Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 041

Wednesday, May 29 2002

• Federation Giving
• Re: Hashgacha Protis
• Re: is this movement halachic?
• Re: birth control
• Re: birth control
• Re: birth control
• RE: Federation Giving
• Re: Naso
• Re: RY Emden - Woman being Oyleh Letorah
• Re: RY Emden - Woman being Oyleh Letorah
• Tiqoun Leil Shabou'ot
• Re: When is Tzait?
• "Ani veHo Hoshiah Na"
• Fw: dot in the 'hey'
• Re: kilaei ba'alei 'hayim
• Re: z"l vs a"h
• Re: Ikkarei Emunah on the Text of the Torah
• FW: DEVELOP -26: Bittachon [Part 2 of 3]

I recently came across a tshuva by R' Moshe(Y"D vol !:149) on this topic.
The gist aiui is that giving to Federations that support nonorthodox
institutions is prohibited except if the federation gives more money
to orthodox institutions then it collects from the orthodox community.
Is anyone aware of any other written or unwritten sh"ut on this topic.
How is this handled in practice by institutions and individuals currently?

KT
Joel Rich

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:42:27AM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: Those who are interested in seeing the L. Rebbe's response(s)
: on the issue of Hashgacha Protis can point their browser to:
: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/protis.pdf>.

I'm working on a summary.

BTW, the Ramchal holds like the Besh"t. See Derech Hashem 2:1:2.

My thanks to our chaveir RYFeldman, who pointed this out in his e-class
on Derech Hashem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

David Bannett wrote:
>Sorry, but that statement is not quite accurate. One of the nine known 
>spelling differences between the Keter and Yemenite sifrei Torah and the 
>Ashkenazi and Sefaradi sifrei Torah does change pronunciation although it 
>doesn't change meaning.

That is correct.  There is a question in parshas Noach whether a word is 
Vayehi or Vayihyu.

Gil Student

> I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially?

Ok. I'll clarify my earlier message that stated the well known orally
transmitted fact in American Chareidi Jewry that birth control is
permitted for a variety of reasons: That variety of reasons INCLUDES
financial reasons as well.

Of course, not all financial reasons are identical. "My salary is
$XX,XXX" and "My insurance won't cover XYZ" are different financial
reasons. The central point is that financial considerations do play
a role.

On 28 May 2002 at 13:58, Micha Berger wrote:
>: I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially?
>: Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna...

> Which? Mazal -- in which case ein mazalos leYisra'el -- or decreed mi
> yei'ani umi yei'ashir? I think you mean the latter.

Correct. 

> There are limits to how much one is expected to spend on an asei.

That's true - when that's measurable. I would argue that because both
are long term questions there is no way to know whether any given child
will cost you one fifth of your income. You don't know how much it will
cost to raise the child and you don't know how much your income will be
in the future.

-- Carl

RCS:
: Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna...

RMB:
> Which? Mazal -- in which case ein mazalos leYisra'el -- or decreed mi
> yei'ani umi yei'ashir? I think you mean the latter.

Actually, the Tiferes Yisroel (Boaz) on the last Mishnah in kiddushin
(which is the basis for Rav Aryeh Kaplan's "Handbook of Jewish Thought
19:25) says that we don't have "mazal" in the sense of the zodiac but
there is mazal in the sense of a preconceived plan by Hashem as to many
factors which will govern our lives (mazal related to "nozel"--flowing).
This is how he explains the gemara "banai chayai mezonai...b'mazala talya
milsa." Both TY and RAK say that this kind of mazal is hard to change.
Ayain sham.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Joelirich@aol.com [mailto:Joelirich@aol.com]
> I recently came across a tshuva by R' Moshe(Y"D vol !:149) on 
> this topic.
> The gist aiui is that giving to Federations that support nonorthodox
> institutions is prohibited except if the federation gives more money
> to orthodox institutions then it collects from the orthodox community....

I know that the JEC Community encourages donations to the Federation
(probably because we get more than we pay in). AFAIK, the O community
as a whole gets much more from the Federation than what it donates.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:16:17PM +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
: A recurring shoresh in this week's parashios is /ns'/.
: The title word of the one we're leining in chu"l: Naso...
: The entire shevi'i of that parashah: the nesi'im.
: In Beha'alosechah, "vayhi bineso'ah ha'aron".

