Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 127

Friday, March 14 2003

• Re: Mah Tovu
• RE: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Earliest Mincha
• Who is a posek?
• Re: Avodah V10 #123
• Re: Who is a posek?
• RYBS view
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Piskei Ramo
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Re: earliest mincha
• childless and Shabbos
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?

In Avodah V10 #125, MBerger replied:
> To me the question wasn't when should we say it, but when are we
> permitted to.

See Avodah V10 #118 ("Rich Wolpoe asked the following question: Mah
Tovu is what we say when we enter a shul. Should we say this if we
are davening outside of a shul?") and my response in #119 ("If the Q
was rephrased as "_Could_ we say this...?" I would guess that there's
nothing wrong with merely saying some p'sukim even when not entering a
bais hak'nesses or bais hamidrosh...").

Let's move on.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Jewish spirituality isn't about getting that calm and quiet. It's about
> providing the right context for persuing the struggles of life. About
> the tension of dialectic and the spiritual growth it spurs.

> Is there any frum derekh that does /not/ espouse this view? 

I dunno. I get the impression from Michtav Me'Eliyahu that REED
believed that ideally man should withdraw from this olam ha'sheker
(which is really a mirage) and concentrate just on spiritual matters,
which (I get the impression) REED viewed as more straightforward.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Is saying Rav Moshe had a fixed time for Chatzos (11:56 during
Eastern standard time and 12:56 during Daylight Savings time) any more
problemmatic than saying Tzeis is either 72 or 45 minutes year round
regardless of length of day/night or that alos is 72 and one can put
tefillin on 45 minutes before sunrise regardless of the length of day. Or
better yet, most Chassidim do not say Kiddush between the hours of 6 and
7 (and many between 7 and 8 during the summer months) regardless of when
this hour actually is astronomically.

While many look at a calendar for the astronomical time for these things,
the notion of fixed times year round does have some serious support in
terms of what many communities do (especially when it comes to when
Shabbos starts, when Shabbos ends, the earliest time when can daven
Maariv and be yotzei Krias shema).

I already brought the CI who says the MB has a din of sanhedrin. There
is also a famous story with the Chafitz Chaim. The CC told a cohen that
he felt he should focus his time learning kadshim so that he would know
what to do in the bais shilishi. The cohen replied that how would he
know what to do in orach chaim to which the CC replied learn my sefer
on OC and you'll KNOW what to do.

My rebbe has also told me that there are kilalim how to pasken from the
MB( i.e. the last daya he brings).

The mechabur of the Badia Hashulchan told me, when I tried to argue on
something brought in the MB,"that one aught to follow what is brought
in the MB".The Rav even gives a shiur once a week in MB and explains
the sugya and the psak of the MB.

The background to the sugya is that of course in Europe each shtat had
there own Rav. My rebbe told me that his grandfather was chosen to be
a Rav in a certain shtat.He sent a letter to R' Chaim Brisker asking
him advice on the issue. RCB sent him a long letter on rabanus. One of
the things he told him was always follow the minhagim of the shtat even
if you argue unless it's against halacha. The CC himself didn't follow
everything he wrote in the MB (I.e. two brochos on tefilin) but followed
minhag hamukom. There is a yid in Boston who 20 yrs. ago told my father
how the CC ran tefilah in Radin and it didn't always concur with the
MB. However the safer MB is for a tzibur who has no minhagim and wants
to know what to do. Unfortunately after the churban in Europe minhag
hamakom was lost and the CI in Igros is saying we NOW have no right not
to go like the MB as an individual. However my Rebbe told me someone
who has a mesorah how to learn through a sugya and pasken for himself
can do so( ONLY if he has a rebbe).

I was told that R' Hutner said you can follow your Rebbe's psakim but
only if you follow ALL his psakim. ( i.e. Bnei Brak where they follow
the CI for ALL their psakim and they established minhag hamakom. A shul
can also decide to choose a Rav and follow him for all their psakim thus
establishing minhag hamakom. I know that the Badai Hashulchan holds not
following the Rav of that shul's psak is ovar lo sisgodidu.

To sum it up The MB is for the hamon am who hasno rebbe or minhagim
which now a days is basically everyone.

DS

> Question: the Aruch HaShulchan writes that for matanos l'evyonim one's
> wife is yotzei with her husband's giving because they are like one guf.
> However, I have not see anyone (including A"h) suggest the same sevara
> by mishloach manos. Why?

