Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 002

Friday, October 7 2005

• Re: statistics
• Re: Selichos before Rosh Hashana
• Re: hiskashrus
• RE: hiskashrus
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Hashkofa learned from prayer?
• Shofar on Shabbos
• Fw: Rare Calendrical Event Coming Up
• RE: hiskashrus
• Re: Fw: Rare Calendrical Event Coming Up
• RE: Rare Calendrical Event Coming Up
• RE: hiskashrus
• Machzorim and Piracy
• shofar in the morning
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Re: torah lo ba'shamayin he
• Re: Halakhah and emotions and Re: Shemona Perakim

The statistics measure derekh hateva. To the extent that nisim today are
at most nisim nistarim, reality will be somewhere near the middle of the
bell curve. Just as "hakol biydei Shamayim chutz mitzinim upachin." Or
the need (mentioned by others) for having a job for making a parnasah,
not smoking, etc...

However, I think this may have been RET's point. He asked:
> According to those shitot that every human (at least) is governed
> strictly by his mitzvot vs sins how does one account for the use od
> statistics to measure the influence of almost everything on mortality
> rates. 

He didn't ask leshitas haRambam, or any of the primary sources RDE
gave. Speaking sociologically, when you ask Moish Q Frummie on the street,
he will probably tell you he believes everything is miydei Shamayim
and sechar-va'onesh. But when push comes to shove they remember that
there are so many other factors. There is a failure to fully integrate
one's hashkafah.

Still, a statistic that n% of people would die doesn't determine mi
yichyeh... But it does constrain how many can merit it -- until the end
of hesteir panim.

KVCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:46:38AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Compare: Do we blow the shofar for the month of Elul, or do we blow it for
: 29 days before Rosh Hashana? ...

I think neither. As you note, the latter formulation would require making
up for Shabbasos and erev RH. It would seem that we blow for the month
preceding RH -- when possible. Not qua Elul, but as a lead-in to RH.

For that matter, it could well be in order to complete the count of 40
including 10 yemei teshuvah. 40 is the usual number for birth and rebirth
(including the number of se'ah necessary for a miqvah).

Or perhaps to give significance to the 49 days before Shemini Atzeres,
akin to the 49 days of omer before Atzeres.

KVCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: can any one comment if this is mainly a chassidic idea , or an ideal
: accross yiddishkeit

"Asei lekha rav" is a mishnah. But the idea that a tzaddiq can serve
as one's qesher to Shamayim... Well, every idea in chassidus is built
on an earlier mesorah, but no one else takes it the way chassidus does.

KVCT!
-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: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On October 5, 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
>: can any one comment if this is mainly a chassidic idea , or an ideal
>: accross yiddishkeit

> "Asei lekha rav" is a mishnah. But the idea that a tzaddiq can serve
> as one's qesher to Shamayim... Well, every idea in chassidus is built
> on an earlier mesorah, but no one else takes it the way chassidus does.

Although I agree with you, Chassidim would be down your throat. For
instance, they would quote the Chazal on the pasuk "uvo sidbak" that
this refers to talmeeday chachamim. It is much easier to project their
understanding of hiskashrus into this maamar Chazal (although I think
their interpretation is somewhat distorted) than the mamar Chazal you
quoted. They have a ton of other maamarim too including kabbalistic ones
however, all their mareh mikomos can (and in many cases should) easily be
understood in a different light. To actually say that without the Rebbe
(Tzadik) Chassid relationship it is impossible to approach Hashem is,
IMO, karov to AZ in the sense that you are necessitating the existence
of a memutza (intermediary) which was essentially the chet of the eygel
hazahav. To this they would respond that there is a difference between a
memutza hamichaber and a memutza hamarchik although there is no source
for such a doctrine (they would quote the pasuk of "anochee omeid bein
Hashem uveyneychem" but this pasuk, al pi peshat, has nothing to do with
their interpretation and thus cannot be used as a proof).

