Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 071

Friday, July 6 2001

• Marriage Query: Qidushin B'sh'tor
• Re: Tzitzis on Shabbos - d'Rabanan?
• Re: Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of Tzitzis/Tzeetzis
• Mizmor shir liyom hashabbos and Hashem moloch.... - sitting or standing?
• Re: Mizmor shir liyom hashabbos and Hashem moloch.... - sitting or standing?
• Re: Mizmor shir liyom hashabbos and Hashem moloch.... - sitting or standing?
• Re: Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of Tzitzis/Tzeetzis
• Agunot
• Re: Nir-eh Li
• Re: Re: Nir-eh Li
• value of prayer
• Re: Agunot
• Re: Agunot
• Re: Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of Tzitzis/Tzeetzis
• Re: Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of Tzitzis/Tzeetzis
• Re: Agunah
• Re: value of prayer
• Re: Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of Tzitzis/Tzeetzis
• Re: Rambam on Aristotle
• RE: value of prayer
• Re: umasbia lechal chai ratzon
• re: Nir-eh Li
• Re: Agunot
• Re: Schar VeOnesh
• Re: Schar VeOnesh

Because of a mayseh she'od loa hoyoh, but perhaps will, a friend of
mine with an engaged son is trying to gather information about qidushin
with a sh'tor. Since i have simply not heard of anybody using this ,
I am wondering whether anyone else has (perhaps in a sefaradi or edot
hamizrach environment?) and if so - are there any documented sources
for the form of the sh'tor. of course the SA (EH s'32)has a brief
description and the oruch hashulchon a somewhat lengthier exposition,
but i'm wondering if anyne knows of some actual textual implementation
which has been used, and where it might be referenced.

Mechy Frankel                 W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com  H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

In a message dated 7/2/01 9:00:44am EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Meanwhile, for the benefit of others who are interested in this topic, I
> suggest the following relevant sources, all in Orach Chayim 13:
....

And as mentioned before S"A Horav 13 4-6.

See also Mogein Giborim in the Shiltei Hagiborim Al Asar, and the Shagas 
Aryei # 32.

> Unfortunately, I did not see anyone specify where that Mordechai can be
> found, If anyone can locate it and let me know where it is, that would be
> very helpful and appreciated.

It is in the Halochos Ktanos (in the back of Minochos) Simon 944, and see 
Biur MaHaRaMB there.

> One last point: I am unable to address R' Micha Berger's comments about
> "oker mitzvah biyadayim", because I am unfamiliar with that phrase. If
> anyone can find a citation where it is used, I'd appreciate it.

See Tos. D"H Kulhu, Minochos 90b, and above mentioned S"A Horav.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/2/01 9:00:27am EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> But Rashi's comment in Sh'lach is totally
> UNambiguous: The gematria of this word is 600, yielding 613 when you
> add in the 8 strings and 5 knots. And a gematria of 600 forces us to
> include both yods, teaching us that (according to Rashi, at least)
> the correct spelling of this word is with two yods.

See Mforshei Rashi (Mizrachi, Gur Arei etc.), that it's Kri is with 2 Yudin, 
as this is a Nafka Mina Lhalacha, see O"C 61 (and note MG"A S"K 13).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

I have been wondering for some time about the recitations of Mizmor shir
liyom Hashabbos... and Hashem moloch.... (Psalms 92 & 93) on Friday nights
- (they are ancient parts of the Friday night davening - back to days
of Ramba"m at least IIRC, according to the Artscroll English siddur -
predating Licha dodi and the Kabbolas Shabbos from the mikubbolim in
Tzfas by a long time....)...

Anyway, I have been wondering if the two psalms should be said sitting
or standing. I noticed in an excellent article in the just released
new issue of Jewish Action (from the O-U) on Kabbolas Shabbos by
R. Elchanan Adler, that it is stated that the Brisker Rov (haGri"z)
sat for them. In one minyan I have davened in often over a substantial
period of time, I noticed that more people seem to be standing as time
goes by...........whereas in the past, more sat.

Anyway, I am curious to hear what the prevalent customs WRT this are
in the wider Jewish world and sevoros / mikoros for them. Does anyone
have any light to shed on this matter beyond what can be gleaned from
the Jewish Action article.

Thanks in advance.
Mordechai

>it is stated that the Brisker Rov (haGri"z) sat for them.

I think the Brisker minhag is to skip Kabbalas Shabbos altogether and to
either daven Mincha early and come to shul just in time for Ma'ariv or
to sit and learn during Kabbalas Shabbos. I know at least one authentic
Brisker who does the former. It could be that the Brisker Rav was sitting
and learning during mizmor shir etc.

