Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 024

Tuesday, November 8 2005

• Re: Kabbalah today
• RE: Walking 4 amos in Eretz Yisrael
• Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• RE: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• RE: Only one opinion
• RYBS and Kabbalah
• Re: TIDE
• Re: Torah and communal sheleimus
• 28 hour long days
• Ushpizin
• Re: RYBS and Kabbalah
• Re: only one opinion
• RE: Kabbalah today
• Kabbalah today
• RE: Isolation - is it right or wrong?
• AGGADA66 -02a: Ignorance, Arrogance and the Wisdom that Edifies

S & R Coffer wrote:
>On November 6, 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>If you accept Rav Tzadok's assertion that Yashka [ and Shabtzai Tzvi]
>>reached very high spiritual levels before being destroyed by their belief
>>that they were divine - it is reasonable that Yashka was aware of the
>>kabbalistic ideas in the period of Chazal.

>Where does R' Tzadok say this?

Machshavos Charutz #1

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
>Someone wrote me that he heard Rav H. Schachter give a shiur in which
>e said that walking additional 4 amos (past the first set of 4 amos)
>has additional spiritual benefit, but only if the additional set is not
>a retracing of 4 amos that you've already walked. (I.e., it is better
>to go o= n a new tiyul than to repeat an old one.) Did anyone else hear
>that? Anyone know the makor or the sevarah?

I remember reading (many many years ago - possibly in Tnuas Hamussar by R'
Dov Katz)) that Rav Yitzchok Blazer (Peterburger), after emigrating to
Jerusalem in his old age used to walk a new four amos each day round the
City for the above reason. It might be added that he lived in the Strauss
Courtyard in Musrara, from which most directions are either uphill or down

ER

|...Even the famous medrash identfying
|Pinchas and Eliyahu has many problems. There are many questions about
|Eliyahu being a Cohen and bringing to life a dead person and tumah
|of a cohen. Another problem is how did Pinchas resign from being high
|priest.The obvious answer is that Eliyahu was not a cohen As some explain
|Eliyahu was a gilgul of Pinchas. In any case the answer is not to take
|this medrashim literally. 

There have been other people who asked these questions and came up with
their obvious answers, such as, Eliyahu bringing to life a dead person
was muttar as pikuach nefesh and so on. It appears that they felt the
answer *is* to take this medrashim literally and to try to explain them
according to the Halacha.

KT,
MSS

On 11/7/05, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
> There have been other people who asked these questions and came up with
> their obvious answers, such as, Eliyahu bringing to life a dead person
> was muttar as pikuach nefesh and so on. It appears that they felt the
> answer *is* to take this medrashim literally and to try to explain them
> according to the Halacha.

It is clear that some take literally that Eliyahu was a Cohen.

Note the Radak on Melachim I 17:1 brings the disagreement if Eliyahu
was from Gad, Binyamin or was Pinchas. Radak concludes that all these
are far fetched (divrei rechokim) and we don't know the truth. I just
point out that the other options remove all theses problems.

For example if Eliyahu could touch the dead child because of pikuach
nefesh it raises the question of how he knew it would help and if he
can rely on nevuah to be metamei le-met.

 --
Eli Turkel

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:eliturkel@gmail.com] 
|...I just point out that
|the other options (saying that Eliyahu was not a cohen -MSS) remove all
|theses problems.
|For example if Eliyahu could touch the dead child because of pikuach nefesh 
|it raises the question of how he knew it would help and if he can rely on
|nevuah to be metamei le-met.

I gave you Tosfos's answer (Baba Metzie 114b T.H. Umar Leh), and pointed
out that, l'shitoschu, Tosfos chose to take the Medrashim literally.

KT,
MSS  

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
|Can you name me any Rishonim who eschew maamarey Chazal whenever they are
|contrary to the simple pshat? Examples please. Perhaps if you illustrate
|your point we can flush out the issue.

