Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 083

Sunday, September 25 2005

• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: how to proceed
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Mussar for Elul
• Midrash
• Re: Midrash
• Re: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?
• How to proceed
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Re: Midrash
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Re: Bava Basra 27b
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Fwd [Aspaqlaria] Qedushas Beis HaKenesses

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 R."Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> One general point of surprise is that given the rambam's strong opposition
> to scholars living off zedaka, given a reasonable understanding of the
> relationship between the rambam and his brother that doesn't violate that,
> it would seem that one would need proof that the rambam's relationship
> was not that way, but opposition to the rambam is here quite strong...

Could you please clarify what you mean in this paragraph?

Zvi Lampel

On September 21, 2005, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> so my wife talks to a young lady and , gave her shabbos candles; my
> wife then mentioned something about mikva being another woman's mitzva;
> the lady says oh, i am living with my boyfriend.

Being somewhat involved in kiruv, I can tell you that this question
is inappropriate for Avodah. There are many variables involved in
answering such a shaila. The best thing for you to do (if you feel
you are incompetent to address the issue) is to get a *competent* and
experienced Rav or mashpia involved with the family. Once he gets to
know them personally, he will be in a much better position to make an
appropriate assessment. Anyone who gives you their opinion on Avodah
without knowing the couple is committing an indiscretion.

Simcha Coffer

In  Avodah V15 #82 dated 9/22/2005  RSC writes:
> According to the Tiferes Yisroel's
> calculation, the world is  precisely 26,765 years old form berias yesh
> meyayin. We are currently in  the fourth shemita and Hashem created (or
> recreated in subsequent  shemittos) all plant and animal life instantly
> exactly as it states in the  Torah. Please do not confuse the doctrine
> of shemittos with the idea of an  ancient universe. They are entirely
> different concepts.

Maybe so, but once you have more than 5765 years you are not reading
Bereishis literally anymore. At that point, in for a penny, in for
a pound.

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

On September 22, 2005 T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Maybe so, but once you have more than 5765 years you are not reading
> Bereishis literally anymore. At that point, in for a penny, in for
> a pound.

Wow, I'd love to know how you get from a penny to a pound in one fell
swoop. If you knew how to do that, you could patent it and become a
millionaire overnight!

What I'm saying is that the TY wasn't dealing with the pesukim
in Bereishis at all. If it wasn't for kabbalistic sources which he
considered immutable, he would have never proposed that the episode of
Maaseh Bereishis (MB) related in the Torah was destined to repeat itself
seven times.

There is a klal in shas. "Davar sheBichlal, v'yataza lidon biDavar
haChadash, ein licha bo ela chidusho bilvad" Which means that if you
have a pre-existing concept that is universally accepted and than a new
idea is appended to the old concept, only the strict parameters of the
new idea can be applied to the old concept. You can not expand the old
concept via means of extrapolation to include other similar ideas that
are not implicitly contained within the new idea.

MB is the old concept which Chazal describe within the context of a seven
thousand year machzor (Rosh Hahana 31). Some later kabbalists (Rishonim,
no verified maamarei Chazal) introduce a new idea which states that the
above-mentioned machzor will repeat itself 7 times. That's it. That's all
we have. We have no right to extrapolate from a penny (7 thousand years)
to a pound (15 billion years) without further sources. This is kabbala
we are dealing with, not origins science. Extrapolation is out.

Simcha Coffer

There was a man who spent his entire life looking for kulahs in all
aspects of halacha - whatever it was, he would search around until he
found a rabbi who had a more lenient opinion he could rely on.

After 120 years, he came up to the gates of Shamayim. Hashem looked at
the man's life record and said, "Well, you certainly did everything I
asked of you. Angels, please take this man straight to Gan Eden!"

The angels escorted the ecstatic man straight into the gates of heaven
and brought him into a small room. But when they arrived, all there was in
the room was a dark, damp cell, a table, and one small candle! The man was
shocked and quickly looked angels and asked in horror, "This is Heaven???"

