking, seeing we are talking
about 100 year old rarities.

Succeeding in getting all volumes, he then had to raise the huge funds
needed to print and bind them.

So this fine and humble Jew - 'a yid a talmid chochom', who was 'neheneh
miyegi'ei kapov' and used his every spare moment to learn Torah (as I
remember, he fell asleep most nights at his kitchen table poring
 over a gemoro or Chumash/Rashi/Ramban), went out to raise
whatever  he could - with the rest probably coming from his own pocket.

And before anyone gets any ideas that we are talking about a 'g'vir'
here - let me disclose that he was a hard-working carpenter who went to his
jobs on a bicycle!!!

But this "far'tseitisher Oberlender Yid" succeeded in his mission to be
mezakeh the Olam Hatorah and to republish the works of the Likutei Chover -
indeed, an  improved version to the original - as it now comes in only 7
easy-to-use volumes and also includes an index (as requested by Rav Wosner
in his divrei brocho).

Looking at this index, one can see the vast amount of Torah resources that
it covers. The bonus we get, are the (hundreds[?] of) divrei Torah from the
CS on the Parshios and 5 megilos as well as on Shas and SA).

It includes 50-60 of his droshos for all times and occasions - including
bris, weddings, Nechomas Yerushalayim(?), '7 Adar' hespedim for Rabbonim and
important baalei batim (att: RD Glasner - your g-g-grandfather - Rav Avrohom
Glasner z'l gets  a mention), Chinuch Beis Haknesses, Chinuch Sefer Torah,
Lichvodo shel melech and many other interesting occasions.

There are also chiddushim on Mishnayos, Shas, Yerushalmi, Rishonim, Rambam,
 Shulchan Oruch, Halocho and Tshuva seforim, Zohar, about 120 Chidushei
Sugyas and a similar number of his own Tshuvos in Arba Chelkei SA.

Tzavoas, minhogei and toldos of the CS, a hesped by the Ksav Sofer on the
CS, various shiurim and cheshbonos. There is a list of well over 200 names
(mainly rabbonim) who are mentioned in his hespedim.

There are also many interesting historical letters and stories (eg Megilas
Tisza Eszlar - the story of the infamous Hungarian blood libel), etc.,
and it is no surprise why this sefer has again become so popular.

Reb Akiva Lowinger was niftar a few years ago and I can imagine
the 'boruch haboh' he received upon entering Gan Eden, where he was
no doubt warmly welcomed and embraced by the mechaber of LCBC,
who was surely makir tovah for his efforts to ensure that 'sifsosov dovevos
bakever'.

I understand that the family have some copies remaining - if anyone is
interested please contact me.

(This Torah treasury should definitely be in every Yeshiva and  Shul.)

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net

From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
>>                                  However, there is one interesting point
>> to be gleaned here and that is that even a Torah Mandated Halacha may be
>> rabbinically legislated away if societal evolution demands it.

> There isn't a "Torah Mandated" obligation to do it -- so there isn't a
> problem to *not* do it.

Let's take the Mitzvah of Yivum, as an example. There is a specific
Mitzvas Aseh to do it, mandated by G-d for the benefit of Klal Israel.
Mankind cannot know the Tammei HaMitzvos. We can only speculate as to
G-d's intent. Some of our guesses, (educated and otherwise) may or may
not be correct, We have no way of knowing which reasons were guessed
at correctly. This leaves us with the problem of legislating away the,
not only mutar, but mandated Mitzvas Aseh. Chalitza must be seen as
the lesser of two approaches to the resolution of an Halachic problem
that arises as a result of a childless, married man's death. Yivum is
clearly fulfilling the intent stated in the Torah (one of the few times
the Torah actually cites the reason for the Mitzvah) of being "Yokim Es
Shem Achiv HaMes, VeLo Yimcheh Es ShMo MeIsrael." The Torah then offers
an "out" in the form of Chalitza, clearly not the preferred choice,
of removing his shoe and spitting in front of him. The way the Torah
expresses it indicates very strongly that Chalitza is only an "out"
and not preferred. Yivum is preferred. Never-the-less, fast forward
to today and the Rama Paskins that we ONLY do Chalitza. IOW, societal
conditions have changed and we now eliminate the clearly preferred way of
handling Hakamas Shem Achiv. As a matter of fact Chalitza prevents that
from happening as there are no heirs created for the deceased brother.

So for you to say there isn't a problem is not accurate. The Rama
has in effect overruled the preferred method of the Torah. Why?
Probably because societal evolution. At least in the case of Askenazim,
a negative situation of some kind (I'm not exactly sure how) has evolved
which makes Chalitza a better and, indeed, only option. This means that
Mankind has used his own, imperfect knowledge to override G-d's perfect
mandated preference. It's as if we are saying "we know why G-d mandated
this and we now have a better reason to forbid it".