Gil Student

At 08:36 PM 7/4/01 -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
>I have been wondering for some time about the recitations of Mizmor shir
>liyom Hashabbos... and Hashem moloch.... (Psalms 92 & 93) on Friday nights...

The Chida, I forget where, says to stand, as this is the ikkar Kabbolos 
Shabbos. V'chein ani noheig.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Yzkd@aol.com <Yzkd@aol.com>
> See Mforshei Rashi (Mizrachi, Gur Arei etc.), that it's Kri is with 2 Yudin,
> as this is a Nafka Mina Lhalacha, see O"C 61 (and note MG"A S"K 13).

I looked up the Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh. They don't say that this is
a case of kri vs ksiv. Rather, they say that "tzitzis" can be spelled
either chaser or malei, and either (1) one can make a drasha based on
the way it's pronounced because of yesh eim l'mikra (-Mizrachi) or (2)
Rashi's drasha was not based on the Torah spelling but on the spelling
of the word "tzitzis" in general (-Gur Aryeh).

Certainly, according to the Gur Aryeh, there is no rayah to read the word
as tzeetzees in Kriyas Shma. Even according to the Mizrachi, I don't
think that this is a case of kri u'ksiv, but simply that people regard
tzitzis as normally having two yuds and therefore consider the word in the
Torah to have been written chaser. I don't think that he means that the
second chirik should be read as a chirik gadol when reasding kriyas shma.
In fact, I know some medakdikim who make sure to read "tzeetzis."

PS: my concordance indicates that the only other time that tzitzis
appears in Tanach (in Yechezkel), it is written chaser.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Wiht regard to the get al tnai, this was rehashed several years ago on
avoda.  However, just to recapitulate:

In the 1950s, R Jung asked R Weinberg (the Seride Esh) about finding a
solution to agunot.  The Seride Esh said that he was too sick to devote time
to it, and referred R Jung to his talmid muvhak, R Eliezer Berkovitz.  R
Berkovitz developed a proposal based on kidushin al tnai, continuing lines
that the Seride Esh had previously suggested.  Furthermore, R Berkovits
argued (and the Seride Esh agreed) that this proposal was not the same that
was rejected in the 1930s.  

The Seride Esh gave a haskama, asking that it be approved by the gdolim.
The Seride Esh's main concern was not technical - that it violated halacha
(in the last go around, several eminent posters suggested that this proposal
clearly violated the opinions of the Aruch Hashulchan, among others.  These
halachic objections were dealt with by R Berkovits, and the Seride Esh
agreed)   Rather, by making marriage conditional, it fundamentally changed
the nature of marriage for everyone, and such a fundamental change required
the consent of the entire community.

 R Berkovits circulated the proposal.  R Moshe Feinstein wrote to him saying
that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the proposal, but that he
did not see that there was a need for such a proposal.  (This was verified
the last go around when, IIRC, someone asked R Tendler) 

R Berkovits was going to publish the proposal with Noam.  At the last
minute, R Kasher said that there were problems, and gave the typeset pages
so that instead it was published as a book by Mossad harav Kook.  After the
publication, R Kasher published a scathing review, and claimed that R
Weinberg withdrew his haskama (R Berkovits showed me a letter from R
Weinberg where R Weinberg said that he doesn't know where that came from,
and continues to support R Berkovits).

The whole issue of get al tnai and kiddushin al tnai is analyzed at length
in R Berkovits's book, which remains necessary for any new proposal.

However, the history surrounding it is why there is a belief that to some
extent, the reason that more was not done for agunot is the perception by
some gdolim that there wasn't a problem requring a solution, not that a
solution could not be found.  This is reflected in the anonymous letter R
Micha wrote.   Many gdolim worked heroically to free individual agunot, and
R Feinstein's view on Reform marriage was another example, but the
perception of the magnitude of the problem governs the nature of the
solutions adopted.  Given this history - that solutions were rejected not
because they were wrong, but that the problem was not perceived to be
serious enought to require a general solution - and the complicated nature
of the basic halachot so that most amcha do not know what the real problems
are -  there is a fairly pervasive view that much of the current probelms in
agunot reflect more a lack of will than true halachic problems.   The
current arguments about the prenup agreement that was approved by many
gdolim only reinforce this negative view.


