Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 123

Monday, March 11 2002

• Kishuf
• Re: Segulos
• questions on segulos
• Re: questions on segulos
• Re:Re: questions on segulos
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: Yesodos of the Beri'ah, AND Important Questions (Work in progress!)
• re:mixed weddings
• Re: Re: questions on segulos
• Re: Segulos
• He'oros Chochom Echod Continued

There is currently an open thread running on Avodah trying for clear
definitions of Teva and Segulah. The purpose of that thread was to ask
whether the existence of segulah in the world might take away some of
our free will.

This thread is to ask an entirely separate question: Regardless of whether
teva and segulah are the same or not, -- What is the difference between
Segulah and Kishuf (magic) ??

... besides, of course, the little detail that segulos are mutar and
kishuf is asur.

For example, what is the difference between spilling date-beer to make
someone poor, and sticking pins in a doll to hurt him in other ways (or
some other thing which would actually work if we knew how to do it right).

Responses to this thread may help answer some of the problems in the
other one, but let's try to keep the Subject lines distinct, okay? (And
I recommend using the word "kishuf" instead of "magic", so that no one
thinks we're talking about sleight-of-hand.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:05:23PM -0500, Allen Gerstl wrote:
: 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....

And yet they're all over the gemara.

You continue to give an explanation of why appealing to segulos would
be assur. As RDLifshitz put it to me (and I think this is typical for
Litvaks), it's assur under "tamim tihyeh im H' E-lokecha". I think
your position is pretty much identical.

But saying one may not use a segulah is different than saying they
aren't real.

-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

[The author of the following is not a subscriber. CC him on all replies.
The next two posts are also from this discussion. I recieved his reshus
to share our discussion here.    -mi]

These were prompted by the ongoing Avodah discussion:

1.If a segulah is in the "spiritual" realm, do we need a valid mesorah
for it? A reference in Tanach, Shas, Rishonim, and/or Acharonim as to its
efficacy? A consensus of poskim? And since there is a concept that some
physical facts (e.g. a person's response to a particular medical remedy)
have changed over time, how do we know that a previously reliable segulah
also works under current conditions?

2.If a segulah is in the "natural" realm, do we need confirmation of its
efficacy based on rigorous scientific methods including observation,
experimentation, analysis of statistics, exploration of simpler
explanations (Occam's Razor) for the same effects, etc.?

3.Do segulos always have some effect (the main intended effect or some
other one), or only most of the time or part of the time?

4.Does time spent in Tefillah yield a better outcome (not necessarily
the one we ask for) than the same amount of time applying a segulah?

Sincerely,
Bob Miller

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:51:29AM -0800,
robert_a_miller@mymailstation.com wrote:
: 1.If a segulah is in the "spiritual" realm, do we need a valid mesorah
: for it? A reference in Tanach, Shas, Rishonim, and/or Acharonim as to
: its efficacy? A consensus of poskim? And since there is a concept that
: some physical facts (e.g. a person's response to a particular medical
: remedy) have changed over time, how do we know that a previously reliable
: segulah also works under current conditions?

Good question. You should post this email to avodah.

: 2.If a segulah is in the "natural" realm, do we need confirmation of
: its efficacy based on rigorous scientific methods including observation,
: experimentation, analysis of statistics, exploration of simpler
: explanations (Occam's Razor) for the same effects, etc.?

If it's in the natural realm how isn't it nature? My guess is that if
I understood the nature of your quotes around "natural", I wouldn't
be asking.

If segulos are deterministic (to start addressing your next question
early) then scientific method should apply -- regardless of the mechanism
by which they act.

: 3.Do segulos always have some effect (the main intended effect or some
: other one), or only most of the time or part of the time?

Another good question.

BTW, something can always have effect but not always work. Conservation
of momentum always holds, but because of friction it's rarely observed
in the real world.

: 4.Does time spent in Tefillah yield a better outcome (not necessarily
: the one we ask for) than the same amount of time applying a segulah?

One would think that deserving what you want, including via the connection
to HQBH provided by tefillah, is always best.

This conflict between din+rachamim and segulah is what I opened the
discussion with. Then I explained why physical causality is a necessary
limitation, as it's necessary to bechirah in ways that segulah is not. And
that's where things went since.