: Vayehi bineso'ah ha'aron -- but nosei aron es nose'av (Sotah 35a).
: The aron allows the unity of nisa and nosei, the wholeness of man.

It was pointed out to me in email that for people who lack my
paternalistic attachment to this vort, the nun-samech-ayin of "bineso'ah"
is a bit of a long stretch from the nun-sin-aleph of "nosei".

Since the role of a leader is itself a significant point, you could
say that "naso" was chosen to lead into the nesi'im because the nasi is
charged with creating a community of nos'im, not nisa'im. And end the
vort there.

Alternatively, you can continue the vort by stressing content rather
than lashon.

After the nesi'im, we have "beha'alosecha" with its stress on lighting
the menorah by getting the wick to ignite on its own. Again, the wick
representing the nosei, not the nisa. And this is in response to Aharaon
haKohein feeling omitted because the (other) nesi'im were able to play
a role in chanukas habayis; it's a continuation of the parashah of
the nesi'im.

Then vayehi bineso'ah is still usable because the theme is still running,
/and/ chazal do link the carrying of the aron to nosei vs nisa -- even
if the lashon haTorah doesn't.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: our Rov's
>: answer 'bederech efshar' that in a situation where there is no k'vod
>: hatzibur concerns - maybe she could be oleh. (Eg - a mother at a minyan
>: with her 10 sons...)

> ...the tzibbur can not be mochelim their kavod because it's not theirs
> to be mocheil. The kavod is a function of their standing as a community
> of klal Yisrael. So, even if the woman was the mother of everyone in the
> minyan, perhaps the minyan must be shown kavod by her -- because she's
> really showing kavod to Klal Yisrael as a whole.

I think there may be room to be mechalek stam a woman - to the mother
or sister of all the men there.

>: ..in a case where there is a minyan metzumtam in
>: the home of the yoledes and her husband is not around, we should stick
>: with the 'din' ... that the mother is oleh letorah!
>: He explains: '...Harei befeirush omru she'oyloh, v'im lo achshov eimosai?
>: Ubevadai lo yipol shum dovor midivreihem artzo shelo yehei lo mokom.....'
>: (I thought - this was a similar situation to what my Rov had suggested.)

> Because of that, or because this tzibbur wouldn't exist had the baby not
> been born?

I would have thought that tzibbur is a tzibbur - even if only for a
temporary minyan.
(Would we allow a woman to be oleh letorah whilst organising a once-only
minyan whilst eg touring?)

SBA

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:02:55AM +1000, SBA wrote:
:> ...the tzibbur can not be mochelim their kavod because it's not theirs
:> to be mocheil. The kavod is a function of their standing as a community
:> of klal Yisrael. So, even if the woman was the mother of everyone in the
:> minyan, perhaps the minyan must be shown kavod by her -- because she's
:> really showing kavod to Klal Yisrael as a whole.

: I think there may be room to be mechalek stam a woman - to the mother
: or sister of all the men there.

If the kavod is that of klal Yisrael, how does her relationship to the
representative set of KL who are in the room matter?

:>: He explains: '...Harei befeirush omru she'oyloh, v'im lo achshov eimosai?
:>: Ubevadai lo yipol shum dovor midivreihem artzo shelo yehei lo mokom.....'
:>: (I thought - this was a similar situation to what my Rov had suggested.)

:> Because of that, or because this tzibbur wouldn't exist had the baby not
:> been born?

: I would have thought that tzibbur is a tzibbur - even if only for a
: temporary minyan.

I'm not agruing based on temporariness, but on mima nafshach.

If the minyan wouldn't allow her to lein then there would be no reason
to hold a minyan in her home, the minyan wouldn't occur. How could one
defend kavod hatzibbur by not convening the tzibbur?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

From: "Joseph Mosseri" <JMosseri@msn.com>
<<The custom is to study and read the Tiqoun as printed in the Qerie
Mo'ed and not to just stay up and read whatever you want.>>

The custom of the talmidim of the Gra and most Lithuanian yeshivos is
to stay up and study Torah, "whatever you want".

I caution you, as I did in the discussion of dairy on Shevuos, not
to assume that the customs you follow/are familiar with are the only
ones there are/the only ones which make sense/the only ones which are
authentic.

One of the great advantages of this email list is to learn exactly that
from the dibbuk chaverim.