Meir Shinnar

I'm looking in a sefer I have KUNTRES KLALEI Ha"RAMBAM and he gives a
number of explanations with sources:

He mentions that the Ha'Emek She'ela, She'ilta Vav Oht alef discusses what
the Rambam means when he writes "V'yireh'li".

On the other hand, he quotes others with different svarot:
"k'shekotev Harambam davr chadash she'ein lo makor b'divrei chazal v'hu
mi'svara d'nafshiya, poteach b'lashon "yir-eh li" [quotes Brit Yaakov 225
and Zechut Yitzchak Chelek Alef 173]. In another section he writes,
"K'she'hadavar eino mefurash elah yotzeh mitoch shakla v'tarya d'talmuda
kotev "yir-eh li" [quotes the Brit Yaakov 225]. In another section he writes,
kol devarav b'sifro Mishneh Torah m'divrot chazal lokcho chutz m'heychan
she'katav 'yir-eh li" u'lchol dvarav yesh makor b'mishnat chazal [quotes the
Yad Sofer Chelek bet 31].

Josh

In a message dated Thu, 5 Jul 2001 8:55:22am EDT, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
<< I'm looking in a sefer I have KUNTRES KLALEI Ha"RAMBAM... In another
section he writes, kol devarav b'sifro Mishneh Torah m'divrot chazal
lokcho chutz m'heychan she'katav 'yir-eh li" u'lchol dvarav yesh makor
b'mishnat chazal [quotes the Yad Sofer Chelek bet 31]. >>

What is "bmishnat chazal"? The Rambam himself in his igrot is very clear
in stating what he meant-I wonder why the need to quote secondary sources?

KT
Joel

R. Chaim Volozhiner is cited in Kether Rosh as saying he would give all
the tefilloth he'd prayed his whole life for one chiddush. I was pleased
to notice this week that R. Karelitz, in his little book Emunah UBitachon
cites this approvingly.

How does the AishDas society react to that quotation?

David Riceman

On 5 Jul 2001, at 8:04, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> R Berkovits was going to publish the proposal with Noam.  At the last
> minute, R Kasher said that there were problems, and gave the typeset pages
> so that instead it was published as a book by Mossad harav Kook....

What is the name of the book? Do you know if it is still in print? 

-- Carl

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il             mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>The Seride Esh gave a haskama, asking that it be approved by the gdolim. The 
>Seride Esh's main concern was not technical - that it violated halacha
>(in the last go around, several eminent posters suggested that this proposal 
>clearly violated the opinions of the Aruch Hashulchan, among others.  These 
>halachic objections were dealt with by R Berkovits, and the Seride Esh agreed) 
>Rather, by making marriage conditional, it fundamentally changed the nature of 
>marriage for everyone, and such a fundamental change required the consent of 
>the entire community.

Based on my understanding of the Seride Esh, this seems to have been
his general approach when it came to important matters of the tzibbur.
For instance, when he wanted to permit meat that was stunned before
shechitah, he circulated his opinion among the other gedolim. Even though
he believed it to be permissible, he would not matir it because the other
gedolim disagreed. Here, too, he seems to have followed the same pattern.

Gil Student

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
...
> in Artscroll or Koren] call out attention to the missing yod. The lack of
> such notes in Shelach suggests a single yod is *not* an unusual spelling
> of "tzeetzees", but that in this context, the correct spelling is with
> one yod, and the correct pronunciation is "tzeetzis".

To quote from R. Seth Mandel's post on the mesorah list on Fri, 13 Apr
2001 13:27:30 Re: Hebrew vocalization and the notation of silent
consonants,

>Any consonant not at the end of a word is pronounced if and only if it is 
>immediately followed by a vowel sign (which includes a shva).

Thus the yod in "tzitzis" is silent, and the two chiriq's in the word are
pronounced the same.

Akiva Miller wrote:
>R' Michael Poppers recently changed the subject line of my thread from "tztizis
>on Shabbos" to "tzeetzis on Shabbos".
>It seems to me that both spellings and pronunciations are accepted as correct, 
>but in different contexts, and I'm hoping someone can bring a Kasuv Hashlishi 
>which will resolve the contradiction.

Rabbi Mandel seems to be busy lately, which is probably why he did
not respond to this. I can't find it now, but he posted not long ago
that there is no difference in pronunciation between a tenuah gedolah
and a tenuah ketanah. He said something like English is one of the few
languages in which every sound has a dipthong, or something linguistic
like that. Can he, or someone who knows what he said, enlighten us?