(I hope there aren't any Chassidic lurkers on Avodah or I'm in trouble)

Gmar Chasima Tova
Simcha Coffer 

On September 27, 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
>: OTOH, I propose that the above interpretation is entirely incoherent, as
>: RMB himself seems to admit above ("I consider that incomprehensible. Don't
>: you?")...

> That's just a silly word-game. Are you interested in finging emes, or
> scoring points? I wrote that the interpretation is coherent, it's time
> during ma'aseh bereishis (and even my use of the word "during") that
> we can't comprehend.

I'm interested in finding emes however the pasuk says "haemes v'hashalom
ehevu" and thus, in order to mitigate the harshness of my allegation of
incoherency, I made reference to your previous comment. In retrospect,
it was ill-advised and thus I would like to come right out with my point.

To say that time existed during Maaseh Bereishis and yet was not linear
and did not flow is incoherent because time flows and is linear. Time is a
physical creation of Hashem albeit a very difficult one to define. Today,
physicists view time as a medium within which our three dimensional
world exists while others go so far as to say that time is merely a
fourth dimension. Albert Einstein's theories have proven this time
and time again (pun intended). Time is affected by the speed of matter
and is also affected by gravitational forces which proves conclusively
that time is intrinsically associated with our physical universe. This
otherworldly time you discuss is a creation of your own mind and is
entirely incompatible with any known concepts of time, scientific or
otherwise. The fact that you claim that Rav Dessler holds this shita
doesn't make it any more coherent.

>:                            Since we cannot know what incomprehensible
>: time means, how can we possibly assert that it existed much less say
>: that it represents pre and post eitz hadaas time?

> Your argument must be flawed. After all, we can and do assert that Hashem
> exists, even though all we can comprehend about Him are the boundries
> of what is incomprehensible.

I'm surprised at you. As a chasid of the Maharal, I'm sure you know that
the only thing we can understand about Hashem is how he is manifested
through his "actions" here on earth. Nothing about his atzmus can be
said at all, much less understood. As far as saying that he "exists",
this is exclusively a lashon mush'al and is actually not a positive
designation of Hashem's essence. See Chovos halevavos Shaar haYichud
for an exhaustive treatment of this subject.

>: I submit that the following translation of the pertinent paragraphs of the
>: maamar...

> They are not the pertinent paragraphs of the maamar.

Maybe and maybe not but you are certainly not being of any help. I have
taken the time to translate several paragraphs in Rav Dessler's maamar
that support my contention that he was never talking about the real
flow of time but was rather talking about how the real flow of time is
perceived by mankind. The mashal of the boy for instance, makes this
abundantly clear. (Jonathan also supplied you with his personal mashal
of a daydreamer which is akin to Rav Dessler's mashal) You, OTOH, haven't
quoted a single line in Rav Dessler's maamar to support your contention.

> And in fact, you
> do not seem to recall its conclusion, as you later write:
>:> REED also uses the mashal of looking at a map through a hole to show
>:> that we don't understand what time really is.

>: While I was composing this e-mail, your response to my e-mail came in
>: wherein you described your "map theory" in more detail. Thus I will
>: treat your above comment when I respond to your most recent e-mail to me.

> It's not my "map theory", it's REED's mashal.

By "theory" I meant your interpretation of Rav Dessler's mashal. And now,
let's see exactly how you interpreted Rav Dessler's mashal.

On September 23, 2005 you wrote:
> According to REED, the entire concept of time having a flow, of having a
> time *line* with a duration of 6 days, 6 millenia, or 15 billion years,
> is one of perception. That is how he
> explains the Ramban's 6 literal days also being literally equal to the
> subsequent 6 millenia.

O.K. Now, let's see exactly what Rav Dessler says: The following is
a literal translation of the "map mashal" with any additions of mine
enclosed in brackets.

