Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 099

Thursday, September 13 2001

• Re: Rambam's ikkarim
• OK, Let's Get Lomdish Again
• Re: OK, Let's Get Lomdish Again
• Re: OK, Let's Get Lomdish Again
• What is Emunah
• Re: RE: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Re: OK, Let's Get Lomdish Again
• Re: What is Emunah
• Sechar v'Onesh
• shviis and chassidus
• Esrogei Shmitta
• Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Agunah?
• Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Haben yaqir li Ephraim
• Re: Haben yaqir li Ephraim
• Re: Haben yaqir li Ephraim
• RE: Agunah?
• Re: Lubavitch Philosophy

I wrote:
>...Marc Shapiro showed that in the medieval times the Rambam's ikkarim were 
>disputed."

Levi Reisman wrote:
>WADR, it appears that the status only two of the Rambam's ikkarim were 
>disputed, those of haShem's lack of physical form (by the Ravad in his 
>notes to the Mishna Torah) and of Moshiach (by the Sefer Ikkarim). The 
>others, as far as I know, are not in dispute, at least by authorities of 
>the Ramam's era. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I reread the article yesterday.  Here are my thoughts.  Overall, I found 
that Shapiro proved his point that there were those who did not follow 
Rambam's ikkarim exactly.  Most, but not all, of his examples were pretty 
close to Rambam's ikkar but slightly deviant.  Which is why RYGB said that 
he thought that Shapiro proved the antithesis of his point.  IMHO I think 
that Shapiro's point remains.  Even if someone disagreed slightly with an 
ikkar, he still disagreed.  What that tells me is that while today's 
normative ikkarim are not replicas of the Rambam's exact words, they are 
based on them.

However, I think that Shapiro went overboard on a number of issues in order 
to try to maximize the disagreement with Rambam's ikkarim.

As to Levi Reisman's suggestion, the Raavad did not dispute the ikkar of 
Divine incorporeality, only that it was an ikkar.  There is really very 
little information on how many people believed in the corporeality of 
Hashem.  Shapiro quotes two scholarly opinions on this.  I think Harry 
Wolfson thought it was not prevalent.  Shapiro tries to prove that it was.

In regard to Creation Ex Nihilo (Beriah yesh me'ayin), all he really has 
from the mainstream is a debatable Ibn Ezra.  Ralbag himself says that he 
believes in beriah yesh me'ayin, albeit in a different way than Rambam.  
However, I did not even realize that this was an ikkar.  It is only in the 
Kaffih translation of the Peirush HaMishnayos.  Does anyone know the story 
behind that?  If it is an ikkar, then there is a glaring stirah between this 
and Moreh Nevuchim 2:25 (which Shapiro pointed out).

Shapiro also points out something we already know.  There are some mekoros 
within Chazal about using intermediaries to reach Hashem.

With regard to prophecy, all Shapiro has is a machlokes over whether 
Mashiach will be a greater prophet than Moshe.

With regard to Torah MiSinai, you can almost sense the glee in which Shapiro 
goes into detail about the debates over the Masoretic text.

For the ninth ikkar, that the Torah will never be abrogated, Shapiro quotes 
the Sefer HaIkkarim who says that, in theory, it can be abrogated however in 
practice it will not.  You call that disagreeing?

The tenth ikkar is that Hashem knows man's actions.  Again, he has a 
debatable Ibn Ezra.  Ralbag also, when read in conjunction with his Peirush 
on Tanach, can be understood as not disagreeing.  Charles Manekin has an 
excellent article on this.  Shapiro also quotes an Or HaChaim which I don't 
see as disagreeing.

With regard to reward and punishment, Shapiro advances the shaky argument 
that Rambam does not believe in reward and punishment.  I don't think he has 
a leg on which to stand (yes, I've read Kellner's treatment of the subject), 
particularly considering that Rambam wrote these ikkarim.  If you define 
reward and punishment narrowly enough then you can say that.  However, what 
would prompt us to do that?

The Sefer HaIkkarim did not dispute mashiach, as Shapiro correctly noted.  
The Sefer HaIkkarim only said that if one would accidentally believe that 
there is no mashiach then one would believe in heresy but not be a heretic.

Gil Student

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
 
> So, Rabbosai, there are many diyyukim to be made in the Rashi's on the 
> Mishna, as I am, sure you have all noticed over the years.
 
> Nu, let's try this Rashi: V'kona es atzma: "Lee'heyos b'reshusa l'hinosei 
> l'acher." Why are the two statements in Rashi not redundant?

