Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 122

Thursday, March 7 2002

• keruv
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Fwd: Re: Toras Purim 5762 III - He'oros Chochom Echod
• Fwd: Re: Toras Purim 5762 - He'oros Chochom Echod
• Re: Fwd: Re: Toras Purim 5762 - He'oros Chochom Echod
• Re: Work in Progress, from Purim onto Pesach III, AND An Important Question (at the end)
• Re:, how many kzesim , shiruim on Leil Seder
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• re:mixed weddings
• silk screen Torah scrolls
• Re: Segulos
• Re: Fwd: Re: Toras Purim 5762 - He'oros Chochom Echod
• Re: Fwd: Re: Toras Purim 5762 - He'oros Chochom Echod
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Yesodos of the Beri'ah, AND Important Questions (Work in progress!)

RMB wrote:
<<Yechezel saw a connection between the bull and the kiruv.

<<In 1:10, the chayos are described as having four faces: man, lion, ox
and eagle. In 10:14 the faces are keruv, man, lion eagle. Apparantly the
face of a keruv is that of a bull. ... >>

See Chagiga 13b --Yechezkel bikeish rachamim and the ox face changed
into a child's face

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

Yosef Stern wrote:
>While I am not disagreeing C"V, but I have a question: If a Tzaddik Gomur 
>has no Yetzer Hora at all, how is it that Moshe Rabbeinu (which we all 
>agree he was a Tzaddik Gomur)
>went against HaShem's will and hit the rock?

We also find that malachim disobeyed HKBH. R' Chaim Friedlander
explains that they did it not because of a yetzer hara but due to a
lack of knowledge. They thought that they were doing the right thing
but that was because they did not know the entire picture. Similarly,
he explains, Adam wanted a yetzer hara because he thought that he could
overcome it and receive more reward. However, he did not understand the
extent of a yetzer hara.

Using this idea, we could also apply it to Moshe's sin. Perhaps Moshe
mistakenly thought that hitting the rock was more important than making
a kiddush Hashem by speaking to the rock. He was wrong.

>Question #2. The Gemara (shabbos 55b) says: 4 have died because of the 
>Nochosh. Which would imply that *everybody* else died because of their own 
>failure. So how can they have a failure/sin without a
>Yetzer Hora?

Bava Basra 17a: On three the yetzer hara did not rule - Avraham, Yitzchak,
and Ya'akov. Some say David also.

Those four are not the same as the four who died because of the Nachash.

Gil Student

>>1. R' Tzadok Risisei Lyla p. 139 - Megillas Esther begins and ends with a
>>vav - the vav ha'chibbur. The Likutei Halachos concerning the six levushim
>>that Mordechai wore in Esther 8:15 says there are six bechinos in Torah
>>(kasher/pasul, tamei/tahor, assur/muttar).

>Shisha Ani Yodeia Shisha Sidrei Mishna. however twice Vuv is 12, but note 
>Megila Ksuvah Ponim Vochor.

>>3. Chatzi ha'Malchus: Malchus in gimatriya is 496 - half of that is 248 -
>>Ramac"h - if the mitzvos penetrate all of one's 248 limbs, mida k'neged
>>mida Hashem responds (Hashem tzilcha - the Besht - your reflection) and
>>Malchus is complete.

>And to finish off "Vseios" referts to Mitzvas Asei.

>>5. A fascinating insight from the sefer Pri ho'eitz on why shem Hashem is
>>not in the Megillah: Were there to be shem Hasem b'feirush, there would be
>>a backhanded zechus to Amalek having served as the vehicle for Kiddush Shem
>>Shomayim. The Megillah emphasizes that any such conclusion is incidental,
>>and no zechus accrues to Haman.

>Yet Davka the Roshei Teivos includes his name (especialy LMinhag HaGra).

>I just got to read this, as I have been very busy of late, Divrei Pi 
>Chochom Chein, here are a few comments.

>In a message dated 2/24/02 11:52:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>>What is the meaning of an incomplete Kisei?

>Note the Aleph comes here at the end.

>>CO means "like ["keh"] a samech." A samech is the only letter in
>>original Lashon ha'Kodesh ("Mantzepach tzofim amarum") that is completely
>>closed.

>Doesn't the Gemara say that Ein Novee Rashoi Lchdeish, and that they were 
>Machzir Atara Lyoshna.

>It therefore represents concealment - a lid, as in "Michseh" or

>>"Kisui", and the vacted space in the mashal of the Arizal for tzimtzum
>>- the Chalal before the Kav of Or shines in.

