Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 069

Tuesday, February 1 2005

• Re: Metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: Singing in Shower
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami

>> I would venture to say that it's muktza machmas Chisaron Kis.

> Aren't you assuming your conclusion? How do you know it's assur to use?

Actually I was. :-) The SA in OC 308:1 (and the MB in the intro to the
siman) seem to write that anything you don't use except for its specific
purpose is muktza. E.g. a shechita or mila knife. AFAIK a metronome
is delicate enough that you wouldn't use it as a hammer, or even as
a paperweight.

That was my initial reaction.

Further research reveals that later in the siman, in 308:51 the SA
wonders if an hourglass is muktza. The RMA says it is. The MB (in note
166) explains that since it measures time, it would be a Kli Shemalachto
l'Issur - as [non-mitzva] measuring is forbidden on Shabbas.

Since a metronome's entire purpose in life is to mark time, it should
be at least as muktza as an hourglass - being allowed to be moved only
for Guffo & Mekomo.

(For those who are wondering, the MB (in note 168) says that watches
(as opposed to wall clocks) are not muktza. He doesn't explain why.)

Not a posek, not a MB expert either. Just happen to be up to siman 308
with the kids at the Shabbes table.

 - Danny

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> according to most shittos, electricity is assur because of boneh.

I thought that opinion was unique to the Hazon Ish.

David Riceman

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:02:32PM +0100, Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR ** wrote:
: People have the ability to cut other people's lives short. I have just
: finished hearing 3-4 hours of (taped) lectures on this and cannot
: efficiently summarise it in a few lines - though I'm sure others
: could. (RMB has a special knack for doing this.)

This is a famous Or haChaim, discussed here a number of times, about what
the brothers were hoping to gain by throwing Yoseif in a pit rather than
killing him outights.

I believe, though that's it is at odds with the position chassidus and
mussar have popularized, that HP is total. At least WRT things that
happen to Yehudim or to all human beings, the idea that HP is total didn't
begin with the Besh"t. (Although RMMS writes that total HP even with domeim,
tzomei'ach and chai was the Besh"t's chiddush.) That HQBH works it out so
that while each person works with bechirah, the fact that this particular
victim is actually victimized is coordinated by HQBH.

See the Machshvah Techilah section in
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vayeishev.pdf>. I present Rashi
and the Chinuch as probably disagreeing with the OhC's position.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 04:53:53PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I'm glad you wrote, I have been feeling very irritated all along at
: the line that goes, "We can't possibly know the reason for tragedy and
: it's wrong to even try to speculate"...

People said "wrong", as opposed to "pointless"? In any case, "yefashpeish
bema'asav" is a pretty clearly defined chiyuv. The question is whether
he is expected to answer the question, or if the point is grappling with
the problem despite our inability to ever answer it.

IOW, I would argue that value is in finding possible answers and doing
teshuvah. However, one can never go from "possible answers" found while
encountering the problem to actually know why G-d does anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In message , "Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR **" <schoemann@lucent.com> 
writes
>A tsunami is aptly classified as force majeure - this was clearly the RBSO
>"meddling" in the flow of things. Consider: A tsunami isn't a natural
>occurrence like a solar eclipse. It cannot be predicted (except by a
>few minutes, maybe).

It seems to me that if we are going to speculate on the reasons for 
something like a tsunami, we need as an absolute basic requirement to 
get out facts straight.

A tsunami in general can indeed be predicted and WAS in this case.  A 
tsunami is set off (inter alia) when there is an earthquake in the ocean 
and that is how it was set off here.  We (and when I say we here, I mean 
humanity) have the technology to measure and detect such earthquakes. 
The earthquake WAS in fact detected at the centre for detecting such 
earthquakes, inter alia, in Hawaii.  The scientists in Hawaii knew 
exactly what the consequence of that earthquake was likely to be, and 
where it was likely to hit, and the time it was likely to take - and 
they had, as I understand it, WELL OVER 12 hours notice!

Not only that, but there are systems set up amongst the nations of the 
Pacific Ocean to receive urgent messages from the earthquake centre 
about an approaching tsunami so that something can be done (very simply, 
move people to higher ground - something that is eminently achievable in 
12 hours).

However, the earthquake did not take place in the Pacific Ocean, but in 
the Indian Ocean, and the nations of the Indian Ocean did not have in 
place any system to receive messages from the earthquake centre 
regarding approaching tsunamis, and while the earthquake centre 
apparently tried everything they could to get through, they did not 
manage it (e.g. emails to the earthquake centre in Thailand were not 
opened, as the earthquake centre in Thailand was focussed on monitoring 
earthquakes in Thailand, not ones in the middle of the ocean out to sea 
and only opened the email and hour before the tsunami hit).

