Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 068

Thursday, June 15 2000

• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton (was*2 Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Definition of Self
• Pasul mezuzah
• Re: Pasul mezuzah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• tefiilin
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Kesuvos 62 Father leaving home to learn Torah
• Re: Da'as and Da'as Torah (was Re: Telzer Derech)
• Re: Pasul mezuzah
• Re: Mezuzah - ones
• Re: nezirut
• Milchigs on Shvu'os
• Re: pasul mezuzah (was Ta'am and taste)

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:48:23PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: I puzzled by this statement, by which you summarized a point made by RSRH in 
: Horeb. What's the difference between the mechanics of deriving halachos and 
: "gleaning" (divining?) their meaning?

Deriving halachos is about derashah, about killalim in halachah, the material
of the halachic portions of Shas, and of the Brisker derech. How halachah
works. How to pasken. What you find in a teshuvah aside from the bottom line.

From that one can derive aggadic lessons, kavanos, ta'amei hamitzvos, the
kind of "Why" addressed in Horeb or the "mishorshei hamitzvah" in the
Chinuch. However, once sefarim like these exist, one can study the meaning
of the halachos 2nd hand without directly studying how they were decided.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Jun-00: Levi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 20b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
|| Da'as tachton is therefore man's da'as, da'as elyon is the cosmic da'as,
|| the expression of Hashem's "Da'as" through which our da'as, and everything
|| intelligable in creation, exists. There is only one da'as elyon, but there's
|| at least one da'as tachton per person.

| Not quite. By Mekkubalim, DT is each individual's process of combining chochma
| and bimo - the "chibbur" that "yoda" alludes to also in the procreational act;
| DE is the same individual's next step, the Da'as that Rshi, on Betzalel,
| describes as Ruach Ha'Kodesh.

No! Not Da'as and Da'as Torah!

Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton!!

Da'as Torah has nothing to do with this! (Well, something, but not directly)/

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:31:31AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: No! Not Da'as and Da'as Torah!

: Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton!!

Perhaps now you see the ills of rampant acronym usage. <grin>

: Da'as Torah has nothing to do with this! (Well, something, but not directly)/

No, I think it is directly connected. One can develop one's da'as in many
ways -- da'as Torah is the relevent one two our discussion.

You speak of developing one's da'as until one is capable of recieving da'as
elyon via ruach hakodesh. I would have phrased the same idea as: developing
one's da'as to be in line with da'as Torah, until one is capable of recieving
dei'os from da'as elyon via ruach hakodesh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Jun-00: Levi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 20b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> : It is dangerous to try to mix the Vilna Gaon and the Ba'al haTanya in an
> : attempt to get can get a single cohesive shitah. I wonder why, according
> : to this description, no one is in between -- nobody has an "I" that is
> : their ruach -- the very place where the Gr"a places bechirah and
> : thought.  (And the Maharal places perfection of the self and Torah.)

From what I understand- (based on discussions, shiurim and experentially)
the average person tends to oscillate. We can get to "I" as pure nefesh
elokis at inspired moments- during a good davenning, Yom Kippur or at any
other time of good kavanna, but we can't maintain it. We get distracted by
stuff in olam hazeh and quickly slip back into "I" as nefesh behemis mode,
though we still retain a memory of nefesh elokis consciousness and can return
to it more easily next time we can get our kavana together. We have one avoda
to 'get' aligned to the higher "I" , and another avoda to 'keep' aligned-
to say 'no' to the distractions so that we can maintain the higher identity.
As we grow in tzidkus we train ourselves to maintain this state for longer
and longer periods of time until it becomes our usual state.

Ramchal mentions nefesh behemis as a simple level below nefesh of nefesh
elokis, stating that everything above nefesh elokis 'leaves' during sleep.
Nefesh of nefesh elokis and nefesh behemis stay behind w the body. I'd like
to hear more confirmation that all of naranchai is present in nefesh behemis.

That all the sefiros are nested in each soul level is a concept I've seen
in various sources, Rabbi Kaplan's "inner space" and Rabbi Chaim Kramer's
"Anatomy of the Soul" from Breslov Research Institute.