>1) note that a Samach in Halacha (O"C 36) is defined as a Chuf and a Vuv, 
>just as is both the Mem Psucha and Stuma.

>2) In Kabalah there is mention of Igul and Ribua Mem and Samech the 2 
>letters that Bneis Hau Omdim

>>especially, of course, a Mem Sofis, and why the remez to Mordechai in
>>the Torah - Mara Dachya -

>Side note as this took place in Bovel it is thru Targum that we get his 
>name (vs. Balshon) and note Davka the word Dror which means freedom was 
>interpreted into Dachya which is clean but not free Akati AVdi 
>Dachashveirosh Anon.

1. The Yerushalmi seems to hold not like the Bavli on Mantzpac"h.

2. That Samech is a C-V sealed is zehr gut!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:44:33PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: 1. The Yerushalmi seems to hold not like the Bavli on Mantzpac"h.

No, but the Y'lmi also holds that the original Kesav Qodesh was
Ivri, not Ashuri. Li nir'eh (as I suggested a few weeks ago) that
it's a single machloqes -- menatzpach exist in Ashuri not Ivri,
and therefore the two are leshitasam.

: >1) note that a Samach in Halacha (O"C 36) is defined as a Chuf and a Vuv, 
: >just as is both the Mem Psucha and Stuma.

: 2. That Samech is a C-V sealed is zehr gut!

But what about tes, lamed, mem (both forms), and possibly pei kefufah,
all of which are also K+V, albeit not closed?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 05:47:58AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
....
: Of course, a tzaddik is twice 45. Perhaps this is because a tzaddik is not
: an entity unto himself - a tzaddik's merit is a zechus for both himself
: and another - otherwise that person is not a tzaddik!...

The gemara is quite clear that the letter is named tzadi, not tzadiq.
This is merely a nit, though, since the tzadi kafuf and tzadi pashut
are used in Shabbos to teach about the two kinds of tzaddiqim.

...
: Back to Matzo - more on this in a later post - but Matzo and Meitzar are
: obviously connected - the Reish has become a Heh? How so? By adding Yud -
: which is, of course, 210 ...

But isn't a hei a dalet and a yud, not a reish?

...
: 1. Why are the words for evil and friend spelled the same (Reish-Ayin)?

Some thoughts, loosly based on RSRH and R' Mattisyahu Clark.

YR` is to partition off space. From which we get the word "yeri`ah".

This then leads to confining sheep and herding, giving us R`H, which
can then be generalized to tending and caring.

To take it in another direction, focussing on the cutting off notion, we
get R`` (to shatter) and RV` (broken; as in teru`ah). The destructiveness
of ra`.

: 2. How does "agol" come to mean round?...

To continue a thought I posted earlier today, perhaps eigel -> agalah
->a gul. This implies that agul has more to do with the mobility of round
wheels than circles in general. C.f. GLL.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

Anyone hear of a makor for the MB's shita in the name of the Maharil
that one has two tzesim for Afikoman( zecher lpesach and zecer
lchagigah). According to RHS, R Perlow's peirush on RSG's Sefer HaMitzvos
quotes the Rambam as the source. This appears not just another MB chumra
as some would be quick to observe.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 5 Mar 2002 at 22:44, yosef stern wrote:
> Question #2. The Gemara (shabbos 55b) says: 4 have died because of the
> Nochosh. Which would imply that *everybody* else died because of their
> own failure. So how can they have a failure/sin without a Yetzer Hora?

AIUI, Adam haRishon did not have a Yetzer Hara until after he sinned 
with Eitz HaDaas. And yet he sinned (obviously). 

-- 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.

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:51:14AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: On 5 Mar 2002 at 22:44, yosef stern wrote:
: > Question #2. The Gemara (shabbos 55b) says: 4 have died because of the
: > Nochosh. Which would imply that *everybody* else died because of their
: > own failure. So how can they have a failure/sin without a Yetzer Hora?

: AIUI, Adam haRishon did not have a Yetzer Hara until after he sinned 
: with Eitz HaDaas. And yet he sinned (obviously). 

We've discussed this.

According to the Rambam, Adam's bechirah (and opportunity for cheit)
was in emes vs sheqer. According to REED, the yeitzer hara was there,
but externalized -- as the nachash. The cheit didn't create the YhR,
it internalized it. Way back in vol 1, I suggested that they agree --
the external YhR entices through sheqer.