Can Mankind presume to do this? If he can, (and as demonstrated, he does
in The case of Yivum) what are the implications of it? Can Man over-ride
G-d's will?

HM

Harry seems to still labor under the impression that a father has the
right to marry off his minor daughter without her consent.  There were
times and places where such child marriages were practiced.   However,
that has not been true for a long time.  Perhaps the following citation
from the Aruch Hashulchan that was written by Harav Y.M. Epstein
approximately a hundred years ago will help:

He first cites the command in the Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha'ezer 37: 8)
that a father not marry off his minor daughter, followed by the comment
in the Remah about the practice of child marriage in Europe.  He then
states, "However, in our times people do not marry off minor children,
and we have never heard of someone who married off a minor.  This is
proper since the talmud (T.B. Kiddushin 41a) states that it is forbidden
to marry her off when she is a minor.  Although it may not be forbidden
if she is agreeable, nevertheless, it is not right.  This is the general
custom these days in our country".

I could not find a discussion of kedushei ketana in the original volumes
of the Igros Moshe.  Perhaps someone knows of a teshuva on this subject
by someone of the stature of Ha'Rav Moshe Feinstein.



[A 2nd email, in reply to one of mine: -mi]
> The Torah is right because the Torah defines right? ...
> Also, you leave no room with which to define "kadeish es atzmecha bema
> shemutar lach" (Ramban) or "neveilus bireshus haTorah". Clearly the
> definition of "neveilus" is not identical to "assur".

So replace "right" with "conforming to tachlis", mai nafka mina?

The bottom line is that the question lies not with kiddushei ketana,
but with a worldview that finds it untenable.

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>                                 ...              my impression is that Rabbi 
> Carmy was criticizing all forms of theodicy, even the Rambam's rationalistic 
> version.  

It seemed to me that Rabbi Carmy's criticisms were much stronger when
applied to the hashgacha-pratis-only school.

> He argued that it was arrogant to try to understand why things happen 
> - to essentially judge Hashem - particularly when it is done nonchalantly and 
> dispassionately.  

But the point is that if suffering occurs to people because they experience
hashgacha klalis, then there is no reason to be judging Hashem.

...
> In his article, Rabbi Carmy used the Rambam's approach
> (I think he said "for example" when he chose the approach) to show how one 
> should react.  But one needs that Rambam's approach before one knows how to 
> react.  In our case also, we need to know why the tragedy happened in order
> to know how to react.  

I definitely got the impression that Rabbi Carmy favors the Rambam/Ramban
approach.  Rabbi Carmy, could you clarify your position?

...
> According to Rav Dessler, the laws only apply because HKBH constantly renews 
> them.  All that we are discovering is how complex this 
> constant renewal is.

Rav Dessler goes much farther than that. He says that the laws of nature
do not exist. Rather Hashem deals with everyone through hashgach pratis
but hides this by pretending to do it through the laws of nature. I think
that the charedi who goes though every effort to find the absolutely
*best* doctor, rather than just making some hishtadlus, shows that he
believes that the nature does play a part in how the world is run.

...
> I'm sure the Rambam was aware of these gemaras.  But what did 
> he do with them?  
> Did he just say that this is aggadata and he is not bound by it?

Either that, or as Micha said--there are contradictory gemaras, such
as "Hakol b'yidei shamayim chutz m'tzinim u'pachim" (which could mean
nature).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:59:19am EDT, gil.student@citicorp.com
writes:
> I had mentioned on Areivim that there are mefarshim who hold that Iyov
> suffered as a punishment. ..
> Metsudas David where he says that Iyov was punished because he did not
> rebuke the people of his generation....
> I shmoozed briefly with my rav about this and ...
>             The gemara in Sotah 11a says that Paroh had 3 advisors.
> Bilaam advised Paroh and was killed. Iyov was silent and was punished....

To the best of my memory (which isn't saying much) the gemora is
very ambivalent about Iyov. I believe that it argues (may be at your
cite) as to whether he even existed so that famous medrash you quoted
certainly isn't universally accepted as fact (though you could argue it
as a metaphor). The gemorah later in sotah argues as to whether Iyov's
avodah was mtoch ahava or yirah.

I once heard a tape of R'YBS where he claimed that Iyov was "punished"
for only worrying about himself and his family and not the rest of the
clal, his punishment was mida kneged mida and he was only "forgiven"
when he worried about the clal.

KT
Joel

In a message dated Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:00:00pm EDT, gil.student@citicorp.com
writes:
> I'm sure the Rambam was aware of these gemaras.  But what did he do with
> them?  Did he just say that this is aggadata and he is not bound by it?
     
I imagine he did what most of us do when faced with seemingly
irreconcilable sources, we do our best to come to what we think is amita
shel tora and then reinterpret the outliers as best we can. A simple
example-have you ever tried to explain the gemora's view on dreams

KT
Joel

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


[ 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         ]