Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 084

Wednesday, August 8 2001

• RE: real ROY and sophistication in halachah
• Re: real ROY and sophistication in halachah
• Re: Avodah V7 #81
• Re: Vort from Bnei Yissaschar
• Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and Misc.
• Re: Shelled eggs, and peeled garlic/onion left overnight
• mitzva kiyumis again
• Re: real ROY and sophistication in halachah
• Re: calling up an adopted child to the Torah
• Re: Avodah V7 #81
• RE: Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and Misc.
• Re: Avodah V7 #81
• Sun Moon, Light and Dark
• Re: mitzva kiyumis again
• Bava Kamma 9b-10a
• Re: Sun Moon, Light and Dark
• Mikve, Shitas Ba'al Hatanya
• Frumkeit
• Re: Sun Moon, Light and Dark
• Re: Sun Moon, Light and Dark
• Re: Sun Moon, Light and Dark
• 4 hours; that is, one third of the day
• Lower price for 3 vol. set of Responsa Bnei Banim
• Rav Schwab
• Re: Rav Schwab
• Yir'ah, Ahavah, Deveikus

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
> I agree with you in logic that the combination does not necessarily prevent
> a violation od das yehudis.  Yet most chassidishe poskim feel that since the
> hair is totally covered by the shaitel and the head looks covered by the
> hat, there is no requirement to cover further.  ROY says he is paskening
> like this large body of shut.

Did you actually check out whether ROY, who you reported to have cited 100
tshuvos on the subject, actually is relying on these chassidic tshuvos?
Certainly, the early tshuvos who banned sheitels (such as RY Emden) didn't
permit them with small hats.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>Did you actually check out whether ROY, who you reported to have cited 100
>tshuvos on the subject, actually is relying on these chassidic tshuvos?
>Certainly, the early tshuvos who banned sheitels (such as RY Emden) didn't
>permit them with small hats.

ROY claimed he is (and everyone else should be) paskening like the
overwhelming body of halachic literature on the subject, including the many,
many chassidshe poskim.  Therefore, he is paskening like that chassidishe
majority.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: "yosef stern" <avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com>
>According to astronomy there are 3 'end of twilight's': at 6, 12 and 18
>degrees respectively. The 6 deg. agrees fully with Shitas Hageonim. Shitas
>RT if you calculate it according to degrees its either 16.1 deg. or 19.8
>deg. neither of them concurring with astronomy. And if you calculate it
>according to xx minutes after sunset, it definitely doesn't agree with
>astronomy.

I just got a hold of the book. First of all, I made a mistake - it's not in 
the introduction, it's in the Breishis story (but it IS close to the 
intro!). Second of all, it was not the current Rebbe - it was his father. 

As the current Rebbe relates, his father, who spoke only yiddish, asked a 
friend of his by the name of Joseph Shubow, to "contact Professor Shipley, 
one of America's foremost astronomers at the Harvard Observatory, and ask 
him a simple question: When do astronomers declare it 'nighttime'? ... The 
good professor said that the question was an interesting one, and agreed to 
write Father a brief report on it. In his long letter to Father, Professor 
Shipley pointed out that several different definitions of twilight are 
commonly used for different purposes (civil twilight, nautical twilight, 
etc). Astronomical twilight is when 'no remnant of the sun's afterglow can 
be seen.' Operationally, that means it is daytime until the sky no longer 
incrementally darkens.... When does the depth of darkness stop changing? 
Once the sun drops 18 degrees below the horizon..... Professor Shipley sent 
Father a table showing when the sun was 18 degrees below the horizon in 
Boston throughout the year. Since the sun appears to make a 360-degree 
circuit every 24 hours, this 18 degrees correspond to 1.2 hours or 72 
minutes. Although values vary somewhat with season, location, etc., they 
are all within reasonable agreement with the 72 minutes usually attributed 
to Rabbeinu Tam. Father was particularly excited by Professor Shipley's 
overall rationale for his calculations, that 'light and day are 
synonymous.' This was also precisely the basis of Rabbeinu Tam's definition 
which was, in turn, based on the verse in the first chapter of Bereishis: 
'And Hashem called the light "day."'"