As already noted this question also touches on the machloqes Rambam and
the Or Samei'ach as to why mal'chim have no bechirah. The Rambam holds
that they have as much bechirah to be ovdei Hashem as dropped rocks do
to fall. The Or Samei'ach holds that they have bechirah in potentia,
but they have such a clear view that there are simply no choices to be
made. RYGB suggested the chiddush that according to the OS a mal'ach
can be chotei when in olam hazeh. (This ties in well to the REED shitah,
mal'achim lack an internal YhR, so when emes is clear cut they don't sin.)

In any case, the answer of an external "nachash" spouting sheqer would
be appropriate here too.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

I wrote:
In 415:2 the MB discusses mixed dancing, not mixed seating. And he
quotes the not saying of shehasimcha bim'ono as being where the *dancing*
(not the seating) is mixed.

SBA answered:
What he actually writes is "...ugedola m'zu kosvu haposkim bE"H 62, d'ein
nochon levorech bekegon zeh shehasimcho bimeono..." A quick glance at EH
62 (in BS) will confirm that the discussion is regarding mixed seating
and not dancing.

I don't question that the BS is discussing mixed seating. My point was (a)
the MB which you intimated was against mixed seating is discussing mixed
dancing, and (b) seems to refer to the issur of EH 62 in that context.
(It's only fair: the BS went beyond the Bach in his paraphrase; the MB
goes in the other direction.)

I further wrote:
In 415:5, he discusses "holeluth v'hitharvuth z'charim un'kevoth,"
which also seems a long way from mixed seating.

And SBA responded:
I think reading 415:5 correctly will in no way show a hetter of Taaruvas
anoshim venoshim. Aderabe the MB's language is very strong against it
"...mah shemotzui b'avonoseny horabim b'eizeh mekomos b'ayoros gedolos
she'oskim shom beholellos UVEHISARVUS ZECHORIM UNEKEVOS....mikre dvar
aveirah...u'kvar tsovchu al holelos zu kamoh gedolim vehashomer nafsho
yirchak mileilech shom - v'al zeh omar Dovid Hamelech OH ashrei ho'ish
asher lo lach..."

Where is sitting at the same table called HISARVUS ZECHORIM UNEKEVOS?
If anything, a reasonable interpretation is that the MB objects to
people who are involved in *holeluth* in mixed company, not to the mixed
company itself. As he says, "ukvar tzavchu al holeluth zo," not "al
ta'aroveth zo."

My words:
The Shaar Hatziyun 6 says that a m'zalzel b'mitzvoth is worse than an
am ha'aretz, and one may not participate in his simcha. So what's the
connection to mixed seating?

SBA:
No connection. The MB is giving instances where a wedding is not
considered a seudas mitzvah -with the SH explaining that this is the
case at the wedding of someone who is mezalzel mitzvos.

So why was it listed as one of the places to consult *before* a discussion
of mixed seating?

SNT:
And the Biur Halacha 339 quotes a sefer Zichron Yosef which after saying
that dancing on Yom Tov is prohibited even if men and women are separate,
then goes on to discuss mixed dancing (he talks about how the men gaze at
the women dancing and are "ochazin ma'aseh avotheihem
b'ydeihem shel hanashim" and says of them "yad l'yad lo yinakeh midino
shel geihinom.") Not a word in any of these citations which has anything
to do with mixed seating at a simcha shel mitzvah. 

SBA:
And this, I think, is the answer to those asking why in Lita there may
have been weddings (attended by prominent Rabbonim) with mixed seating.
The CC writes he took the bother to find the sefer Zichron Yosef and
brings a very long and very sharp quote. It is quite obvious that in
Lita there was a serious problem with the youth and mixed dancing (see
the Shaar Hatzion I bring further on) and the rabbonim were probably
grateful if they could stop the dancing - which hakol modim was more
important than insisting on separate seating.
(And, I repeat re an earlier thread, the early rabonim in America
similarly didn't fight for CY or women covering their hair etc, when
they had enough on their hands fighting for Shabbos, Taharas hamishpocho
and Shechita.)