Gershon gershon.dubin@juno.com

Almost 4 years ago (sorry -- I've only recently discovered Avodah), RYGB
wrote:
>Your premise is the basis of R' Dr. Leo Levi's calculations in his
>"Jewish Chronomony". The precise numbers he uses are 4.81d for the Gra and
>5.95d for the Ba'al HaTanya, working from the horizon of E.Y. (RT is 16.8
>or 19.1 depending on whether you use the 72 or 90 min approach).

I have read R' Levi's article in his sefer "Zemanim keHalachah." He asks,
if it turns out that 3/4 mil after sunset (this is all according to
shitas haGra) and 3 medium stars are at different times, which one do we
treat as denoting nightfall? He makes the case for the position that
3/4 mil after sunset is the actual halachic definition of nightfall,
and that seeing the 3 medium stars is just an approximate siman that's
given so that people who couldn't calculate the exact time (remember,
they didn't have watches back then!) could tell when it was night.

 From what I understand, the 8.5 degrees definition that is commonly
used today comes from R' Yechiel Michel Tukaczinsky, who observed that 3
medium stars are not visible until somewhat after 3/4 mil. Apparently,
he held, unlike R' Levi, that the 3 medium stars determine the actual
halachic definition of nightfall.

There is certainly a "machalokes metzius" between them. R' Levi's own
observations showed that absent light pollution, 3 medium stars can be
seen not too long after the sun is 4.8 degrees below the horizon (the
figure he arrives for 3/4 mil by assuming 24 minutes to walk a mil, and
that R' Yehudah was referring to the latitude of Eretz Yisrael and Bavel,
at the equinoxes). However, I am interested in what appears to be the
conceptual machalokes. Since I have been unable to get hold of RYMT's
work on the subject, I am turning to those of you who may have some
familiarity with it. Why does he come to the conclusion that 3 medium
stars, as opposed to 3/4 mil, is the actual definition to be followed
when the two events are at different times? And what does he do with R'
Yehudah's statement in the gemara about 3/4 mil? Does it mean anything?

--David

I was browsing through the Hebrew University site featuring
scanned images of manuscripts of the Mishnah and the Bavli
(<http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/>), when I came upon something I didn't
understand in Mishnah Sukkah 4:5. It's about the makhloykes between Tanna
Kamma and R' Yehudah over "ana H' hoshia na" kneged "ani veHo hoshia
na." [Note to CQs: I can't read the nikud in the manuscript -- it's too
small -- so you'll have to get your corrective licks in regarding "ana"
vs. "anna".]

Many things puzzle me about the Kaufman manuscript version. First of all,
Tanna Kamma is quoted differently here than in the printed Mishnayes,
as saying "ana H' hoshiah na ana ve-hoshiah na" (no second mention of the
Name). Second, R' Yehudah is quoted as saying "ani ve-? v-hoshiah na ani
ve-? v-hoshiah na", where I use to ? to signify what's in the manuscript:
hey-vov-alef, with what I think is a melupm-vov. This would seem to
raise a difficulty regarding the girsa in the Bavli, which is khaser
with nikud kholem ("ve-ho"), but is like the girsa in the Yerushalmi,
which is malei (with an alef). Also, the vov in "v-hoshiah" (twice)
has no nikud. Is this a common occurrence in the manuscript?

I'm aware of the Gemara according to which "Ho" is a Divine Name. Is there
another possible manuscript-based explanation, according to which the
girsa "ani veHo" derives from Tanna Kamma's "[...] ana ve-ho[shiah na]"?

Can someone help me through this thicket? Has someone written about
these different girsaos? R' Seth, don your CQ cape!

Back to lurking.

Sholem Berger

Another classic from RSM...worthy of wider dissemination.

----- Original Message -----
From: SBA
To: SethMandel
Subject: dot in the 'hey'

Question from a friend - who usually has answers rather than questions.
What is the purpose of the dot in the 'hey' of the word Hallelu-kah? or
in Kah in general?
In a word like 'ishoh' - the dot makes a huge difference in the meaning -
but what is it here?

Yelamdenu rabenu.
==

----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mandel" sethm37@hotmail.com
To: sba@iprimus.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:14 AM
Subject:  dot in the 'hey'

Question from a friend -- who usually has answers rather than questions.
<What is the purpose of the dot in the 'hey' of the word Hallelu-kah? or
in Kah in general? In a word like 'ishoh' -- the dot makes a huge
difference in the meaning -- but what is it here?>

Yes, indeed, the dot in the shin makes a huge difference in the
meaning. The word for woman is issha, with a double shin, and that
distinguishes it from 'ishah, "her husband," from the root 'ish, whereas
'issha is cognate to the Aramaic 'int'ta. (The s'mikhut form of 'issah,
i.e. 'eshet, is from the same root as 'ish.)

