Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 042

Sunday, July 3 2005

• RE:[Hirhuim] The Spies and the News
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• [Hirhurim] Pesak and Heresy
• [YGB] Lands and Personalities
• Re: [Hirhurim] Downloading Music
• Re: [Hirhurim] Downloading Music
• Re: TIDE
• Re: [Aspaqlaria] Tzitzis, Advance and Retreat
• R'YBS on evolution vs. creation
• Maximum time for Tosfos Shabbos
• [Der Alter] Alei Shur
• [Der Alter] Alei Shur

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005Wed, 29 Jun 2005 <bloglet@bloglet.com> [forwarded from
RGStudent's Hirhurim -mi]:
>R. Henkin points out that even after reporting both good and bad about
>the land, and after Caleb's opposing interjection, the Torah (v. 31)
>still refers to the Spies as "anashim" (men). Rashi, on 13:2, explains
>that the word "anashim" (men) implies importance: "Anashim in Scripture
>always refers to distinction. At that time they were righteous." Since,
>even after giving their report, the Spies are again called "anashim,"
>by implication they were still righteous at that time! It was only
>afterwards, when they gave their opinion that the nation could not >conquer
>the land and then *exaggerated* (or lied) to support their viewpoint,
>that they sinned by giving a "bad report."

>Their offering of a balanced report and even their honest evaluation
>of the possibility of conquering the land was not sinful. It was
>their subsequent exaggeration to support their point that was their
>sin. Gathering intelligence is allowed. Honest reporting of the
>information is permitted. However, analyzing the facts in anything other
>than an entirely honest fashion is a great sin.

OTOH we find the or ha'chaim in a attempt to reconcile this rashi with
the gemra in sotah 35a that learns from the pasuk "and they went,and they
returned"(bamidbar 13:26)that just as they returned wicked so to they
left wicked.the or ha'chaim suggests when it says "Send men for you,"
it means that only while they were standing in front of Moshe Rabeinu
were they Tzadikim. The moment they started to leave they became Resha'im.

this seems IIUC to be a clear contradiction to this tha t you said:
> Since,
>even after giving their report, the Spies are again called "anashim,"
>by implication they were still righteous at that time! It was only
>afterwards, when they gave their opinion that the nation could not 
>conquer

(the sevra of the or ha'chaim is from the concept of Shali'ach Shel Adam
Kemoso for we know from brachos 34a that a Shali'achs actions are affected
by the person sending him.therefor when Hashem told Moshe Rabeinu that he
should be the one to send the Meraglim, since Moshe Rabeinu had proper
intentions for sending Meraglim they were fine when they were in front
of him. However, the rest of the nation had evil intentions when they
asked that Meraglim be sent. The Meraglim went as the Shali'ach of the
people and not as emissaries of Moshe Rabeinu, and therefore they were
influenced by the evil intentions of the nation, so that they themselves
became corrupt as soon as they accepted the Shelichus of the people.)

Nosson Sternbach

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:48:39AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I am unable to comprehend your refusal to concede the distinction between a
>: *shita* that is kefira and a koifer...

> NO! I'm saying that there is a very real distinction. I'm not discussing
> [lo] moridin velo maalin. I'm discussing stam yeinam and geirus. They use
> the definition of "kefirah", not "kofeir".

Who are "they"? And what are you saying? Is the halacha that I cannot
drink kefira's wine or is the halacha that I cannot drink a koifer's wine?
Obviously the halacha (of haray hu kinachri) is discussing a *person*
maintaining shittos of kefira.

> A tinoq shenishba, who does not
> have the din of a kofeir, still can't touch my wine.

Who says he doesn't have the din of a koifer? And if he doesn't, why
can't he touch your wine? There are heterim regarding tinok shenishba
but they all deal with circumstances. In the purest sense of the word,
a TS most definitely has the din of a koifer (haray hu kinachri). That
was precisely R' Chaim Brisker's chidush in the Rambam; nebach en apikorus
iz fort en apikorus.