The angels looked at him and said "According to some opinions."

Can someone guide me to a concise listing of midrashei halacha and agada,
their authors and approximate dates of composition (relative to the dates
of composition of the Mishna and Gemara, that is)? English preferred.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Can someone guide me to a concise listing of midrashei halacha and agada,
: their authors and approximate dates of composition (relative to the dates
: of composition of the Mishna and Gemara, that is)? English preferred.

This is a far from complete response to your question, but it prodded
me to rush <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/midrashei-halakhah.shtml>
from my draft box to published on Aspaqlaria.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

R"n Shoshana Boublil pointed out <<< Even in Judaism, a man can only
marry a 2nd wife if he can actually support financially (and what about
spiritually, as a friend and spouse etc.) the 2nd family. >>>

Is this requirement defined in any way? For example, have their been
cases where the Bet Din approved or refused a marriage after investigating
the husband's abilities?

More interestingly, is this requirement expressed anywhere in regard to a
FIRST marriage? There seem (I stress the word "seem" - I don't know any
such people myself) to be many couples where they get married without
any financial expectations from the husband at all.

Akiva Miller

It seems obvious to me that aside from the halachic aspects of the
question raised, recommending observing any laws of intimacy would be
at some point in the distant future. Just because someone is ready to
light shabbos candles doesn't mean they're ready to have their personal
life opened up and changed. And if they would, I wonder about their
emotional stability.

As for the question itself, I think the way to go is to invite them over
to your house often, get to know each other over an extended period of
time (a year?) and earn their trust. Eventually, assuming your home is
a shining example of harmony, love, and respect, tell them you've got
a secret to what makes your home so special - and it has to do with
specific laws and guidelines that are very personal and are bound up
with laws pertaining to marriage. Assuming that there is this trust,
and assuming that your home is the shining example it should be, you have
a chance at discussing both marriage and hilchos niddah at that point.

To attempt to get them to keep hilchos niddah any other way seems to put
halacha into its own little zone without the human element. In kiruv,
that's bad, bad, bad! You wind up with all kinds of results from that
kind of thinking. When I was at Ohr Somayach back in the late 70's I
remember a guy who created his own "halachic" procedure for washing
his hands before bread. First he would touch his shoes and then he
would wash. He was a pretty normal guy aside from that one. He knew
how to learn and he had been there for a few years. He explained to me
that his hands were probably clean as he had been learning the whole
time, and netilas yadayim was to remove the tumah d'rabonan from his
hands. So now he needed to artificially be metamai his hands to be
sure that his bracha over washing wasn't a bracha l'vatalah. Now,
I suppose his svara makes sense... But I never saw any Rosh Yeshiva or
any FFB doing or considering such a thing... That's what I mean by human
element... Halacha isn't something you put under a microscope independent
of human behavior. There's people and their emotions at play too.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I had always understood that the rabam's relationship to his brother was
: a Yissachar-Zevulun relationship. So the brother, David, took care of
: the finances of both of them while Rambam learned and the schar was split.
: This is quite different from a talmid Chacham sitting in kollel and accepted 
: charity

The Rambam must have already been a doctor by then. Because it's not
too long after his brother's petirah that the Rambam got one of the most
prestigious gigs in medicine.

So, was he really sitting around without assets, depending on David for
parnasah? It makes the theory that his brother was investing the Rambam's
money rather than the Rambam being outright dependent more plausible.

-mi

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:06:16AM -0400, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: I don't know any place where Rabbi Dessler zt"l says that **time**
: before the etz hadaas is incomprehesible. So perhaps you can quote the
: precise statement you have in mind.

: In (Vol II, page150) Rav Dessler speaks specifically about Adam
: Ha'rishon's **perception** of time (not the actual flow of real
: time)...

Actually, he says theat the flow of time is only a perception.Yes, that
perception started with Adam eating from the eitz. Therefore, according
to REED, pre-eitz time didn't flow, and wasn't even linear -- the same
stretch can be a day long and then repeat again as a flow of a millenium.