Micha, of course, gets metaphysical.  I wonder if it's simpler than that?

The first clause refers to her assumption of responsibility for her own
support, the second to the ability to remarry - which don't occur at the
same time.  Responsibility for upkeep changes at the termination of the
marriage, ability to remarry doesn't kick in for at least 3 months (to
settle paternity questions), and may be limited at the husband's death
by yibum/chalitzah requirements.

We could go with the famous Ran in Nedarim and explain that a woman is
in her own reshus in order to be mevatel that reshus so that a man can
come and be koneh her.

Gil Student

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> Nu, let's try this Rashi: V'kona es atzma: "Lee'heyos b'reshusa l'hinosei
> l'acher." Why are the two statements in Rashi not redundant?

The first clause refers to eishus, the second to issur - Rashi, here,
seems to indicate that issur follows the kinyan eishus, not the other
way around.

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 07:35:02PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: It would seem that to Chazal, the word connotated a different set of
: ideas than it does today. Not whether a person trusts certain truths,
: but whether that person can himself be trusted.

I heard a taped shiur from R. Uziel Milevsky z"l (a Rav involved in
kiruv in Mexico and Toronto) that the meaning of the word Emunah in
Tanach and Chazal means faithfulness and trustworthiness, not belief --
and "emunah sh'leima" in the phrase "Ani ma'amin b'emunah sh'leima"
connotes "complete commitment" to the belief. He said that it is the
rare individual who "believes completely" without any doubts whatsoever.

CVCT
Avrohom Weidberg

>                               ... to answer his query, which was really
> why I am not a Chabad Chosid, I repleid: "Because I do not accept the
> doctrines of 'Yechida Kelolis' and 'Bittul.'"

Which is to say, I think, that RYGB does not accept Chabad's charismaticism, 
without which the current messianic rapture over R'Schneerson could not have 
stirred itself into being. 

David Finch

>Nu, let's try this Rashi: V'kona es atzma: "Lee'heyos b'reshusa l'hinosei
>l'acher." Why are the two statements in Rashi not redundant?

All the answers given were pretty good, but they were not mine!

(Sorry that I will not take the time to sort them by derech!)

Mine was based on a cross-reference from a Rogatchover to the last Tosafos 
and his machlokes with Rashi in Gittin 85a, where it is evident that there 
is at least a possibility that a husband can be meshayer the rights of 
nisu'in while being megaresh the rights of kiddushin - Rashi here comes to 
tell us that under normal circumstances the get severs both the kiddushin 
(the reisha of Rashi) and the nisu'in (his seifah).

Nu  Rabbosai, I am sure many of you have more to say on the use of 
"V'omeir" vs. v'omar" and the use of "zu" in the next, the first long and 
famous Rashi. Nu, lomir herren! If you have something good, I will bl"n 
quote you in shiur!

KT,
YGB

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

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 07:35:02PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>: It would seem that to Chazal, the word connotated a different set of
>: ideas than it does today. Not whether a person trusts certain truths,
>: but whether that person can himself be trusted.

Edward Weidberg <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com> wrote:
> I heard a taped shiur from R. Uziel Milevsky z"l (a Rav involved in
> kiruv in Mexico and Toronto) that the meaning of the word Emunah in
> Tanach and Chazal means faithfulness and trustworthiness, not belief --
> and "emunah sh'leima" in the phrase "Ani ma'amin b'emunah sh'leima"
> connotes "complete commitment" to the belief. He said that it is the
> rare individual who "believes completely" without any doubts whatsoever.

Faith and disbelief are opposite ends of the belief spectrum. Doubt is
that niggling middle ground which has a spectrum of it's own. It has
always bothered me that matters of faith that are so important to Judaism
are so subject to doubt. Logic would dictate that G-d would require that
belief be pure without any doubt whatsoever. Imperfect belief suggests a
flaw in our relationship with G-d and raises the question as to whther one
can be a Jew in good standing with G-d unless he is a pure beleiver. But
the human mind cannot but help being honest with itself and is subject
to the vagaries of rational thought. Rational thought can only deal with
sensory perceptions and reasoning by deduction or induction. God cannot
be perceived with any of the 5 senses. Without proof of the fact of G-d
one cannot help having doubt. So is such a person an Apikores? Where
does one cross the line between acceptable doubt and unacceptable doubt?
Is there anyone who can say that he has a total absense of doubt? Is
it perhaps as R. Uziel Milevsky z"l says that it is not about pure
belief... that it is about "complete commitment" to belief?