>:> Not what I said. I said that agadita needs to have a nafqa minah lemaaseh in
>:> order to be binding.

>: Lovely... we finally agree.

> Umm, Ive been saying it longer than you've been on list... That
> you think we "finally agree" shows we're talking across eachother.

IIRC, this particular thread began when you questioned the idea that RYSE's
pesak could be binding in an aggadic matter. Rav Elyashiv paskened that an
old age universe is a shitas kefira and was not permissible to maintain. I
consider this very much a l'maaseh and yet you still questioned the ability
of this pesak to be binding which I took as a sign that you held that
aggadita was never binding (I now know that we agree).  All of my subsequent
posts were simply illustrations of how aggadic matters could indeed be
applied halachically and the limits of those halachos regarding calling
someone a koifer. I don't see why you would characterize the exchange
between us as "talking across each other". I happened to have found it very
useful in assisting me in clarifying and solidifying my position regarding
this matter. 

>:> Then say "zilzul divrei chakhamim". Which, BTW, can mean that the book is
>:> ill advised from a mussar perspective, but would still be mutar.

>: Zilzul divrei chahchamim is a very serious sin, far more serious than
>: just "ill advised". The Rambam paskens that one who is mizalzel bidivrei
>: chahchamim forfeits his share in the world to come.

> 1- Zilzul divrei chakhamim is strange grounds for declaring ideas previously
> stated by chachamim to be assur.

If RYSE was indeed concerned regarding the aspect of zilzul, I think it
would refer to other components of RNS's book such as his flippant way
of dismissing certain shittos of Chazal out of hand.

> 2- If it were zilzul leshitas haRambam, it would be kefirah. See Hil'
> Teshuvah. I believe the Rambam would consider it part of the 8th ikkar,
> as applied to TSBP. We're back at the same point.

I'm glad you said it, not me. I have no CS in this case to distinguish
between a shita and it's bearer so actually your above point, if it could
rightfully be applied to his book, would be quite a condemnation of RNS
(although you surely didn't mean it that way). The only limud zchus one
could apply is that RNS certainly (I assume) did not author his book
with the intention of being mizalzel divrei Chazal but that zchus is
fast fading in the face of the overwhelming criticism by big talmeeday
chachmim that is being generated by his book.

On a more academic level, I would like to note that IIRC, your Rambam
above (Hil. Tishuva) does not actually say that one who is cholek al
divrei chachamim or mivazeh them is a koifer. It is one of the 24 things
that are mi'akvin es haTishuva for practical reasons. For instance, the
Rambam says that Yeshu went off because he was mivazeh his Rabbeim. Had
he not been mivazeh divrei chachmim, perhaps he would not have become an
apikorus. If a person is in the habit of being cholek al divrei chachamim,
this causes him to be poresh from them and thus he will not know the
proper way to do tishuva etc. These are all practical reasons that have
nothing to do with kefira per se. As it happens, both kefira and the
above-noted items have the same consequence i.e. ein lo chelek l'olam
habba, which is why the Rambam grouped all of these things together but
I don't think he meant to say that by being cholek al divrei chachamim
you are violating one of the ikkarim.

Simcha Coffer

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:32:34PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:                                          Is the halacha that I cannot
: drink kefira's wine or is the halacha that I cannot drink a koifer's wine?
: Obviously the halacha (of haray hu kinachri) is discussing a *person*
: maintaining shittos of kefira.

Which is not necessarily a kofeir, agreed? Therefore, declaring the
beliefs to be kefirah is enough to make their believers' wine stam
yeinam. Even if we make a big deal about not implying that they are
koferim because they're people honestly trying to understand the Torah
and are using kosher sources, etc...

:> A tinoq shenishba, who does not
:> have the din of a kofeir, still can't touch my wine.

: Who says he doesn't have the din of a koifer? ...

Those poseqim who count him toward a minyan.

The Binyan Tzion says as much WRT yayin mevushal.