-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"

Dear Micha:
I'm not signed up with the Avodah group, but you may post any of this
on that site.

By the way, why should a segulah be any more deterministic than "smoking
causes cancer" which is only true in a percentage of actual situations,
because of other factors in play?

Sincerely,
Bob Miller

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:05:34PM +0200, shalom wrote:
: 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...

Actually, the question being explored is how the ba'al haTanya or
the Gra understand this ma'amar.

They were quoted as saying the tzadiq gamur has no yeitzer hara.

Does it get greater as one gains tzidqus until the person is finally
okeir harim (to continue the gemara's image of the YhR's death)
and becomes a tzadiq gamur?

-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, Mar 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: >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.

...
: 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....

And how about "ge'ulah"? (He asks rhetorically...)

RMC, in an appendix to his Hirschian dictionary notes a rule Hirsch found
in a number of animal names. Take a key middah of the animal, and add a
leading ayin.
	`atlaf = bat (tlf = claw)
	`akhsov = viper (kshb = deceit)
	`aqrav = scorpian (qrb = battle)
	`akhvish = spider (kbsh = capture)
	`akhbar = mouse (kbr = hide)

So `eigel is an animal that is gll or glh or gvl/gyl...

-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

R' Sadya N Targum mentioned <<< 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. >>>

I'm not sure whether I mean this humorously or not, but I'll ask anyway:
I thought that back then we all had the seder with truly separate seating:
each person at their own table!

Akiva Miller

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:59:49PM -0400, Robert_a_miller wrote:
: By the way, why should a segulah be any more deterministic than "smoking
: causes cancer" which is only true in a percentage of actual situations,
: because of other factors in play?

There is a difference between "deterministic" and "predictable".

Deterministic is the opposite of random. However, something can be both
non-random and unpredictable.

In chaotic systems, a minor change in initial condition could cause major
differences in final state. And since you can't measure the initial
conditions to an infinite precision, you can never perfectly predict
such a system. Ask any economist or weatherman.

The human body (or life in general) is not only a chaotic system,
we don't even bother putting in every vector in the problem. Some
parts of medicine we don't know. Others are omitted from the slogan.
"Smoking causes cancer" is true, however, there are other causes involved.

The example I used in this discussion was the conservation of momentum.
"An object in motion tends to stay in motion." The "tends to" is more
properly expanded upon with a seifa "unless acted upon by an outside
force". Due to friction and gravity, the "unless" has been true for every
experiment performed until the 20th century. And yet, the law was true
even before any application of it was experienced.

Segulos are non-predictable. Which is why no one develops a native notion
of segulos, the way babies pick up a fear of falling and the joys of
dropping one's bottle outside the crib.

Is there bechirah value to a law that never provides predictable results?

-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 think now that I do understand your position, and that it's internally
inconsistent. The best way I can think of is to write a discussion between
three people: DR (me), RMB (what I think is your position), and RMB? (what
I imagine is your position). I will then follow it with comments.

RMB: A segulah is something which works via the spiritual realms (above
olam haasiyah), and teva is what works in olam haasiyah. Hence teva
increases free will, by reducing one's awareness of the spiritual, and
seguloth reduce free will, by increasing one's awareness of the spiritual.
So why should God permit seguloth to work?

DR: But EVERYTHING has its roots in spritual realms

RMB: Well, that's true, but we're talking about a typical person who
will notice the spiritual only if it jumps up and bites him on the nose.

DR: But then nothing is spiritual. Why treat demons any different from
germs and dolphins?

RMB?: Because people think demons are spiritual.

DR: A few hundred years ago people thought shadows, lodestones [magnets],
static electricity, and ball lightning were spiritual. Should God have
kept them from working?

End of discussion. Now the comments.

RMB's demarcation between teva and segulah is not only artificial, it
is culturally defined. I think RMB conceded part of this when he wrote:

>} It is actually non-trivial to define the line between physical
>} and non-physical law. After all, one never witnesses a magnetic or
>} graviational field, one only witnesses their effects on a magnet or
>} object (respectively). If one could do a study of non-physical laws,
>} wouldn't one also be studying the effects of something they can't directly
>} witness? IOW, what is non-physical law if what we're talking about are
>} physical events?