Gil Student

--- "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@zahav.net.il>
> Harry, if the guys who won't give their wives a Get were violent, or
> bad tempered or vindictive by nature -- you would have a point.
> Unfortunately, from my husband's experience as a lawyer who represents
> men and women in divorce procedures -- this is rarely the case.
> Usually, when discussing the husband's recaltrance with friends the
> response is: HIM!  No Way!  He's the nicest guy!

The ancinet Ukranian proverb: You never know what goes on behind closed
doors" comes to mind here. Some people give the impression to the world
that they are fine, upstanding individuals, even role models for the
communtiy to emulate, while in private they are wife beaters or the like.
No one knows about this because in most cases the wife is too embarrased
to come forward and make known her plight. She would rather have the world
think well of her family and gain the admiration and respect that such
model citizenry evokes from the public. So the world looks on admirably
for years as this model family presents itself to a communtiy which
bestows honor upon them pointing to that model behavior. But this family
is rotting from the inside and when children from this dysfunctional
family go off track or the wife just can't take it anymore and runs
to the nearst Shalva shelter, the communtiy is shocked in disbelief:
How could it be? Her husband was such a nice guy!? Always the model
of courtesy constantly displaying respect for the Gedolei HaIr. And a
huge Bal Tzedakah to boot! Not possible! But of course not only was it
possible but it is fact.

It is my personal gut feeling that such an individual reveals his
true nature to his fiance during the course of a courtship and/or
the engagement period. At some point in an intimate relationship the
privately violent publicly gentle nature will make itself known to a
woman. I beleive the signs will come out before marriage. They have
to. It is virtually impossible to hide character flaws like this in
an ongoing constant relationship which one has during a courtship or
engagement period. The only exception to this is in Chasidic pre-arranged
matrriages where the Chasan and Kallah only meet once.

But in those cases, the parents do the "dating" and research each other's
children thoroughly to see if there are any major character flaws. It
is a system which seems to work, although I'm sure there exists the same
problems and pitfalls that the rest of us can experience.

So is bad character revealed. To the rest of the world the behavior is
hidden and such a person knows enough to be polite, not lose his temper
etc. in public. His parents might know, but they're not telling anyone.

So your scenario can be explained. All of these "nice guys" who all of
a sudden are recalictrant husbands willing to put their discarded wives
into a state of Agunah... aren't so nice after all. I'll bet somebody
alrerady knew that... not everyone... not most people... but someone,
and I'll bet that deep down the wife knew it at some level, even while
still engaged, but was in denial until it was too late.

Once again, Can Dr. Jekyl mask his Mr. Hyde personality until it is too
late? Yes. But he would have to be REALLY good... I think.

HM

In a message dated Thu, 5 Jul 2001 1:01:07pm EDT, "David Riceman [dtr]"
<dr@insight.att.com> writes:
> R. Chaim Volozhiner is cited in Kether Rosh as saying he would give all
> the tefilloth he'd prayed his whole life for one chiddush. I was pleased
> to notice this week that R. Karelitz, in his little book Emunah UBitachon
> cites this approvingly.

What exactly did he mean? For example, let's posit that one choleh who
would've otherwise not survived was healed due to his tfilot. Was he
saying that he would be willing fot that choleh to die for a chiddush?

KT
Joel

In Avodah V7 #70, Akiva Miller asked:
> R' Michael Poppers recently changed the subject line of my thread from
> "tztizis on Shabbos" to "tzeetzis on Shabbos".... So which is it?

In all honesty, I wouldn't have changed a thing but for your
unintentionally writing "tztizis" rather than "tzitzis." Since you
ask, I probably should have corrected it to "tzeetzees" (plural form)
rather than "tzeetzis" (singular form) -- you mentioned RaShY on 15:39,
so see RaShY on 15:38 -- but I can silently suffer "tzitzis" for those
who prefer a chirik-yud without teeth :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

The Rambam writes in Hilchos Issurei Biah 14:4 that we tell a prospective 
convert that only Jews can receive olam haba.  Of course, this contradicts what 
the Rambam writes in other places.  The only person I've seen discuss this is 
the Maharatz Chajes on Yevamos 47a who leaves it tzarich iyun.  Anyone have any 
thoughts on this (after looking it up, please).

Gil Student

In a message dated Thu, 5 Jul 2001 1:01:07pm EDT, :
>> R. Chaim Volozhiner is cited in Kether Rosh as saying he would give all
>> the tefilloth he'd prayed his whole life for one chiddush....

> What exactly did he mean? For example, let's posit that one choleh who
> would've otherwise not survived was healed due to his tfilot. Was he
> saying that he would be willing fot that choleh to die for a chiddush?

