Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 243

Sunday, January 2 2000

• Re: Altalena
• kiruv and barcuh
• outsiders
• Altalena
• Re: Altalena
• Re: king spending money
• Re: Closing streets on Shabbos (was Orthodoxy and return of land)
• Separation of religion and state in Israel (was Orthodoxy and return of land)
• Moshe's free will
• Types of YH
• Re: Altalena
• Re: Separation of religion and state in Israel (was Orthodoxy and return of l...

On 2 Jan 00, at 0:24, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> I actually have been thinking about the Altalena recently. It was Ben Gurion
> himself, I believe, who ordered the fire, and Yigal Allon who transmitted
> the order to Rabin. I am not sure they acted incorrectly. From their
> perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
> rodfim.

On what basis do you conclude that the government of Israel has 
the status of Melech? That isn't the conclusion I draw from the 
Rambam in Hilchos Melachim!

> The stuff on Amir is irrelevant. Let us say their was a conspiracy gone
> awry. Amir was proud of what he did, and there are people who defend what he
> did. That is what counts b'nidon didan. 

Again, assuming Amir pulled the trigger (which is an assumption 
that is called into question by Chamish), I agree with you 1000%. 
But what if someone else pulled the (or a) trigger? What if 
someone else was involved who has gone unpunished? Doesn't 
that bother you? It bothers Leah Rabin and her children.

But, I wonder if those who call
> Goldstein a Kadosh would agree that Rabin was also a Kadosh.

In what sense? In the sense of saying Hashem Yinkom Damo after 
mentioning his name? I understood that only applied to Jews killed 
by goyim and not to Jews killed by Jews? Do you have a source for 
it being otherwise?

-- Carl (who may download that Rambam onto his Palm Pilot after 
all)


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

>I'm not saying we should open up new theaters btu
leave the staus quo alone, for now. 

Why not?  who are we to say that this movie theater
can or can not be open?

>Kiruv works much better when you don't legislate
(shove) halacha.  WE know it's assur to drive on
shabbos.  THEY don't.  

Sure they do.  How many hilonim don't know that
ACCORDING TO THE TORAH (emphasis on purpose)it is
forbidden to drive on shabbat?  They don't beleive in
Torah.  big difference.

regarding who is trying to change the status quo -
both sides are. and it is obvious that it is going to
change even more for the simple reason that society is
changeing.

re: kiruv - give hilonim a little credit.  they aren't
frei because some haredi was mean to them.  a shot of
crown royal and being friendly isn't the issue.

on the other hand:  i work in a mixed firm. I have
NEVER heard anyone called dos even during some heated
arguements.  i don't think that it is necessary for
the frum to form their own reservations.

re baruch the so called gever:  even if one says that
he cracked up, he cracked up in a context.  Meaning
the fact that he was a kachnick was critical in how he
acted in the Cave.  Assume that all of his fears were
true, that the arabs were planning a massacre that
day. Were he a "normal" person he wouldn't have killed
29 people.  He might have been "satisified" with
killing less, or even just wounding some or just
emptying his gun.  But his Kach attitudes led him to
go for the max.  What difference dis one or 29 make?  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

> 
> 4- There were exceptions to this rule, but on the whole Rashei Yeshivah
> followed this trend during the fifty years before World War II. However,
> should a former yeshivah man be very successful and stay a talmid chacham
> he would then be considered as von unsere meaning he is one of ours.
> 
I agree with 99% of what Prof. Levi says. However, I am not sure about this.
There is a very well known lawyer in Israel who learned in Ponovezh 
and was reputed to be one of their top students. He is still a talmid
chacham but reports say that he is shunned by many roshei yeshiva
for leaving the yeshiva world and becoming a lawyer.