Then the discussion can lead to the makeup of a non Jewish soul and soul
of a ger. This has been an ongoing debate with a Chabad friend, but he does
not know definite answers.

shalom uvracha

Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com> wrote :
: To make this fellow feel better, RSZA showed him the Shu"t Rav Poalim (4:2)
: which says that, since he thought all this time that he was wearing kosher
: tefilin, and the mistake was an onais, it's as if he performed the mitzva.
: (L'chorah, the same reasoning should apply to the pasul mezuzah, except
: perhaps the segulah aspect.)

	I would have to disagree with your last sentence. It doesn't make
sense to say that you were yotzei the mitzvah of mezuzah but it doesn't help
as a shmirah. L'chorah the shmirah is the zechus of being m'kayeim the
mitzvah-so if you are considered to having been m'kayeim mitzvas mezuzah it
should help for shemirah too.

R' Chaim Brown wrote :
> Ones is a ptur onshin - it cannot turn a lack of action into an action (I
> think there is a Yerushalmi that says this but I don't have the exact mareh
> makom).

	 Isn't there a klal that if one intends to do a mitzvah but couldn't
do it Hashem regards it as if he did the mitzvah?

R' Chaim Brown wrote :
>> Ones is a ptur onshin - it cannot turn a lack of action into an
>> action (I think there is a Yerushalmi that says this but I don't
>> have the exact mareh makom).

On 14 Jun 2000, at 10:56, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>   Isn't there a klal that if one intends to do a mitzvah but couldn't
> do it Hashem regards it as if he did the mitzvah?

I think what you may be thinking of is the case where the Mohel has two
babies to mal on Shabbos, and he accidentally mals the one whose bris is
supposed to be Sunday rather than the one whose bris is supposed to be Shabbos?

-- Carl

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 Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:48:23PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: I puzzled by this statement, by which you summarized a point made by RSRH in 
: Horeb. What's the difference between the mechanics of deriving halachos and 
: "gleaning" (divining?) their meaning?
 
In a message dated 6/14/00 8:35:28 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Deriving halachos is about derashah, about killalim in halachah, the material
> of the halachic portions of Shas, and of the Brisker derech. How halachah
> works. How to pasken. What you find in a teshuvah aside from the bottom line.
 
> From that one can derive aggadic lessons, kavanos, ta'amei hamitzvos, the
> kind of "Why" addressed in Horeb or the "mishorshei hamitzvah" in the
> Chinuch. However, once sefarim like these exist, one can study the meaning
> of the halachos 2nd hand without directly studying how they were decided.

Your description is very much like one given nonprofessional law students
who are not training to work inside the courtroom, and thus can be taught to
treat law as a form of coherence and resolution and not a basis for ambiguity
and argument. The former, of course, is the flip side of the latter -- it's
the same coin, the same halacha. understood through differering temperaments
and attitudes toward arriving at truth.

I guess I see little or no difference between the mechanics of deriving
halachos and the gleaning of the meaning of them. The competing premises and
dynamics of rabbinic dialogue define both the derivation of halacha *and*
the meaning of that which is derived. My source (again) is R'Zvi Lampel's
"The Dynamics of Dispute" (Judaica Press, 1992), who makes a good case for
looking at halacha through the process of machlokess. Machlokess can mean
open intellectual dispute, or it can mean a willingness to ask, "why?" or
"why not?" about settled matters to an irritating degree. In either case,
it is a practical exercise in the essence of rabbinic Judaism. (Non-rabbinic
Judaism we also have. It's called Reform.)

I'm particularly uncomfortable with your statement: "[O]nce sefarim like
[Horeb etc.] exist, one can study the meaning of the halachos 2nd hand
without directly studying how they were decided." The medium, however --
the dialogue -- *is* the message. A guidebook like Horeb or even a detailed
scholarly compilation like the Encyclopedia Judaica can be a starting point,
but the meaning of any Jewish law or concept has to be traced carefully from
Scripture to Mishnah (if any) to Gemorrah to later commentary, constantly
keeping context and the diversity of viewpoints in mind.