I think you're reading this completely incorrectly. Nireh li that he was
saying that he would be willing to give the SCHAR for all his tefillos for a
chiddush [my kingdom for a horse, l'havdil], not the benefit his tefillos
had on others.

---Rena

On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:15:02AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Apropos of the discussion of this pasuk recently I'd like to share what
: Rav Schwab says on it (Rav Schwab on Prayer: very highly recommended): ...
: He asks what aleph beis has to do with parnasa? Then he asks on another
: Gemara which says that the geula of Yaakov Avinu was al yedei malach
: (hamal'ach hago'el osi) whereas parnasa was al yedei HKB"H himself:
: haElokim haro'eh osi-what is there about parnasa that cannot be done by
: a malach?

I wonder why R Schwab used a derashah from two mekoros to establish a
question he could have built on a befeirush-er gemara on the first amud
of Ta'anis. HKBH keeps for Himself the maftei'ach for geshem, which we
are told includes parnasah. So it's ALWAYS al yedai HKB"H Himself, not
just for Yaakov avinu.

-mi

RNW says:
> I have heard it said that when the Rambam says "nireh Li" ...
>                                according to this vort, the nireh li is
> "stronger" than any other psak of Rambam because it entails ALL of the
> torah that made the Rambam. It is the Rambam's kishkes so to speak.
> I think that I heard something like this about the Chazon Ish.

> Recently, two people have told me that they have seen quoted in a
> secondary source in Rabbi Akiva Eiger about a RO"SH.

1. The phrase "Yir'eh li" is much more common in Rambam than "Nir'eh li"
(so much so that one ventures to assume copyist/printer errors involved
with the latter).

2. See the Rambam's own explanation for the phrase in his *Igrot* (ed.
Shailat, vol. 2, p. 443).

3.  R. ED Rabinowitz-Teomim (d. 1905) wrote an entire kuntras (56 pp)
entitled *Teshuvah mi- yir'eh* (Jerusalem, 1905; NY, 1947) on all the
"yir'eh li"s in Rambam.

4. R. YH Sofer devotes a two page article to a bibliographical survey
(by no means comprehensive) of aharonim who grapple with either of the
opinions cited by RNW. See *Tsefunot* 5, no. 3 (1994): 79ff. [R. A Eger
is not mentioned]

5. On a related note:
I think I heard from a YU professor [and RGS may have mentioned this as
well on this forum] that "y/nir'eh li/ va-ani omer" in Rashi often is
not actually from Rashi but from a later student/copyist. [I am not
implying that this applies to Rambam's term, as manuscript evidence for
the Rambam oevre is more substantial than for Rashi.]

5a. And, related but clearly be-derekh bedihuta, the following story I
heard from Rav H Schachter:
A fellow calls up R. Schachter all agitated and excited about a certain
shailah and wants to know what the halakhah is . R. Schachter says, "I'm
not sure; I'll have to look into it and get back to you." The fellow
tries to get R Schachter to at least give an off-the-cuff, instinctual
response but R Shachter refuses. Finally, the fellow says "I don't
understand: when I had similar type questions and I asked the Rav [RYBS]
zzl, he would also say '‘I don't know but my gut feeling is....' Why cant
you also give me a gut reaction?" Answers Rav Schachter with the
following (which may be found in *Nefesh ha-Rav* p. 43) :
Rashi at Shemot 28: 4, regarding the ephod, says he doesn't know
precisely what it looked like bec there is no description of it in
midrashim, but "ve-libi omer li..." The question may be asked against
Rashi: Since the Torah says "ve-lo taturu aharei levavkhem," how can
Rashi so flagrantly disobey?? The answer is that if one has mastered
Torah to the extent that one's lev is a lev shel Torah, a la "katvem al
luah libekha," then one is not subject to "ve-lo taturu." Rashi,
obviously, was on such a madregah.
"So, too, the Rav," continued R. Schachter. "His lev was one of pure
Torah and could give such gut reactions...but me, I'm not on such a
*lev*el.... [pun added --–yd]"

Be-tsipiyah li-teshu`ah me-et Mena.hem Tsiyon u-Voneh Yerushalayim

Yisrael Dubitsky

In a message dated 7/5/01 1:01:28pm EDT, gil.student@citicorp.com writes:
<< Based on my understanding of the Seride Esh, this seems to have been
his general approach when it came to important matters of the tzibbur.
For instance, when he wanted to permit meat that was stunned before
shechitah, he circulated his opinion among the other gedolim. Even
though he believed it to be permissible, he would not matir it because
the other gedolim disagreed. Here, too, he seems to have followed the
same pattern. >>

Marc Shapiro argues(see Between the Yeshiva world -p205ff) that this approach 
applied where previous gdolim had ruled on the same case differently but in 
areas where it was "new" halachik ground, the sridei eish didn't hesitate to 
rule against his contemporaries.