Eli

In a message dated 8/1/01 9:54:18pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Now if one works forty days backwards from the Creation on the
> twenty-fifth of [Elul], one arrives at Chamishah-Asar be'Av. 

In other places is brought that from the 20th of Av it is appropriate to wish 
a Ksiva Vachasima Tova as it 40 days prior to Rosh Hashana the day of Brias 
Odom, (that was one of the days of Korban Hoeitzim which has connection also 
to 15 of Av, Yom Tovar Magla).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

1. Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Someone quoted an unnamed sefer as stating
that most Rishonim agree with the Ramban that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a
mitzvah from the Torah, but see Bnei Banim, vol. 2  no. 42, that most
Rishonim disagree with the Ramban, and also vol. 3 nos. 30-31.  There are
those who have misread Pitchei Teshuvah in Even haEzer 75 par. 6 as stating
that all the poskim agree with the Ramban; what he wrote, however, is that
they disagree with Rabbeinu Chaim in Tosafot Ketuvot 110b who held that
there is no mitzvah of aliyah at all today, not even dirabanan (or kiyumit),
and not that they agree with the Ramban.

2. On the Satmar Rav's conditions for aliyah. Maharam Rottenberg, quoted  in
Sefer Tashbatz 559, states that sinning in Eretz Yisrael, "the King's
palace," is worse than sinning abroad, and that the basic mitzvah of aliyah
applies only if the person will observe all the mitzvot carefully there,
while those who are frivolous about observance would do best if they stayed
away. He cites Yirmiyahu 2:7, "vatavo'u vatitamu et artzi."  However, Yalkut
Shimoni 1038, based on Eichah Rabbah 3:7,  says the opposite: "the Kadosh
Baruch Hu declares,  would that My people were in the Land even if they
profane it (metam'im otah)," citing Yechezkel 36:17. The resolution of the
apparent contradiction is that Maharam Rottenberg refers to individuals
while the Midrash is referring to the Jewish people. In Maharam's time only
a handful of individuals lived there, and his statement applied, but today
most of those who identify themselves as Jews live in Israel, and the
Midrash's statement applies.

3. On what should be our attitude to a gadol who publicly denigrated other
gedolim, see Bnei Banim, vol. 2 no. 34.

4. On the meaning of the "anvatnut" of R. Zechariah b. Avkilus, Midrash
Eichah is an later and inferior source as compared to the Talmud. See,
however, Tosefta Shabbat 17:4,  "Bet Hillel says, one may remove bones and
peels from the table. Bet Shamai says, one moves the entire table and shakes
them off. R. Zechariah b. Avkilas didn't follow either ruling, but threw
them behind the bed (without putting any peels on the table, thus evading
the question). R. Yosi said, 'R. Zechariah b. Avki1us' humility (anvatnuto)
burnt the sanctuary." What does an argument over muktzah have to do with the
destruction of the Temple? R. Zechariah b. Avkilus declined to decide
between the opinions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai because he did not see
himself as worthy of doing so, and this characteristic indecision/modesty in
the case of Bar Kamtza led to the churban. See Equality Lost, chap. 12, "Why
was the Second Temple destroyed?" for an explanation of the entire sugya.
The book has just been reprinted by Urim Publications/Lambda Publishers.
Lambda in Boro Park also has a few sets of Resp. Bnei Banim.

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:00:00PM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: IMHO leaving onion/garlic exposed overnight could engender a redox
: reaction that could very well cause danger to health. Chazal knew what
: we in medicine are only now trying to understand.

I've read R'Dr JB use a similar approach WRT fish and meat as
well. Assuming Pesachim meant "psoriasis" when writing tzoara'as,
there is a medical connection. (And this is unlike the trichinosis
connection to banning pork, as in both cases, Chazal tell us this is
medical legislation.)

