Volume 34: Number 73
Thu, 23 Jun 2016
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers
<<https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein
[around minute 35 ]
responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should
deal with Hallel on YH.
thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that
celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there
faculty, and increasingly may not need to. >>
If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have
changed).
In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today
with the
abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL
school to hire a charedi teacher.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160622/56c683f9/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: David Riceman
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God
I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading.
The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God
also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This
is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a
good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought.
Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere?
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God
You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan:
aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan
This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim
(Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The
Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate
in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy
(i.e. not the reviewer J)
Kol tuv
Joel rich
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org<mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading.
Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere?
David Riceman
_______________________________________________
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160622/ef7af6ba/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: David Riceman
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God
I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham.
It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without
comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the
Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that
require justification.
DR
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>
> You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan:
> aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan
>
> This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh
> Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB
> Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy
> lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a
> deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J)
> Kol tuv
> Joel rich
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
>
>> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading.
>>
>> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere?
>>
>> David Riceman
>> _______________________________________________
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
> strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160622/f2f60da7/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God
On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use
> neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious
> justification.
Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited
neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they
make testable claims that can be refuted?
If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that
matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and
why should we?
--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other
words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God
[I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested
in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes
: from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes...
From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of
the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than
ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently.
I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted.
In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia> answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's
writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in
Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R'
Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question,
which had two parts:
I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the
religious act?
In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different
views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states):
1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or
statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume
as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional
character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original
existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders
it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry,
I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have
no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty,
or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49).
2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional
act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration,
the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into
three components:
I. There exists a country - predication;
II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and]
III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43).
According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement
of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions
are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about
the world.
3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is
the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states).
"Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional
and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some
relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however
to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the
emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..."
b. What are the conclusions? Criticism.
The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were
cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of
cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are
intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive
component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its
own terms.
In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between
perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is
at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming
"hilkhos dei'os".
And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the
beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and
emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior
to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human
perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets,
etc...
In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence
Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh,
doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From <http://j.mp/28TTLuc>
or
https://kavvanah.wordpress.c
om/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawr
ence-kaplan
Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic
was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and
especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in
this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen.
...
Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus
and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less
confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception
and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German
Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell
considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these
works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was
going to save the great eagle.
...
For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as
hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God
is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of
Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal
understanding.
Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish
thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and
through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am
certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will
elicit some comments. )
...
2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah
as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this
approach?
This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides
follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to
morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in
arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value,
while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a
steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would
follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than
science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is
inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the
way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at
halakhic scholarship."
The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides
distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics,
ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and
post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of
the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to
theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is
ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed
(Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness),
the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of
ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection.
3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen.
The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between
pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen,
but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of
action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen.
Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between
practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is"
and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the
realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in
nature, but simply serve as models for human action.
What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the
view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more
faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav,
the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant
lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no
right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides,
is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical
act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an
ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the
world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what
Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of
God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but
continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole
in His order of existence.
4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a
pantheist?
I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am
ending my too-length quote.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited
: neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they
: make testable claims that can be refuted?
The law of conservation of momentum.
Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that
objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until
the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects.
Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al.
Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent
shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded --
were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop
spinning by now.
And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of
intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events
and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world.
But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities,
the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved.
So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics
wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the
world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy
did make testable claims. And those were falsified.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Akiva Blum
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules!
Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3
<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14370&;pgnum=21>
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> I believe it's a Chazon Ish.
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah <
> avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was
> > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point)
> > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise
> > thought of on our own.
> >
> > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example:
> ...
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim
How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz
Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat
hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha.
Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim
alone?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160623/ed1a4f98/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] birchat kohanim
On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in
> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to
> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the
> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether
> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone?
Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?
--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other
words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning
The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on
v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha
before Krias Shema.
The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved
only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of
longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the
old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or
fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments,
somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. "
They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection
can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love
something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality
of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas
Hashem and yiras Hashem.
Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears
another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one
from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our
relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love
for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of
v'ychad levavainu?
To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly
tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His
will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light,
which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary,
he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the
danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually
makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify
our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of
transgressing His will.
YL
__________________________
BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160623/eb4f824c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments
: on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the
: bracha before Krias Shema.
: The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved
: only through learning Torah...
Rav Shimon Shkop writes:
The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as
explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses],
as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1)
Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not
"letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem,
they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made,
only exist subject to conditions and constraints.
The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a
symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah
[since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone
Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each
must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of
Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will
be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after
that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This
removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and
greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which
are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven
will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level,
by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a
number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great
concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of
the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought
before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words
of the Torah)
This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a
precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here,
a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a
possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5:
According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the
person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the
grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him,
according to how much he strengthened his silo.
It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides
and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo
can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the
father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot
receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too
the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare
even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything
at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him.
So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it
were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with
much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by
them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything
[is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person
does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not,
heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him,
may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow
any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his
Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose
memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says,
"the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111).
This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP.
"Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y
(or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getind
ex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH
)
In Feb you wrote:
> The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.
...
> A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim
> because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is
> not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher
> or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way
> Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us.
> Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man,
> can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras
> Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she
> cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection
> to Hashem.
And at some point I wrote:
> I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says
> "yir'as Shamayim".
> To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means
> fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast
> to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real
> yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is
> yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket
> statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring
> G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style:
> If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.)
> So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps
> a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by
> a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a
> person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like
> if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine
> what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah
> in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos?
Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong
very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's
not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah
without the chiyuv (pg 274).
So I REALLY have no clarity.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)