This is motzi shem ra on the rabanim of Lita by saying that they would
condone something wrong because they were concerned about a greater
wrong. It is certainly more reasonable to say that they didn't consider
mixed seating to be a wrong altogether. And even if they would not
protest mixed seating by their congregants because it was a smaller avlah,
would they make their own weddings with mixed seating just because they
were too busy protesting other people's mixed dancing? The Zichron
Yosef was apparently not a Litvak (does anyone know where his city,
Fiorda, is?), and he lived long before the CC (his sefer is mentioned
in the Chida's Shem Hagdolim), so he wasn't discussing a problem in the
CC's times. If anything, it's more reasonable to say that the problem
was universal, and those in the Chassidic/Hungarian areas went to the
other extreme and prohibited even mixed seating so that the opportunity
for mixed dancing could never arise. As for CY, it has already been
mentioned that RMF and others held that commercial milk ("chalav
hacompanies") was CY, and not chalila that they overlooked an isur.

I:
Even 529:4 which *does* discuss eating and drinking together seems to
be talking about gathering in semi-secluded places, not barabim and not
at a simcha.

SBA:
Pardon? Here are the words of the Mechaber: "...Chayovim BD lehaamid
shotrim b'regolim...beganos ubepardesim v'al hanehoros shelo yiskabtzu
shom l'echol velishtos anoshim venoshim v'yevoyu l'ydei avera. V'chen
yazhiru bedovor zeh lechol ho'om SHELO YISARVU ANOSHIM VENOSHIM BEBOTEIHEM
BESIMCHO velo yimshechu bayayin shemo yovou l'ydei aveira - eleh yihyu
kulom kedoshim..."

How does that disprove what I wrote? When the Mchaber says b'simcha, he
means it as "with joy," not "at a joyous event," since he's talking about
regel. On the contrary, the fact that it's in their homes (b'vateihem)
indicates its semi-private nature. And again, what does it have to
do with mixed seating? If that is what SHELO YISARVU ANOSHIM VENOSHIM
means, why is it permitted at the table on Shabbos? I have heard it
said that when RMF was asked about mixed seating, he answered that the
korban pesach was always eaten with mixed seating.

Rather than speculating about the procedure, go to kashrut.org and you
can see pictures of Rav Abadi demonstrating how it works.

   SS

On Tues 05 Mar 2002 13:35:30 -0500 David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com> wrote:
>... I think that your distinction between nature and segulos is artificial. ...

>...Why, for example, do you not view the existence of a law of gravity as 
>a segula? I'm sure you can write the field equations, but can you tell me 
>why they work? Maybe they require the intervention of sheidim? You haven't 
>defined segula, but you've rejected the >suggestion several times. My guess 
>is because your rebbeim didn't >discuss gravity, you learned about it only 
>from your professors.

My two-cents-worth:

I consider a belief that natural phenomena are governed by ascertainable
supernatural phenomena and that a person can manipulate those supernatural
phenomena, is not only contrary to the rational bases of modern Western
thought that has underlain miraculus modern scientific and technological
advances; but that the former may violate issurim concerning occultism.
I view modern scientific advances as part of HKBH's plan for human
beings as HKBH has given us a physical world to live in and to attempt
to explore and understand in its own physical terms.

We have been given Mitzvot that require us to live within the physical
world by reason of the fact that such Mitzvot are intended to be performed
in the physical world. We cannot begin to understand the world of Shamayim
and any attempt to do so is futile speculation.

It is more than sufficient that we have the privilege of petitioning
HKBH through Tefillah; he may at his option choose to effect the physical
world through the non-physical world; but that is not our "essek".

KT
Eliyahu

At 01:51 AM 3/7/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>But what about tes, lamed, mem (both forms), and possibly pei kefufah,
>all of which are also K+V, albeit not closed?

So they don't represent tzimtzum!

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:56:27PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:>But what about tes, lamed, mem (both forms), and possibly pei kefufah,
:>all of which are also K+V, albeit not closed?

: So they don't represent tzimtzum!

Thank you. But since they /do/ contain the K+V elements, what do their
configurations imply?

Mem, mayim, flowing, sometimes provides an opening to that tzimtzum?
Lamed is connetion from kaf lema'alah?

In order for your methodology of assigning meaning beased on tzuras
ha'os to be evaluated, I need more than one example to work with.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

R' Yosef Stern asks:
While I am not disagreeing C"V, but I have a question: If a Tzaddik Gomur
has no Yetzer Hora at all, how is it that Moshe Rabbeinu (which we all
agree he was a Tzaddik Gomur) went against HaShem's will and hit the rock?

Assuming the above facts are correct, may I suggest that it was a case
of either "To'Us Beshikul HadaAs" or "not paying sufficient attention"?