My difficulty is that these aren't the greatest medical threats in the
world. Using current methods, it's hard to show statistical correlation.
If Chazal had advanced medical knowledge and used it to create these
issurim, where's the ban on fats? We know they were aware of the problem,
they mention the health issues of the kohein gadol's high red-meat diet
(and walking on cold marble floors).

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
<snip>
> The truth is, though, that we're probably being caught up in a "Le'ah
> senu'ah" issue. It's common in learning to make an absolute statement
> when a relative one is intended. Le'ah was only less loved, not hated.
> And perhaps "no sechar" means something similar.
<snip>

I agree with your point. I just would say that in this context Snu''ah means 
"rejected" more than it does hated.  Same with the  Ha'Achas Snuah in Ki 
Setze. 

Also see my earlier post re: the Chachmas Adam and the hierarchy of tzidjus 
and rish'us.

R. Maurice Lamm once lectured that the Rasha son at the seder was a "lovable" 
Rasha.  IOW, any Rasha willing to attend and particpiate at the seder was not 
the same kind of Rasha like Haman, etc.    The distinction between Reshaim is 
also confirmed by the aforementioned Chachmas Adam {sorry I do not know his 
source}

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe

>Unless you specifically accept my chiddush, why is this necessarily true?

Which chiddush?

>If a sheitel violates das yehudis and a hat partially covering the head
>violates das yehudis, why does the combination of the two not violate das
>yehudis?

I agree with you in logic that the combination does not necessarily prevent
a violation od das yehudis.  Yet most chassidishe poskim feel that since the
hair is totally covered by the shaitel and the head looks covered by the
hat, there is no requirement to cover further.  ROY says he is paskening
like this large body of shut.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 04:38:55PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I recall seeing from the Chasam Sofer z'l that an adopted child is called
: up to the torah 'ben his adoptive father'.

When the child is a ger katan, this appears to be lechol hadei'os.

Otherwise, some recommend appending "hammegadlo" after the father's name,
so as to remind any possible shadchanim to watch out for setting the
child up with a halachic sibling.

Our posek does not.

Which brings me to the observation that this doesn't really prove that
adoption is halachically recognized. What it proves is that "ben" refers
to a mechaneich, not just a father. Which is why, as the famous Rashi
says, "Eileh toledos Mosheh ve'Aharon" can include Moshe as the av of
Aharon's children.

Note that in inyanim in which a rebbe is different than a father -- e.g.
the issue we just raised of mamzeirus, or of mekaleil aviv vi'imo -- an
adoptive parent is closer to the mechaneich than the parent.

What we really see is that the educating role of parenting was defined
quite functionally, and therefore the line between it and a rebbe-talmid
relationship is blurry. This is the ikkar when people are looking to
adopt a child anyway. However, on any issue for which a mechaneich isn't
"almost a parent", adoption has no impact either.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 8/6/2001 11:31:38am EDT, linaseli@netvision.net.il writes:
> Father was particularly excited by Professor Shipley's overall rationale
> for his calculations, that 'light and day are synonymous.' This was also
> precisely the basis of Rabbeinu Tam's definition ...

FWIW: 
See also Breishis 1:18. The passuk is a bit puzzling in that the Sun
and the Moon distinguish light and dark and not just day and night.
Maybe this is a partial teirutz.

Ramban and others wrestle with this issue.
 
Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe

From: Rabbi Y.H.Henkin [mailto:henkin@012.net.il]
> Lambda [Publishers] in Boro Park also has a few sets of Resp. Bnei Banim.

For those who are interested, the 3 vol. set costs $90 (plus shipping).
Tel. no. 718-972-5449.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:51:54AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: See also Breishis 1:18. The passuk is a bit puzzling in that the Sun
: and the Moon distinguish light and dark and not just day and night.

This pasuk is altogether shver. The moon isn't out at night any more often
than during the day. "Limemsheles" can't be taken to mean that they
define or distinguish day and night. Merely that the moon provides light
only at night (when it's out) and the sun only during the day.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 8/6/2001 12:26:46pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> This pasuk is altogether shver. The moon isn't out at night any more often
> than during the day. "Limemsheles" can't be taken to mean that they
> define or distinguish day and night. Merely that the moon provides light
> only at night (when it's out) and the sun only during the day.