Michtav MeEliyahu Chelek Beis pg. 154
"And the example for this: A world map, every point on it representing a
[different] city, is covered by an [opaque] paper which has one hole in it
[large enough to see only one city at a time]. When we slide the paper
across the surface of the map, we can see, through the hole, city after
city, and it seems to us that when one city is seen [through the hole]
the past and future cities are not here. But the truth is that the cities
are really all simultaneously here except that they are covered [but]
when we remove the cover, all of them will be revealed together at one
time. So too is it with man, they reveal to him in each and every moment
of the present, point after point of his essence and the previous point
is already concealed from his eyes because it already pertains to the
past however [the truth is that] it really does [currently] exist in his
soul and does not go out of existence. And when the concealment of time
is finally nullified after death and the cover of corporeality is finally
removed, he will see all at once. All of his spiritual essence will be
revealed, with all of the points of light [i.e. spiritual revelation]
and darkness [corporeal concealment] appearing as one hewn entity. And
then he will see that time was merely a concealment because all [essence
of man] is really one [unified] entity which exists together at once. This
is the world of eternity which possesses no past or future"

Well, it's quite apparent that you misinterpreted Rav Dessler's
mashal. You wrote "Without human perception, time is a map, not the motion
of a hole moving to uncover one city or another." This is obviously
incorrect. On the contrary, time *is* the motion of the paper sliding
across the surface of the map (i.e. flow) and the map is the essence of
our souls (not like you wrote that the map is a mashal for time) which
is only revealed to us in pieces by means of the facility of time which
conceals from our eyes the "past" and 'future" bits of our essences.

> According to R' Dessler,
> Adam's experience of time was to see from one end of the world to the
> other -- all of it "at once" (for want of better language). 

And in view of the above translation, Rav Dessler's meaning now becomes
crystal clear. Adam haRishon did not posses the levels of hester that we
do and thus was able to take a look at his world and perceive absolute
spiritual revelation in all of its facets other than one, the eitz hadaas.
This has nothing to do with the real flow of time; rather, because there
was very little room for change in Adam's life, the flow of time was
perceived by him in a very weak fashion almost as if it didn't exist. A
good example of this would be R' Chaim Volozhin's famous explanation of
"shom'im ess hanir'ah v'roin ess hanishma"

>: Second of all, since you concede that this pre chet time is
>: incomprehensible, the only way you know it exists is because you claim
>: that R' Dessler learns peshat in the Ramban that way. The problem is that
>: the Ramban only says that the six days correspond to the six millennia,
>: nothing more. Since you admit that the mechanism by which this connection
>: is accomplished is incomprehensible, how do you know that it would work
>: when applied to 15 billion years too?

> Again, my point isn't that it /would/ work, but that it /could/ work --
> "in a way". 

Yes, but what way? My point is that you have no indication that there
is any way it can work from the Ramban, who is only talking about the
six millennia, so why are you using Rav Dessler's explanation of the
Ramban as a proof to your interpretation of pre-chet time equalling a
possible perception of billions of years?

R' Micha, I honestly think that you and I are never going to see eye
to eye on this topic. I was hoping that some other Avodah members would
have jumped onboard during the coarse of our dialogue however, apparently
it was not meant to be. Therefore, due to the risk of boring everyone
to tears, I think this will be my final post on this subject for now
(unless you respond with something REALLY irritating :-).

GCT

Simcha Coffer 

In light of the Maharal and other sources that I recently posted - it 
seems that the judgment of Rosh HaShanna is apparently not detailed nor 
is it final. Furthermore it can be modified by either repentance, prayer 
or natural events - even after Yom Kippur.

"Maharal(Rosh HaShanna 16b page 110): The explanation that the complete
tzadik is written for life is that everything concerning him is for
life even if the mazel is for death...he will be guarded against the
chance causes of death by G-d...Concerning the wicked it is the opposite
even his mazel is for life G-d writes him for death. That means G-d
leaves him exposed to chance causes of death. Death is not inevitable
because the mazel might be so strong that it will guard him but it is
a strong possibility. That is why Chazal tell us that one should not
travel with a rasha because he is accompanied by the angelic agents of
destruction...however there are times that he doesn't actually die...This
is expressed by Dovid (Shmuel I 26) that death is divided into 3 causes 1)
G-d directly causes 2) natural 3) chance..."