Even if we say that "a Tzaddik Gomur has no Yetzer Hora" it does not
necessarily mean that he cannot be clumsy, slip, trip or be illogical. Or
are all human failings attributed to the Yetzer Hora?

- Danny

I missed the beginning of this thread, but the source for "Kol HaGadol
MeiChaveiro, Yitzro Gadol Memenu" is neither a Tanya nor a Gr"a. It is a
Gemara in Succa 52a (at the very bottom). It follows a story about Abaye who
claims that he would not have been able to control his Yetzer Hara in a
particular case (please look it up, if it is of interest to you), which is
brought as a prooftext to Abaye's statement that the Yetzer Hara "acts up"
against Talmidei Chachamim more than against anyone else.

Shalom Berger
Alon Shvut

While mulling over a response to the note below, the letter-meaning of
the first pasuk in the Torah crossed my mind:

"Bereishis barah Elokim es ha'Shomayim v'es ho'Oretz.

Bereishis:

Beis, Reish, Aleph, Shin, Yud, Soff.

Beis - The first concept to be created in the process of creation was
the concept of duality - before Creation there was only the Oneness of
Hashem - the Aleph that precedes the Beis at the beginning of Torah.

Reish - The very concept of duality allows for evil to exist, Rah,
that which is distinct from Hashem R"L. Of course, the true purpose of
that duality is not for separateness C"v which is, indeed, Rah, but for
reconnection - Rei'ah, as in "Rei'im Ahuvim."

Aleph - Which brings everything back to Oneness - as the Ramchal writes,
the true chiddush that Hashem intended in Beri'as ha'Olam was that
physicality and spirituality can and will form "Echod."

Shin - As we have noted earlier in this series, Chazal use the Shin -
the 21st letter of the Aleph Beis, which is incomplete ("Achin v'Rakin
- 21's and 200's - mi'utin" - are diminutions) - which corresponds to
the shem Eheye"h (=21) used by HKB"H when revealing Himself to Moshe at
the Sneh (except that Hashem said it twice - corresponding to the shem
of 42 letters and "Bam" in "V'dibarta Bam" and the 42 maso'os - but
that's another story). We have also noted that Shin (300) encompasses
the antitude for Rah (270) - the Lamed (30) of Limud. So the Shin is
Olam ha'Zeh, the stage for the process of Beis-Reish-Aleph.

Yud - If the Chochmo of Torah, denoted by the Yud, which represents
the Aseres ha'Dibros, and also Olam ha'Bo (Olam ha'Zeh nivro b'Heh,
Olam ha'Bo b'yud) and also Machashovo (Rashi on Oz Yoshir) - and all
these concepts are connected - then:

Soff - we reach the shleymus of the last letter of the Aleph-Beis, and
400 used by Chazal to denote something that is completed by its spiritual,
Olam ha'Bo'dicke component.

Barah:

Beis, Reish, Aleph.

Same three letters with which we began, but now we will receive
explanation of the nature of relationship with Hashem in this masterplan.

Elokim:

Aleph, Lamed, Heh, Yud, Mem Sofis.

Aleph - The Name with which HKB"H normally relates to us post-Tzimtzum,
the Name which connotes the concealment within which he intends us to
function for the greater accomplishment of the masterplan (middas ha'din)
is Elokim. The Aleph is, of course, the Oneness that transcends Tzimtzum.

Lamed - As we have noted, the connection with that which is Beyond and
the condensation of the Shem Havaya"h into dimensions that can fit into
this world (the Lamed comprised of Chof-Vav).

Heh - Connecting to the Heh that is the inner force used to create
this world. Alternately, connecting to the five levels of the neshomo
(Naranch"i). BTW, this world is, as above, Shin, 300 - 5 (Heh) x 60
(Samech) - the Heh is concealed.

Yud - This is the same yud as above - if we get the first three letters
straight we will have the tools to accomplish the ascent to Olam ha'Bo.

Mem Sofis - In this world the Mem is open - there is a way to enter -
to "tovel" - in the Chof-Vav that comprise the Mem (the 40 se'ah of the
Mikveh). Olam ha'Bo is a closed Mem - Ein mekkablin Gerim l'Osid la'vo
- and, me she'torach b'erev Shabbos yochal b'Shabbos. That's why in
discussing Moshiach "Marbeh ha'Misrah" is written with a closed Mem.