I consider that incomprehensible. Don't you?

REED also uses the mashal of looking at a map through a hole to show
that we don't understand what time really is.

And thus, if scientists find that events that normally happen in a flow
of 15 billion years happened in the stretch of non-flow time that are
the yemei bereishis, no suprprise. 6 millenia of event can also flow
by in the same stretch. Why not siumply anything? The features fail to
surprise once you realize that you have no means of understanding things
well enough to have expectations.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: Can someone guide me to a concise listing of midrashei halacha and agada,
>: their authors and approximate dates of composition (relative to the dates
>: of composition of the Mishna and Gemara, that is)? English preferred.

> This is a far from complete response to your question, but it prodded
> me to rush <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/midrashei-halakhah.shtml>
> from my draft box to published on Aspaqlaria.

Thanks and useful;  what about midreshei agada?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

> As far as I know the Rambam never uses "talmid hacham" (I'm CD impaired,
> but IIRC R Sheilat has a note on this somewhere).

I share the impairment, so I don't know if it's a hapax legomenon,
but the Rambam, in mentioning the return of an object bitvius ayin,
uses the ter "talmid chacham" in G'zeilah Vaveidah 14:12.

EMT 

R S Coffer wrote:
> "And according to what we have stated, that which the *universe* looks
> to scientists *as if* it existed for millions of years... (Chelek Dalet
> pg. 114

I think this touches on the point about which the whole debate between the
two of us revolves. You make a large deal about his speaking of the rate
of time *in Adam's perception* pre and post cheit. I'm saying that the
discussion of the age of the universe isn't about time-in-and-of-itself,
but time as percieved.

According to REED, the entire concept of time having a flow, of having a
time *line* with a duration of 6 days, 6 millenia, or 15 billion years,
is one of perception. Without human perception, time is a map, not the
motion of a hole moving to uncover one city or another. That is how he
explains the Ramban's 6 literal days also being literally equal to the
subsequent 6 millenia.

Time without that perception is something you and I can not understand,
being products of Adam achar hacheit. Which is why the duration of the
yemei bereishis is really a meaningless concept to us. So that even
relating them to 6 sefiros is more comprehensible and on target for
discussion (REED's point, not mine). Or, switching from cheileq 2 to 4,
the same p 114 "geider haberi'ah hu lema'alah min hazeman". Mapping that
to zeman is an issue of perception by those of us within it.

By which I mean that one could say it wasn't really either 6 days or 15
billion years, but something you can't just measure with a single number
and unit. Or, it is possible that both measures are true, in different
ways -- just as both days and millenia are true, in different ways.

Thus, there is really little difference to the "ke'ilu" that you stress.
Without the "shemisra'eh ... ke'ilu" there is no length to time,
leshitaso. Read on for REED's "ta'am hadavar". He says it looks that
way to them because they are gashmi, and therefore the gashmi measure,
rather than the ruchani, is what they percieve. Nothing about decieving
themselves on the science as all. (More like what REED says in cheileq
1 about the difference between those who live on the plane of teva vs
those who live on that of neis.)

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

R Sholom Simon wrote:
> The Mishna on 27b: R Shimon disagrees with the Tanna Kamma and says that
> any tree whose branches extend over the public domain may be cut b/c
> of tumah. The halacha apparently is not like R Shimon, but the Gemara
> never actually rejects R Shimon's opinion.

Whenever I get a question like this, I turn to Encyclopedia Talmudit,
"Halakhah" (vol 9 amudim 241-339), and a number of the subsequent articles
that cover subtopics (e.g. Halakhah keDivrei haMachria) in more detail.

Quite sadly, most people learning gemara (yeshiva grad and newbie alike)
aren't even aware of an entire second subtext going on. Rishonim often
use the language of the gemara, which jargon is used, to know which way
the gemara is leaning.

