Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 097

Tuesday, August 1 2000

• RE: hashgacha pratis
• Re: Hasgocho protis vs. bechira chofshis
• Baruch Hu u'Baruch Shmo
• Barukh hu uvarukh shemo
• aliyah
• Re: hashgacha pratis
• Re: Hasgocho protis vs. bechira chofshis
• Re: Barukh hu uvarukh shemo
• RE: hashgacha pratis
• Nishtanah haTeva
• Re: Barukh hu uvarukh shemo
• schar ve-onesh
• kiddushin al tnai

I had written:
> My own view is that while it is hashgacha p'ratis in one way, in other ways
> it's not: In the case of normal hashgacha pratis, Hashem might make sure that
> even the details of the situation create the situation most appropriate for
> the nisayon of the individual (as Micha put it: one gets in this world is
> the situation necessary to maximize his growth in temimus and deveikius).
> In the case of being left to teva, that probably doesn't happen.

Micha replied:
> The tochachah seems to contradict both sides. The pasuk says "vehalachti
> immachem bachamas keri" (Vayikra 26:28). On the one hand, "keri" implies
> a lack of complete hashgachah p'ratis -- except of the kind my co worker
> wondered about lishitas haRambam. OTOH, "vehalachti" isn't an abandonment
> to teva, or that teva is a beryah that a person could be abandoned to.

Clearly, the Rambam believes that many individuals are not subject all the
time to hashgacha pratis and during those periods are subject to the
consequences of the natural world.  It could be that the Rambam might also
believe (corroboration anyone?) that a person might also receive direct
divine punishment (either as a nes nigleh or a nes nistar) if he is a rasha,
and this would be what the tochacha is talking about, although this would be
the exception rather than the rule.  Dr. David Berger, in his article about
RambaN's views, believes this is the view of the RambaN.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 7/28/00 5:06:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:
> But isn't HKBH CHOOSING to leave one to teva? 

IIRC, Rabbi Frand on a tape discussing hashgocho vs. bechira quoted Rav
Dessler that on Rosh Hashana THREE types of verdicts are possible - 
1. No harm will befall this person; 2. This person will experience suffering
and/or hardship; 3. The person's fate will be left to the bechira of others.
Thus, if a mugger (e.g.) confronts #1, he will escape unscathed. #2 will
be mugged. #3 is up to the bechira of the mugger and 3's own resources at
defending himself.

Kol tuv, 
E. Preil

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> All of this is interesting in showing lishitaso. But the same Nefesh haRav
> you quote gives a sevarah (which I mentioned earlier) that isn't limited
> to those berachos with which you are trying to be yotzei.

I looked up the Maaseh Rav himself over Shabbos. He holds that the reason
is not because of hefsek, but because the Shat"z won't wait for Baruch
Hu u'Baruch Shmo to finish the bracha, and because of that you will lose
Chazoras Ha'Shat"z. However, there are two (apparently) contradictory
footnotes there. One says that it is a hefsek because the Amen has to go
on the whole bracha (source - Tosefes Maaseh Rav S"K 14). But another says
that if the Shliach Tzibur waits before saying the Chasimas HaBracha, then
one should say Baruch Hu u"baruch Shmo (source - "Ksav Yad Cincinnati").

LeMaaseh, in many of the Ashkenaz Kehillos today where Minhag HaGra is
followed in Eretz Yisrael (including most of the "Olam HaYeshivos"), the
Shliach Tzibur is instructed to pause after Shem Hashem for BHB"S, and after
the Chasimas HaBracha for Amen.

I'm not sure that the Gra would have agreed with the svara in Nefesh HaRav,
although R. Chaim apparently would have.

-- Carl

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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

A comment on the following two quotes:

> some other kehillos dropped "baruch hu uvaruch sh'mo" because 
> the S"Z-niks found it was gematria for S"Z.

: R. Matisyahu Blum brings down in his Sefer "Torah LaDaas" that 
: Rabbi Kramer did not say Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo. 

If you will check your history or your heshbon, you will find that
the Shabtai-Zvi-niks said Barukh Hu, Barukh Shemo without the vav
hachibbur. (Unless 814 = 815, you have to add Sh"Tz himself to the BHB"Sh
to get equality by the usual "'im hakolel" trick.) Using or saying u'varukh,
the difference of five is too great to permit a gematria match.

And as to the Gr"a, IIRC he objected only to saying BHUv"Sh in chazarat
hasha"tz for the hefsek reason mentioned in the posting. I don't think it
was a general objection.

Further, despite the automatic answer tendency mentioned in the posting,
most people seem to be able to control themselves and do not answer BHUv"Sh
beween barekhu and shomeneh esrei when it is mafsik.

K"T,
David

Eli had asked for an explanation of Rav Yehuda's view in T.B. Ketubot
(110b-111a) that one who moves from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael transgresses an
"asey" in view of the fact that many illustrious torah figures had made
that move. I ventured an opinion to the effect that the verse in Jeremiah
dealing with the vessels of the bet hamikdash could not be construed as a
current prohibition for going on aliyah (certainly not an "asey"), and was
being used as an asmachta. The real reason, I ventured, was the question
of where the torah center was located. Eli
was not satisfied, however.