Es, V'Es, Heh-ha'Yedi'ah (x2):

Aleph, Soff, Vav, Heh - As you might know, Ben Gurion wanted to abolish
the word "es" from modern Hebrew as superfluous - it has no inherent
meaning or purpose. But it obviously is critical, and that is why Shimon
ha'Amsuni darshened it wherever it appears. It is obviously linked to Emes
- except that Emes, with the Mem, provides the tool, while Es, sans Mem,
depicts the desired result - total perfection "From Aleph to Soff" - with
all the connotations that those letters imply. The beginning of the pasuk,
the first three words, provide the guidelines for bringing both Shomayim
and Oretz to their respective shleymuyos. The latter Es is written with
the Vav ha'Chibbur, because the perfection of Oretz is contingent on
its connection to Shomayim - the chibbur of Elyonim and Tachtonim. And
both Shomayim and Oretz are preceded here with Heh ha'Yediah's because
they are both part of Olam ha'Zeh she'nivrah b'Heh, require perfection,
and only together will reach the Yud (5+5=10) of Olam ha'Bo.

Shomayim, Oretz:

Shin, Mem, Yud, Mem Sofis / Aleph, Reish, Tzaddi Sofis.

Shin/Aleph/Reish - Each word begins with a chiddush: You might think
Shomayim transcends the Beri'ah, but it is, aderaba, very much a part
of the system - it is, indeed, much of what comprises the Lamed in the
Rah-Lamed configuration ("Migdal ha'Porei'ach bo'Avir"). OTOH, you might
think that Oretz is very much separate, as you might well infer from
the Reish - but it really has the capacity to connect to the Aleph.

Mem-Yud-Mem/Tzaddi Sofis - Of course, I am sure you notice that both of
these possess the same gimatriya of 90. And there is a nice metaphor
here - Mayim brings the Heavens down to Earth (and therefore Torah is
likened to water, and Techis Ha'Meisim occurs via the Tal shel Techi'ah -
"Ya'arof ka'motor likchi, tizal ka'tal imrosi") and the Tzaddik brings the
Earth up to the Heavens - even the uttermost nether regions, reached by
the extended leg of the tzaddik sofis (who may well represent Moshaich,
who brings the entirety of the world to its tikkun).

Comments and elucidations welcomed!

Some notes on the he'oros below:

At 01:38 AM 3/7/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Back to Matzo - more on this in a later post - but Matzo and Meitzar are
>: obviously connected - the Reish has become a Heh? How so? By adding Yud -
>: which is, of course, 210 ...

>But isn't a hei a dalet and a yud, not a reish?

Good point! Must work on that one!

...
>: 1. Why are the words for evil and friend spelled the same (Reish-Ayin)?

>Some thoughts, loosly based on RSRH and R' Mattisyahu Clark.

>YR` is to partition off space. From which we get the word "yeri`ah".

>This then leads to confining sheep and herding, giving us R`H, which
>can then be generalized to tending and caring.

>To take it in another direction, focussing on the cutting off notion, we
>get R`` (to shatter) and RV` (broken; as in teru`ah). The destructiveness
>of ra`.

After my discourse above, I assume you can tell that I would say that Rah 
as evil is pirud, while Rei'ah brings the mefuradim together. Thus a 
"Ro'eh" herds the sheep. Of course, with the Ayin - Ayin tovah brings 
together, while ayin ro'oh is divisive.

>: 2. How does "agol" come to mean round?...

>To continue a thought I posted earlier today, perhaps eigel -> agalah
>->a gul. This implies that agul has more to do with the mobility of round
>wheels than circles in general. C.f. GLL.

Would take this further, although not sure how far!

GLL comes from gilui - to reveal, as in "Va'yogel es ho'even mei'al pe
ha'be'er" - and since the gilui is via rolling off the stone, it comes
to mean something round. Of course, it then comes also to mean davar
v'he'pucho, as gelilah (at least of a Sefer Torah) closes it up. The
fascinating thing is that "Ugah" is clearly related to "Agol", which then
in turn comes from "Galal" - yet the only letter retained is the Gimmel.

Some work is necessary - and critical - here, since Matzos are called 
"uggos matzos"!

At 12:14 PM 3/7/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>:>But what about tes, lamed, mem (both forms), and possibly pei kefufah,
>:>all of which are also K+V, albeit not closed?

>: So they don't represent tzimtzum!

>Thank you. But since they /do/ contain the K+V elements, what do their
>configurations imply? ...

>In order for your methodology of assigning meaning based on tzuras
>ha'os to be evaluated, I need more than one example to work with.

I believe at least partially answered in my longer e-mail of a short time ago.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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


[ 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         ]