Eli Turkel

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>;
<avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: Altalena


> On 2 Jan 00, at 0:24, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
>
> > I actually have been thinking about the Altalena recently. It was Ben
Gurion
> > himself, I believe, who ordered the fire, and Yigal Allon who
transmitted
> > the order to Rabin. I am not sure they acted incorrectly. From their
> > perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
> > rodfim.
>
> On what basis do you conclude that the government of Israel has
> the status of Melech? That isn't the conclusion I draw from the
> Rambam in Hilchos Melachim!
>

The Tzitz Eliezer in Vol. 10 no. 1 does.

According to the Maharatz Chiyus's sevara that a mored b'malchus is chayav
misa because he is rodef Am Yisroel, it applies logically here as well.

> Again, assuming Amir pulled the trigger (which is an assumption
> that is called into question by Chamish), I agree with you 1000%.
> But what if someone else pulled the (or a) trigger? What if
> someone else was involved who has gone unpunished? Doesn't
> that bother you? It bothers Leah Rabin and her children.
>

No, it does not bother me. It probably should bother Leah Rabin, but not me.

> But, I wonder if those who call
> > Goldstein a Kadosh would agree that Rabin was also a Kadosh.
>
> In what sense? In the sense of saying Hashem Yinkom Damo after
> mentioning his name? I understood that only applied to Jews killed
> by goyim and not to Jews killed by Jews? Do you have a source for
> it being otherwise?
>

No one has presented any proof that a priori a Jew killed by a non-Jew when
that Jew was rodef the non-Jew is a Kadosh, so I do not see why I need to
present proof that a Jew killed by another Jew is a  Kadosh.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On 2 Jan 00, at 6:17, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>;
> <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 4:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Altalena
> 
> 
> > On 2 Jan 00, at 0:24, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> >
> > > I actually have been thinking about the Altalena recently. It was Ben
> Gurion
> > > himself, I believe, who ordered the fire, and Yigal Allon who
> transmitted
> > > the order to Rabin. I am not sure they acted incorrectly. From their
> > > perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
> > > rodfim.
> >
> > On what basis do you conclude that the government of Israel has
> > the status of Melech? That isn't the conclusion I draw from the
> > Rambam in Hilchos Melachim!
> >
> 
> The Tzitz Eliezer in Vol. 10 no. 1 does.

I will look it up bli neder. I don't know how that fits with the first 
Perek of Hilchos Melachim, particularly the Halachos about non-
Jews and women (even if you do get around the problems of navi 
and sanhedrin).

> According to the Maharatz Chiyus's sevara that a mored b'malchus is chayav
> misa because he is rodef Am Yisroel, it applies logically here as well.

Where is the Maharatz Chiyus?

> > But, I wonder if those who call
> > > Goldstein a Kadosh would agree that Rabin was also a Kadosh.
> >
> > In what sense? In the sense of saying Hashem Yinkom Damo after
> > mentioning his name? I understood that only applied to Jews killed
> > by goyim and not to Jews killed by Jews? Do you have a source for
> > it being otherwise?
> >
> 
> No one has presented any proof that a priori a Jew killed by a non-Jew when
> that Jew was rodef the non-Jew is a Kadosh, so I do not see why I need to
> present proof that a Jew killed by another Jew is a  Kadosh.

Huh? If there are halachic guidelines as to when we use the 
appellation "Hashem Yinkom Damo" it seems to me that they 
ought to cover this.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

On 23 Dec 99, at 20:41, Eli Turkel wrote:

> > 
> > A Jewish king does not have to justify any expenditure.
> > 
> I am not convinced of this.
> He certainly has the right to spend on his household and on an army
> and to build roads.
> I would doubt that he can distribute money freely to his friends.
> What are legitimate needs can be discussed but I again assume they
> have to be rationale.

See Hilchos Melochim Perek 4.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

RHM wrote: <<Closing
down a main thoroughfare in Jerusalem like "Bar Ilan "
street is a nice idea if you are Shomer shabbos but if
you are not, it's just going to get you upset.  How do
we get these 2 irreconcilable differnces to live
together?  IMHO,  We leave movie theaters open on
shabbos, we keep Bar Ilan open on Shabbos and we try
to win over the hearts and minds of these people by
being more welcoming and understanding.   >>

I live in Rechasim, a yishuv near Haifa whose 11-member
local council contains eight chareidim and three 
Likudnikim.  The popularly elected head of the local council
(rosh hamoetza) is also chareidi.   The secular public is a
clear minority, and the local council clearly has the power to
close off roads on Shabbos. 