Here RMB implies the distinction is real but hard to pin down; I think
its cultural (it's a segulah if it makes you think God did it). The next
citation, though, seems to indicate that RMB does think it's cultural:

>} Here we're talking about forces that are outside Olam ha'Asiyah having
>} effects within it. In order to even have that dicussion there needs to
>} be a belief in other olamos (or "higher realms" or whatever) which in
>} turn presumes a modicum of emunah.

Of course we never observe the forces, only the effects. So the
observation without the "discussion" [=cultural belief] doesn't make it
a segulah. Here's more evidence that RMB thinks seguloth are cultural:

> Definitionally, 3-as-segulah assumes the existance of another,
> non-physical, realm. Add to that the fact that our actions have impact
> in that realm, and concluding that we extend into the non-physical is
> a logical conclusion.

IOW it's not the spilling-beer-makes-you-poor that's the segulah, it's
the theoretical superstructure which explains the phenomenon. But then,
of course, we're back to the beginning (which I shall reprint):

DR: But EVERYTHING has its roots in spritual realms

RMB: Well, that's true, but we're talking about a typical person who
will notice the spiritual only if it jumps up and bites him on the nose.

But then why did you just require the theoretical superstructure? If
he's got that he'll view gravity as a segulah also.

Here's another remark which requires the same interpretation:
> there are no and can be no Sammy Sosas who have
> a gut instinctive mastery of the laws of segulah.

If there's an observed correlation between spilling beer and becoming poor
why can't Sammy Sosa observe it? Again RMB is telling us that a segulah
is only a segulah if it comes equipped with a theoretical superstructure.

But RMB is not willing to take this to its logical conclusion:
> So it proves nothing to someone who observes the law without understanding
> the reason. OTOH, it gives the metaphysicist something to study that
> for him -- and for anyone who is subsequently exposed his works -- it is
> a ra'ayah. Why leave ra'ayos laying around, regardless of whether only
> some people will see them?

<cited from a different post>
<DR>: So you would argue that God shouldn't let transistors work, but that he
: should permit baseball bats to work? Curiouser and curiouser.

<RMB>Not at all.

Look at my two questions about segulos:
1- They indicate that man has a higher existance, and therefore unduly
   shift the person's bechirah point. This is not true of transistors.
<ad kan RMB>
Sure they do, if you're willing to think about why they should work.
Why leave raayos around, regardless of whether only some people will
see them?

David Riceman

1. Re the letter Tes and two types of Tzimtzum:

>1) A Tes is according to Halacha not a K+V the right side is according to 
>everyone a V, the left side Al Pi Nigleh is a Zayin while according to the 
>Arizal it is a Vuv.

>2) As I pointed out IIRC in Kabbalah the Tzimtum is mentioned as both Igul 
>(Samech) and Ribua (Mem Stumah).

2. I would like more bi'ur as to the two types of tzimtzum, if at all 
possible. Especially as the Chochom Echod went on to say about the chilluk 
between the Bavli and Yerushalmi:

>Actually in the Yerushalmi there are 2 distinct opinions.
>1) that it was Ivri where the only completely closed letter is the Ayin 
>(probably coincides with the literal translation of the word Ayin = Eye).
>2) that it was Ksav Ashuri and that only the Samech was round.
>
>However my original point was a matter of wording that since according to 
>Bavli the Mem Stumah was is the original Ksav Ashuri, (and this is also a 
>matter of Halacha as to whether adding (and/or changing) a letter falls 
>under "Ein Novie Rasho'ee Lchadeish Davar), it would be better if written 
>that according to everyone the Samech is closed as it represents Tzimtum 
>(and BTW the Tzimtzum of Ribua is less explained which explains the issue 
>between Bavli and Yerushalmi on this, based on Yerushalmi being Ohr Yashar 
>vs. Bavli "Bimachshakim Hoshivani" Ohr Chozeir).

3. And, concerning the Matzo making Meitzar from a Reish to a Heh that is 
comprised of Daled-Yud:

>Reish as Lumas Zeh is also in the fact that a Daled makes the word Echod 
>whereas a Reish makes it Acheir as the Gemara points out.

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         ]