Can one be an Agnostic and be a Jew in good standing with G-d, if he
srupulously practices all of the Mitzvos in the Torah? If the answer is
yes, then what is the meaning of L'Shma for such an individual?

HM

The Ramban tells us that Vayikra 27:26 ("Arur asher lo yakim es divrei
hatorah hazos l'asos osam ...") is teaching us that we must view the
Torah as being true and that we must believe that those who keep its
mitzvos are rewarded, while those who violate it are punished.

Rabbeinu Bachya seems to parallel the Ramban to some extent, but leaves
off belief in sechar v'onesh.

1) Why does the Ramban think belief in reward and punishment is essential?

2)Would Rabbeinu Bachya disagree - or, is he only disagreeing as to the
peshat in this pasuk?

David Hojda

RCS>any yivul shviis (including heter mechira and land of goyim - and
> I doubt there are any Arabs growing esrogim) is assur to take out of
> Eretz Yisrael

The issur is only what is kodosh with kedushas shviis. So if heter
mechira works, even bdieved, then it would be permitted to be exported.

According to the Bais Yosef, also called minhag Yerushalayim, Arab
produce is not kodosh.

This is according to everyone(as previously qualified). There is much
discussion in Acharonim to permit the export of esrogim that DO have
kdushas shviis.

Shlomo Goldstein

PS What is Chagas Chassidus?

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Finally, for those of you in chutz la'aretz where are you getting
> esrogim this year? ...

Our Shul's Esrog soicher usually imports Israeli esrogim (B'datz EH Hashgocho)
but because of shmitta our Rov has instructed him to get Italians

SBA

I'm entering this discussion in the middle without having seen the
beginning, but I was so pleased that someone supplied sources that I
thought I'd respond. Two points come up immediately:

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote (citing his "impeccable
source" BTW in this context "impeccable" is an unfortunate term, check
the nearest latin dictionary):

>Likewise re bitul to tzadik etc. - that is straightforward halochoh
>relating to kovod rabbo, with all the details of hameharher acharei rabbo
>etc.

Rabbi B himself:
> The po'al yotzei of Bittul is that it is extremely difficult, if not
> outright impossible, to contradict or dispute statements of a Rebbe.

Me:

But of course al pi halacha one is permitted to disagree with one's rebbe, see
Rama on YD 242:3, Hochmath Adam 104:1, Aruch HaShulhan 242:23.  I don't own a
Shulhan Arukh HaRav but perhaps someone will report his opinion.

>  More specifically see Zohar II:47a,

I'm focusing on this since it is the clearest of the sources I checked.
It reads (my free translation):

    The shpherd of the nation is precisely the entire nation; if he is worthy
    the entire nation is worthy, and if he is unworthy the entire nation is
    unworthy and they are punished because of him.

[worthy for zachei the aramaic of zocheh]

R. Moshe Cordovero in Or Yaqar ad. loc. (cited in slightly abbreviated
form in Or HaHamma) comments:

    The shepherd is the mirror which includes all the souls of the
    nation, and when the mirror shines, as Moshe Rabbeinu's soul did,
    the souls which are included in it shine brightly, and all of them
    repair themselves through the chesed they receive from the outpouring
    of his soul. If the mirror is dark, for example, if the shepherd
    is inappropriate [bilti hagun], they are all punished because their
    souls are dark, since they appear in a dark mirror. If they, in fact,
    had been worthy one of two things would happen: either the shepherd
    would die or he would improve himself because of them.

    God appointed each generation and its leaders, and because this
    generation was unworthy its leader is also unworthy, and everything
    is just.

Me again:
First, I don't understand how this can relate to contemporary Chabad,
since the Ramaq's comments make it clear that one loses one's status
as shepherd upon dying. Second the Ramaq's comments leave open the
possibility of multiple shepherds in a generation, which has certainly
been true in the lifetimes of everyone on this list.

David Riceman

See Even HaEzer 17:29-35

Discussion?

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>The doctrine of yechida kelolis exists in many Kabbalistic and Chassidic
>systems of thought. Its axiom is that the neshamos of certain individuals
>are connected to On High via the pipeline that run through other,
>higher placed, individuals. This takes place on various levels, with

In the Toras HaBaal Shem Tov, the concept of the Tzaddik HaDor, being the 
Tzinur through which all Hashpaas come into this world. (The idea is taught 
with regards to Rebbe Chaninah Ben Dosa who the talmud says the whole world 
received sustenance because of him.)

>which means Connection. In Lubavitch, it is axiomatic that there is one
>Yechida Kelolis - individual in each generation, that is the Grand or

This is ONLY a Lubavitch thing. Dynasties are late in chassidus, especial 
in Poland.