Rav Steinman was asked if roads should be closed on
Shabbos (not just main thoroughfares -- also neighborhood 
roads).  He ruled  that NO roads should be closed.

Lo liftoach peh l'satan, but baruch hashem relations between
religious and non-religious in Rechasim have been quiet 
and respectful the past several years.

KT,
Shlomo Godick

RHM wrote: << Federation
has thus become more aware than ever of the value of
Jewish education and it's importance to Jewish
survival.  Contrast that with chiloni attitude towards
the charedi society. Why the difference?  I think it
is because we don't shove religion down their throats.  >>

This raises a very interesting point.  Would we be better off 
in the long run with separation of religion and state?  Would it
be better not to have religious parties and for the religious to
be members of the Avoda and the Likud, much as American
Jews participate in the Democratic and Republican parties 
and have influence in both?  Would this decrease the amount
of chillul Hashem in the public sphere and make it easier to be
m'karev the non-religious?  (The Belzer Rebbe is known to
have come out in favor of this.)

One argument I heard against this (from Rav Noigroshel of 
Arachim) is that this would create a vacuum (in terms of 
state religious functions and services and influence) that
would eventually be filled by the Reform and Conservative
movements.  I.e., the secular establishment *requires* 
religion to provide certain cultural needs in society, and
lacking state-run orthodox religious bodies, they will
instead co-opt the Reform and Conservative groups.

KT,
Shlomo Godick 
 

>>>I don't understand. If in the ideal Moshe should have taken initiative,
then his *choosing* to receive a directive was (lulei dimitztafina hayisi
omer) an incorrect use of his bechirah. <<<
I'm not subscribed to avodah here, but to answer your question, bechira is
freedom to disobey G-d's will.  For example: to say Moshe didn't have
bechira doesn't mean he couldn't choose to have peanut butter instead of
tuna fish for lunch - it simply means he could not act in violation of
ratzon Hashem.  Since G-d had not expressed his will as to how to solve the
problem of the lack of water, whatever choice Moshe made, it could not be a
choice in violation of ratzon Hashem.
Please forward to avodah.

Even Sheleimah, 2:1:
    The sum of all evil middos are ka'as[1], ta'avah, and ga'avah[2], which
    are "hakin'ah vihata'avah vihakavod".[3] Each includes two [parts]. Of
    ka'as: ra and mirma. Ra is revealed, and mirmah is "echad bipeh vi'echad
    bileiv".[4,5] Ta'avah: ta'avah and chemdah: Ta'avah is [for] the pleasure
    of the body itself, such as eating, drinking, and the like. And chemdah
    is like silver/money, gold, clothing and houses. In ga'avah [the two
    subspecies are] gei'ah and ga'on. Gei'ah is in the heart and ga'on is
    the desire to rule over others.

    All this is included in the tefillah of "E-lokai netzor lishoni *meira*
    usfasi midabeir *mirmah*."[6] "Vilimkalilai nafshi sidom" is against
    ga'avah. "Vinafshi ke'afar lakol tihyeh" is against ga'on. "Pisach libi
    biSorasecha" is the opposite of ta'avah, which wants to sit in his home
    in menuchah to fulfill his ta'avos, and also for Torah he needs to sit in
    menuchah. And they say in the medrash [7], "Until the person is mispallel
    for divrei Torah that they should enter his innards, he should be mispallel
    that food and drink shouldn't enter his innards." "Uvmitzvosecha tirdof
    nafshi" is the opposite of ba'alei chemdah, because it is their way to
    constantly run ahead, "for a person doesn't die with [even] half his
    ta'avah in hand.[8]"[9]

    Footnotes:

    1- Nedarim 22a, 22b; Pesachim 66b, 113b
    2- Sotah 4b, 5a; Sanhedrin 98a; Avos 4:2
    3- Avos 4:21
    4- Michlei 4:24
    5- Pesachim 113b; Bava Metziah 49b
    6- Beracho 17a
    7- Yalkum Shim'oni 830
    8- Koheles Raba 1:13
    9- C.f. Bei'ur haGr"a Mishlei 1:11; 2:12; 4:24; 7:5; 12:25; 23:27; 24:11;
       30:10


The Gr"a's taxonomy gives us a structure to frame a question we asked here
a couple of week's ago. Comparing the relative dangers of two to'eivos:
mishkav zachar and even va'aven. The former is a type of ta'avah, the latter
is chemdah.

Even Sheleimah 2:6:
    Someone who is drawn after the ta'avah also loses his good middos that
    was in his nature by birth [and these are called begadim]. And one
    who is drawn after the chemdah loses the good middos that he acclimated
    himself in from his your [and are called rigalim]. Because he doesn't
    have opportunity to guide himself because of his business. Vekol shechein
    he won't break his middos to begin with.[22]

    Footnote:
    22- See Bei'ur haGr"a Mishlei 6:27,28

This dichotomy makes sense. Ta'avos are innate. Ta'avah operates on a
biological level, and therefore occludes his better natural predisposition. A
love of wealth and property has to be learned. Chemdah is for things we
learn to value, so it runs counter to other learned behaviors.

On Mishlei 4:24, the Vilna Gaon writes:
    I already wrote that there are two kinds of middos, which are those
    that are the middos which are born with him by nature, and those that he
    acclimated himself to. Those that were born with him are called "dirachav",
    for they are his derech from the beginning of his creation. Those that
    he acclimated himself to are called regel, because he acclimated (hirgil)
    to them.

    To those he acclimated to, he must guard and straighten them a lot. When
    he guards them, then they which were in his nature, they will of course
    be guarded. This is "paleis ma'gal raglecha". Those which he became
    used to he needs to straighten and to pass little by little from the
    bad middos, like a peles, and not to grab right away the other extreme.
    Until he habituates himself and it will be to him like nature. (And it
    says "ma'gal" (circuit) because to those [middos] that he acclimated
    himself to he has to go around and revolve...)

    "Vichol dirachecha yikonu" of course those middos that are his derech
    since birth are established (yikonu), from the term of "kan ubasis". If
    you don't guard those [middos that are] from habit, even "derachav" won't
    be established. For middos are like a string of pearls -- if you make a
    knot at the end, then all are guarded, and if not, all are lost. So too
    are the middos. Therefore [the pasuk] says that if one straightens the
    circuit of his feet (raglav), then his ways (derachav) will be set.

So, since he relates chemdah to raglecha, and ta'vah to derachecha, it would
appear that chemdah (including even va'aven) needs to be dealt with first,
or else ta'avah too (even m"z) will fall apart.

(BTW, this pasuk in Mishlei just cries for hisbonenus.)

The Maharal, commenting on the same mishnah in Avos as my original quote from
Even Sheleimah (4:21):
    The Rambam z"l writes in his introduction to this mesechta. Over there the
    head doctor starts his seifer [with the idea] that there are three souls:
    tiv'is, chiyonis, nafshis -- as is explained above in ch. "Rebbe Omeir".
    And he z"l writes that it isn't so that the person has three souls,
    rather the soul is one, only it has separate abilities. He explains the
    idea of these three abilities (potentialities -- kochos):

    Ko'ach tiv'i (the natural potential): this is the potential which can
    receive hazanah (satiation?)... It is certain that this brings the
    ta'avah for zenus, that this is through excesses of nature that this
    koach operates. All koach of ta'avah is from the ko'ach that is called
    ko'ach tiv'i. ...

    The second ko'ach is the ko'ach hachiyoni, from which there is life.
    Through this ko'ach a person travels from place to place, and from it
    comes revenge, jealousy and hatred....