In our gemara, the opening words of the second paragraph are "Iba'eiya
lehu". There is a rule that the gemara wouldn't be asking for details
about a ruling if it didn't assume such was the din. There is a machloqes
about whether being qualified with "ledivrei ha'omer" or the like is
included in this rule, or if it bedavqa means the halakhah is NOT like
them -- and the gemara is spelling out that it's just trying to understand
a shitah, not pragmatic.

There is also indication from "alifu teima rabanan" in the first sugya. An
attempt to identify the tana qama as following the rabim is only possible
if we hold like the tana qama. Otherwise, it would contradict "yachid
verabim halakhah kerabim".

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
>     I share the impairment, so I don't know if it's a hapax legomenon, but 
> the Rambam, in mentioning the return of an object bitvius ayin, uses the 
> ter "talmid chacham" in G'zeilah Vaveidah 14:12.

Frankel has "talmid hachamim" there. In his variant readings he says
that's the reading in Yemenite manuscripts, though other manuscripts and
printed editions have "talmid hacham". He adds about "talmid hachamim":
"vchen derech rabeinu lichtov b'chol makom".

David Riceman 

R David Riceman wrote:
> No. Rashi is asking us to deduce general principles from specific laws,
> especially mishnaic laws (e.g., rubo k'kulo from shahat rov ehad b'of
> ...). The Rambam is asking us to find Biblical sources of specific laws,
> and to deduce specific laws from Biblical texts via the 13 middos.

Please have some patience with my obstruseness, as I still fail to see
this in the Rambam. His description of "Talmud" is: "yavin veyasqil
acharis hadavar meireishiso, yotzei midavar ledavar, veyidmeh davar
ledavar..." So far, this to mean sounds like lomdus. In contrast to the
next thing he tells you to do "veyadin bemidos shehatorah nidreshes
bahem". IOW, the Rambam seems to include three things: deduction,
induction, and derashah.

He continues by discussing understanding din that was known "mipi
hashemu'ah". Which to my mind describes lomdus from established case
law more than derashah from pesuqim.

> Incidentally there are aharonim who want to say that Rashi and the Rambam
> are supplementing each other rather than disagreeing with each other
> (I can't recall where I saw that). I'm not convinced.

I wish you could have pointed me to it inside, as perhaps seeing the
subsequent dialogue would help my confusion.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Mon, 12 Sep 2005 R. "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
>> [RZL translated:]
>> "And in his hand was a vast amount of money for me, for him, and
>> for others (u-b'yado mammon rav li, v'lo, u-l'acheirim)." 

> This seems pshat, and Rav Sheilat also understands it, that the rambam's
> brother had money invested for the rambam. The loss of the money wasn't
> only the loss of future income and profits, but loss of profits.

If the shipwreck occurred on the return trip, the profits David ben
Maimon gained and was bringing back home were profits lost. Did you mean
to write, "...but loss of capital"? Please clarify.

Thanks
Zvi Lampel

RZL 
> If the shipwreck occurred on the return trip, the profits 
> David ben Maimon gained and was bringing back home were 
> profits lost. Did you mean to write, "...but loss of 
> capital"? Please clarify.

Yes, I meant to say that it is pshat that the rambam is saying he lost
both capital and the profits on it - affecting his future economic status.
He isn't saying that now his brother can no longer support him - but
that he lost capital, affecting the source of his livelihood - which
was the investment of that capital in trade, managed by his brother.

Meir Shinnar

On September 22, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
>: In (Vol II, page150) Rav Dessler speaks specifically about Adam
>: Ha'rishon's **perception** of time (not the actual flow of real
>: time)...

> Actually, he says theat the flow of time is only a perception.Yes, that
> perception started with Adam eating from the eitz. Therefore, according
> to REED, pre-eitz time didn't flow, and wasn't even linear -- the same
> stretch can be a day long and then repeat again as a flow of a millenium.

> I consider that incomprehensible. Don't you?