IF APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS HAD BEEN IN PLACE IN THE INDIAN 
OCEAN, AND PEOPLE HAD BEEN WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE WARNINGS, THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF THE LOSS OF LIFE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

> Since we believe in Hashgocho (Divine Providence)
>we can assert that anybody killed was "hand picked" by Hashem. For
>Yidden this would be on the individual level (Hashgocho Protis -
>Individual Divine Providence) and for goyim it may be more general;
>"anybody in the area". (IIRC there's an Avoda thread on this issue,
>debating the specifics.) Either way, Hashem decided in advance that a
>quarter million people would perish very suddenly and very tragically.

How do you factor in to this the "human negligence" factor referred to 
above into this aspect of Hashgocho Protis?  I am not disputing a "hand 
picked" element, but the existence of the warning system and the failure 
to take advantage of it puts this tragedy much closer to, say, 9/11 
(there it was human action, here it was human inaction) than to the 
"there was nothing that could be done" scenario you are painting.

Note that, even on an individual level, in some cases (but by no means 
all) there was a warning system due to the tide going suddenly out - so 
that somebody who saw that, and had the scientific knowledge to 
understand what it meant, had a chance to save themselves (and anybody 
they were able to communicate with at the time) by moving to higher 
ground as soon as they saw the occur.  In many many cases that was all 
that was needed for people to save themselves.

>Assuming He did this for no reason is absurd - it would be equivalent
>to saying He did it for the "fun of it", chalilo. Assuming He did
>this for a reason, but we are not supposed to guess at that reason,
>essentially means He did it for no reason. Conclusion: He did it for a
>reason, and we're supposed to make an educated guess as to what it is,
>and try learn something from it.

It seems to me though that before one tries making educated guesses
one first has to understand precisely what it is that Hashem has done,
because an educated guess as to a reason in the absence of the facts
is worthless. Thus, what needs first to be understood is that Hashem
created an earthquake under the Indian Ocean and made sure that it set
off the instruments in Hawaii so that humanity had notice that a tsunami
was coming. He also made sure that the tsunami hit in the "natural"
manner, preceded by the tide going suddenly out. That is the fact about
the matter.

Only, it seems to me, once those facts are absorbed can an educated
guess be made, and any guess in the absence of those facts cannot be
described as educated.

>OTOH
>A terrorist victim was the victim of a Homo Sapiens. (I can't get myself
>to write "human", or even "person".) This is a completely different
>category. As the siddur says before tachanun, (quoting Nach, but I don't
>have time to find the exact source) King Dovid asked Hashem to fall in
>His hand and not in a person's hand.

>People have the ability to cut other people's lives short. I have just
>finished hearing 3-4 hours of (taped) lectures on this and cannot
>efficiently summarise it in a few lines - though I'm sure others
>could. (RMB has a special knack for doing this.)

Agreed. How about by inaction as well (i.e. failing to take a critical
telephone call when you are the person in charge of the emergency
services)? How about failing to educate enough people about the science
of natural disasters?

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

In message , T613K@aol.com writes
>I'm glad you wrote, I have been feeling very irritated all along at
>the line that goes, "We can't possibly know the reason for tragedy and
>it's wrong to even try to speculate" which, as you say, has the practical
>result of declaring that for all practical purposes, G-d kills millions of
>people for no reason. And also has the further result that no one tries
>to change, fix, or correct anything, so that it becomes self-fulfilling:
>G-d has no positive results in mind and we will make sure that no positive
>good results from this catastrophe.

>Someone wrote--sorry don't remember who, so can't give credit--that if you
>draw the "wrong" conclusion from tragedy and accidentally do teshuva for
>something other than the sin you were "supposed" to do teshuva for, well,
>there has still been a net benefit. At least you improved in SOMETHING.
>But if you say, "I don't know why it happened so I will assume there is
>no lesson for me" then there is no net benefit to you or to the world.
>Surely "no net benefit" cannot be part of G-d's intention, whatever His
>intention is.

I would agree that if you indeed improved something then there would
definitely be a net benefit. But I think that in the hunt for reasons
there is something else going on here which does not necessarily lead
to a net benefit.

To elaborate, let me explain that there seem to be two issues here:

a) the issue of whether there is a reason that G-d acted in bringing
the tzunami and whether we should search for the sin that cause it; and

b) the nature of the sins identified.