    The third is ko'ach nafshi. From this ko'ach will come many kochos,
    like the kochos of the 5 senses, the ko'ach of thought and imagination,
    memory and insight.

    ... According to this division they said "hkin'ah, hata'avah vihakavod take
    a person out of the world." For the soul has these three potentialities
    as we explained above. If one leaves the proper amount in these three
    kochos he leaves the world, for a person is only within the world via
    these three kochos.

    For a person is in the world via ko'ach hanafshi, if he exceeds in this
    koach from the shiur, he turns toward the negative. For a person's soul
    has a limit in all things, and if he exceeds the limit in excess he is
    turning to the negative.... Therefore he says that kin'ah which comes
    from ko'ach nafshi... and kin'ah is an extended action of the nefesh
    -- for why should a person be jealous for something that isn't his? --
    therefore kin'ah is an extra action and therefore turns for the person
    into negative and deficiency.

    Similarly, ta'avah which is from ko'ach hativ'i, for he desires for
    something which a person doesn't need. Therefore this thing too is an
    excess, for this ko'ach hativ'i left the border which is proper for it,
    and therefore will reach him as a negative....

    And the kavod is for the ko'ach hasichli, for the level of this ko'ach is
    what wants the kavod. For it is certainly worthy of kavod, and it says
    (Mishlei 3:35) "Kavod chachamim yinchalu." Because kavod is something
    spiritual and isn't something physical....

(BTW, note that ka'as is related to ko'ach hanafshi, the spiritual layer,
and ka'as is tantamount to Avodah Zara.)

Note that the Maharal considers these flaws to be excesses. Implied is that
there are flaws that are deficiencies, but they aren't listed here. On an
earlier mishnah (1:2) the Maharal also discusses the three items in terms
of three aspects of the soul.

He three Amudei Olam as being about the three classes of relationship that a
person is capable of: with HKBH (avodah), with other people (gemilus chassadim)
and with oneself (Torah). These three relationships are with the denizens
of the worlds open to him through these three aspects.

    Therefore, the g-dly Tanna writes that one pillar that the universe
    stands upon is the Torah, for the pillar completes man so that he can
    be a finished creation with respect to himself.

    After that he says "on avodah".... For from this man can be thought
    complete and good toward He Who created him - by serving Him.... With
    regard to the third, it is necessary for man to be complete and good
    with others, and that is through gemillus chassadim.

    You also must understand that these three pillars parallel three things
    in each man: the mind, the living soul, and the body. None of them
    have existence without G-d. The existence of the soul is when it comes
    close to Hashem by serving Him.... From the perspective of the mind,
    the man gets his existence through Torah, for it is through the Torah
    that man attaches himself to G-d. To the body, man gets his existence
    through gemillus chassadim for the body has no closeness or attachment
    to Hashem, just that Hashem is kind to all. When man performs kindness
    G-d is kind to him, and so gives him existence.

He continues to explain that that if existence is based on three principles,
then any act which takes an ax to one of these pillars should not be committed
even under pain of death, existence itself would have a lower priority.
Idol worship is obviously the antonym of avodah. Murder is the ultimate denial
of chessed. The Maharal explains the link between Torah and sexual immorality:

    The glory of the Torah is that it is separated from the physical entirely.
    There is nothing that can separate man from the physical but the Torah of
    thought. The opposite is sexual immorality, which follows the physical
    [chomer] until one is thought of like an animal or donkey [chamor],
    it is a creature of its flesh's desires, in all things physical.

So the Maharal too finds three pairs of yitzrei hara. However, whereas the
Gr"a finds active-vs-thought pairs, the Maharal implies pairs of excess-vs-
deficiency. Also it appears that an excess of one feeds a deficiency of the
other. An excess of ko'ach tiv'i feeds the same ta'avah as a deficiency of
talmud torah -- ko'ach sichli.