>Bittul is, indeed, to the best of my understanding, a po'al yotzei of
>yechida kelolis: Since one must be mevattel one's ratzon to HKB"H, and
>since the Rebbe is the representative of HKB"H here Below, the extension
>of Bittul to HKB"H is Bitul to the Rebbe. If I understand correctly, there
>is inherent in this principle a form of the Emunah Peshutah espoused by
>Chassidus in general, directed concurrently and congruently to the Rebbe.

This idea of 'bittul' to a Tzaddik is NOT a yesod of chassidus, but 
something that is common in Russian chasidim. Many other chassidim (and 
Rebbes) would dismiss this idea. (It is also hard to support from the 
writings and letters of the Alter Rebbe especially in light of the Tekunos 
Liozna.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman

I woke up with this pasuk stuck in my head. As I do not believe that I
am zocheh to visits from Maggidim, I tried to figure out why my
subconcious was fixated on that pasuk. Then it hit me -- simple taitch
of the words!

Tosafos associate Efraim with Avraham and Yitzchak, who said be'anavah,
"anochi afar va'eifer" -- Efraim is lashon keifel.

The words can be translated as: My beloved son is two mounds of ashes.

May we be zocheh in the upcoming year to see a fulfillment of the
seifah of the pasuk, "zachor ezkirenu od"!

-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

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 10:30:04AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: R' YBS pointed out that this pasuk makes clear that zchirah doesn't
: simply mean remembering since it wouldn't make sense to say that "when
: I speak of him I remember" since remembering would precede speech.
: Rather the remembering here is one of action based on remembering ...

I reached the same maskanah a different way.

First, ein shichechah lifnei kisei kevodecha. So of course HKBH always
remembers everything. Besides, He is lima'alah min hazeman -- there is
no separation for Hashem between now and the event itself. He experienced
no interval in which He could forget.

Second, the philosophical rishonim (including R' Saadia Gaon and the Rambam)
note that Hashem has no properties, only Essence. Adjectives are either
descriptions of what Hashem isn't, or descriptions of how He relates to
us.

Therefore, "zechirah" can only be in the latter class: Hashem acting in
a manner similar to the actions of a person who is remembering.

-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 Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:12:13am EDT, Micha Berger
<micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> May we be zocheh in the upcoming year to see a fulfillment of the
> seifah of the pasuk, "zachor ezkirenu od"!

R' YBS pointed out that this pasuk makes clear that zchirah doesn't
simply mean remembering since it wouldn't make sense to say that "when
I speak of him I remember" since remembering would precede speech.
Rather the remembering hear is one of action based on remembering -
thus your request for seeing the fufillment is well taken. May our own
zchirah based actions speed the beat goel tzedek

KVCT
Joel

On Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:33 PM, Yitzchok Willroth 
<willroth@jersey.net> wrote:
> See Even HaEzer 17:29-35
> Discussion?

May I suggest we table this discussion for now? As it is there is an
incredible volume of misinformation being passed around as fact. The
last thing we need is to contribute to the problem, particularly in
areas of halachah.

L'chol hapachos, please keep these discussions off-list.

KT
SK

In a message dated 9/13/01 10:01:53am EDT, mshulman@ix.netcom.com writes:
>> which means Connection. In Lubavitch, it is axiomatic that there is one
>> Yechida Kelolis - individual in each generation, that is the Grand or

> This is ONLY a Lubavitch thing. 

This whole issue was discussed at lentgh once before and can be found in the 
archives, I enclose part of an earlier response I gave, in V 02 # 112, dated, 
Wednesday, January 6 1999

...Just to add another source to clarify this idea, from the Ohr Torah of the 
Maggid, in Parshas Noach."....in order to understand this we will preface 
what it says in the Zohar on the Possuk Dor Holeich V'dor Boh, that there is 
no generation that doesn't have in it a Tzadik like Moshe RO"H, meaning to 
say that Moshe was Kollul from the entire generation which is 600,000, as the 
RaZaL said one women gave birth to 600,000 in one Keres, and therfore it says 
Dor Holeich V'dor Boh and it does not say Dor Holchim (in the plural YZ) 
Vchulu, because this refers to theTzadik thats is in the Dor and as the RaZaL 
said before the sunset (of one tzadik there was the sunrise of the next 
Tzadik YZ), as it says V'tzadik Yesod Olom.And see Rashi Bamidbar 21:21.

Ksiva Vachasima Tova,
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]