Regarding b) the fundamental problem I have with the sins that keep
being identified are that they tend to be of a divisive nature.

One sin that is repeatedly identified is that of talking in shul.
While talking in shul is indeed described as a sin that is greater
than a person can bear, the reality of the world we live in is that
there are two groups of people in almost every shul, the talkers and
the non talkers. And almost inevitably the people making these sorts of
statements and then quoting them approvingly are the non talkers. That
is, each and every one of these statements comes across as "the problem
is the eruv rav in our midst".

Similarly when 9/11 was blamed on a lack of tznius by women, again the
frum world was being divided into two groups, us and the "other", with
it being the other who were to blame with the responsibility here seems
to be being laid on the least of us, on the baal habatim, on the more
ignorant of women, on the "other" and I do find that problematic.

I think if somebody got up and said, "I am (at least partially) to blame,
I did not learn enough Torah, do enough chessed, acting tzniusdikly
enough, talked in shul" or whatever "and this and this is what *I* am
going to do to improve the situation" - that would indeed be different and
is the approach you are advocating above. And the greater the person the
more inspiring such teshuva would be. (Why is the response of the CC that
has been quoted all over is so much more impressive than anybody else's -
I think at least in part because *he* decided to fast - he did not "call"
a fast, he fasted, as a leader of the people).

But rather the responsibility appears so often to be to pushed off onto
other people, and the weakest members of our society at that.

Now R' Eliyahu's response is at least slightly different, because he is
stating that the problem lies with the most powerful people in Israeli
society, the Israeli Government. But even here, it is not "us" who is
being asked to do teshuva, it is "them". I do not expect R' Eliyahu to
change or do anything more than he is doing already to oppose the pull
out from Gaza - so what has that accomplished? (And realistically, if
that was Hashem's intention, what realistically could he have expected a
tsunami in the Indian Ocean to accomplish, especially as the people who
are doing the pull out are in the main not even believers). A tsunami in
the Mediterranean that wiped out Gaza City, yes I could see that - that
might well give everybody pause - but in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

And it seems to me that there is a very real danger in the search for
reasons if it is done the wrong way. You see, what a tragedy on this
scale forces is those who generally turn a blind eye to the tragedy
next door (as we all have to to some extent to emotionally survive) to
confront the question - why by the grace of G-d go there not I? And of
course the fear that our own lives will be turned suddenly topsy turvey
by an overpowering wave. Hence a response that can shift the blame onto
others in fact makes us all feel just that bit safer, and allows us to
retain our sense of detachment - especially if we can pin the blame on
our pet sinner in the other camp.

On the other hand if we truly absorbed a message of responsibility,
and each as an individual took on a higher level of commitment, to
rectify a particular sin of their own that would be a different story.
But you don't necessarily need to find reasons for this - you can still
determine what *you* are going to do that is better than you were doing
before l'zecher the memory of the victims of the tsunami without needing
a reason for the tsunami.

And surely surely, if there is a reason we are supposed to discover then
there must be some logic to the linkage. That is why I have made the
suggestion regarding attitudes to science and scientists. Because, that
so clearly was what *caused* the tsunami to have the disastrous effect
it did. If the scientists in Hawaii had been able to get their warnings
through, so many many lives could have been saved. On a practical level,
what this tsunami has shown is that we (as human beings and people of
the world) need to have scientific warning systems set up vis a vis the
nations of the Indian Ocean, and they need to learn to listen to the
scientists and act upon their warnings.

But, if you want to make a linkage to Yisroel, as so many people do -
it seemed to me that we don't need to look very far to see a pretty
obvious linkage to what I have referred to above. Especially with the
scary reality that a primary school girl from England was able to save
her whole beach because she paid attention during the science class that
probably none of our kids get, because they are sent to schools where
that kind of science is not taught. And why is that science not taught?
Because we are scared about risking the emunah of our children. And
we are scared about the emunah of our adults so we don't teach them
that kind science either, because they might come to doubt. And many
of us don't even want them to have access to books that serve to deal
with such questions in any form (and even those who do want to allow
access to those books, only want it for those, nebech, already exposed
to science). That link seems to keep staring me in the face every time I
think about it. But that particular link is unsettling (even for me who
tends towards support of RNS) - all the more so for the rest of the frum
world. It is much easier to blame the lax standards of women's dress,
the talkers in shul, the chiloni Israeli government and other people
who won't listen and are not interested in pursuing reasons are changing
their action. And there doesn't seem a lot of point in that.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:04:21PM -0500, Harry Weiss wrote:
: The question discussed was our modern bathrooms. Does one have to do
: netillat yadayim if one enters the restroom to rinse ones hand or to
: get something from the medicine cabinet. He brought down a Tshuvah
: (it may have been from R' Moshe) that said that while our toilets are
: clean after being flushed, there is a period of time tha the filth is
: in there, and thus it it not the same as teh Beis Hakise ha Parsi which
: the waste went away immediately.