The association between yitzrei hara and the three yaharog vi'al ya'avor is
also suggested by the aggadita (Yoma 69b, Sanhedrin 64a) which discusses the
imprisonment of the y"h for avodah zara followed by the attempted imprisonment
of that for gilui arayos. Also note that the y"h for g"a is associated with
sexual reproduction in general.

The Maharsha possibly suggests a different taxonomy on the well-known aggadita
on Shabbos 30b-31a:
    Our rabbis taught: A man should always be patient like Hillel, and not
    impatient like Shammai. It once happened that two men [31a] made a bet
    with each other, saying, "Whoever goes and makes Hillel angry shall
    receive 400 zuz." Said one, "I will go and anger him."

    That day was Erev Shabbos, and Hillel was washing his head. [The man] went,
    passed by the door of his house, and called out, "Who here is Hillel?
    Who here is Hillel?" [Hillel] wrapped on [his cloak] and went out to
    him. He said to him, "My son, what do you require?" He said to [Hillel],
    "I have a question to ask." [Hillel] said to him, "Ask, my son, ask."
    "Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?" He said to him, "My son, you
    have asked a great question. It is because they have no skillful midwives."

	Maharsha: There is a question in this, since this question isn't
	divrei Torah, just in things of the world, even though Hillel was
	patient he shouldn't have answered these question, as Sh'lomo says
	about this, "al ta'an kesil ke'avloso". It therefore appears that
	we should say that because of his patience, Hillel never thought the
	man came to irritate him with these questions. Rather, [he assumed]
	that he was hinting to him associations with divrei Torah, and that
	with these three questions, he was thinking of the three evil middos
	that are ru'ach gavoha, ayin ra'ah and nefesh rechava -- which are
	mentioned as those of students of Bilaam.

	Which is, that which he asked, "Why are the heads of..." [Hillel
	assumed] he was thinking about the evil middah of ru'ach rechavah.
	According to what it says at the end of the ch. "Hayashein", ...
	Rashi explains that they lord over and are misga'im over their
	brethren. [Note the word "misga'im", in similarity to the Vilna Gaon
	(above). -MB]

	What he meant was: That in Bavel their head wealthy people revolve,
	that the wheel returns them back down from their property. Why is
	it? Because of what sin? And Hillel answered him on this via remez
	that is because they don't have easy lives, that is, ... that gasos
	haru'ach is strong in them. For who ever has ga'avah is a shoteh.

	This evil middah is the one they have in Bavel as it says in ch. "Zeh
	Borear" that chanufah and gasot haru'ach yardu liBavel....

    [The man] departed, waited an hour, returned and said, "Who here is
    Hillel? Who here is Hillel?" [Hillel] wrapped on [his cloak] and went out
    to him. He said to him, "My son, what do you require?" He said to [Hillel],
    "I have a question to ask." [Hillel] said to him, "Ask, my son, ask." "Why
    are the eyes of the Palmyrieans bleared?" He said to him, "My son, you
    have asked a great question. It is because they live amoung sandy places."

	Maharsha: Hillel thought that he was thinking about the second evil
	middah of ayin hara. According to what it says in ch. "Cheilek", the
	generation of the flood were only punished for gilgul ha'ayin, and
	Rashi explains that they'd lift their eyes. In a number of places,
	zenus is euphamized with a term about eyes. As it says by Shimshon,
	that he followed his eyes... And [Hillel] replied to him because
	they live amoung the "cholos", from the root "chol", that they have
	no kedushah nor borders of ervah as they have among the meyuchasim
	of Yisrael.

    [The man again] departed, waited an hour, returned and said, "Who here
    is Hillel? Who here is Hillel?" [Hillel] wrapped on [his cloak] and went
    out to him. He said to him, "My son, what do you require?" He said to
    [Hillel], "I have a question to ask." [Hillel] said to him, "Ask, my son,
    ask." "Why are the feet of the Africans(?) wide?" "My son, you have asked
    a great question," replied he. "It is because they live in watery marshes."