My question concerns the Unesana Tokef prayer which clearly states that 
the judgment concerns specifics details of one's fate - not just life or 
death. This is inconsistent with the sources I cited. What is the source 
of this hashkofa since Rosh HaShanna 16 does not make such a claim?

Rav Zevin asserts that it comes from the Yerushalmi Rosh HaShanna which 
states that countries are judged as to war or peace. However I don't 
think one can generalize from the fact that a country is decreed to have 
war to assert that the details of how an individual will die are also 
decreed. It seems reasonable that there should be a specific source for 
the prayer in chazal - and there apparently is not.

This also opens the larger question of whether the specific wording of 
prayers indicates "psak" in hashkofa or that the prayers need only to be 
uplifting or motivating. If it is the former then the prayer itself is 
in fact the source of the hashkofa. However if we are in fact learning 
hashkofa from this prayer there is an additional problem in that the 
prayer was taught in a dream - which gets into the issue of not learning 
halacha from ruach hakodesh and dreams.

Daniel Eidensohn

From a thread on Areivim:

Somebody wrote:
The point I'm getting to is that Chazal seem to have been very concerned
with even an extremely remote risk. Seriously, folks: What is the risk that
someone is going to carry a shofar, on Shabbos Rosh Hashana, through a
reshus harabim d'Oraisa, to bring it to a chacham, so that he can learn how
to blow it? Yet it is because of that possibility, that ALL of us have been
denied the benefits of hearing the shofar on that day in shul.

I've often wondered about this, and just had an idea. Maybe the
"given" reason is not the *real* one.

Maybe the real reason is to protect the ba'al Toke'a. Imagine the
embarrassment and nisayon the fellow would have to go through if he
forgets to bring his shofar to shul on Erev Shabbos.

Now I have to figure out why chazal gave the "wrong" reason...

Ksiva vChasima Tova

- Danny

Comments from a friend:
It is very interesting
However two of the highlights I think are not correct
 in #t  5 he writes that in 1948 there was no shabbos
Chanuka that is impossible every chanuka has a shabbos.
 in #t 8 he write that parshas vayelech will be read on two shabbos
mornings.
  as far as I know no parsha is ever read more than on one shabbos<<

Over to you, RAB

SBA 

At 11:22 PM 10/5/2005 -0400, RSC wrote:
>> "Asei lekha rav" is a mishnah. But the idea that a tzaddiq can serve
>> as one's qesher to Shamayim... Well, every idea in chassidus is built
>> on an earlier mesorah, but no one else takes it the way chassidus does.

>Although I agree with you, Chassidim would be down your throat. <SNIP>
>(I hope there aren't any Chassidic lurkers on Avodah or I'm in trouble)

Chassidic lurker here. :)

Actually this discussion of a chassid connecting to Hashem by connecting
to a Tzaddik is not universal in chassidus. In Pshyscha, the approach
was that the Rebbe was the person who helped a chassid to realize how
he can connect directly to Hashem. It represented a major shift from
the centralized system focused on the Rebbe/Tzaddik to a decentralized
system focused on the individual chassidim.

Gmar Chasima Tova!
mendel ("a chassidic lurker")

On 10/6/05, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
>  in #t  5 he writes that in 1948 there was no shabbos
> Chanuka that is impossible every chanuka has a shabbos.
>  in #t 8 he write that parshas vayelech will be read on two shabbos
> mornings.
>   as far as I know no parsha is ever read more than on one shabbos<<

Some lateral thinking is required...

R'SBA wrote:
> Comments from a friend:
...
> Over to you, RAB

I'm not sure how often R' Ari Brodsky reads Avodah, since, from what
I understand, he has work to do for his PhD! I assume he'll respond to
you though, since he'll be following a thread he started. I still want
to respond though!