You'd love RYGB's current shiur on Koheles. There's the poetic peshat and its
greatest proponent, Rashi, on the one hand, battling the obscurantists who
find all sorts of out-of-context "meaning" from words obviously intended to
convey something simpler and more sublime. You'd never get to cheer for Rashi
unless you read the book as a singularity through his eyes. The obscurantists
sometimes seem to have read the book only in little pieces. The dynamics
of the "debate" between Rashi and the obscurantists over Koheles can be
understood through the same analytical tools that one uses to understand
Talmudic machlokess. Both point to the unity of derivation and meaning.

David Finch

: Your description is very much like one given nonprofessional law students
: who are not training to work inside the courtroom, and thus can be taught to
: treat law as a form of coherence and resolution and not a basis for ambiguity
: and argument.

Not really. Unlike the law where simple obedience is sufficient, halachah can
also teach values and metaphysics. One needs to find the "lishmah" of a
mitzvah. This isn't just "coherence and resolution".

We can answer the question "Why aren't women obligated to sit in the sukkah?"
two different ways. The first is about the mechanics of halachah -- the rule
of "mitzvas asei shehazman gerama", whether sukkah is a chiyuv or an issur,
etc...

The second is about the meaning of the halachah. Are men and women supposed
to relate to time differently? What do we learn from the fact that matzah is
an exception to the rule, but sukkah isn't? What does this say about gender
roles and the home? What does it say about what kavannah I ought to have
while sitting in the Succah?

: I'm particularly uncomfortable with your statement: "[O]nce sefarim like
: [Horeb etc.] exist, one can study the meaning of the halachos 2nd hand
: without directly studying how they were decided." The medium, however --
: the dialogue -- *is* the message.

Different kind of dialogue. One is about legislating, the other is about
analyzing and learning life's lessons.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Jun-00: Levi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 20b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
: Not quite. By Mekkubalim, DT is each individual's process of combining chochma
: and bimo - the "chibbur" that "yoda" alludes to also in the procreational
: act; DE is the same individual's next step, the Da'as that Rshi, on Betzalel,
: describes as Ruach Ha'Kodesh.

	In order to complete my confusion on this issue,  could you "teitch" the
posuk relating the qualities of Moshiach:  venocho olov...ruach daas...
in this vein?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 	In order to complete my confusion on this issue, could you
> "teitch" the posuk relating the qualities of Moshiach:  venocho
> olov...ruach daas...  in this vein? 

Moshiach is a recipient, it would seem, of the same da'as elyon with which
Betzalel and Shlomo were blessed. The GR"A's refusal of a Magggiid might
be seen as a statement that Da'as Elyon best proceed from Da'as Tachton, I
guess based on l'fum tza'ara agra, than for it to come down min ha'shomayiim
(isarusa d'l'tatta vs. isarusa d'l'eyla).

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:08:04 -0500 (CDT) "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" 
> Moshiach is a recipient, it would seem, of the same da'as elyon with which
> Betzalel and Shlomo were blessed.

	What I meant to ask is what is a ruach da'as?

Gershon   (who is now,  finally,  totally confused)
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> FWIW, RSZA also says that, nowadays (since tefilin are made b'hidur), one
> should not have his tefilin checked without a specific reason.  (Usually, it
> is the opening and closing of the batim that cause the most problems.) The
> same thing applies to mezuzas that are placed securely "inside" doorposts.

I have heard that is is also the Brisker shottah not to check tefillin except
if one has a reason to exppect problems.

Eli Turkel

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 	What I meant to ask is what is a ruach da'as?

From what I understand of the Gra -- da'as as concluded from, and as used to
shape, conscious thought.

We've also established that the Ba'al haTanya and the Ramchal have different
definitions of ruach. While I still believe the Maharal probably does agree
with the Gra.

-mi

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> What I meant to ask is what is a ruach da'as?