Memsheless is simple. The movements of the Sun GOVERN the day similar to the 
movement of ht moon at night. That is because the PRIMARY purpose of the 
meoros is as TIME pieces and NOT as light sources!

So the first part of the passuk is easy to understand -- at least for me
The governing of the TIME is by the luminaries.
What is a bit fuzzier {duskier? is the governing of darkness and light by the 
luminaries

Obvious: the Sun and the Moon are astronomical objects dictating astronomical 
phenomena - as in time, seasons, day night, etc.

Fuzzy: the luminaries govern meteorological phenomena as light and dark.  
What about an eclipse? Cloudy vs. Clear? Etc.  Not to mention dusk and 
twilight.

It takes lamdus to equate day =  light etc. in terms of the physical objects 
of Sun and Moon.

KT
Rich Wolpoe

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:08:10 RabbiRichWolpoe wrote:
<I just would say that in this context Snu''ah means "rejected" more
than it does hated. Same with the Ha'Achas Snuah in Ki Setze.>

Does not the Gemara say that the Senuah in Ki Tatzay was "Senuah
B'Nisu-eha" i.e., that her "marriage" was the object of hate, and although
it may have been against Halacha, yet it was effective enough to give
its Bechor Pi Shnayim ? Unless you mean simply that anything we don't
like is deemed rejected.

Stuart Goldstein

[This was originally sent as private email. However, I obtained reshus
to share it with the chevrah. Please CC the author, Art Werschulz
<agw@cs.columbia.edu>, on any replies. -mi

Hi again.

(This strikes me as something that might be up your alley.)

On Bava Kamma 9b-10a, there is a baraita discussing leniencies and
stringencies associated with various damagers (ox, pit, fire).  Let us
write X>Y to mean that X is more stringent than Y; the original
language would be "chomer b'X mi'Y".  It appears that ">" is a
transitive relation, i.e., from X>Y and Y>Z, one can derive X>Z.  Of
course, ">" is not a partial ordering, since it's not antisymmetric,
i.e., X>Y & Y>X does not necessarily imply X=Y.

The baraita then explains the following:
  ox > pit && pit > ox
  ox > fire && fire > ox
  fire > pit && pit > fire
That is, the baraita states these relations X>Y, giving one or more
stringencies pertaining to X that don't pertain to Y.

It would be more economical to establish
  ox > fire  && fire > ox
  fire > pit && pit > fire
In that case, one would immediately have
  ox > pit && pit > ox
by transitivity, without having to go into the details.

Do you know (or have a theory) as to why this baraita wasn't
originally composed in the more economical way?  After all, the Oral
Law is famous for its overall terseness, if for no other reason than
making it easier to memorize.  Anything that would reduce the memory
load required would've been welcome, especially before the Oral Law
took on a written form.

Thanks.

-- 
Art Werschulz (8-{)}   "Metaphors be with you."  -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y? 
Internet: agw@cs.columbia.edu<a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet:   Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:38:56PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Memsheless is simple. The movements of the Sun GOVERN the day similar to the 
: movement of ht moon at night. That is because the PRIMARY purpose of the 
: meoros is as TIME pieces and NOT as light sources!

But the moon as a time piece measures months, not nights. So what's
"limemsheles halaylah"?

That was my whole question.

I therefore suggested that "limemsheles" referred to being the primary
source of light -- which the moon only does at night. Even if not every
night nor the entire night (except on the 15th of the month or so).

IOW, "limemsheles" isn't that it rules every night, but that it dominates
only at night. This doesn't really fit "halaylah" (1:16), as opposed to
"balaylah" (1:18), which is why I think the pasuk remains shver.

-mi

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Apropos of an Areivim discussion that a mikva built to shitas ba'al
> haTanya would cause halachic problems, I'd be interested to know the
> specifics...