If you look at the A"h in simen 694,2 he paskens that she is
kigufi. However this is his own svara coming off the line before that
woman are chayav in ALL mitzvas Purim. He means to say this svara also
in mishloach manos, however the siman he dealing with is exclusive to
matanas levyonim.If you look in the sefer Piskei Tshuva he applies
the sivara to both. As a rayah to my point ayin siman 696,18 in the
A"h where he says mifurash that a woman is chayuv in BOTH mitzvos even
if she's married and she is NOT patur with her husband giving. He says
specifically even matonas levyonim. To answer the stirah you have to say
he is quoting in both places from the Shulchan Aruch and nosea kealim
like he always does and in simen 694 brings his own sivara assuming you
would apply it to both mitzvos.

DS

In a message dated 3/13/2003 3:45:59 PM EST, mishlip@actcom.net.il writes:
> I was told that R' Hutner said you can follow your Rebbe's psakim but
> only if you follow ALL his psakim. ( i.e. Bnei Brak where they follow
> the CI for ALL their psakim and they established minhag hamakom.

I think following ALL is lav davka 100%. Virtually any place that follows
a certain minhag has an occasional exceptions. AISI, rules should not
be seen as hard and fast rules but rather as defaults. Here is how I
would re-state what was said:

We should always follow the MB biyameinu unless we have a definite,specifc
reason to make an excetion - such as a strict minhag hamakom - not to.
Then the MB is indeed the default.

For example, Artscroll often follows MB but makes exceptions such as
lehis'asteif BATzitzis with a patach instead of with a Sheva.

  {see Below for 2nd illustration}

BTW AFAIK the Artscroll's default, as in most Ashkenazi Siddurim is the
Rema and not the MB.

> A shul
> can also decide to choose a Rav and follow him for all their psakim thus
> establishing minhag hamakom. I know that the Badai Hashulchan holds not
> following the Rav of that shul's psak is ovar lo sisgodidu.

Makes sense when starting a new kehilla to pick a poseik as the default
of the Makkom. The problem I have seen is where a shul starts out with
say for example a Hungarian Minhag and a Litvak follows as the new mora
d'asra and he is unaquainted with the minhag0 hamakkom.

In Teaneck, our new Rav has great respect for minhag hamakkom but he
is simply not aware of all the situations yet, and so there are subtle
problems

For a practical example, I am now in Shloshim. The new Rav holds
that Shloshim supercedes Yahrtzeit and claims so says the MB. The old
Minhag has been that Yahrtzeit supercedes Shloshim. EVen though the
new Rav claims that he holds like MB nevertheless he gives in to the
established Minhag. FWIW, when I first arived in Teaneck I was not so
sure that Yahrtzeit supercedes Shloshimn either, my impression is that
they are "even-steven." Of course, local people took it for a davar
pashut that this is true.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:30:15AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Rav Soleveitchik writes in Halachic Mind footnote #4." And this concept
: of the dialectic...  give lie to the position that is prevalent
: nowadays in religious circles... that the religious experience is of
: a very simple nature - that is devoid of the spiritual tortuousness
: present in the secular cultural consciousness, of psychic upheavals,
: and of the pangs and torments that are inextricably connected with
: the development and refinement of man's spiritual personality. This
: popular ideology contends that the religious experience is tranquil
: and neatly ordered, tender and delicate; it is an enchanted stream
: for embittered souls and still waters for troubled spirits..."
...
: I would appreciate knowing where this approach comes from and who espouses
: this view today. While it seems totally compatible with figures in Tanach
: e.g., Avraham,Yaakov, Moshe, Iyov and Dovid as well as the prophets,
: it does not seem to reflect the concept of emuna/bitachon in Chazal
: and especially in the rishonim. Is there a Rambam, Ramban, Kuzari that
: expresses such a view?

[Mi: -mi]
> I understood this footnote (particularly in light of the next) totally
> differently than you did.

> RYBS is saying that Jewish religion is about sanctifying the rest of
> life, not providing a retreat from it. In the 2nd model, the church
> builds cathedrals that create a sense of otherworldliness and quiet
> external space.

> Jewish spirituality isn't about getting that calm and quiet. It's about
> providing the right context for persuing the struggles of life. About
> the tension of dialectic and the spiritual growth it spurs.