In every Jewish year, there's a shabbos Chanukah. In every secular year,
there need not be one. IIRC (not from being there), it was on Dec. 31,
1947 and Jan 1, 1949.

Parashiyot are not exactly based on when the year -- for example, in the
year 5765 (this past year), we did not read Vayelech at all! Nitzavim and
Vayelech were read together on the Shabbos before RH because there was
no Shabbos between YK and Sukkos. This year, since there is a Shabbos,
they are read separately, so Vayelech is read after RH. So, the week
before 5765 Vayelech was read, and the week after 5765 Vayelech was
read, but it was not read in 5765 at all! 5766 is the opposite, with the
Vayelech at the beginning of the year being read on the first Shabbos,
and Nitzavim-Vayelech being read together at the end of the year, on
the last Shabbos. And now, I have a question for Ari: What percentage
of years have us read Vayelech twice?

--Russell

On October 6, 2005 Mendel Singer wrote:

> Actually this discussion of a chassid connecting to Hashem by connecting
> to a Tzaddik is not universal in chassidus. In Pshyscha, the approach
> was that the Rebbe was the person who helped a chassid to realize how
> he can connect directly to Hashem. It represented a major shift from
> the centralized system focused on the Rebbe/Tzaddik to a decentralized
> system focused on the individual chassidim.

And yet the house of Pashischah generated a Kotzker Rebbe which in turn
spawned the houses of Gur and Alexander, two of the most devoted Rebbe
Chasid houses in Chassidus.

In any case, I was not referring to the Rebbe Chasid relationship per se
which I consider an extremely beneficial arrangement for klal yisroel. In
fact, IMHO, Chassidus was instrumental in saving klal yisroel. I was
referring to two houses in particular and their offshoots. Lizensk and
Chabad.

Simcha Coffer

I just put this on my blog http://thanbook.blogspot.com/; thought it
might go over well here.

Some years ago, I bought a Rosh Hashanah machzor on eBay, German-size,
nusach Polin (Eastern European), printed in Sulzbach in 1826. I've used
it for years, enjoying the commentary, but not knowing much about it.
This year, I obtained the Yom Kippur volume.

Also this year, Feldheim Publishers has put out a reprint of an 1815
German machzor, printed at Roedelheim at the press of Wolf Heidenheim,
with the commentary and partial German translation prepared by
Heidenheim, a noted grammarian as well as publisher. I started comparing
by Sulzbach machzorim to the Heidenheim, and found that the commentary
and translations are identical, and the page layout is similar.

Now, a real Roedelheim/Heidenheim machzor has a picture of R' Heidenheim's
signature, and in later editions, a picture of his seal. My 1826 machzorim
had no indication of the editor or commentator's names. The 1815 ones
had the picture of Heidenheim's signature, and a couple of prefaces
and haskamot, while mine had neither. Furthermore, the 1826 edition is
not listed in the Bet Eked Sefarim, one of the major bibliographies of
Jewish books before 1950.

It seems I have a knockoff Heidenheim machzor.

Furthermore, Heidenheim machzorim were pirated almost from the beginning.
The 1815 edition (third) has a letter from Heidenheim decrying
unauthorized reprints, and anathematizing his former assistant, Baruch
Boschwitz, who had left him in 1807 and published his own knockoff
of Heidenheim's machzorim. The Chatam Sofer intervened in that case
and ruled in Heidenheim's favor, on the grounds that impinging on the
editorial and creative effort of an author, is the same as poaching on
another's fishing areas (Choshen Mishpat #79). The first edition had
been printed around 1800.

Now, haskamot were originally provided to anathematize unauthorized
reprinters. They were not exclusively the nihil obstat (proof of kosher
content) that they have become today. They were the old equivalent of
copyright (see, e.g. the Jewish Law site for articles on Jewish law and
copyright). But in the absence of real enforceable penalties, they became
useless, as my machzor shows.