I don't see how a flushed toilet, once flushed, is more of a problem
than a beis hakisei haParsi. I doubt they had traps, and they certainly
didn't have water blocking the odor.

-mi

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:32:30AM -0500, Russell Levy wrote:
: In the case of the computer, there is a closing of a switch -- it's
: not solid state electronics, and a timer is being started, so a circuit
: had to close. In the case of the elevator, just by logic, if a flow of
: electrons through a circuit is started by something getting in the way
: of the infrared beam that could ends up causing some beeping, the same
: flow of electrons must start. From what I remember from my one year in
: Engineering (before I got lazy and dropped out), most IR sensors "trip
: a switch" when they are set off.

But what if the switch is a solid state gate, either within a chip or
a power transistor? The only change is on a level too small to be seen.

Do such things have mamashus? My rebbe, Rav Dovid Lifshitz (as I've too
often repeated here) explains that this is why the gemara blames the
existance of kinim on the other goreim, the meat. The beitzim didn't
count, and therefore the meat they ate since hatching was the only
significant goreim for the kinim.

Can one violate boneh or makeh bepatish by making a microscopic
change? Beitzei kinim lack halachic mamashus, even though their effect
(the kinim) are macroscopic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unkown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

At 04:16 PM 02/01/2005, [RZS] wrote:
>But what is the difference? It is a firmly established Jewish belief
>that the mitzvah of mezuzah provides physical protection, and that the
>Shomer Daltot Yisrael protects us not just when we are in the house but
>also Tzetecha Uvo'echa. Illustrating an example where a lack of this
>protection may have led to severe consequences can only impress upon
>people the importance of being protected.

A number of years ago I mentioned to Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT"L that one
hears that if someone has trouble, they should check their Mezzuzos.
He replied with a wave of his hand. "People get an idea in their
head." To me the implication was clear that he did not put much stock
in this approach.

YL

L. E. Levine wrote:
>> But what is the difference? It is a firmly established Jewish belief
>> that the mitzvah of mezuzah provides physical protection, and that the
>> Shomer Daltot Yisrael protects us not just when we are in the house but
>> also Tzetecha Uvo'echa. Illustrating an example where a lack of this
>> protection may have led to severe consequences can only impress upon
>> people the importance of being protected.

> A number of years ago I mentioned to Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT"L that one 
> hears that if someone has trouble, they should check their Mezzuzos.  He 
> replied with a wave of his hand. "People get an idea in their head." To 
> me the implication was clear that he did not put much stock in this 
> approach.

Well, greater and better people than him did put much stock in it.

In any case, whether the first thing one should do is check the mezuzot
is one thing - perhaps he thought that, assuming the mezuzot were checked
fairly recently as required by halacha, one should assume they are still
kosher, and look for other reasons why something might have happened.
But I hope you're not implying that he didn't believe that mezuzot do
provide physical protection, or that lack of kosher mezuzot means a lack
of that protection. If something happens to someone who we know does not
have kosher mezuzot, I cannot believe that RAM would have dismissed the
idea that it could have been prevented.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

At 05:56 PM 02/01/2005, Zev Sero wrote:
>In any case, whether the first thing one should do is check the mezuzot
>is one thing - perhaps he thought that, assuming the mezuzot were
>checked fairly recently as required by halacha, one should assume they
>are still kosher, and look for other reasons why something might have
>happened.  But I hope you're not implying that he didn't believe that
>mezuzot do provide physical protection, or that lack of kosher mezuzot
>means a lack of that protection.  If something happens to someone who
>we know does not have kosher mezuzot, I cannot believe that RAM would
>have dismissed the idea that it could have been prevented.

Anyone who knew Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT"L, or who listened to his talks,
knows that he was most concerned about health, safety and the prevention
of accidents. I heard him say more than once that if a woman with
young children could not watch he Shabbos candles while they burned,
then she should not light Shabbos candles! Rav Miller would not shake
hands when he had a cold. He walked daily for at least an hour. He often
posted items about health on the bulletin board of his shul. He always
crossed the street in the cross walk and when the signal indicated one
was allowed to cross. There are many more examples of his adherence to
practices that were designed to preserve one's health and life.