The way I understand this based on personal knowledge of and study under
the Rov and his students is that it is a mistake to think that religion
comes to smooth our difficulties or to bring inner peace. Instead it
gives one the tools to deal with spiritual struggles and all challenges.

This is also the way R. Rakeffet quotes it in "The Rav", as I recall.

The practical import of this is that one need not feel frustrated and
betrayed when one cannot find an immediate answer in the Torah for
whatever question.

M. Levin

In a message dated 3/13/2003 7:57:46 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>:           I just learned through the hakdama and I have to say
>: that I just don't see any evidence that the MB did not intend the sefer
>: to be used to pasken halacha. Aderaba. In the fourth paragraph from the
>: end he writes, "gam beiarti bo bimkom she'nimtza deos bein ha'poskim es
>: maskonas ha'achronim l'halacha al kol din." Sounds like paskening to
>: me.

> Sounds like bringing a survey of pisqei halachah of various acharonim
> to me. IIRC, RSM included this line in his translation.

> The question is whether "maskonas ha'achronim" means a single maskanah
> of numerous acharonim, or the maskanah reached by each acharon.

I'm not sure if MB intended to make his book a book of psak or not
Based upon his hakdamah he wrote it because:
1) People no logner learn Tur and Beis Yosef - implying lich'ora if
they do learn Tur/BY then they indeed do NOT need to refer to the MB
2) The Ba'eir Heiteiv was getting out-of-date because of many later
Acharonim such as Elyah Rabba and Chayei Adam. As such he sought to create
an-up-to-date Ba'eir Heiteiv and as such hakkol modim he did a great job.
Lich'ora it begs this question did Ba'eir Heiteiv intend to write a
book of psak or just summarize Taz, Magaen Avraham etc.?

3) FWIW, The Biur Halachah is a very in depth Halachah sefer that
stands up to any of the classic no'sei keilim on the SA.

Notwithstanding all of the above I would say the following:
A poseik ought to research MORE Than the MB alone. Virtually every
major sefer printed has at least 2 nos'ei keilim, even Chumash has BOTH
Targum and Rashi. Gmara has both Rashi and Tosafos...etc. Mussar Heskel:
a minimum of 2 perspecvtives is a MUST for a poseik jsut to get a proper
understanding.

In terms of methodology - as many of you already know by now - I am a
big fan of the Beis Yosef and the Aruch Hashulchan {and to a lesser extent
the Tur}. They follow a chronological survey of original sources in order
to show how the Halachah has been interpreted and expanded over time.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/13/2003 7:56:22 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Evolution is occuring. That much is provable fact. Something which (as
> I noted earlier) will keep the pharmeceutical industry busy.

> The fossil record seems to indicate that evolution had occured.

> I don't know then how someone -- especially someone who has no problem
> with the notion of an old universe -- would deny that evolution is how
> G-d created the species.

I'm no expert on these matters, but it seems intutively obvious tha
A) OTOH evolution is alwys happening
B) OTOH I can see no evidence that species A mutates into species A+ etc.

Aderabbah. Within species breeding etc. produces more extreme strains,
and thus you can breed very hostile pit bulls or even very virulent
microbes - rachman litzlan.

But I have not seen any evidence that a rat can become a dog or anything
of the sort

What Is true - as I recently posted is - that the Torah's sequence of
Creation goes from simple to complex. Again, that does not imply specie
mutation. Just more sophisticated Creation as time goes on. Just like
an engineer can bulid a better and better mousetrap and a breeder can
breed a better and better mouse but no one has bred a mouse into a
another specie - AFAIK.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:56:14PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I'm no expert on these matters, but it seems intutively obvious tha
: A) OTOH evolution is alwys happening
: B) OTOH I can see no evidence that species A mutates into species A+ etc.

This is the third time I'm replying to this claim (B).

If by "species" you mean two groups that are morphologically different
and can't interbreed, or even by a number of different definitions, there
are examples at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>.
Even once you weed out the intentional breeding of new species.

In particular, look at 5.3 - 5.9. They give examples of speciation of
the standard evolution experiment subjects (fruitflies, houseflies,
beetles) and of parasites due to changes in host population.

I reiterate my advice that one read up on the position before rejecting
it with obsolescent arguments.

> What Is true - as I recently posted is - that the Torah's sequence of
> Creation goes from simple to complex. Again, that does not imply specie
> mutation...

The order given in Bereishis isn't the same as that given by the fossil
record. Fossils of flying things post-date land animals.