> The "usual" explanation is that the prohibition of moving to anywhere else
> is based on Bavel being the center of learning. However, the prohibition of
> moving to Israel is independent of this and flows from the decree of exile.

> BTW I thought that R. Zeira did learn under R. Yochanan. In any case
> R. Yochana's talmidim like R. Elazar, R. Ami, R. Asi, R. Abahu, R. Yirmiya
> etc. were also major figures.

He is correct that there were major torah figures living in Israel
(he is also correct that R' Yochanan was still alive at the time of the
aliyah of R' Zeira, Rav Yehuda's student - my error). I did say that a
presumed deficiency in torah study in Israel vs. Bavel was an argument that
presented difficulties. Eli's comment does point out those difficulties.
It is possible that Rav Yehudah felt that no place of study in Israel could
compare to the two yeshivot in Bavel, Sura (founded by his teacher, Rav)
and Pumpedita that he founded). There could also be an element of rivalry.
Many of the major torah figures in Israel had come from Bavel, and Rav Yehudah
wanted to stop the "braindrain". There was also a question of pride in the
quality and accomplishments of Babylonian Jewry, as well as a completely
different style of study (pilpul and dialectic argumentation in Bavel vs. a
more practical, halachic perspective in Israel). I will leave questions of
the future prospects for torah in Bavel vs. Israel, as would have been seen at
that point of time, for those of us who are better versed in Jewish history.
My main point was that the verse in Jeremiah was unlikely to be the real basis
for Rav Yehuda's stance, and that his true reason should be sought elsewhere.

Yitzchok Zlochower

I wrote:
> The tochachah seems to contradict both sides. The pasuk says "vehalachti
> immachem bachamas keri" (Vayikra 26:28). On the one hand, "keri" implies
> a lack of complete hashgachah p'ratis -- except of the kind my co worker
> wondered about lishitas haRambam. OTOH, "vehalachti" isn't an abandonment
> to teva, or that teva is a beryah that a person could be abandoned to.

RM Felman replied:
: Clearly, the Rambam believes that many individuals are not subject all the
: time to hashgacha pratis and during those periods are subject to the
: consequences of the natural world.

Agreed. That was my comment on "keri". However, there is a 2nd element to
the Rambam's shitah. A person doesn't just shift to natural law, but abandoned
to this "thing" called "teva". As I've been writing, the Rambam considers teva
to be a beryah bifnei atzmah, not just a set of rules that the universe tends
to follow.

IOW, being abandoned to teva means that yad Hashem is more indirect. Not just
that Hashem chooses to act in a way that conforms to a certain set of laws
that even a skeptic could formulate.

It is this element that "vehalachti" seems to contradict. "Vehalachti" implies
a *direct* yad Hashem.

RE Preil:
} IIRC, Rabbi Frand on a tape discussing hashgocho vs. bechira quoted Rav
} Dessler that on Rosh Hashana THREE types of verdicts are possible - 1. No
} harm will befall this person; 2. This person will experience suffering and/or
} hardship; 3. The person's fate will be left to the bechira of others.

I think you do recall correctly, as that matches my impression of the tape.
I didn't understand the Michtav mei'Eliyahu the same way R' Frand did, though.

In either case, this adds a third element to the mix. Until now we've been
discussing two sources of events: 1- neis; 2- teva. Now we have to add
3- actions of others' bechirah. IOW, the problem of evil has two sides:
the ra that people do, and the ra that people experience. The question you
raise is how to maximize the possibility of the former and yet still control
the latter.

According to REED's position, which RHM has dubbed "maximalist", neis and
most teva differ only in features, not source. The exception is the
the consequences of another's bechirah -- which are connected to the
original ma'aseh only biderech hatevah. (If it's biderech neis than HKBH
is the start of the causal chain, sort of by definition. Not the other
person.)

In either case, I think that in order to be meyasheiv this idea with that of
the Michtav vol I, we need to take the absolute edge off of it -- IOW, another
person's bechirah set in motion a chain of events. If the person we are
discussing lacks the bitachon necessary for the amount or visibility of
hashgachah necessary to overcome the consequences of that decision, he will
end up in the third category.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Thus, if a mugger (e.g.) confronts #1, he will escape unscathed. #2 will
> be mugged. #3 is up to the bechira of the mugger and 3's own resources at
> defending himself.

Whether hashgacha overrides someone else's intent to harm is a machlokes
Rishonim bet. the Chovos HeLevavos and Tos. in Kesubos (30a 'hakol b'yidei
shamayim chutz m'tzinim u'pachim') discussed by R' Elchanan in Koveitz He'aros.

-CB

D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net> wrote:
> As to saying BHUv"Sh in chazarat hasha"tz despite the automatic answer
> tendency mentioned in the posting, most people seem to be able to control
> themselves and do not answer BHUv"Sh beween barekhu and shomeneh esrei when
> it is mafsik.