Thus he believed in taking concrete steps to prevent tragedy and not in
relying of "supernatural" means. This he felt, I believe, was the way
to insure safety and good health. I think, although he did not say this
to me, that he felt that if a person followed the halacha and checked
his Mezzuzos at the required intervals, then that was all that one had
to do regarding this issue.

YL

L. E. Levine wrote:
> I think, although he did not say this 
> to me, that he felt that if a person followed the halacha and checked 
> his Mezzuzos at the required intervals, then that was all that one had 
> to do regarding this issue.

That may very well be. If that is the case, what has it got to do with
the subject at hand? We are talking about people who do *not* have kosher
mezuzot, and you are talking about people who, as far as they know, do.
Te'ano bechitim, vehodeh lo bis'orim.

If RAM felt that, having recently checked the mezuzot, checking again
seemed a bit obsessive and unnecessary, and one should first look at
possible causes that have not yet been checked, then that's how he felt,
and it makes a certain amount of sense, though as I said, harbeh gedolim
vetovim mimenu did not take that approach. But when we know that the
person did not have a mezuzah, that's like knowing that someone did
not have a seat belt, or was not immunised; it is very likely that this
could have saved him, and others should take warning from it.

Here's an example: suppose I have an electrician check the wiring in my
house, she says everything's fine, and a month later there's a fire.
One approach would be to say well, it couldn't have been the wiring,
that was just checked a month ago and it was fine, so it must have
been something else. Let's look for other things that could possibly
have gone wrong, and not waste time having the wiring gone over again.
Another person might say look, it's possible that the electrician missed
something, or perhaps the rats got to the wiring since the inspection;
let's look at it again, so that if something has gone wrong we can fix
it before ch"v there's another fire. Both approaches make sense, and
which way a person goes may depend on his temperament. Perhaps RAM was
the first kind of person.

But if we know for a fact that the wiring was unsafe, and then there's a
fire, sure, it could just be a coincidence, it could be that the fire had
nothing to do with the wiring, but the odds are that it did, and a prudent
person will immediately fix the wiring so that it doesn't happen again.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:58:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: If RAM felt that, having recently checked the mezuzot, checking again
: seemed a bit obsessive and unnecessary, and one should first look at
: possible causes that have not yet been checked, then that's how he felt,
: and it makes a certain amount of sense, though as I said, harbeh gedolim
: vetovim mimenu did not take that approach...

Back in vol 5 #67 onward, we tried to determine whether the mitzvah of
mezuzah provides protection or the mitzvah itself did. The difference
would be this very case -- someone who checked their mezuzos kedin,
and therefore were yotzei the mitzvah, but kelapei shemaya galyah that
a letter cracked.

The Rambam vehemently supported the former, and criticizes those who
turn a mitzvah into a kemi'ah.

Eventually (vol 7), RM Phyllostac cited Tradition v16n4 (Summer 1977).

Personally, I think the notion of checking one's mezuzos when faced
with tragedy wasn't commonplace until the L mezuzah campaign, a few
decades ago.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

At 07:09 PM 02/01/2005, Zev Sero wrote:
>But if we know for a fact that the wiring was unsafe, and then there's
>a fire, sure, it could just be a coincidence, it could be that the fire
>had nothing to do with the wiring, but the odds are that it did, and a
>prudent person will immediately fix the wiring so that it doesn't happen
>again.

"If we know for a fact that the wiring was unsafe," then the person was
negligent when it comes to taking appropriate safety precautions. That
is the cause of the fire, period. What other conclusion can one come to
that makes sense? How could the fire have nothing to do with the wiring,
if the wiring was unsafe? Am I missing something here?

At 12:52 PM 1/31/2005, [RZS] wrote:
>>In my opinion, it is absurdly ethnocentric to assume that 250,000+
>>non-Jews were killed and millions more injured or displaced simply in
>>order to forewarn the Jews about the disengagement.

>"Even a ship going from Gaul to Spain is only blessed because of Israel".

And you assume that is all there is, k'peshuto?!

YGB 

L. E. Levine wrote:
> "If we know for a fact that the wiring was unsafe,"  then the person was 
> negligent when it comes to taking appropriate safety precautions. That 
> is the cause of the fire, period. What other conclusion can one come to 
> that makes sense? How could the fire have nothing to do with the wiring, 
> if the wiring was unsafe? Am I missing something here?