Which is not as big of a difference as the relative dating of the
earth, seas and plants vs. astronomical bodies. But that's not a
question about evolution in particular.


Yes, I know RGSchroeder's teirutzim. I find them to be dochaq.

1- He equated the creation of ofos with the dinosaurs. Birds are the
most similar current creatures to the dinosaurs, and are likely to
have evolved directly from them.

However, "ofos" refers to the ability to fly. It includes bats and
bugs. It's not a biological category, but a pragmatic one.

2- He believes that day 4 refers to the clearing of the sky so that
one can see the me'oros baraqia'. This would be consistant to the
Ibn Ezra defining mayim mei'al haraqia' with clouds, but not with
those who believe the raqi'os refer to the spheres. (However that
belief is defined WRT modern astronomy.)

I find it hard to see why this would be a yetzirah, and not yikavu
hamayim mei'al haraqia'.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>  wrote
<<And so you must ask how is it that the Rema almost invariably favors
Tosafos .....Are they being objective? If so you wouldn't expect about
a 50-50 split over the vast numbers of issues involved? >>

There seems to me to be a rather disturbing vein through this and similar
comments. The assumption is that the Remo woke up one morning with a
stack on Rishonim, and paskened according to which ever way he pleased,
as long as both opinions were acceptable.

It should be clearly understood that psak holocho, like all aspects
of Torah comes with Mesorah. One may be misled to believe that all our
Torah nowadays is from sforim. This is incorrect. Almost all our Torah
is from Mesorah. How we understand HQBH, how we relate to Him, how we
relate to mitsvos, how we relate to Torah, how we learn Torah and How
we pasken Halocho.

The Ramo had a Mesorah to favour certain poskim over others. There were
minhogei Askenaz. This is not because he was biased, because he felt a
closeness to ashkenazi poskim or because he was racist. Chas Vesholom!!

It is worthwhile reading the Remo's introduction to Darkei Moshe, and
to Toras Chatos where he spells out clearly that the reason he paskens
not like the Beis Yosef is because of minhogei Ashkenaz. Their were long
standing minhogim (mesorah) in specific psokim, and in general to give
greater weight to specific poskim.

With regards to why the MB paskens with weight towards Ashkenazi poskim
and the Ramo, that should be obvious. He was an Ashkenazi posek in an
Ashkenazi town paskening for Ashkenazi people in Ashkenazi countries. Why
would he do otherwise?

Respectfully
Akiva B.

In a message dated 3/13/2003 3:45:44 PM EST, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> I dunno. I get the impression from Michtav Me'Eliyahu that REED
> believed that ideally man should withdraw from this olam ha'sheker
> (which is really a mirage) and concentrate just on spiritual matters,
> which (I get the impression) REED viewed as more straightforward.

Sounds like REED espoused a "Jewish Monasticism" of sorts...

Again, IMHO REED might have been creating a post-Holocaust Horo'as sho'oh
- perhaps consciously or perhaps unconsiously - in order to withdraw
from a world that commmitted so much evil and was now so devoid of
spiritual giants.

Lich'ora this is not the ideal in the long run. Otherwise cave-dwelling a
la R. Shoimmon Bar Yochai would have evolved to be the ideal.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn quoted Rabbi Blumenkrantz's Pesach Bulletin
(www.neveh.org/pesach/pesblm2.html) as saying that <<< According to Rabbi
Feinstein, zt”l , and the Aruch Hashulchan who are of the opinion that
midday is always constant, i.e. 12:00 PM -midnight would then be 12:00
AM. >>>

This needs to be clarified. As written, it gives the impression that
chatzos occurs when one's clock reads "12:00". For people in Boston,
New York, and Detroit, this is at the same moment.

It is quite absurd to think that chatzos occurs at the same moment
worldwide. It is almost just as absurd to think that chatzos occurs at
the same moment throughout an entire time zone. Rather, chatzos occurs
earlier in the eastern part of a time zone, later in the western part,
and later still in the next time zone.

Clearly, when Rabbi Blumenkrantz wrote "12:00 AM", he must have meant
"12:00 AM Solar Time". He could not have possibly meant "12:00 AM
Standard Time".

These two times coincide only at the main center lines of each time
zone, which are spaced each 15 degrees of longitude apart, starting at
Greenwich. The eastern time zone, for example is centered around the
line at 75 Degrees West Longitude. New York City is at 74 degrees west,
and therefore the solar noon occurs four minutes before it does at 75
degrees west -- in simpler terms, at 11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time.