My gut feeling was like what you had written, but then I saw the list
in Avodah V16 #23 from R' Daniel Eidensohn. I even reviewed the previous
posts to see if maybe you had been talking about something in Gemara and
that would be your distinction. However, it appears to me that when you
say "maamarey Chazal", especially after RBK saying "aggadah pf Chazal"
that your referring to Midrashim as well.

|> The Ramban says this and it was the topic of a seminar given at the
|> last Torah Umesorah convention. It was put forth, (thankfully), based
|> upon this Ramban (and the other Rishonim that hold like this) that there
|> is no requirement to believe that Bas Paro's arm really stretched, Paro
|> was an amah and a half tall, Moshe was 10 amos tall... According to this
|> opinion one is only required to accept Medrashei Halacha and not Aggadata.

|I would love to see this Ramban. I await your response with baited breath.
|(Please don't point to the Ramban in the vikuach who says nothing like
|what you mentioned)

After seeing the Ramban in translation from RDE (and dimly remembering
it from memory) I really would like to hear your p'shat in it.
Superficially, I don't see any difference.

|> It is made clear by the Ramchal and others that Medrash Aggadata are
|> allegories to teach deeper ideas and not historical facts. I personally
|> don't get why people have the need to choose to take these literally.  Can
|> someone from that school of thought explain why they believe that way?

|Certainly. Firstly, the Ramchal doesn't say what you claim he does. He
|breaks up maamarei Chazal into two categories, halachic and aggadic,
|and then goes on to break up the aggadic into two categories, ethical and
|spiritual. Only in the spiritual ones does the Ramchal mention that they
|are not all necessarily kipshuto. The remainder certainly are and there
|is no question that we have to follow them. Chazal are full of history,
|hanhagos, hashkafos, deos etc. To make a blanket statement about all
|aggaditos is a gross overextension of the concept of concealment in
|these maamarim.

100% correct. However, there *does* appear to be "Rishonim (and Achronim)
who eschew maamarey Chazal" when it does not conflict with any Halachos.

I would love to hear your take.

KT,
MSS 

Dr.Lawrence Kaplan deals in detail with the question of RYBS' relation to
the Kabbalah in his Hebrew article "Motivim kabaliim b'haguto shel harav
Soloveitchi: mashmauttiim o ituriim?" in "Emunah b'zmanim mishtanim: al
mishnato shel harav Y.D. Soloveitchik" edited by Avi Sagi, Jerusalem 1996,
p 75-95. He cites and analyzes RYBS' references to kabbalistic concepts,
particularly "tikun", "tzimtzum" and "dukra v-nukva". His definitive
conclusion is that RYBS' use of kabbalistic terms was illustrative
alone, and his understanding of the terms was strictly rabbinic and not
kabbalistic. Dr. Kaplan feels strongly that RYBS' thought is fundamentally
devoid of Lurianic kabbalistic content.

Interestingly, in footnote 1Kaplan notes the dispute between Emmanuel
Atkis and Hillel Goldberg as to R.Yisrael Slanter's attitude towards
Kabbalah. He states briefly that he agrees with Atkis' position.

Saul Mashbaum

From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
|> Can the second camp point to RSRH's writings for support? Or, as I
|> personally believe, they are just trying to claim RSRH without any
|> evidence. I'll reserve final judgment when I see the marei makomos in
|> RSRH's writings that you'll bring.

|Im confused. Do you expect RSRH to write that I really believe in what
|I am writing and it is not a horaat shaah? Logic dictates that if you
|dont take his words as face value then the onus is on you. Strange to
|accuse the others of believing what he wrote! Besides his family and
|community all certify that this is what he really believed. But many
|their testimony is not good enough against ones preconceived notions.

As I am the one who you are quoting let me try to deconfuse you. I was
responding to this statement by R' Simcha Coffer in Avodah V16 #20,
"Not everyone agrees with this interpretation of TIDE. There are two
camps. One holds that RSRH felt that TIDE was the preferable approach
whereas the second camp maintains that TIDE as a movement was created
to address a situation, but intrinsically, RSRH would say that ideally,
and if possible, one should devote his life entirely to Torah without
wasting time on participation in foreign societies. Personally, I believe
the latter is self evident and is supported by the Rambam himself in
several places."