AFAIK it is not the Baal Hatanya but the Rebbe Reshab z'l.

SBA

The Alei Shur in vol. 2 (I used to have a copy under separate cover called 
Kuntres Hadrracha l'Limud Mussar but have lost it and do not possess the AS 
vol. 2, so I am writing from memory) has a fundamental chapter in 
opposition to "frumkeit", which in Kelm was identified with the natural 
drive and tendency for religious fervor. It is not based on a true 
perception of Ratzon and Avodas Hashem , but is inherently an egotistical 
and self serving drive.

Obviously when used sociologically, as it was recently in the Areivim 
thread, it may or may not have those same pejorative implications depending 
on who uses the term.

In a recent conversation, someone noted to me that Sartre explains 
anti-semitism as an anti-intellectual drive, and perhaps one can relate 
misplaced kano'us to that drive as well, and both to the same misdirected 
fervor that is at the core of the frumkeit that Rav Wolbe identifies as a 
negative.

V'yesh l'ayain.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 8/7/2001 8:32:09am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> But the moon as a time piece measures months, not nights. So what's
> "limemsheles halaylah"?
...
> IOW, "limemsheles" isn't that it rules every night, but that it dominates
> only at night. This doesn't really fit "halaylah" (1:16), as opposed to
> "balaylah" (1:18), which is why I think the pasuk remains shver.

I would say thusly he moon rules the night but not darkness.

IOW, Moonrise is a part of the nighttime cycle, just like the rise of the
Sun makes it morning. Sunrise makes it morning even if the Sun were dark,
eclipsed or cloudy.

The Ramban explains thusly
The Sun governs the hot and dry
The Moon governs the damp and cool.  Did he mean the tides? I don't know

Kol Tuv
Rich 

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 02:33:18PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: IOW, Moonrise is a part of the nighttime cycle, just like the rise of the
: Sun makes it morning. Sunrise makes it morning even if the Sun were dark,
: eclipsed or cloudy.

But moonrise occurs at any time. On the molad, it occurs at sunrise. On
the 15th (or so) it occurs at sunset. It drifts appx 2/59th's of a day
each day of the month, covering all parts of the day equally.

My question had nothing to do with eclipses.

: The Ramban explains thusly
: The Sun governs the hot and dry
: The Moon governs the damp and cool.  Did he mean the tides? I don't know

My guess: He's discussing the four elements:
    air: moist, hot
    water: moist, cold
    earth: dry, cold
    fire: hot, dry

I therefore take the Ramban to mean that the sun is therefore primarily
eish, the moon primarily mayim, and each influences different aspects
of ru'ach and aretz.

Sefer haYetzirah only discusses three elements, saying that shamayim
is primarily eish and aretz primarily mayim. But I know even less of
what I'm talking about here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 8/7/2001 5:43:41pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I therefore take the Ramban to mean that the sun is therefore primarily
> eish, the moon primarily mayim, and each influences different aspects
> of ru'ach and aretz.

This might be a fact but it is irrelevant to the context of Breishis 1:18.  

The issue is that the Sun/Moon are time indicators first and luminaries 
second and the piece out light and dark is an issue many meforshim struggle 
with.  The idea of yom valaylo is pashut since the two great luminaries each 
have their gvul by day and night.

KT
Rich Wolpoe  

The halacha (in Rambam, Hilchos Tefilla 3:1; Sh.Ar. 89:1, etc.) is that
one can daven shacharis "until four hours, that is, one-third of the day."

The obvious question, to me, is: why the extra phrase? We know that
'hours' are proportional hours, right? (After all, this is lifted right
from the first sentence of the Mishna at Perek Daled at Brachos 26a).
Or is it simply the case that Rambam, et al, simply wanted to make sure
that the reader would understand that 'hours' meant proportional hours?
(I've also been told that the Kesef Mishna talks about this).