Today we have numerous copyright infringements that go unenforced, notably
the Rebecca Bennet Talmud in the 1960s. This was a small-format Talmud,
with reduced images of the early 1860s Lemberg edition of the Talmud on
one side, and reduced images of the Soncino English translation of the
1930s and 1940s on the other side.

In fact, the first full edition of the Talmud printed in North America,
in 1919 by the Eagle-Wolofsky Press in Montreal, used Vilna page images,
as most Talmuds do today, and is listed by Habermann in his bibliography
of the Talmud as "unauthorized".

Does anyone know of recent material on Heidenheim and his literary and
commercial activities? Preferably in Hebrew or English? The Jewish
Encyclopedia refers me to some articles in a German journal in 1900
and 1901.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

G'mar vachasima tova to all.

I have a rosh hashanna question: there are very strong ties between the
musaf and the blowing of the shofar. But the gemara relates how originally
the shofar was blown in the morning, not at musaf. Does that mean that
historically malchuyos, zichronos, and shofaros were originally sections
of shacharis? I have never seen a source that says this. But if not,
that makes all of the connections between them and the tekios seem
much weaker, yet we know those are the main tekios - it is the tekios
d'm'yushav that were added.

thanks
elly

-- 
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:23:55AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: > Your argument must be flawed. After all, we can and do assert that Hashem
: > exists, even though all we can comprehend about Him are the boundries
: > of what is incomprehensible.

: I'm surprised at you. As a chasid of the Maharal, I'm sure you know that
: the only thing we can understand about Hashem is how he is manifested
: through his "actions" here on earth...

Third time I'm asking this: Why do you think I have a particular attraction
to the Maharal's thought? I happened to be referring to R' Saadia Gaon's
and the Rambam's notion of negative attributes.

[End tangent.]

: >: I submit that the following translation of the pertinent paragraphs of the
: >: maamar...

: > They are not the pertinent paragraphs of the maamar.

: Maybe and maybe not but you are certainly not being of any help. I have
: taken the time to translate several paragraphs in Rav Dessler's maamar
: that support my contention that he was never talking about the real
: flow of time but was rather talking about how the real flow of time is
: perceived by mankind....

So? I told you what I believe REED is saying in those examples -- that
the flow of time is a perception, not a thing-in-itself.

He never says "real flow of time as perceived by". Rather, the flow of
time is only associated with human perception. Veharaayah, it runs
at subjective speeds. This dismissing of an objvective flow of time
is the thread running through the maamar from the paragraphs you
translated, to saying the Ramban held 6 literal days which are
literally identical to (not representing or connected, but identical)
to the subsequent 6 millenia, to seeing time all-at-once through
grasping emes -- and thereby to exhort us to learn more Torah.

: Michtav MeEliyahu Chelek Beis pg. 154
:   ... So too is it with man, they reveal to him in each and every moment
: of the present, point after point of his essence and the previous point
: is already concealed from his eyes because it already pertains to the
: past however [the truth is that] it really does [currently] exist in his
: soul and does not go out of existence. And when the concealment of time
: is finally nullified after death and the cover of corporeality is finally
: removed, he will see all at once. All of his spiritual essence will be
: revealed, with all of the points of light [i.e. spiritual revelation]
: and darkness [corporeal concealment] appearing as one hewn entity. And
: then he will see that time was merely a concealment because all [essence
: of man] is really one [unified] entity which exists together at once. This
: is the world of eternity which possesses no past or future"

Yes! Man's bechinah of time is that of a flow. However, in reality,
time "really does exist ... and does not go out of existence. And when
the concealment of time is finally nullified, ... he will see all at
once. ... All is really one entity which exists together at 'once'. This
is the world of eternity which possesses no past or future."

This is the view of eternity -- the complete map of time -- held by Adam,
a not-yet-born soul, and the one we are to strive for throuth talmud
Torah. As he explicitly says Adam qodem hacheit saw from one end of time
to another, I don't see where things are open for a flow-of-time before
the eitz hada'as.