A spirit of da'as that is sent from on high, as opposed to developed from below.
Interesting to perhaps link that to Moshiach's "V'har'richo b'yiras Heshem"...

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:41:47 -0500 "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
> Interesting to perhaps link that to Moshiach's "V'har'richo b'yiras Heshem"...

	You needn't try that hard;  it's the next posuk (despite that it isn't
in the yehi ratzon for hotza'ah on Yom Tov <g>).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 6/14/00 2:42:15 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> We've also established that the Ba'al haTanya and the Ramchal have different
> definitions of ruach. While I still believe the Maharal probably does agree
> with the Gra.

Wouldn't you say that when "ruach" (a Yiddishe version of ethos or espirit de
corps) is combined with "da'as" (wisdom or educated insight), you get something
akin to the three ways of field-stripping a carbine: the right way; the wrong
way; and the Marine way, which is the only way that comprises a ruach da'as.

My question: How much of anyone's ruach da'as tolerates ambiguity and
inconsistency as a metaphysical norm? The Marines teach their noncoms how
to react under combat when everything is fouled up, nothing works, and
one's trained instinct is polluted with fear and confusion. What does the
ruach da'as do to teach similar lessons to Jews faced with the impenetrable
enormities of creation?

David Finch

In a message dated 6/14/00 12:48:07 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: I'm particularly uncomfortable with your statement: "[O]nce sefarim like
>: [Horeb etc.] exist, one can study the meaning of the halachos 2nd hand
>: without directly studying how they were decided." The medium, however --
>: the dialogue -- *is* the message.
 
> Different kind of dialogue. One is about legislating, the other is about
> analyzing and learning life's lessons.

Maybe. But in Rabbinic analysis life's lessons inhere in halacha, whether
legislated, located, divined, or revealed. Same difference, different approach.

David Finch

In a message dated 6/14/00 3:55:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> Moshiach is a recipient, it would seem, of the same da'as elyon with which
> Betzalel and Shlomo were blessed. The GR"A's refusal of a Magggiid might
> be seen as a statement that Da'as Elyon best proceed from Da'as Tachton, I
> guess based on l'fum tza'ara agra, than for it to come down min ha'shomayiim
>  (isarusa d'l'tatta vs. isarusa d'l'eyla).

The Ragitcover explains in many places that the issue of Torah thrugh Yegia
vs. Torah Bmatana is the Chiluk between Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon, (it is
also known that the Baal Hatanya wanted to bless his grandson the Tzemach
Tzedek with Torah Bmatana, the T"T refused, in later years he regerted it
saying that as much that he would have received Bmatana there would still
much left for Yegia).


Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

> I think what you may be thinking of is the case where the Mohel has two
> babies to mal on Shabbos, and he accidentally mals the one whose bris is
> supposed to be Sunday rather than the one whose bris is supposed to be
> Shabbos?

That is to'eh b'dvar mitzva and is only a ptur from korban chatas.

The gemara says that someone who tries to be mekayeim an asei but cannot
because of ones is as if he did it. I would learn that it is not literally
as if it is done, but the person gets credit anyway for trying. Nafka minah
might be for kiymo v'lo kiymo (Makkos 15) - if you tried to do the aseh but
were ne'enas, hard to say that alone would pater you from malkos?

-CB

In a message dated 6/14/00 7:20:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
>: IIRC the Mokor of the Shut Rav P'olim is the Mishne in Kiddushin 66b about a
>: Possul who did the Avoda, from "Boreich Hashem Cheiloi".

I had a chance to ask my father (who is a Sofer) he told me the Limud of
Boreich Hashem Cheiloi is brought in the Daas Kdoshim (end of Simon 39),
which is further discussed by the Shut Chemdas Moshe # 34. The Rav P'olim
(vol. 4 # 8) has a different approach he quotes the Chida from the Shibolei
Haleket, that since he meant Lshaim Shomayim he is Yotzeh brings proof from
Rav Huna Hagodol who wore Tephilin that were sewen with linen, he then adds
proof from Gdoloh Aveiroh LIshma.