: IIRC, this particular thread began when you questioned the idea that RYSE's
: pesak could be binding in an aggadic matter. Rav Elyashiv paskened that an
: old age universe is a shitas kefira and was not permissible to maintain....

There were two parts to my question:
1- I could not believe R' Elyashiv meant kefirah in the technical sense.
Beacause that would mean ruling that a sizable portion (quite possibly
rov) who believe themselves to be frum believe kefirah. And even if
you make it clear you're not calling them koferim, their wine is assur,
and any prospective geirim that they convince would not be geirim.

To really put into perspective: If this really were about what is
kefirah and who believes in kefirah, R' Elyashiv would be banning R'
Gifter's wine!
<http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/RavGifter.pdf>

2- Given that he is not talking about actual laws of stam yeinam,
minyan or anythig else that involves the concept of "one who believes in
kefirah", I question who the pesaq could be binding. The second you're
not talking about the pragmatics of belief, how is there a pesaq?

Pointing to the question of "Can I own this book?" is circular. That
quesition is a consequence of something being kefirah, not the cause.
To put it another way, the issur of owning kefirah is only on kefirah
that has the halachic chalos I just wrote (in #1) that I can not believe
was the intent.

...
:> 1- Zilzul divrei chakhamim is strange grounds for declaring ideas previously
:> stated by chachamim to be assur.

: If RYSE was indeed concerned regarding the aspect of zilzul, I think it
: would refer to other components of RNS's book such as his flippant way
: of dismissing certain shittos of Chazal out of hand.
...
: On a more academic level, I would like to note that IIRC, your Rambam
: above (Hil. Tishuva) does not actually say that one who is cholek al
: divrei chachamim or mivazeh them is a koifer. It is one of the 24 things
: that are mi'akvin es haTishuva for practical reasons....

And what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm discussing the
notion of labeling belief in an old universe to be kefirah. Not trying
to come up with shiruim to define how much willigness to question is
"too flippant". The line between choleiq and zilzul is not well defined.
Certainly no ridicule is involved in our maaseh. He respectfully, although
more frequently than made me comfortable, rejects their opinion as being
based on classical medicine and zoology.

I had this second problem with the book too, which is why I asked my
son not to read RNS's book until we could discuss it first. But we
were discussing the first, not bashing RNS's work in particular.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At 01:32 PM 6/30/2005, [RSCOffer] wrote:
>> A tinoq shenishba, who does not
>> have the din of a kofeir, still can't touch my wine.

>Who says he doesn't have the din of a koifer? And if he doesn't, why
>can't he touch your wine? There are heterim regarding tinok shenishba
>but they all deal with circumstances. In the purest sense of the word,
>a TS most definitely has the din of a koifer (haray hu kinachri). That
>was precisely R' Chaim Brisker's chidush in the Rambam; nebach en apikorus
>iz fort en apikorus.

This is not necessarily so. Many Poskim state that there is no din of
stam yeinam on wine with which a tinok she'nishba came into contact. See
Nishmas Avraham YD 133:1 for a long discourse with many marei mekomos.

YGB 

R. Hayim Elazar Shapira, the Munkaczer Rebbe in the early twentieth
century, was asked about studying kabbalah. He answered (Minhas Elazar
1:50) that in this pre-messianic era we must study it, especially one
who desires to. However, he adds, the proper way to go about doing this
is to first study the important introductory works such as Sha'arei Orah
and Shomer Emunim. He cautions, though:
    But in the end of Shomer Emunim, regarding Providence, one should
    skip [this section]. It is forbidden to read it. May [the author's]
    Master forgive him for this stumbling block, that he made generalities
    and details about Providence, with specifics against our belief
    in Individual Providence from God on every single detail. However,
    the rest of his book is pleasant and appropriate to enlighten...