It sure is! However let's examine R' Dessler's maamar and see if the
above paragraph is an accurate reflection of Rav Dessler's words.

Before we do so, I would like to outline my disagreement with RMB in two
short paragraphs. RMB holds that Rav Dessler's shita is that before the
chet of the eitz hadaas, the nature of time is entirely incomprehensible
to us. The physical descriptions that normally accompany the concept
of time such as the idea that time flows and that it is linear, did not
exist before the chet.

I maintain that all the physical dimensions of time existed from the
time Hashem said yehi or but due to the spiritual nature of Adam
haRishon, his *perception/awareness* of (a perfectly linear and
able-to-be-measured-by-a-clock) time differed from ours.

RMB would have us believe that due to the incomprehensibility of pre-chet
time, anything goes. This "time" can represent six days and simultaneously
be six millienium and 15 billion years. He states "Perhaps my question
is a ra'ayah to REED's position that the Ramban holds that the 6 days
of bereishis, while being 6 literal days are both that time is far more
complex than we're able to perceive. After all, if the same duration can
be 6 days and the subsequent 6 millenia, can't they also be the previous
15 billion years?" (August 8, 2004)

OTOH, I propose that the above interpretation is entirely incoherent, as
RMB himself seems to admit above ("I consider that incomprehensible. Don't
you?"), and thus, it would be impossible for Rav Dessler, a human
being whose mind is limited by the parameters of comprehensibility,
to formulate, and confidently assert, a peshat in the Ramban that is
entirely incomprehensible. Since we cannot know what incomprehensible
time means, how can we possibly assert that it existed much less say
that it represents pre and post eitz hadaas time?

I submit that the following translation of the pertinent paragraphs of the
maamar unequivocally support my position however I am obviously nogeah
badavar so I hereby offer them up for the olam to decide. Bracketed
insertions are mine so if you want a literal translation, just ignore
the insertions.

Yishpitu chevrei Avodah baynee uvayno.

Michtav Me'Eliyaha Chelek Beis pg. 150 Third paragraph
"[The passage of] time is felt to man in relation to the [frequency of]
new impressions that he receives [i.e. experiences]. To the extent that
the quantity of new impressions increases, [in direct proportion] man
will feel the time as longer. It is known that one year from [a person's]
early youth is imprinted in [his] memory as a duration that is far longer
than [that of a] year of maturity because to a boy, everything is new and
[thus] he absorbs many new impressions."

I should really translate the fourth paragraph too but for purposes of
expediency I will give a quick synopsis of the fourth and then move on
to the fifth.

Fourth Paragraph
Rav Dessler explains that every moment is actually a new opportunity
to exercise our free will. Because circumstances are constantly
changing around man, he is always put in new situations and is always
afforded new opportunities to exercise his free will under the new set
of circumstances. This endless procession of ever-changing free will
opportunities is what establishes our perception of the passage of time
in our minds.

Fifth Paragraph
"Before Adam's sin, all [of mankind's] awareness of [his own] freewill was
focused entirely on one point [whether to eat from the eitz hadaas or not]
and only in it [this point] was there the possibility of experiencing
a new impression. Other than this [one point] Adam's life was connected
to the truth [in the sense that his life was lived] within a perception
that there was really nothing outside of the truth. A [life which is
experienced by a] connectedness such as this does not allow room for
change and renewal [of impressions] at all. It thus emerges that [man's]
awareness of [the passage of] time then [i.e. before Adam's sin] was
very weak and thin if we compare it to our awareness of [the passage of]
time because there was no room for renewal and change [in Adam's life],
which is the very essence of what time is [i.e. it's true meaning, its
raison d’ךtre], other than in this one point. Concordantly, the feeling of
[the passage of] time was entirely different then, from our awareness of
[the passage of] time now."

To me it seems quite obvious that R' Dessler's description of pre-chet
time is not incomprehensible in any way. On the contrary, he goes to
great lengths to describe, in detail, precisely what the nature and
significance of pre-chet time is, and what role it played in Adam's
life. It sounds entirely coherent to me

> REED also uses the mashal of looking at a map through a hole to show
> that we don't understand what time really is.