> Isn't that is a special gezeiras hakasuv by avodah? 

The Gemara there want's to apply it to Mikva etc.

> I was connecting the question to whether we say 'ones k'man d'avid' -  pashut
> pshat is not, though the Ran discusses it in 25 in dapi haRif in Kiddushin,

BTW most probably that is the Yerushalmi the you were referring too.

> also R' Elchanan in the beg. of Kesubos like Gil pointed out, also others.

However we are talking were an action WAS done, vs. no action due to Oiness.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/7/00 5:36:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
>Can anyone suggest reasons for the difference in versions of the *hatarat
>nedarim*, wherein some have: [I hereby declare null and void all
>vows,...]va-AFILU nezirut Shimshon; whereas others have: ... .HUTZ mi-nezirut
>Shimshon; still other versions have the last in parenthesis, apparently
>taking no sides on the issue.  This is probably not *merely* a difference
>among, say, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, 

See below.

>because, for whatever it's worth,
>the Artscroll *siddur* nusah Ashkenaz has it one way (and the Sephardic
>nusah has it the other way) but the Artscroll *mahzor* (for Rosh
>haShanah)nusah Ashkenaz has it the other way....

I guess you can write to artscroll and ask them.
  
>In light of Rambam Hil Nezirut ch 3 (esp para 14), how does one justify
>annulling a nezirut Shimshon? Just what are the contours of a nezirut
>Shimshon (besides lasting a lifetime)?
>Why bother mentioning "chutz..." if indeed we may not nullify such a vow?
>Many thanks to any suggestions in advance, 

In a message dated 6/8/00 5:18:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RYGB responded: 
: The "chutz" is likely an error based on the mistaken assumption that just as a
: chacham cannot be mattir a Nezirus Shimshon (NS), so too one cannot be moseir
: modo'oh that one does not want a NS to ever take effect - the two procedures 
: are not necessarily contingent.

The MHaRYaCH on Erev Rosh Hashana discusses this issue and brings from the 
Pischei Tshuva Y"D 239 Ois 6, the question how can one nullify NS, and 
answers one can't nullify after it was made, but can be Moseir Modo'oh that 
it should not take effect, (those that say Chutz may hold like the question, 
and don't want to be Moseir Modo'oh in a language that includes everything 
which is questionable).

: BTW, IIRC, the Gemara does not discuss haforas ha'ba'al by NS - lichora that
: might work even if hatoro does not.

The Shach there S"K 28 at the end brings that the husband canot be Meifir.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/14/00 6:01:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> I'm wondering if any of you share my minhag for Shavuos lunch. For Shavuos
> lunch, we have a milchig meal, and then I wait half an hour, take a second
> Challah and get fleischig - all at the same meal. I picked this up from my
> chaver R. Yonasson Aron z"l in 1983, and my wife has (barely) tolerated it
> ever since. But to me, at least, it seems to be the pashtus in the Rema in OH
> 494:3. Anyone else agree? Disagree? Anyone else actually have the same minhag?

See KS"A 46:11 and Misgeres Hashulchan Ois 7. (also according to the Shalo
in Miseches Shvuois one should wait an hour).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 09:47:52AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: FWIW, RSZA also says that, nowadays (since tefilin are made b'hidur), one
: should not have his tefilin checked without a specific reason.  (Usually, it
: is the opening and closing of the batim that cause the most problems.) The
: same thing applies to mezuzas that are placed securely "inside" doorposts.  

I would think it would apply to any indoor mezuzah, unless you had flooding
or some other ikkar rei'usah.

I checked with two sofrim. There is little to no correlation, certainly
nothing they were able to notice, between the amount of time between checking
and the number of problems found. Which would seem to indicate that it's
the process of checking that introduces the greater number of errors. Both
of them (as well as my father) thought this portrayal of the metzius held.

Too many things are repeated eid-mipi-eid that end up totally unrelated to
the original. Was this a vort that's floating around, or a quote from a seifer?
If the latter, what's the mar'eh makom?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Jun-00: Levi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 20b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

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


[ 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         ]