(Does anyone have the full printed Luach Zmanim of Rabbi Mordechai
Premock? I'm rather sure that I once saw the full edition with a halacha
section in back, and that it was in that section where it was clarified
that Rav Moshe's chatzos was at 11:56 for New York, but I cannot find
my copy of that luach.)

Akiva Miller

RSBA:
>Nice [and poshut] pshat I heard at a shiur tonight b'shem Rav Shmelke
>Selisher (Klein) z'l...
> In the haftorah for Taanis Tzibur: "V'al yomar ben haneichor hanilvoh
> el Hashem havdil yavdilani etc etc..val yomar hasoris hein ani eitz
> yovesh..." And the posuk continues that by keeping Shabbos - both will
> have their problems solved...

> RSS comments that the hemshech hadvorim is very unclear and "Vos hot
> dos tzu ton mit Shabbos?"
...
> However, the Gemoro says that a Shomer Shabbos is 'nochel shnei olomos'
> - so this is the advice for a person who cannot have the abovementioned
> zchusim..

See Kol Kisvei Chafetz Chaim Sefer Shem Olam that echoes this same idea
from different psukim.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:29:33PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: I dunno. I get the impression from Michtav Me'Eliyahu that REED
: believed that ideally man should withdraw from this olam ha'sheker
: (which is really a mirage) and concentrate just on spiritual matters,
: which (I get the impression) REED viewed as more straightforward.

Are you saying that this is leshitaso with a point we're discussing on
another thread: REED's belief in the unreality of nature?

:-)BB!!
-mi

>Jewish spirituality isn't about getting that calm and quiet. It's about
>providing the right context for persuing the struggles of life. About
>the tension of dialectic and the spiritual growth it spurs.

>Is there any frum derekh that does /not/ espouse this view? Perhaps not
>with the focus of dialectic tension, but the basic notion?

 From the following quotes I see a clear dichotomy between the quietistic
attitude of the rishonim and most of Chazal verus the conduct of the major
figures in Tanach. Rav Soleveitchik fits in with Moshe Rabbeinu but not
Chovas HaLevavos, Rambam, Ramban etc. It is not just in relationship to
physical issues but also spiritual.

Rashi[1](Sotah 48a): Men of faith: They trust in G-d and rely on Him to
do good and they have no worries that they will lack anything.

Berachos[1](60a): Hillel was traveling and heard screaming of distress
in the city. He said: I am totally confident that this is not in my
house. Concerning him the verse said "He will not be afraid of bad news
because his heart is steadfast in his trust of G-d"... Ran[1](Derasha 6):
When a person fulfills the entire Torah he has nothing to fear of deadly
harm -- no matter how powerful as we also see concerning R' Chanina ben
Dosa and the serpent. In fact we see from R' Chanina how a single tzadik
is comparable to the whole world since what he did on his own with the
serpent was comparable -- actually was greater - than what Moshe Rabbeinu
did according to G-d's command with the entire Jewish people. His action
was greater in the fact that the serpent died from him...

Rabbeinu Yonah[1](Mishlei 3:26): It is important to know that bitachon
is the clear and firm emuna in one's heart concerning G-d's salvation
and is that which is genuinely relied on... Genuine bitachon has no
mixture of doubt and uncertainty...One who has genuine bitachon in G-d,
even if he experiences much suffering and misfortune still strengthens
himself in serving G-d and he has true bitachon that he will be fully
compensated for the suffering. He understands that G-d chooses for him
that which is for his own good. Thus if a person is chastised in this
world it is only so that he will benefit by being pure of sin and become
closer to G-d and to increase his reward in the future world.

Meschech Chochma[1](Devarim 10:20): G-d is concerned with His creation to
prepare for them food and other needs and to protect them from pain and
sickness and feels for them more than a person can and He- so to speak
- experiences pain from their pain. Since He has unlimited abilities
and He knows everything that happens to man He is thus more concerned
for a person's welfare then the person is for himself. Consequently a
person can live securely, serenely without worries and not exert himself
more than that which he is obligated by G-d as is described in Chovas
HaLevavos...Because what could he accomplish for himself that G-d will
not provide?