Sure. Not all fires are caused by faulty wiring, and a house with the
worst wiring in the world can still be set on fire by lightning or by
an arsonist. But that's not the way to bet.

But you miss my point. In fact, leshitatcha you should agree with me even
more than I do myself! A person has no mezuzah and something happens to
him, what else could it be? Well, the fact is that it could be anything,
but there's at least a good chance that it was the mezuzot. Once again,
I really hope you're not saying that mezuzot don't offer physical
protection, or that RAM believed such a thing. [note to moderators:
I hope that last sentence isn't too strong; if you think it is, feel
free to leave it out.]

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

First I wish to thank you for your input as much as I fully disagree with
it. My motto is we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable,
so please understand that my fervid disagreement is not personal at all.

You write:
> First of all I *highly* doubt that this was reported accurately. I'm 100%
> sure that what he said, very clearly, was not that the lack of mezuzot
> caused the accident, but that had they had kosher mezuzot they might
> have been saved.

You know, it amazes me how a simple, plain and clear statement can be
misunderstood . The following was distinctly stated:
> ...the reason given was that their parents' mezuzot were not kosher.

There was nothing stated regarding the lack of mezuzot which caused the
accident. If anything, you actually strengthened my argument. First of
all how in the world did he know that they did not have kosher mezuzot,
number one, and even if they didn't, wouldn't a lack of mezuzot be
worse than if the mezuzot were not kosher? That makes his statement
even MORE offensive. How would you feel if, chas v'shalom, some mishap
occurred to you or your family, and some rabbi made the statement that
if your tefillin had been examined twice in seven years, this wouldn't
have happened (or some similar orotundity).

> And what makes you think that he was wrong? If he had suggested that
> the reason they were killed is that they were not wearing seat belts,
> would you condemn him like this?

To your first question as to what makes me think he was wrong, I'll ask
you a question. What makes you think that suicide bombers, Y"S, don't go
to heaven and are given 72 virgins as their reward? Your second question
is a much easier one to answer. You're comparing latkes and cholent.
There are things that are hidden to us and there are things that are
clear. It is clear that not wearing seat belts and not being immunized
carries higher risk than its alternative. However, in the realm of
suffering, tragedy and the like, the reasons are hidden. I brought
documentation from the Book of Jonah and Proverbs illustrating that
very point.

> "How do *you* understand the Rambam who says that failing to draw the
> lessons from what happens to us is cruel and wicked?

It's interesting that you bring up the Rambam. Philosophically, the
Rambam was a religious rationalist. His damning attacks on people who
held ideas he regarded as primitive so infuriated his opponents that
they proscribed parts of his code and all of The Moreh Nevuchim. Look,
Rambam was a great sage. That doesn't mean that everything he said or did
was right. Interestingly, Abderrahmane Badawi, a Muslim professor from
Kuwait University (l'havdil), declared: ג€œI regard Maimonides first
and foremost as an Arab thinker.ג€ This sentiment was echoed by Saudi
Arabian professor Huseyin Atay, who claimed that ג€œif you didn't know he
was Jewish, you might easily make the mistake of saying that a Muslim was
writing.ג€ That type of compliment, to me, isn't very complimentary and
should indicate the Rambam's radical views in the area we are discussing.

"Now how is this different than your case?"

Your whole argument and comparison of Nadav and Avihu's death doesn't
parallel my "case" at all. It so happens, incidentally, that the gemara
(Yoma 1:1) states: "Why is the death of the righteous (referring to
Nadav and Avihu) mentioned in conjunction with the chapter of the Yom
Kippur service? Because just as Yom Kippur brings atonement, so the
death of the righteous brings atonement." I would argue that the gemara
actually says this to counterbalance some of the harsh pronouncements
made regarding their death. Micha Berger said the following which should
offer an additional insight on this:
>  To me, the notion that Chazal offered many answers to the tragedies
> in chumash (e.g. the death of Nadav vaAvihu) or later ones (eg the two
> churbanos) is that they saw that no one answer sufficed. Can we turn
> this idea into a "one answer" which itself doesn't suffice?"

Micha's statement is a voice of reason. I believe the bottom line in
all of this discussion is "Common Sense." And comments such as those
pertaining to the hidden mysteries of life attempting to explain G-d's
reasons do nothing but turn people off. These oversimplifications are
odious. Do you really think making statements like that will bring
people closer to Judaism?

Richard Wolberg 

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


[ 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         ]