And once we're talking about time as we can't know it, I have no ability
to exclude any perception as being provably less real than another. As
REED writes in the letter you translated, the scientist sees from an
overly chomer perspective, he does not call it a false one.

KVCT!
-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      

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 10:08:56AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: The question arises as to why we follow the Bas Kol WRT Paskining like
: Beis Hilel over Beis Shamai. Doesn't that go against the directive of Lo
: Basahmayim He? The answer is that when there are no applicable rules to
: determine what a Psak should be and there are aguments to support either
: side of an issue, we can and indeed do listen to a heavenly voice.

See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.shtml>,
which was originally an Avodah email.

It's not clear that tanur shel achnai is the norm, and "halakhah kedivrei
beis hillel" the exception. R' Nissin Gaon explains why the bas qol of
tanur shel achnai wasn't a statement of pesaq -- because bas qol WOULD
be binding. RHM seems to agree with the Or Samei'ach -- bas qol is a
valid tie-breaker.

BTW, according to one of the opinions in Tosafos (who seem to say that
bas qol isn't even a tie breaker), the halachic process unequivacably
supported beis Hillel, the rabim. The bas qol confirmed the process,
which was in risk of not being followed. (Perhaps because this was the
first generation where the nimnu vegamru wasn't in the lishqas hagazis.)

KVCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 08:42:58PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:>On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 06:31:24PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:>> WRT chuqim, is in the Rambam (8 Peraqim, pereq 6), but I doubt the
:>> [g]emara said it, because I believe this is where Mussar diverges from
:>> he Rambam. (Whereas diverging from Shas is an unrealistic assumption.)

:> It's in the Safra in K'doshim, on the pasuk "Va'avdil eschem min ha'amim
:> lih'yos li" (20:26), and is quoted there by Rashi.
...
: The Ohr Yisroel HaMeforesh has one citation to Shemona Perakim - Chalek 
: I Simon 30 page 262 in this edition.

Looking at OY, as well as R' Hillel Goldberg's discussion (pointed by R'
Gil Student, but the correct pg is 133), I think this is what he's saying:

Mitzvos sichliyos should be internalized through true tiqun hamidos.

Mitzvos shimiyot can not similarly internalized, as we can't understand
the underlying value -- never mind adapt ourselves to it. Therefore, one
works on tiqun of the ratzon kelali for sin rather than the particular.

The distinction is therefore made more about the possible than the
inherent nature of the din.

On a related thread, on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:12:33PM -0400,
RSC <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
:                                    Mefursamot is not the same as our
: "rational." I have a more complicated view about what the Rambam does
: mean in Shemona Perakim but it's not in print. (A similar position may be
: discerned in the writings of my teacher R Walter Wurzburger zt"l. ve-ein
: kan makom l'haarikh)

As I neither know RSC's "more complicated view" nor even comprehended the
chiluq he already made here, I can only as for more illucidation.

However, RYS makes a distinction between sichlios and shim'iyos, and
says that this chiluq is consistent with the Rambam.

:> I never argued that the rambam viewed hilchot mamonot as rational (or
:> sichliyot), and arayot as nonrational - but rather, that he viewed hilkhot
:> arayot as a hok The main implication for being classified as a hok is
:> that a ta'ava for transgressing a hok is not viewed as a deficiency in
:> the individual - while a ta'ava for transgressing one of the mefursamot
:> reflects a defect in the individual....

: Precisely. And that's why I stressed that my observation about Rambam's
: taamei ha-mitzvot does not affect Meir's argument about the morality
: of desire.

And yet... According to RYS, it seems to be that in any case the desire
is immoral. The difference is whether it's possible to identify the desire
or whether such identification is condemned by the Sifra as being false.
The person with a sexual ta'ava that has no mutar satisfaction should
therefore be working on his ratzon kelali rather than the particular
ta'avah.

KVCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

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


[ 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         ]