This is quite an astounding statement. The Minhas Elazar found a
section in Shomer Emunim, a classic work on kabbalah (mentioned in Shem
Ha-Gedolim), that he considered heretical. However, he did not suggest
that the book be burned or banned. He did not determine that the author
was a heretic. Instead, he concluded that the book is wonderful and
readers should just skip the objectionable section.

I believe that this is another example of my conclusion in my review
essay of Dr. Marc Shapiro's book (PDF), that a posek can decide that an
idea that was once legitimately held is now deemed heretical. This does
not invalidate those who held the idea in the past, but does invalidate
those who hold it today. Granted, though, other decisors can differ with
the Minhas Elazar's conclusion. He was, in his time, known as one wont
to oppose many relatively mainstream views.

POSTSCRIPT: At the end of last volume of Minhas Elazar there are later
additions by the author to his earlier responsa. To this responsum,
the Minhas Elazar added:
    I did not write these words from my heart [i.e. I did not make them
    up]. Do not be surprised, my friend, if you find similar views to
    [the Shomer Emunim] regarding Providence in books that preceded
    him. The tradition I received from tzaddikim and hassidim, that is
    received from our teachers and my grandfather [the Bnei Yissaschar],
    is that one should skip [this section]... (6/30/2005 6:09:38 AM)

[This is the first post largely in Hebrew to be intentionally passed
though to Avodah. If you have troubles readin it, or see weird characters
in Avodah in general lately, try switching to UNICODE (utf-8). Please
let me in on any issues, so that I can either clear them up on this side,
or work with you in resolving them on yours. -mi]

At 02:05 PM 6/29/2005, I wrote [to the YGB blog -mi]:
> Rav Dessler in, IIRC, the fourth volume, makes the point that each galus
> had a unique derech avodah which is their eternal contribution to Am
> Yisroel. R' Avrohom Elya makes a similar point, somewhat obliquely, in
> B'Ikvos HaYirah, as does, of course, Reb Tzadok, who (of course!) gives
> the phenomenon a metaphysical tie-in to the land-climate in which the
> derech arises (REED's note is evidently based on Reb Tzadok).

And received a request:
> Would you be so kind as to send me a couple of mareh mekomos in the
> seforeim of Reb Tzadok? Thank you so much.

So, here are some citations:

ספר צדקת הצדיק - אות רה
רה) הדמיונות כולם נולדים מן הלב שבו הם ההרהורים ונמשכים ממנו למוח ומן
העין שעל ידי הראיה נכנסים ההרהורים ללב כמו שאמרו בעבודה זרה (כ' ע"ב).
ולכן אמרו שם (אבות דר' נתן כ' א') ראיה דדברי תורה מבטלין הרהורין מקרא
דמאירת עינים ומשמחי לב. ואסרו להסתכל בפני אדם רשע (מגילה כ"ח.) כי
בפנים בולטין כל מיני הרהורים שבלב למבינים כדאיתא בזוהר (ח"א ק"צ.)
דהכירו באחד שהיה לו מחשבת עבירה שפניו מוריקות [וכן אמרינן בסוטה (כ'.)
פניה מוריקות כי עבירה הוא מיתה לנפש ואמרו במת (עבודה זרה שם) ממנה פניו
מוריקות] וכדרך שנאמר (ישעיה ג' ט') הכרת פניהם ענתה בם. ועל ידי הראיה
נכנסין ההרהורים בו חס ושלום וההיפך בראיית תלמיד חכם כדאיתא (עירובין
י"ג ע"ב) דחזיתא לר' מאיר מאחוריה. וכן כמה תיקונים עשו שלא ידור עם
עכו"ם בעבודה זרה (ל"ו ע"ב) ובעירובין (ס"ב.) כי בדירתו ומשכנו המיוחד לו
יש התפשטות מכוחותיו כנודע מהבעש"ט ז"ל דבקניני האדם מתפשטין כוחות נפשו.
ולכך על ידם גם כן נכנסים הרהורים זרים ללב. וכמו ששמעתי דאוירא דארץ
העמים הוא מכניס ללב כוחות הזדון של האומות וההיפוך בארץ ישראל דאוירא
מחכים (בבא בתרא קנ"ח ע"ב). כי ברית חלוק לאוירות כמו שאמרו בבראשית רבה
(סוף פרשה ל"ד ט"ו) והשם יתברך יסד גבולות עמים לכל אומה שהיא כח מיוחד
מקום מיוחד ואויר המקום שאותה אומה דרה שם וקנויה להם יכול להכניס מאותו
כח גם בלב בני ישראל חס ושלום:
ספר ליקוטי אמרים - אות י
כי שבעים אומות כל אחת יש לו כח מיוחד אופיה של אומה זו וכו', פירוש
אופיה שורש חיותה כמו שאמרו (בראשית רבה י"ד, ט') דברייתא קרין לנשמתא
אופיה, והיינו שכל חיותם בדבר זה ואם ימנע זה מהם ממש כנוטל חיותם:
ולכן כשהחזיר התורה על כל אומה ולשון והראה לכל אחת האזהרות שכנגד הכח
שהוא משוקע וקבוע בו בשורשו לבני ישמעאל לא תנאף וכו' וכמו שאמרו ז"ל
(פסיקתא רבתי פרשה כ"א) לא קיבלוה, כי אי אפשר להם להשתנות ולשנות לבם
מכפי מה שהוא מושרש וממש חיותו קבוע בו ואם יטלו ממנו דבר זה כנוטל את
נפשו, וברית חלוק לאוירות ויצב גבולות עמים כל מקום בכח מיוחד, מה שאין
כן בני ישראל נמשלו לצאן הנמשכים אחר הרועה להשתנות מכח לכח כפי רצון
הרועה, וכן קדושת המקום דארץ ישראל המיוחדת לחלקם היא ארץ זבת וגו' משונה
בפריה שהוא מצד ריכוך הארץ ושאינה מקום טרשין היא מוציאה פירות יותר כמו
שאמרו ז"ל (פסחים שם) וזרעתיה וכו' שעל ידם הוא הריבוי המופלג על ידי
הזריעה בקדושת הארץ:
ואמרו ז"ל (שם) לא גלו אלא כדי להוסיף גרים, פירוש דגוי כל אחד יש לו כח
מיוחד שאין יכול לשנותו כלל ודאי גם הגר אותו כח אי אפשר לו להשתנות כלל
ולכן אמרו ז"ל (בבא מציעא נ"ט ע"ב) שסורן רע, וזה ניתוסף בגלות שקולטין
כח ארץ העמים כל מקום בפרט העקשות ולב האבן באיזה דבר וענין פרטי המיוחד
בו, ועל ידי שהם מבררים שבאותו כח אין הם עיקשים כמו האומות ויכולים
לשנותו לכבוד שמים כרצון ה' יתברך, על ידי זה הוא הוספת הגרים שניתן גם
כח דלב האבן של האומות להתחבר לבני ישראל ובשם ישראל יכונה וקולטים כוחם
ומוציאים בלעם מפיהם, וכשיושלם בירור זה דלב האבן של כל מיני כוחות
הפרטים שבכל אחד אין לישראל לב אבן ועקשות כלל, אז יתבטל לב האבן לגמרי
ונתתי לכם לב בשר וגו' (יחזקאל ל"ו, כ"ו):
ספר קומץ המנחה חלק ב - אות כא
כא) העולם הוא דוגמת הנפש כמו שכתבו בספרי יראה וכמו שמובא במדרש (בראשית
רבה ל"ד, ט"ו) ברית חלק לאוירות שיש אויר מחכים אויר מעשיר וכו' לכל אויר
יש כח ידוע ככוחות החלוקות בנפש וארץ ישראל הוא ארץ אשר ה' אלהיך דורש
אותה רומז נגד הכח בנפש אשר ה' דורש אותו והוא היראה כמו שנאמר (דברים
י', י"ב) מה ה' אלהיך שואל וגו'. וזה שאמרו (בבא בתרא קנ"ח ע"ב) אוירא
דארץ ישראל מחכים כמו שנאמר (איוב כ"ח, כ"ח) הן יראת ה' היא חכמה וזה
שאמרו (כתובות ק"י ע"ב) הדר בארץ ישראל כמי שיש לו אלוה כידוע אלוה מורה
דין שהוא יראה. וידוע אברהם ויצחק הם אהבה ויראה. אהבה שורש למצוות עשה
שהם הרחקה מקנאה על ידי חסד לאברהם בקום ועשה טוב. ויראה יסוד למצוות לא
תעשה שהם הרחקה לתאוה על ידי מדת יצחק כנזכר לעיל:

>In <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#13> I mentioned 
>other issues, which we then batted around for a few days. I wonder why 
>you feel they didn't even warrant discussion.

I apologize. I did not recall that discussion that was, after all,
over 4 years ago.

The 6 issues you listed are:
1. Dina de-malchusa. It isn't enforced in this case.
2. Sho'el u-Meishiv 1:1:44, that the Torah cannot be any less moral than
secular law. I think this is also subsumed under the discussion of dina
de-malchusa. Do you think the SuM was talking about a secular law that
is not enforced?
3. Cherem. That only applies to sefarim and, I think, only if the cherem
is explicitly invoked.
4. Geneivah. It's not clear that there is any geneivah here.
5. Hezek. I think this argument falls into the category of "ein ruach
chachamim nochah heimenu." I can't make such judgment calls.
6. Chillul Hashem. If everyone is doing it, is it a Chillul Hashem for
a frum Jew to do it also?

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:17:05PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: I apologize. I did not recall that discussion that was, after all,
: over 4 years ago.

I'm shocked. I assumed everyone on list treasuered my words like diamonds
and used them to engrave in their hearts and souls...
<g>

: The 6 issues you listed are:
: 1. Dina de-malchusa. It isn't enforced in this case.

It's spotilly enforced. There are occasional crackowns. It's even

: 2. Sho'el u-Meishiv 1:1:44, that the Torah cannot be any less moral than
: secular law. I think this is also subsumed under the discussion of dina
: de-malchusa. Do you think the SuM was talking about a secular law that
: is not enforced?

For sure! Otherwise, it's the same thing as dina demankhua. The ShuM's
point is about the morality of the host society, not its laws. Moral
standards that are consistent with halakhah but go beyond it are no
longer lifnim mishuras hadin but mandatory.

: 3. Cherem. That only applies to sefarim and, I think, only if the cherem
: is explicitly invoked.

Many Jewish music venders do invoke it -- whether or not CD music
qualifies is a different story.

: 4. Geneivah. It's not clear that there is any geneivah here.

You address this when discussing the viability of adding tena'im into
the qinyan.

: 5. Hezek. I think this argument falls into the category of "ein ruach
: chachamim nochah heimenu." I can't make such judgment calls.

If the person is losing

: 6. Chillul Hashem. If everyone is doing it, is it a Chillul Hashem for
: a frum Jew to do it also?

If the frum Jew is risking ending up in the media for it, why not?
Picture, ch"v, the headlines: Students in Yeshiva HS Picked Up in Sweep
of Pirating Amongst Teens.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

In a message Avodah V15 #41dated 6/30/2005  RYGB writes:
> "All knowledge that broadens our understanding of the social and physical
> realities of the world gives us no little help in understanding the
> Torah's view of man and creation."
> Rabbi Samson  Raphael Hirsch p.  205

p. 205 in which book?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In Avodah V15 #41, Micha wrote:
> By saying [in the "bigdaihem" parsha that] the mitzvah is on our begadim
> is to cast the mitzvah in terms of the uniform for a role....As opposed
> to the uniform of the beged, this [the "ksus'cha"] is clothing that
> one wears to hide. The beged is an appointment to a duty, the kesus,
> a retreat from shame.

