Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 145

Monday, March 5 2001

• Amaleik
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74
• Re: back to the books
• Re: Kuzari and Hashgachah

> The lesson of the Navi is the dvar Hashem should  be fufilled k'pshuto
> without coming up with a kuntz to fufill your own  cheshbonos alongside.

My wife had the follwoing additional he'ora - 

R' Chaim Shmulevitz writes that the shoresh of Amalek is a bilbul of tov 
v'ra. We see this in the behavior of Elifaz, Amalek's father.  The Midrash 
says he faced an ethical quandry when sent by his father to pursue Ya'akov - 
on the one hand kibbud av said he should kill Ya'akov, OTOH he knew murder 
was wrong.  He was able to solve the dilemma by taking Ya'akov's money.  
However, it is a misguided ethic which sets up the dilemma to begin with - 
one should realize the imperitive of not killing outweighs one's parental 
obligation.  Pshat in Amalek is a sense of balance between values is lost and 
irbuvia results.   

Shaul; was unable to defeat Amalek because he fell prey to the same sense of 
irbuvia in his value system.  He knew the tzivuy of the Navi to eradicarte 
Amalek, but he sought to balance that againt his own ethical standard of 
respecting the people's wishes and saving animals for korbanos.  The result 
was an irbuvia of the ethic of the Navi with his personal concerns.

From: Markowitz, Chaim <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
> So in our case of mishloach manos-one could ask what is hanooh
> accomplishing? If it is just a gemiras daas idea so you wouldn't be yotzei
> mishloach manos. However, if we view it as actual kesef then maybe we can
> understand the PT. The PT could hold that the mitzvah is mdin seudah but you
> only have to ensure the person has the ability to buy food. (Acc. to htis
> actual kesef should work to-not sure if he holds that). Therefore, since
> hano'oh is viewed as actual money, we look at it as if the Odom Chashuv gave
> the person money and he now in theory has the ability to buy food for
> himself. (As I'm writing this I realize it sounds dochuk). 

Since you sensed that your "Brisker" chakirah is dachuk, you won't mind if I
speculate why it's dachuk.

I'm guessing that pshat in the Ritva is that when one is mekadesh with the
hana'a of agreeing to be married, one is not merely accomplishing gmiras
daas but is actually transferring something valuable--hana'a.  Now you can't
use this hana'a to make purchases in a store, but it's still something of
value--ie, it's not kesef but shaveh kesef.

When it comes to mishloach manos, one must receive either food, or
perhaps--as you've said--money is good enough *because* you can buy food
with it.  But you can't buy food with hana'a!

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Chaim Telzer - yesh lachkor by the case of hana'as kabbalas matanah, is 
the han'ah the sibas hakidushin, or is the hana'ah a siman that enough 
gemiras da'as took place for a chalos kinyan?  If the latter, one could argue 
that by kiddushin is a halacha in kinyan, which depends on gemiras da'as, but 
m.m. necessitates a real nesina.

I want to retract being toleh this in the machlokes manos halevi and terumas 
hadeshen - I don't think that is correct.  Acc. to the Rama you are yotzei 
m.m. if the mekabeil is moichel, clearly assuming it is a din in reyus (see 
Chasam Sofer 196), not seudah - if you are yotzei with mechila, kol shekain 
with actual hana'ah (and it is not mestaber to say the P.T.'s safek simply 
boils down to whether we pasken like the Rama or not).  

Rather, mechila=k'ilu hiskabalti, not just a siluk, but k'ilu there was a 
transfer of the actual food.  Hana'ah was *caused* by the food, but it is not 
as if food itself was transferred.  I think that distinction is closer to a 
R' Shimon teirutz.

On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 07:55:05AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: It's actually a commonplace in medieval philosophy (attributed to
: Aristotle, but i don't know enough Greek philosophy to confirm that). 
: See Guide I:68. H. Yesodei hatorah 2:10

Yichud hayodei'a vihayadu'a is neo-Platonic. (BTW, if you ever heard
the old chestnut about whether a thought about a unicorn is a real
thought, this is where it's from. Does the fictional nature  of the yadu'ah
change the nature of the yedi'ah?)

However, Averros (an Islamic Aristotilian) mis-attributed some of
Plotinus's (neo-Platonic) work to Aristotle. He and Avecina (sp?) were
the apparantly the Rambam's sources for Aristo, so there are some
neo-Platonisms in the Moreh.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I wrote:
> This, of course, implies that: hashgachah is not absolute because one can 
> die through mikreh.

Upon rereading the Rashbatz in Magen Avos (5:25 sv. Ben shemonim), I see 
that when he quoted the Kuzari about death due to mikreh, he attributed it 
to "peshiah veroa hahanhagah".

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]