KT
Joel

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:55:19PM -0400, I wrote:
: Rabbeinu Yona describes it as cheit causing a disease whose effects you
: feel -- which is the onesh. To the Ran and seifer haIkarim, cheit is dirt
: on the soul which blocks out the light of HKBH, and therefore one suffers.

FWIW, R' Dr Josh Backon informed me elsewhere that the Ikkarim is a
talmid of the Ran. So the consistancy of shitah shtims.

: The difference between the two is (at least in part) whether cheit is a
: pegam /in/ the soul or one that is /on/ the soul. (The "dirt" in the Ran's
: model sounds much like kabbalah's discussion of the clarity of kelipos,
: but I'll refrain from commenting further on it. There are limits as to
: how much ignorance I am willing to flaunt in one post.)

Li nir'eh (grin) that this too ties into the hashkafic Fork.

Say one puts a cup under the faucet and it doesn't fill as rapidly as
expected. If you believe that the problem is with the cup, you'll fix
the cup. However, if you're convinced that the cup is fine, then you'll
be fixing its orientation WRT the tap, to make sure the water actually
gets into the opening on the top.

R' Yonah's believes that cheit damages the cup, which is why it's not
collecting as much sechar as it could. This would recommend a temimus
approach to performing mitzvos -- fixing the keli. Rabbeinu Yonah is
the author of qa few of the classic sifrei mussar, so this is lishitaso.

The Ran, however, describes a model in which something interposes
between the tap and the cup. The goal of mitzvos is therefore deveikus
-- getting better aligned with the Source. I am not sure, yet, if I
can show this is consistant with the Ikkarim in general.

-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

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>wrote:
>I was referring not to your original thesis, but to a later post of
>Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:23:53AM -0700, where you write:
>: When I speak of Schar VeOnesh I should really limit myself to spiritual
>: Schar VeOnesh. Obviosly we know that there is physical Onesh. The Tochacha
>: certainly tells us that...

>And, to remind you of my objection to that idea, I wrote:
>> I read the newspaper this morning, I don't find it so obvious. I find it
>> difficult to assert something that is so at odds with experience.

>What Acheir saw in the case of that  is the norm, not the exception.

I see. My point here is that the Torah does indeed speak of Schar
VeOnesh. That Acher saw the norm doesn't change anything. I was making
that point that there is a material Schar VeOnesh. The fact that it
is promised us in performance of certain acts but we often witness the
oposite as in the example of Acher and what you reffered to about the
newspaper proves nothing. It only tells us about Olam Hazeh... which
then implies that ultimate justice is reserved for the world to come and
that perhaps promises of reward in this world are only generalities and
not always carried out, for reasons that are beyond our ken. But that
says nothing about the ultimate question I posed as to whether Schar
VeOnesh was a requirment to performance of mitzvos. I beleive that it
is. I beleive that ultimate justice equals Schar VeOnesh.

>As for your thesis:
>:          at it's most elemental level there must exist some form of Schar
>: Mitzva. Otherwise there would be absolutely no motivation what-so-ever
>: to perform any Mitzvos.

>I would not quite agree. There would be a reason to follow mitzvos even
>if there was nothing in it for us.

And pray tell what would that reason be? If you are saying that G-d has
his reason and it is not for us to know that implies Schar VeOnesh only
we don't know what the ultimate Schar VeOnesh is. If G-d has a reason
for us to do Mitzvos it can only mean that there exists some spritual
benefit for the soul. If the soul does not benifit, why bother?

>However, HKBH isn't arbitrary. If some act didn't serve His purpose in
>creating us -- which was to have being to whom to do tov -- Hashem
>wouldn't have told us to do it. IOW, to me the question isn't whether we'd
>have reason to be good without sechar, but whether Hashem would have defined
>the act as good if it wasn't something that causes sechar.

Your point is a valid one defining good as dependant on Schar. But if
you define good as requiring Schar then you've conceeded the need for
Schar. It's just that you're not conceeding the motivtional component
upon Man which I contend is essential to our doing G-d's bidding. I
guess you disagree with this but you have not said why.

HM

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


[ 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         ]