However, I would imagine you are referring to the dot in the final he of
' ishah "her husband," which indicates the he is pronounced. As I see you
understand from your question, that indeed is the form of the pronominal
suffix for 3rd person feminine singular, but only after singular nouns.
After plural nouns or verbs the related form -- ha or its derivatives
is standard. The "h" sound in both -- ah and -- ha is integral to the
form. As is the "h" sound in two of the 7 Names of God, namely Yod
he and Aleph lamed he (sometimes with a vav). As is the "h" sound in
words like gavoah "tall." In other words, in all these examples, the
"h" is part of the base form, and not just a mater lectionis/'em q'ria
in Hebrew. That is quite a different animal.

In other words, if a word ends in a qomatz vowel, it is usally written
with a mater lectionis to indicate it (except in the suffixes -- ta, --
ha, or -- ka). The mater is usually he, sometimes aleph (as in anna
"please"). The use of a he as a mater is just a convention and doesn
not indicate in any way that there was or was not a "h" originally in
the form. It is just a writing convention. Whereas the he in words like
gavoah is part of the root, which contained an "h" sound, and the he
in those words is just as much a part of the word as the resh is in
a word like sheqer. Thus the plural form of the Name Aleph lamed he
is Aleph lamed he yod mem, and everyone understand that the he there
is pronounced, and no one will pronounce it "loim" without the "he,"
but rather "lohim." Similarly the he in the name Yod he is part of the
root, not just a mater lectionis. In the Name Yod he vav he, of course,
we have no idea whether the final he is pronounced.

The word transmitted in English as Halelujah is actually two words,
according to the Masorah, and written as two words, the first hal'lu and
the second the Name Yod he (which of course has the mappiq in the he,
since it is the Divine Name). It was also written as two words in all the
old mss. of the T'NaKh and in the old mss. of Ashk'naz siddurim. Later
siddurim viewed it as one word and omitted the mappiq, which was not
pronounced by most Ashk'nazim anyway.

This is related to the mahloqes found in the g'moro P'sohim about
words like shalhevetya in Shir haShirim, whether the word is one word,
with no mappiq in the final he, because it is just a mater, or two
word, shalhevet plus the Name Yod he, in which case there would be a
mappiq. The meaning would be different as well, "great flame" vs. "flame
of God." This mahloqes is of special import in saying Hallel, where there
is a mitzvah to say the words correctly. In particular, in Kapitel 119,
the masorah indicates that the posuq reads 'anani bammerhav Yod-he,"
with a qomatz un merhov, and thus means "God answered me with relief"
(or some such word for merhov). Many siddurim, however, follow as
version that had it as one word, merhavya, with a pasakh after the het
(v.1), which would mean "He answered me with great relief," omitting
the subject. The Targum there clearly indicates that God is mentioned,
and so agrees with the Masorah, two words, the first having a qomatz
after the het, and the second being the Name Yod-he (v.2). This changes
the meaning in the posuq, and so would be m'aqqev according the everybody.

Rabbi Arthur "Art" Scroll, however, did not understand this. In several of
the versions of the siddur he had v.1 in Hallel in the front of the siddur
and v.2 in the t'hillim in the back of the siddur. To his credit, he got
enough complaints that he changed it in hallel in the front of the siddur
in later editions. However, he has not yet changed it in his Haggodo,
leading many people to miss the mitzvah of saying Hallel on Pesah night.

<Yelamdenu rabenu.>
I second the notion.
I would also like to hear what rabbenu says about the matter, and please
copy me when he does.
Which rabbenu did you send the question to, and why was I copied?

Seth Mandel

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:16:23PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: Reb'n GA asked: <<How does one determine a min halachically?>>

: By figuring out the name of the min. Thus, horses and donkeys are separate
: species, halakhikally, as are apples and pears, while in other cases,
: less related species could be one min. This is mentioned at least
: explicitly in SA hil. kilaei ilan (forgot siman, no SA at office).

It also comes up WRT shinui shem as a qinyan, as well as shinui shem as
a definition of nolad.