Chovas HeLevavos[1](Bitachon Introduction) Amongst the benefits of
having bitachon is the elimination of suffering in business dealings
if he fails to make a sale or is unable to collect what is owed him.
Similarly he will not be upset if he becomes ill because he knows that
since G-d knows what is best, His choice for him is better than what he
could decide himself...

Rashi[1](Devarim 18:13): You should be Tamim (have complete faith) with
G-d. Go with G-d in trusting innocence and put your hope in Him and
don't be obsessed with trying to determine what the future will bring.
Rather you should accept whole heartedly whatever happens. In this way
you will be with Him and be His portion.

Chovas HaLevavos[1](4:7): With the development of greater understanding
of G-d's kindness with His creation, he wants only what G-d wants
for him and he rejoices with everything that G-d does to him whether
death or life, poverty or wealth, health or sickness. He will have not
desire anything else than that which G-d has chosen for him and thus
he surrenders himself totally to G-d. The highest degree in bitachon
is reached when his knowledge of G-d becomes so strong that he comes to
understand the purpose of his creation and placement in this ephemeral
world and its insignificance in relationship to the next. He comes to
despise this world and will flee from it in his thoughts and actions
and submit himself totally to G-d. He will delight in thinking of G-d
while in solitude. He will feel devastated when not occupied in thoughts
of His greatness. Even when he is with other people, his only desire
is to please G-d and come closer to Him. His joy in his love of G-d
will displace his enjoyment of worldly pleasures and even the joy that
spiritual men find in the World to Come.

R' S. R. Hirsch[1](Bereishis 15:6). Emuna in G-d actually means fully
trusting and therefore being submissive to G-d Himself and to place
one's life fully in G-d's hands. The word emuna is based on the root EMN
that manifests itself as "ooman". This words has the connotation of an
artisan -- a shaper and creator of works of art. It carries the meaning
of a nurse -- who sustains and nurtures others. It also can indicate an
educator who enlightens and helps in the social and moral development
of others. Therefore emuna in G-d means to submit one's entire life,
its development, education, actions and values to G-d. It means being
entirely dependent upon G-d for nurturing as well as direction. It means
to allow yourself to be molded by G-d as clay is molded by the artist. In
short, emuna in G-d means to give yourself totally to G-d.

Rambam(Moreh Nevuchim 3:22) The most striking and remarkable aspect of
the story is that Job is not described as a wise, discerning, intelligent
or kenowledgaeable man, but only as a man of moral character and upright
doings. For had he been a wise man, his situation would not have been
an enigma to him"

Shaloh[1](Ten Maamarim #5): Berachos(60a): Hillel said that he had
bitachon that the screams coming from the city were not from his
house... How could Hillel express such confidence since we know that even
tzadikim sin and this causes suffering? Furthermore even if there were
such a thing as a person without any sins, his strong self-praise is
inconsistent with his well known humility described in Shabbos (31a)?
The answer is that Hillel rejoiced in suffering which he accepted
gratefully. He also trained his family with this attitude. Therefore when
he heard the screams of anguish coming from the city he said I am sure
that no one is screaming in my house since they fully accept what happens
to them. The verse He will have no fear of bad news. doesn't say he won't
hear bad news but that he won't be afraid of it because he realizes it
is for his own good. Therefore we learn from this that a person should
not scream and complain concerning his problems but rather should sit
quietly. Further proofs to this explanation are unnecessary since many
are found in the books of the sages as well as the philosophers...

Mesilas Yeshorim[1](Chapter 19) In order that suffering should not
interfere with loving G-d it is necessary to be aware of two explanations
for the suffering. ...The first explanation is that everything done by
Heaven is good (Berachos 54a). That means that pain and suffering which
appears to be bad is in truth good... However the truly intelligent person
has no use for this rationale since he is not concerned with himself at
all. But his prayers only concern how to increase the glory of G-d and
to provide Him with pleasure. In fact his rejoicing increases as the
problems increase so that he has to try even harder to remove them. The
reason for his happiness is that he has been given an opportunity for
showing the strength of his faith. This is comparable to a soldier who
is distinguished by his bravery. He always choses to be involved in the
more fierce battles to show the greatness of his abilities. This is a
well known characteristic of people that they rejoice when they have
the opportunity to show their beloved how powerful their love is.

------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONTRAST WE FIND IN TANACH
------------------------------------------------------------
Bereishis[1](18:23-25): Avraham approached G-d and asked "Will You destroy
the righteous with the wicked? Perhaps there are 50 righteous amongst the
city, will you destroy and not spare the place for the sake of the 50 who
are in their midst? Far be it from You to this -- killing the righteous
with the wicked so that the tzadik is treated as the wicked. Far be it
from. Shouldn't the Judge of the whole world act justly?