Another question of mine: does the fact that the Rabbanan hold that
shacharis is until chatzos (at that Mishna), even though it is not the
halacha we follow, have any present halachic significance? It seems as
though the Taz (at 89:1) might be alluding to that, but my Hebrew isn't
good enough to fully understand him there. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advance,
Eric

Lambda Publishers is now selling it for $75.  Tel. no. 718-972-5449.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

A few more short thoughts from Rav Schwab on Tefila:

1. The concept that the universe continuously expanded until HKB"H
said "dai" fits in with what astronomers currently see as an expanding
universe. The implication is that we have not yet seen the effects of the
"dai".

2. Ezras avoseinu uses the female version of the word, ezra, rather
than ezer. The implication is that the avos did not rely completely on
HKB"H's help, but had their own zechuyos, tefilos, etc. The word for a
wife, however, is ezer kenegdo, implying full partnership.

3. Ashrei ish sheyishma lemitzvosecha: future tense, referring to baalei
teshuva who plan to do mitzvos in the future even if they haven't in
the past.

4. Mimitzraim ge'altonu is a kiyum of chayav adam lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu
hu yatza mimitzraim. The editor notes the chidush that this chiyuv of
leil Pesach applies to every day as well.

5. Podeinu umatzileinu mei'olam Shemecha ein Elokim Zulasecha: an "unused
and unrecognized opportunity to earn everlasting life in Olam Haba by
saying these words with the proper kavana". He cites a story wherein a
group of Jews being taken to be killed by the Nazis ym'sh were told to
say these words as their last.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 09:48:41AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: A few more short thoughts from Rav Schwab on Tefila:
...
: 3. Ashrei ish sheyishma lemitzvosecha: future tense, referring to baalei
: teshuva who plan to do mitzvos in the future even if they haven't in
: the past.

Another possibility, or maybe just a variant.

In Existentialism, they don't speak about what people /are/, they speak
in the dynamic. "Becoming, not being" was the sound-bite that stuck in
my head.

I saw this as a model for "lo alecha hamlachah ligmor". Man's task
isn't to /be/ a good Jew or ben Noach, but to be constantly in a state
of becoming one.

Ties in well to the next chiddush:
: 4. Mimitzraim ge'altonu is a kiyum of chayav adam lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu
: hu yatza mimitzraim. The editor notes the chidush that this chiyuv of
: leil Pesach applies to every day as well.

On a different note, this only works if you hold by the lashon "lir'os
es atzmo". The Rambam's "lehar'os es atzmo" explicitly refers to the
reenactments of the seder.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

I thought this was particularly on-topic.

-mi

: Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
: Edited by Shlomo Katz <skatz@torah.org>

: There are three verses in this week's parashah that command us to emulate
: Hashem's ways. This means, say Chazal, that just as He is merciful,
: so we should be merciful, just as He is giving, we should be giving,
: and so on with respect to all other attributes.

: The first of the three verses places emulating Hashem's ways before
: fearing Him: "You shall observe the commandments of Hashem, your G-d,
: to go in his ways and fear Him" (8:6). The second verse places following
: in His ways between fearing Him and loving Him: "Now, Yisrael, what
: does Hashem, your G-d, ask of you? Only to fear Hashem, your G-d, to go
: in His ways and to love Him" (10:12). Finally, the third verse places
: emulating Hashem after loving Him and before cleaving to Him: "For if
: you observe this entire commandment that I command you, to perform it,
: to love Hashem, your G-d, to walk in all His ways and to cleave to Him"
: (11:22). R' Yisrael Meir Hakohen z"l (the "Chafetz Chaim"; died 1933)
: explains:

: There are three levels in serving Hashem: yirah / fear, ahavah / love,
: and deveikut / cleaving or attachment. Emulating Hashem is a prerequisite
: for achieving each of these levels. First one must emulate Hashem, then he
: will learn to fear Him. Next one must emulate Hashem on a higher level,
: then he will learn to love Him. Finally, one must emulate Hashem on a
: still higher level, and then he will cleave to Him. (Quoted in Otzrot
: Tzaddikei U'geonei Ha'dorot)

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


[ 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         ]