This notion that universals (the thing that makes all chickens chickens,
or that which makes all red objects red) are defined by their language
might suggest that halachah is based on a conceptualist (universals are
subjective) or nominalist (universals are empty words) philosophy.

However, this is hard to jibe with the rishonim's stance that forms
can exist without substance. E.g. the Rambam's definition of mal'ach in
Hil Yesodei haTorah. Shared form is the root of Aristotle's treatment
of universals. Plato, OTOH, saw the form existing in a world of thought
(Logos; contrast to "Olam ha'Emes"), of which real objects are shadows.
In this worldview, the universal is /more/ real than the individuals
that share it.

Li nir'eh that this is similar to the idea I gave in the "ta'am and taste"
thread. There I argued that the ta'am that we speak of WRT a keli is more
like "ta'am hamitzvah" than literal taste. Not microscopic specks of
(e.g.) basar, but a mental association with basar. If ta'am were about
specks, then why wouldn't bitul beshishim apply to those specks?

I then generalized to say that halachah does not apply to the thing as
it objectively exists, but rather to reality as experienced.

Similarly, things too small to be experienced have no halachic mamashus.

Sefeiq (when not qavu'ah) is not halachah applied to metzi'us that
we don't know, but rather that the doubt itself is the metzi'us upon
which we rule. Which is why 2 chatichos shuman and 1 of cheilev that
got mixed up may all be eaten separately. It's not that we're unsure
of the metzi'us, it's that the metzi'us is our peception of reality:
each is a 1:3 uncertainty of being cheilev, and therefore each has a
metzi'us that calls lehatir.

My philosophical justification is that regardless of the road one might
have taken at the hashkafic fork, both involve using mitzvos to make
a roshem on the self. And it's experience, not some objectivity, that
effects such change.

(Sorry for the quick reminder, for more detail see the earlier discussion
or email me.)

Similarly, the idea that we categorize things based on the words we use
for them doesn't necvessarily imply anything ontologically. Rather, it
fits the general pattern of having a more subjective approach to the
reality upon which we pasqen.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 06:20:07PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Gil Student asked <<< What about the popular phrases David HaMelech
: alav hashalom (DHA"H) and Moshe Rabbeinu alav hashalom (MRA"H)? >>>

: Davar hashlishi hamachria: The criteria is not whether the person is male
: or female, but whether the person gets the title "R."!

Is that "rabbi" or also "rav"? What about Rabban Gamli'el? Which brings
us to "Mosheh Rabbeinu a"h" which has the "Rabbeinu" in there. For that
matter, wasn't David haMelech an av beis din? Wouldn't that make him an
"R'" -- if the title had existed back then?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:30:36PM +0000, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
: Sorry, but that statement is not quite accurate. One of the nine known
: spelling differences between the Keter and Yemenite sifrei Torah and the
: Ashkenazi and Sefaradi sifrei Torah does change pronunciation although
: it doesn't change meaning.

Which reopens a translation question we've asked in the past, whether
the Rambam meant word or idea when he wrote the ikkar. (And, given the
fact that he used a term that connotes something in between, I wonder
if he doesn't mean "logos" as philosopher's jargon.)

Also, since we seem to have accepted lehalachah the Rambam's ikkarim, but
not many of us hold of much of his philosophy in general, can we even make
such diyuqim? What's relevent, the details of the ikkarim as the Rambam
originally wrote them, or the ikkarim as accepted by subsequent posqim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Continuation of previous shiur, and very relevant to our discussions

                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
             DEVELOPING A TORAH PERSONALITY
                            
     Based on addresses by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein
              Adapted by Rav Ronnie Ziegler
                            
          LECTURE #26: Bittachon - Trust in God
                       Part 2 of 3


E. FAITH AND LOVE

In the previous section of this lecture, we set forth two conceptions
of bittachon, trust in God, which appear in our sources. The first
expresses a trust that God will insure that "Things will work out for the
best." The second does not try to paint a bright future, but rather
expresses our steadfast attachment to God under all circumstances.

These two approaches stem from different halakhic obligations.
The first is, practically speaking, an aspect of the mitzva of faith
(emuna). This mitzva has a purely cognitive aspect, which asks of a Jew
to recognize certain metaphysical or historical facts. Beyond the
conceptual component, this mitzva also has an experiential
facet. It is important for us to distinguish between these
two facets of faith.