Netziv[1](Bereishis 32:8) And Yaakov was very afraid. He was scared and
was upset. He was distressed as a result of his fear. Similarly we find
(Shmuel 1 17:24) That everyone ran away from Goliath and they were very
scared.... Yaakov was distressed because of the fear that he felt. Also
we find with Dovid (Tehilim 119:39) Take away my disgrace that I dread.
Because it is a disgrace for someone with bitachon to be scared. Mishlei
(29:25) The fear of man proves to be a snare but whoever trusts G-d is
safe. Yishaya(51:12-13)...Who are you that you are afraid of man....and
you have forgotten G-d your Maker... and you fear continually all
the day...

Malbim[1](Bereishis 26:1): Avraham was given 10 tests by G-d because
he had come to recognize his Creator through philosophical thought and
analyses. However, G-d wanted him to have a perfect unconditional faith
which would be independent of intellectual analysis and understanding.
In other words that he should be totally obedient to His will. Therefore
He tested him with ten trials to ascertain whether Avraham totally and
unquestioningly accepted what He did. In contrast, Yitzchok who already
had strong emuna because he had received it from his father did not need
these tests...

Shemos[1](5:22-23): Moshe returned to G-d and he said, "L-rd why have
You brought trouble on this people? Why did You send me? Since I went to
Pharaoh to speak in Your name he has made it bad for this people neither
have you saved them at all.

Berachos[1](7a)[[[ R. Yochanon said that Moses said before Him: Lord of
the Universe, why is it that some righteous men prosper and others are
in adversity, some wicked men prosper and others are in adversity? ...
[You must] therefore [say that] the Lord said thus to Moses: A righteous
man who prospers is a perfectly righteous man; the righteous man
who is in adversity is not a perfectly righteous man. The wicked man
who prospers is not a perfectly wicked man; the wicked man who is in
adversity is a perfectly wicked man. Now this [saying of R. Johanan]
is in opposition to the saying of R. Meir. For R. Meir said: only two
[requests] were granted to him, and one was not granted to him. For it
is said: And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, although
he may not deserve it, And I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy,
although he may not deserve it.

Meshech Chochma[1](Devarim 34:8)...Moshe was constantly involved with
philosophical thought concerning G-d as can be seen from the book of
Job which he wrote (Bava Basra 14b) which is totally philosophical.
Shemos Rabbah (1:35) also notes that he tried to determine the reason
for the exile in Egypt. Through his analysis he came to the true source
and full knowledge to such a degree that he became a prophet.