I then asked him, "Can the second camp [which holds that TIDE is a horass
shuah] point to RSRH's writings for support? Or, as I personally believe,
they are just trying to claim RSRH without any evidence. I'll reserve
final judgment when I see the marei makomos in RSRH's writings that
you'll bring."

I imagine that this will do the trick.

KT,
MSS

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> [in private email]:
:mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:>  This didn't get picked up. It is an important post in MHO and I would
:> appreciate that you look at it and decide if it shoudl be posted.

: I believe it already was posted. See
: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n015.shtml#08>.

: However, it's not what Harry and I are talking about. To bring it
: closer to topic, you would have to explain why people are carrying false
: perceptions from lower levels. Why these things aren't significantly less
: common amongst those who try to follow halakhah. Why then is halakhah
: the Retzon haBorei, if it doesn't make a more noble person.

: IOW, Harry and I are arguing why we don't see Torah's ennobling
: effects. You stepped in by giving a model for "ennobling". Now, if you
: use it to enlighten us about the question we were asking, you would
: probably get more activity on it.

: BTW, I wouldn't use Naran Chai as a model for self. As R' Aryeh Kaplan
: taught it, Naran is internal to the self, thus they are called penimiyos;
: Chai is where the soul loses individuation, they are chitzoniyos because
: they are external to the self. I know this is counter the Baal haTanya.

Ok, let me provide a purely conjectural example to show how this works. No
resemblance to any real situation is intended.

Case 1, Religious leader who falls into an inappropriate relationship.

This talented person has grown up in a household where the accepted truth
was that the wife serves the husband. As he rose in the Torah world,
he never amended this incorrect opinon and sense of entitlement. It has
penetrated deeply into his consciousness and of it he is not even aware;
however, his wife turned out to be an independent woman who pursues her
own interests. He deeply resents it but never thought through why. He
pursues an inappropriate relationship with another woman because:

1. He did not rise on this issue beyond the social level and does not
appreciate that different marraiges can work differently and still be
fulfilling and satisfying.

2. He did not rise above the emotional level in which perceived or real
injury always calls for retaliation. He has not matured to the level
of appreiciating his wife strong points and to have grattitude for what
she does do for him.

3. He did not rise above to the religious level so as to be able to be
held back by religious proscriptions on outside relationships.

4. He did not rise up to the religious level so as to recognize that
Hashem is the source of all justice and that every man is given what he
deesserves and what is good for him, and no more.

5. He has not risen to the spiritual level where such behavior becomes
personally abhorrent.

Of course, all of this is hidden from him and he has no inkling that
deep within him reside major imprefections and a lot of unfinished
business. This tends to be especially the case if he happens to be of
the anti-Mussar school. Mussar adherents are not immune but they at
least accept need for introspection as a theoretical virtue.

What I am trying to say is that the issue is mcuh more complex than in
your analysis. Torah provides tools for integration on the religious and
spiritual levels but it does not do the work of the indivdual to ensure
that this integration actually takes place.

M. Levin

1. R. Benjamin ben Eliezer ha-Kohen Vitale of Reggio (1651-1730; a
noted kabbalist and the father in law of another kabbalist, R. Isaiah
Bassan who was the Ramhal's teacher) in his Gevul Binyamin (Amsterdam,
1727), p. 127b, quotes R. Yehudah son of the ba`al Shu"t Sha`ar Ephraim
(R. Ephraim ben Yaakov ha-Kohen of Vilna, 1616-1678) quoting a R. Judah
Habillo zt"l ("rosh yeshivat Hevron") quoting in the name of R. Mosheh
Cordovero (1522-1570) that the 6 days of Creation were worthy [*re'uyim*]
to be 28 hours long but, upon wishing for themselves a leader/"king,"
were urged by God to give up 4 hours each to the Shabbat. R. Benjamin
Vitale then adds on his own that this would explain the meaning of
"HEMDAT yamim oto karata."