When the Torah tells us that Avraham "had faith in God" (Bereishit
15:6), this indicates not only his intellectual state but also
his entire self-awareness - he feels absolutely dependent upon and
connected to God. Following God's wondrous promise, "Lift up your eyes
to the Heavens and count the stars if you can, for your descendents
will be as numerous" (15:5), Avraham pins all his hopes upon God
and is completely convinced, experientially and existentially
(not only intellectually), that those promises will be fulfilled.
At that time he perceives God to be "a shield to all who trust in Him,"
and he relies on God to fulfill this great and awesome vision. Thus,
the first aspect of trust is obligated by the mitzva of belief.

Concerning the second type of trust, the Mishna in Sota (27b) provides
insight:

   "On that very day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Iyov
   served God only out of love, as the verse states: 'Though He may
   slay me, still I will trust in him ("lo ayachel")' (13:15).
   The matter remains unresolved: Shall I rely or shall I not?
   (Which is to say, shall we follow the text that spells 'lo'
   with an aleph and should therefore be rendered as 'I will NOT
   trust in Him'? Or shall we follow the directive for reading, which
   renders 'lo' with a vav and concludes that 'I WILL trust in Him'?)
   The verses therefore continue, 'Until I die I shall not surrender
   my innocence' (27:5), indicating that he acted out of love.

   Said Rabbi Yehoshua: Who shall remove the dust from your eyes,
   Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai? All of your days you maintained that
   Iyov served God only out of fear, as the verse states: 'He was
   a man whole and upright, who feared God and avoided evil'
   (1:1). Behold, Yehoshua the student of your student teaches that
   he served God out of love!"

The proclamation, "Though He may slay me, still I will trust in HIM,"
expresses a trust in God Himself, not as a function of what I can
RECEIVE FROM Him, but rather as trust IN HIM. This trust is unconnected
with what one may get out of the relationship, but simply describes a
connection to Him. The desire to come close to Him, to serve Him,
to rely upon Him, to take hold of the Foundation of all else
and the Source of existence, is predicated, according to this Mishna,
on love. The second aspect of bittachon, then, can be said to flow
from the mitzva, "You shall love the Lord your God" (Devarim 6:5).

It is true that the Ramban explains the phrase "I will trust in Him"
in the above-cited verse in Iyov to mean, "I know that He will reward
my righteousness in the Afterlife." A similar sentiment is expressed
by the Talmud (Berakhot 10a):

   "It was stated: Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer both say that
   even if a sharp sword rests upon a person's neck, he should not
   withhold himself from supplication to God, as the verse states,
   'Though He may slay me, still I will trust in Him.'"

This approach, grounded in a hope for positive results, is based upon
the teaching of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai - that Iyov served out
of fear. In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua's view in the Mishna seems to be
predicated on service out of love exclusively. The baraita quoted
later in the gemara (Sota 31a) adds a comparison to Avraham Avinu,
the paradigm of love of God:

   "It was taught: Rabbi Meir says, Fear of God is stated
   concerning Iyov, and fear of God is stated concerning Avraham.
   Just as Avraham's fear of God was predicated on love, so too
   Iyov's fear of God was predicated on love."

The nature of "service deriving from love" was described by our
Sages in unequivocal terms. Commenting on the verse "to love the Lord
your God" (Devarim 11:13), the Sifrei states:

   "Lest a person say, 'I will learn Torah in order to be considered
   a sage, in order to attend a yeshiva, in order to merit length
   of days in the World-to-Come,' therefore the verse states, 'to
   love the Lord your God,' meaning, 'Learn in any case, and in the
   end the honor will follow.'"

The Rambam expands this principle from the study of Torah to the
service of God in general. In the concluding chapter of Hilkhot
Teshuva (10:2), he writes:

   "One who serves God out of love will study Torah, perform mitzvot
   and follow the path of wisdom for no ulterior motive - not because
   of fear of punishment nor because of promise of reward. Rather,
   he does what is true because it is true, and in the end good will
   follow... Our early Sages explained: Lest one say, 'I will learn
   Torah in order to become wealthy, in order to be called Rabbi, in
   order to receive reward in the World-to-Come,' therefore it says,
   'to love God,' meaning: Whatever you do, do it out of love."

Rabbenu Bachya (Chovot Ha-levavot, section 10) understood this
to be the manner of Iyov's service. If one loves God properly,
then he feels that no matter what, he will not leave Him.