True but tradition has ingrained this lack of response during the Birchas
Kryias Shema and the Sha'Tz's Nusach flows without any pause during all the
Chasimos Habrachos. However, when the Sha'Tz says Chazaras HaSha'Tz in one
of the many traditional Nusachos (Nigunim), (Yeshivish, Chasidish, or what
have you) it is customary to pause slightly to allow for the BHBS after
reciting the Baruch Atah HaShem portion of the Chasimas HaBracha, as if to
wait for the appropriate response (BHBS). At this point, when the Kol of
BHBS is being recited by most of the rest of the Mispallelim, it is almost
reflexive to say BHBS. Not saying it takes a conscious restraining effort.

Is this not so?

HM

RM Feldman wrote:
> Clearly, the Rambam believes that many individuals are not subject all the
> time to hashgacha pratis and during those periods are subject to the
> consequences of the natural world.

Without commenting on the correctness of such an assertion, R. Shlomo Wolbe in
his Alei Shur quotes the Alter of Kelm in Chochmah uMussar as saying that the
Rambam's "mikreh" refers to hidden hashgachah.  Hashem still guides everything
that happens to a person based on sechar ve'onesh but it is hidden within the
apparently random events of the world.  R. Chaim Friedlander in his Sifsei Chaim
- Emunah uVechirah vol. 1 follows this approach as well.  A former chavrusa of
mine asked the mashgiach of the Mir (in Brooklyn) about this Rambam and the
Ramban and he agreed with the interpretation of the Alter of Kelm and applied it
to the Ramban as well.

Gil Student

R' Yaakov Menken (founder of Project Genesis, a/k/a torah.org) made the
following observation during a conversation about Niddah 31a.

"Nishtanah haTeva", as understood by most, says that Chazal believed in
evolution well before Lamark and Darwin suggested it. By which I mean the
kind of evolution we see in bacteria and peppered moths, that biological
properties drift over time in response to what aids survival. Not necessarily
the Darwinian and post-Mendel flavors, nor (necessarily) evolution as an
explanation for the origin of the species.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Harry Maryles wrote:
>                                           At this point, when the Kol of
> BHBS is being recited by most of the rest of the Mispallelim, it is almost
> reflexive to say BHBS. Not saying it takes a conscious restraining effort.
> Is this not so?

No. If you are accustomed not to say BHBS it takes absolutely no restraining
effort.

steve

Rambam and many rishonim seem to limit schar ind G-ds involvement
in every detail while kabbalah greatly expands it.
Does anyone know of any source that surveys the various opinions in
at least some detail?

Thanks,
Eli Turkel

The issue of kiddushin al tnai was raised as a possible solution to aguna.
R Sherer raised the objection that in  kiddushin al tnai, the couple can not
live together.

This was discussed a while back (I think still on avoda)
When R Jung asked R Weinberg (the seride esh) about a possible solution to
the aguna problem in the late 1950s, he referred him to his talmid, R
Eliezer Berkovits, because he said that he was too sick and frail to work on
it.  R Berkovits came up with a solution based on kiddushin al tnai.  While
R Sherer is correct that some poskim forbid living together in the case of
kiddushin al tnai, many do not (the Seride Esh specifically mentions that in
a letter to R Jung published by R Marc Shapiro in his volume of Kitve
haseride esh.)
The solution developed by R Berkovits was to have been published in Noam,
but ended up being published by Mossad Harav Kook.  There is a letter of
haskama by Rav Yehiel Weinberg, where he (my reading) accepts the intrinsic
halachic validity of this heter. However, he  says that as it changes the
fundamental nature of kiddushin,  it should be accepted by the halachic
community before being widely instituted.  Unfortunately, this never
happened.
Shortly after publication, a virulent attack on R Berkovits's shita was
published in Noam, and the claim made that R Weinberg retracted his haskama.
R Berkovits had a letter from the Seride Esh (shown to me) where he
reaffirms his support of R Berkovits.
R Berkovits did circulate his proposal to several gdolim,including R Moshe
Feinstein.  R Feinstein wrote back that while he saw no halachic problem
with the proposal, he did not see the need for it. (I have seen the letter)
(I recall, although am not sure, that in the first go around of this,
someone contacted R Tendler, who essentially confirmed this).
(Parenthetically, this confirms another point, - many gdolim, including
someone as sensitive as R Feinstein, did not perceive the aguna issue to be
a crisis.  R Weinberg did.  Perhaps this reflected the different communities
that they primarily served.  However, I think that the different perception
of whether there is a crisis is perhaps at the heart of some of the more
strident aguna rhetoric - not if there is a rabbinic will there is a
rabbinic way, but if there is no perception of crisis, there is no need for
any change.  What change is possible is a different issue.  There seems to
be some movement at least in recognizing that there is a crisis.  )

Thus, the notion of kiddushin al tnai, at least according to some major
poskim, is intrinisically acceptable. We shall see whether this current
version gains more widespread acceptance.

Meir Shinnar,

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


[ 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         ]