2. R. Hanokh Zundel ben Joseph (d. 1867) in his commentary Ets Yosef
to the siddur (Otsar ha-tefilot, p. 385) applies this teaching (without
citing his source, contrary to his usual practice) to explain "yom zeh
mekhubad MI-KOL yamim". In the Artscroll Zemirot book (Brooklyn 1979)
, p. 192 this Ets Yosef is quoted as if it was a [classical rabbinic]
"homiletical Midrashic passage."

3. In his *Otsar Hayim* (Tel Aviv 1966), p. 15 on the parshah of
*Va-yekhulu*, R. Hayim Zuckerman quotes this "explanation," preceding it
by "ra'iti mistamkhim al agadah" -- but without citing a source, probably
assuming it comes from classical midrash. Moreover, in this rendition the
"re'uyim" part of the 28 hour days of creation is deleted....Further,
the explanation is again (independently?) applied to explain "Hemdat
ha-yamim," but one assumes R. Zuckermann did not have recourse to the
*Gevul Binyamin.*

Now, notwithstanding that I have been told by a *yodea` Hen* that this
"derush" in the name of R. Cordovero is not in keeping with his known
writings (if there is an expert out there who does know of all the
writings, not merely Pardes Rimonim, please speak up), and that the
attribution to him was in all likelihood a product of something akin to
"broken telephone" -- I would like to add to my list above more sources
(I am sure there must be many) that quote this "midrash" or some form
thereof -- whether preceding the RaMaK, or from his own writings,
or dating after the RaMaK (and whether the source of the "midrash" is
cited or not). So if anyone can remember where s/he has ever seen this,
I would appreciate being informed.

Teshu'ot Hen Hen le-kol yod'ei derush va-sod,
Yisrael Dubitsky 

[The first question is more for Areivim... -mi]

Anyone see the movie?
AIUI he bought an etrog for over 20% of his assets - isn't this in
violation of takanat usha?
When calculating the 20% is it of gross or net assets?

KT
Joel Rich

saul mashbaum wrote:
>Dr.Lawrence Kaplan deals in detail with the question of RYBS' relation to
>the Kabbalah in his Hebrew article "Motivim kabaliim b'haguto shel harav
>Soloveitchi: mashmauttiim o ituriim?" in "Emunah b'zmanim mishtanim: al
>mishnato shel harav Y.D. Soloveitchik" edited by Avi Sagi, Jerusalem 1996,
>p 75-95. 

Thanks for the reference. I noticed that the preceeding article by Rivka
Horowitz (pp45-74) also deals with RYBS use of kabbalistic terminology

Daniel Eidensohn

S & R Coffer wrote:
>Can you name me any Rishonim who eschew maamarey Chazal whenever they are
>contrary to the simple pshat? Examples please. Perhaps if you illustrate
>your point we can flush out the issue.

>>The Ramban says this and it was the topic of a seminar given at the
>>last Torah Umesorah convention. It was put forth, (thankfully), based
>>upon this Ramban (and the other Rishonim that hold like this) that there
>>is no requirement to believe that Bas Paro's arm really stretched, Paro
>>was an amah and a half tall, Moshe was 10 amos tall... According to this
>>opinion one is only required to accept Medrashei Halacha and not Aggadata.

>I would love to see this Ramban. I await your response with baited breath.
>(Please don't point to the Ramban in the vikuach who says nothing like
>what you mentioned)

The non-literal understanding of the agadata about Pharaoh is found in
the Maharal - Be'er HaGolah 5 Be'er [section 8 in the R' Hartman edition].

He cites Mo'ed Koton (18a). He indicates that physically it was impossible
that Pharaoh was that small. But that man has dimensions other than the
physical and thus he was a moral midget. R' Hartman has full discussion
of this issue.

Daniel Eidensohn

[R Daniel Eidensohn:]
> 8) Christianity is based on a distorted understanding of genuine
> kabbalistic ideas (Rabbi Akiva Tatz)

Re point 8:
Please do not quote me on that; that statement is not
accurate. Thanks. Also, I am no expert on these matters.