   "Such a soul can only love Him more, desiring His favor and
   trusting in Him. So it is related concerning one of the pious
   ones, who would arise in the middle of the night and declare:
   'My God, You have starved me, left me naked, and caused me to
   dwell in the darkness of night; but I swear by Your strength and
   might that even if You burn me with fire, I will only love You
   and delight in You more.' Similarly, it was stated concerning Iyov:
   'Though He may slay me, still I will trust in Him.'"

In this formulation, the quality of trust does not fully encompass
the mitzva of love. Trust in God does not imply the readiness to
sacrifice oneself on His behalf. It does, however, imply the ambition
to attain a constant connection to Him, through fire and water.
Therefore, when it is necessary to pass through fire, there is the
possibility of cleaving to Him in self-sacrifice as well.

In summary, then, Judaism recognizes both the hopeful and
expectant trust based on faith, and the steadfast and yearning trust
based on love.

F. THE DUALITY OF BITTACHON IN TEHILLIM

The dual nature of trust in God comes to strong expression in the
"Shir Ha-ma'alot" chapters in Tehillim. On the one hand, we have
Psalm 121:

   "A song of Ascents. I will lift up my eyes to the mountains,
   from whence shall my help come? My help is from God, who fashioned
   Heaven and earth. He will not allow your feet to slip; your Guardian
   will not slumber. Behold, the Guardian of Israel neither
   sleeps nor slumbers. God will protect you; God will shelter you
   by your right side. The sun will not strike you during the day,
   nor the moon by night. God will protect you from all evil and
   will guard your soul. God will protect your going out and
   coming in from now until eternity."

This psalm provides a classic illustration of hopeful, faithful
trust, one that is certain of a positive outcome. Psalm 131,
on the other hand, portrays a completely different mood:

   "A Song of Ascents, for David. God, my heart has not been proud,
   nor have my eyes been haughty. I did not tread in areas too
   great or wondrous for me. Did I not wait and did my soul not
   silently hope, like a suckling infant longs for his mother?
   Like a suckling, so too my soul. Israel will trust in God from
   now anforever."

What does the suckling infant think while in his mother's embrace?
Does he turn to her as the one who will save him from crisis?
Perhaps instinctually, this indeed may be the case, but practical
expectations are in fact not the main thing on the infant's mind.
First of all, he turns to his mother because he wants to be close
to her. At the moment, he is not preoccupied with future plans, nor
is he anticipating the fulfillment of visions or promises. He knows
only one thing: the world is a cold, frightening place, but here
with his mother there is warmth and security! The mother, in turn,
caresses him and comforts him. Over and above any response on her part,
simply being in her presence gives him life and strength. Therefore,
the suckling cleaves to her under all circumstances. This is not
out of readiness to sacrifice himself for her, but rather because
nothing in the world can separate him from her. Wherever she turns,
he is at her side, tightly grasping at her skirt with his small fingers.

Here, love is characterized by the image: "...like a suckling longs
for his mother... Israel will trust in God now and always." The love
is expressed by the kind of trust which led the Jews to "follow
Me into the wilderness, through a land not sown" (Yirmiyahu 2:2).
Again, this does not necessarily imply preparedness to surrender one's
soul, but simply the inability to be distant from God. The comparison
to an infant's longing for his mother implies an attachment that is
experiential and existential, over and above pragmatic considerations
of benefit or harm.

G. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO TYPES OF TRUST

Just as these two chapters of Tehillim are paradigmatic of
the two approaches to trust, one could also trace the historical
development of these two approaches over time. Of course, the Jewish
people have adopted both approaches from their earliest beginnings,
with Avraham our Forefather being a classic example of both.
Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest that the destruction of the
First Temple and the consequent exile brought about a fundamental shift
in attitude. Although historians have often exaggerated the effects
of this turning point, and I have no desire to adopt their
overstatements, nevertheless it is a fact that our own Sages also
viewed this era as pivotal. The gemara (Sanhedrin 105a) states:

   "Rav said: The Jewish people offered a clinching argument in
   response to the words of the Prophet. The Prophet had said:
   'Return to God, for your ancestors who transgressed are no more!'
   The people responded: 'And the prophets who did not transgress,
   where are they?' - as the verse states (Zekharia 1:5), 'Where
   are your fathers? And will the prophets live forever?' ...