Reading Micha's "beged"-related thoughts brought RSRH on B'raishis 3:21 to
mind -- ayin sham -- and reading his contrast of "beged" and "k'sus"
brought this crazy thought: at least b'derech remez, could one paragraph
refer to what we call the "tallis [gadol]" (the uniform of Avodah) and the
other to what we call the "tallis qatan" (hidden, but not so much
retreating from anything as refocusing inwards)?

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Given our multiple discussions on possible reconciliations, I found the
following a great tap on the shoulder to remind me what the real issue is:

"We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact
is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of
the divine image with the equaling of man and animal-plant existences.
In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
The Bible and Greek philosophical thought separated man from the flora
and the fauna; science brought him back to his organic co-beings."

The Emergence of Ethical Man - Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik - Page 5

KT
Joel Rich

I recall hearing a halacha once, but I cannot find a source for it. Which
probably means my memory is faulty, but maybe someone else knows where I
can find it.

We all know that one can extend Shabbos for many hours past tzeis if one
so wishes, and accomplishes the mitzvah of lengthening Shabbos thereby.
But I once heard that there is a limit. Just like it's not possible to
begin Shabbos any earlier than Plag on Friday, so too it is not possible
to extend it further than chatzos on Motzaei Shabbos. Further, IIRC, if
one does extend his Shabbos that long, once chatzos passes he can do
melacha without saying any kind of havdala (not even Baruch HaMavdil)
because that time is inherently chol, just like prior to Plag on Friday.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

(BTW, this is not a practical question, and I have no intention to extend
Shabbos that long myself. But I'm doing some research about Tosfos
(Tosefes?) Shabbos, and this data point would be helpful.)

advTHANKSance
Akiva Miller

Alei Shur

I've just begun learning Alei Shur, vol. 2. I thought I'd take it upon
myself to submit a few, short arresting points from it as I go along,
chapter by chapter, blee neder. My chief aim is to make this available
for discussion, but to offer no comments of my own. That way, "I and
whomever else may care to do so can read this book so that we might
learn how to revere G-d our L-rd and not forget our duties to Him", in
the words of Ramchal at the very end of the Intro. to Messilas
Yesharim.
Today's entry will necessarily be longer than the others just to catch
up to where I'm now holding in the sefer.
___________________
Shaar Rishon: The Human Disposition, Intro.
1. Who's ultimately more important -- man who observes it, or the
Torah itself? Man in general and our people specifically, because the
whole point of Torah is to produce a nation that is shaleim.
2. "Clall gadol hu b'avodas Hashem: ain m'meilah!"-- It is axiomatic
that nothing comes automatically when it comes to (our growth in) the
service of G-d!
Ch. 1
1. When your understanding brings you to humility you come to conclude
that the mind is (nothing other than) a vehicle by means of which you
can experience very exalted revelations that aren't simply
intellectual understandings. The humble man perceives of himself as a
passive recipient (of that) rather than an active agent.
2. The whole point of creation was for man to resemble G-d (in His
beneficence).
Ch. 2
1. Man is best defined as the only creature who stands before G-d and
addresses Him.
2. Man's nature isn't at all fixed: the exigencies of time, what he
happens to eat, etc., all affect his spirit. Not a single person is
ever in the same spiritual standing at any one time. That's why we
always have to overcome our weaknesses.

(continued from Ch. 2)

"(Only) someone who's fully attentive and not compelled by his heart
(to believe things that aren't true), who's completely `transparent' to
himself as well as utterly consistent, can see all of his own capacities
at a glance -- from his own nobility to his yetzer's lowliness. For even
when he stands on a high perch, his (ethical, spiritual) impermanence
isn't hidden from him (and he knows that) he's liable to make a wrong
decision and harm someone. Indeed, only such an all-encompassing sense
of awareness can pave the way to the examined way of life in which one
makes use of his noble capacities and is alert to his lowly attributes."

posted by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman at 9:20 AM

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


[ 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         ]