	Maharsha: Hillel thought that he was thinking about the third evil
	middah which is nefesh rechavah, to gather a lot of money. "Wide feet"
	as they say about what is written "'all that they stood which is in
	their feet' -- this is money, which a person stands on his feet". And
	he replied [that it is] because they live in betza'im, a hint to the
	idea that they live among nations that love betza and money. For the
	children of Afriki are amoung the children of Canaan who turned away
	from Eretz Yisrael. As it says in the beginning of ch. "Cheilek"
	... about Canaan that he commanded his sons to love theft and betza.

    He said to [Hillel], "I have many questions to ask, but I am afraid that
    you may become angry." [Hillel] wrapped his cloak, sat before him and he
    said to him, "Ask all the questions you have to ask." He said to him, "Are
    you the Hillel who is called the nasi of Israel?" He said to him, "Yes."
    [The man] said to Hillel, "If that is you, may there not be many like you
    in Israel." He said to him, "My son, why?" [The man] said to [Hillel],
    "Because of you, I have lost 400 zuz!" He said to him, "Be careful of
    your ruach! Hillel is worth it that you should lose 400 zuz because of
    him, and even another 400 zuz, yet Hillel will not lose his temper."

In sum, the Maharsha's three middos ra'os are:

1- Ru'ach gavoha / gasat ruach -- ego and ruling over others. This seems
   pretty similar to the Gr"a's understanding of "ga'avah", in particular
   "ga'on", even down to terms each use.

2- Ayin hara -- looking and chasing after things that aren't theirs. Again,
   sounds much like ta'vah as described by the Gaon.

3- Nefesh rechavah - the pursuit of wealth, what the Gaon called chemdah.

It is unclear whether the Maharal considers ra, mirmah and ga'avah to be
derivative of the three he does list, or if he only considers Bilaam the
embodiment of these three and not the others.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Dec-99: Chamishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 1/2/00 1:26:27 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> From their
>  perspective, Etzel (the Irgun) was mored b'malchus, and, thus b'geder
>  rodfim.
> 
According to this logic what is the Din of Arutz-7?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/2/00 9:00:41 AM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< Would we be better off 
 in the long run with separation of religion and state?  Would it
 be better not to have religious parties and for the religious to
 be members of the Avoda and the Likud, much as American
 Jews participate in the Democratic and Republican parties 
 and have influence in both?  Would this decrease the amount
 of chillul Hashem in the public sphere and make it easier to be
 m'karev the non-religious?   >>

I might be a minority of one, but to me, EY is still the Promised Land. We're 
all in golus, Israelis included. With that in mind, each of us have to be 
someplace, and the U.S. isn't a bad place to be. It's an especially good 
place to be a Jew, or at least to keep trying to be a Jew. American 
secularism, particularly the separation of church and state, has protected us 
to the extent we've been willing to be protected. If we've become chillulim, 
it's our fault, not the state's.

Look at it this way: There's been considerable debate on this message board 
on the extent to which it is appropriate -- i.e., either halachic or "Good 
For The Jews" -- to encourage secular learning and exposure to the various 
nefarious lures of Derech Eretz. That's a 19th century debate, or a 20th 
century one, but it makes no sense in a world of universal Internet,150 cable 
TV channels, and all other sorts of instant communication. Can any of us even 
imagine the advanced state of information exchange that will exist in, say, 
the year 2020? Any solution to the state of observant Judaism that excludes 
exposure to the outside world is doomed to failure.

In other words, any form of religious compulsion that doesn't account for the 
inevitable fact and power of chillulim (Jewish and non-Jewish) is also doomed 
to failure. So, if compulsion is eliminated as a tool to keep Jews together, 
where should we live? In a society that suffers all sorts of self-destructive 
obsessions about all the reasons Jews should keep fighting one another 
(Israel, until it changes) or a society that encourages Jews to be Jews in 
any style they choose, including virtually any form of Orthodoxy (the U.S.)? 
Maybe if Israel recognizes some of the religious virtues of the American 
system, the difference will disappear. Then maybe we'll get the Promised Land 
after all.

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]