While I was composing this e-mail, your response to my e-mail came in
wherein you described your "map theory" in more detail. Thus I will
treat your above comment when I respond to your most recent e-mail to me.

> And thus, if scientists find that events that normally happen in a flow
> of 15 billion years happened in the stretch of non-flow time that are
> the yemei bereishis, no suprprise. 6 millenia of event can also flow
> by in the same stretch. Why not siumply anything? 

There are several things wrong with the above submission.

First of all, if pre chet time has no flow to it, how can you use
it as an explanation to reconcile a flow of 15 billion pre chet
years? Obviously whatever this ethereal, otherworldly, sublime,
transcendental, incomprehensible, impossible to describe phenomena that
you purport existed as pre chet time is, it can in no way be connected
with our very comprehensible and quantifiable flow of time.

Second of all, since you concede that this pre chet time is
incomprehensible, the only way you know it exists is because you claim
that R' Dessler learns peshat in the Ramban that way. The problem is that
the Ramban only says that the six days correspond to the six millennia,
nothing more. Since you admit that the mechanism by which this connection
is accomplished is incomprehensible, how do you know that it would work
when applied to 15 billion years too?

Third of all, you are ignoring a fundamental issue when it comes to
scientists. They claim that the universe testifies that 15 billion actual
years have elapsed in the evolution of the universe. They claim to have
evidence that vast periods of time have elapsed in the unfolding of
the universe. By chalking it up to pre-chet non-time, you still have
a "surprise" because it contradicts what scientists say. If you're
going to contradict the scientists, you may as well go the whole way
(i.e. the correct way IMO) and say that in truth they really have no
evidence at all. Once you come to this realization, the necessity
of reconciling vast periods of time with MB becomes obsolete (like
Rav Dessler illustrates in his two letters) as does the necessity of
maintaining an incomprehensible pre-chet time creation.

Good Shabbos
Simcha Coffer  

Just by "coincidence", the berakhah of "she'asani kirtzono" came up in
Alei Shur this week.

Using a connection made by R' Chaim Vilozhiner, RSW derives the
meaning of this berakhah from Qaddish. "Be'alma di vera, kir'usei" --
May Hashem be made great and holy ... according to his desire." (Note
that according the to Gra, there's a comma before the word. "Kir'usei"
modifies yisgadeil veyisqadeish, not di vera". The comma is why it's
"kir'usei" in his nusach, not "khir'usei".)

Hashem's ratzon (rei'sei, in Aramaic) is for humanity to bring His
greatness and sanctity to this world. Had Adam not been differentiated
into separate male and female people, so that man has to enter a
partnership in order to build a future.

Thus, Chava's creation was particularly "kir'usei -- kirtzono".

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

    When a Jew talks during davening in a shul in America,
    A shul in Netzarim is set aflame.

That's a lesson I took from this Elul. The feelings generated from
pictures of the fires and celebrations made me realize something. I care
a lot more about the sanctity of a synagogue and all that it stands for
than what I follow through in action.

A thought, written minutes before I leave for Selichos: We have an
opportunity to use those feelings as they are awoken by the news, to take
the awe for Hashem that one can only feel as hurricane after hurricane
washes away entire cities and leaves us no means of help but prayer.

For some shuls, thank G-d, speaking is not the issue. In some places,
perhaps it's that people trickle in 15 minutes or more late. In another,
the davening runs as it should, but no one thinks of putting away the
siddurim afterward; the sefarim collect on the tables in every-growing
piles. Each of us can look at where we are and ask ourselves -- what
can I do constructively to address the loss of sanctity as synagogues
burned to the ground amidst celebrations and looting?

So I ask you: Please don't talk to me in shul. I'm weak, and easily
distracted.

--
Posted by micha to Aspaqlaria at 9/25/2005 12:32:00 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         ]