Ramban[1](Shaar HaGemul #118): Since Chazal gave these explanations for
suffering of the righteous based upon the traditions they received and
according to their understanding of the verses in Torah and Neviim --
why do we find that the prophets themselves complained about this issue?
Why was Yirmiyahu (12:1) perplexed as to why the wicked were successful
since G-d is righteous? Dovid [Assaf] (Tehilim 73:13) and Yeshaya (63:17)
were also mystified by the suffering of the righteous and success of the
wicked as was Chavakuk (1:3; 1:4). There was much debate concerning these
issues in Iyov. Furthermore Chazal (Avos 4:15) themselves said that it
is beyond our comprehension to understand the serenity of the wicked and
the suffering of the righteous. However others rejected this view that
suffering is beyond comprehension. For example it is asserted (Shabbos
55a) that all death and suffering is the direct result of sin. The gemora
[also according to Tosfos Shabbos 55a], however, rejects the principle
that death must be the result of sin but not the principle that all
suffering is the result of sin. But if you insist that the gemora is
rejecting both principles and thus suffering or death is not the result
of an individual's, we can reply that still it is the result of sin of
previous generations such as the sin of Adam. Chovas HaLevavos[1](4:3)
If a person strengthens his service of G-d and chooses to fear Him and
to trust Him concerning both Torah and worldly matters. If he avoids
disgusting things and desires good attributes and doesn't rebel when
things are going well and doesn"t seek idleness, is not controlled by
his evil inclination and isn't enticed by the pleasures of this world
-- then the burden of earning a living will be removed from him. His
livelihood will come to him according to his needs - without effort
or toil. But you might object that we see some righteous people who
obtain their livelihood only after great effort and toil while many of
the wicked have a life of tranquility and pleasantness? In fact the
prophets and pious have already scrutinized this matter. Yermiyahu (12:1)
asked Why are the ways of the wicked successful? ...Chavakuk (1:3-4)
The wicked swallow up the righteous... Malachi (3:15) Those who try
G-d escape. However the prophets did not answer this question because
the reason in case of a tzadik suffering and the wicked prospering is
unique. That is why Moshe (Devarim 29:28) said The hidden things belong
to G-d but revealed things belong to us and our children... Koheles (5:7)
said Don't be surprised if you see the poor oppressed, justice perverted
and righteousness corrupted. The Torah (Devarim 32:4) states that G-d's
actions are perfect and all His ways are justice. Nevertheless I think
if I explain even some of the causes of the righteous suffering and the
wicked prospering it will suffice. Sefer Ikkarim[1](4:14): Since we
have explained that G-d's judgments are correct without imperfection
concerning both the suffering of the tzadik and the pleasure of the
wicked, it is necessary to explain the complaints of the prophets and
sages concerning this? We see (Berachos 7a) that even Moshe Rabbeinu was
bothered by this issue when he asked Please show me Your way so that I
can know You. Iyov complained about this. Assaf (Tehilim 73:2-3; 73:13)
stated that because of this issue he almost became a heretic. Yirmiyahu
(12:1) asked Why are the wicked successful? Chavakuk (1:13) asked Why do
You tolerate those who deal treacherously and keep silent when the wicked
swallows up the man who is more righteous than he? Chavakuk (1:4) The
wicked surround the righteous and therefore justice comes out perverted.
Malachi (2:17): You have wearied G-d with your words: Yet you say, "How
have we wearied Him?" In that you say Everyone who does evil is good
in the sight of G-d and He delights in them... Malachi (3:17) those who
work wickedness are built up and those who tempt G-d --escape. Koheles
(8:14) There is a nonsensical thing which is done on the earth that
there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the work of the
wicked. There are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work
of the righteous. There are many more additional examples found in the
words of the prophets. Obviously this matter requires explanation...

Rambam[1](Shemona Perkim #7):It is not one of the prerequisites of
prophecy to have reached perfection in all attributes....for example
Shmuel was afraid of Shaul and Yaakov was afraid of meeting Esav...

Rashi[1](Bereishis 40:23) Yosef was forgotten by the Wine Steward because
he had specifically depended upon him to get out of jail. Therefore he
remained in jail an additional 2 years...

Berachos[1](4a) David spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Master
of the world, I am sure that you will pay a good reward to the righteous
in the world to come, but I do not know whether I shall have a share in
it"? [He was afraid that] some sin might cause [his exclusion]... R. Jacob
b. Iddi pointed to a contradiction. One verse reads: And behold, I am
with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and the other
verse reads: Then Jacob was greatly afraid! [The answer is that] he
thought that some sin might cause [God's promise not to be fulfilled].

Leshem Shaarei Leshem[1](1:9 Tefila): Don't be bothered by a number of
holy people of the early generations who experienced much suffering and
troubles as to why they didn't utilize the characteristic of bitachon to
save themselves? In fact however they utilized alternative approaches.
Some of them accepted the suffering with love in the manner of R' Akiva
(Berachos 61b) "All my life I have been troubled as to when I would have
the opportunity to fulfill the mitzva of martyrdom. A similar welcoming
of suffering was manifest in R' Eliezar b. R' Shimon (Bava Meztiah 84b).
Others did not want to trouble G-d and therefore utilized the attribute
of self sacrifice. In other words they gave themselves over to G-d to
do with them whatever was good in His eyes rather than request that He
do what they wanted. An example was R' Yehuda Ben Bava (Sanhedrin 14a)
who saved others by blocking the narrow escape passage and was shot full
of arrows. There is also another hidden factor as to why tzadikim are
not always saved by their bitachon. There are times when G-d wants to
bring a terrible judgment into the world according to His unknownable
thoughts. In order to do this He removes free will and places great fear
in their hearts until it is impossible for a person to hold on to the
attribute of bitachon. This is in the manner that the Ramban explained
why Mordechai did not bow down to Haman. But in truth nothing can stand
against bitachon as it says in Mishlei (28:1). The wicked flee when no
one pursues while the tzadikim are confident as lions.

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


[ 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         ]