   Shemuel explained [that the people had a different retort]: Ten
   people came before the prophet and sat before him. He said to them,
   'Return to God.' They said to him, 'A slave who has been sold by his
   master or a woman who has been divorced by her husband, can there be
   any claim between them?' [In other words, by destroying our Temple
   and exiling us, has God not in effect divorced us or released
   us from His service?] Said God to the prophet, 'Go and tell them
   (Yishayahu 50:1): Where then is the bill of divorce of your
   mother whom you say I sent away, and to which of my creditors have
   I sold you? You have been sold on account of your transgressions
   and your mother was sent away because of your misdeeds.'"

During the period of the Temple, when the people of Israel dwelt
in their own land, it was possible for them to draw strength from
the first form of faithful trust. Of course, even at that time
there were crises and difficult moments, but as long as the
national and religious frameworks remained in place, it was possible
to rely on the fundamental relationship between God and His people.
The darkness of night was bearable because one could believe that the
dawn would follow. With the Destruction, however, the foundations
of that trust crumbled. At that time, the frightening query recorded
in Psalm 22 (which our Sages attributed to Esther) was first raised:

   "My God, my God, why have You abandoned me, far from saving me and
   unheeding of my outcry? My God, I cry out to You by day - but
   You do not respond; and by night - but You are silent. You,
   Holy One, are enthroned by the praises of Israel. In You
   our ancestors trusted, and You saved them; they cried out to You
   and escaped; they trusted in You and were not disgraced."

But in the aftermath of the Destruction, when Mount Zion was desolate
and foxes prowled in its ruins, when the Jewish people was shamed
and humiliated, how was it possible to trust in God that things would
work out for the best? This was neither possible nor necessary, for
"a servant whose master has sold him and a woman whose husband has
divorced her" bear no responsibility towards their former relationship.

Concerning this, there was a dual response. God offered the awesome
and striking rejoinder that we have not been absolved and that the
initial obligation remains in place:

   "That which you are thinking shall never be, that you say 'We shall
   be like the other nations who serve gods of wood and stone.'
   As I live, says the Lord God, I shall rule over you with a strong
   hand, with an outstretched arm and with awesome wrath!"
   (Yechezkel 20:32-33)

The Jewish people, for their part, discovered a treasure of trust that
was newfound as well as ancient. They remembered that they were not
simply the inheritors of the "Covenant Between the Pieces" (Bereishit
15) but also the "descendents of My beloved Avraham." They came to
the realization that it is possible to say "the Great, Mighty and
Awesome God" even as the enemy forces destroyed His sanctuary
and enslaved His people (Yoma 69b). It was possible to have a deep
and abiding faith even "by the rivers of Babylon."

The Jewish people emerged from the state of exile strengthened and
fortified, with a faith that was more profound than before. They
learned to appreciate that their connection to God, their reliance on
Him and trust in Him, were independent of external, objective factors.
This is the meaning our Sages' statement that the people re-accepted
the Torah in the days of Achashverosh. The Ramban comments on these
words (Shabbat 88a) after quoting the claim of "a slave whose master
has sold him":

   "Therefore when the people returned a second time to the land in
   the days of Ezra, they accepted the Torah of their own accord,
   without objections or complaints. This refers to the days of
   Achashverosh, when the people emerged from death to life, and it
   was more precious in their eyes than the Exodus from Egypt."

The Jewish people learned that even when re-establishing
a state, the undertaking is accomplished "not with might nor
with power, but through My spirit" (Zekharia 4:6). Since that time,
these very lessons have remained with us and have strengthened us in
difficult hours. The destruction of the Second Temple and the
Second Commonweath did not undermine our national faith and trust as
the destruction of the First Temple had done. For close to two
thousand years, although we underwent great trials and tribulations,
we remained attached to God, trusting in Him, hoping to Him, yearning
for Him, and sustained by Him as a result.

In the closing section of this lecture, we shall examine the state
of bittachon today and the educational task which lies before us.

[Translated by Michael Hattin. This lecture was originally delivered
in Hebrew to a conference of senior educators of the National Religious
school system in Israel. This adaptation is based on a transcript of
that lecture published in Elul 5735 (1974) by the Israeli Ministry of
Education. It has not been reviewed by Harav Lichtenstein.]

Comments regarding this shiur may be sent to <develop@etzion.org.il>.

Copyright (c) 2002 Yeshivat Har Etzion All Rights Reserved.

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


[ 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         ]