Akiva

>> 5) R' Yisroel Salanter asserted that he was not familiar with Kabbalah
>> and thus it is not relevant for the Mussar Movement

Did the author of this article about  R. Y. Salanter, Immanuel Etkes 
"Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement", know anything
about Kabalah. Or was it, to the author, an abstract or foreign field of
thought, not part of the main body of Torah leaning, and especially not 
the "ikkur"/epitome part of Torah?

RSC
> make a judgement. However, as I mentioned above, I personally think that
> it is self evident that any great Torah leader would eschew involvement
> in foreign ideologies and cultures if the time could be spent in a more
> constructive fashion such as limud haTorah and asiyas haMitzvos. 

Of course, this statement is anything but self evident. However, I think
that it points to different divide - a question about the fundamental
nature of what torah is.

On the one hand is a view that Torah, is primarily a reflection of
the divine - and its human garb should be viewed as an external mask,
not the true meaning. (one thinks of the midrash that the torah is all
the names of hashem)

The other views torah, while divine, as being expressed in human language
and addressed to human beings.

For the first view, other sources of knowledge are irrelevant.

For the second, since the torah is ultimately expressed in human
language and addressed to humans, other sources which address the
same issues are of importance to understanding the message of torah.
Refusal of involvement in "foreign ideologies and cultures" will limit
one's understanding of the torah.

Meir Shinnar

[Another email I enjoyed. -mi]

*YESHIVAT HAR ETZION*
*ISRAEL** KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)*

UNDERSTANDING AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
...
*Shiur #2: Ignorance, Arrogance and the Wisdom That Edifies*

Rava says: "'It (the Torah) is not in heaven [nor is it over the sea]'
(/Devarim /30:12): You will not find Torah in a person who raises himself
above it like the heavens, and you will not find Torah in a person who
expands himself upon it like the ocean."

Rav Yochanan says: "'It is not in heaven' (/Devarim /30:12): You will
not find Torah among the arrogant." (/Eruvin/ 55a)

Rav Shmuel Edels, the /Maharsha/, locates two different types of
arrogance in Rava's warning. The first person eschews the need for a
teacher, mistakenly raising himself above the real need for guidance in
learning. The second type assumes that having a teacher suffices in and of
itself. A student blessed with an outstanding teacher may haughtily assume
superiority over others, merely by virtue of the teacher's ability. This
student arrogates for himself an expanse of knowledge, without realizing
that true expansiveness in learning depends upon the hard-fought efforts
of the student, irrespective of the teacher's excellence. Rava instructs
us that both dispensing with the need for a teacher, and relying solely
upon the teacher, get in the way of a good education.

The Rif (Rav Yeshayahu Pinto, cited in the /Ein Yaakov/), argues that
Rava and Rav Yochanan do not state the identical point. Rava refers to a
person's relationship to the material studied, while Rav Yochanan refers
to a person's relationship to others.

For Rava, haughtiness towards the material can get in the way of
knowledge. The intense desire to criticize a text blocks appreciation
and understanding of that text. Further, as the Rif points out, the
proud student may consider more basic material beneath him, and focus
attention solely on more esoteric knowledge. Such a student may never
address fundamental gaps in his knowledge. For example, the aspiring
kabbalist may never set aside the time to solidify understanding of the
basic storyline of Chumash. I have encountered several students more
interested in delving into mystical, esoteric knowledge than in setting
aside time to finding out more about the life story of /Moshe Rabbenu/.

For Rav Yochanan, it is the social blowhard who remains ensconced in
ignorance. Such a person will refuse to learn from others, and refuse to
dedicate the time needed for studying and reviewing the material. The
arrogance that generates more interest in presenting a learned veneer
than in actual learning renders this person unable to ever admit publicly
to not knowing something. For this latter type, the desire to show that
wisdom comes easily prevents it from coming altogether.

Rav Zadok Ha-kohen (/Divrei Soferim/ 15) offers another perspective on the
incommensurability of wisdom and arrogance. The Zohar says that a sign of
Bilaam's ignorance is that he praised himself. Rav Zadok points out that
as Bilaam actually seems to be quite knowledgeable, the Zohar refers to
Bilaam's lack of internalized knowledge. When knowledge fails to penetrate
into the deeper recesses of the human personality, arrogance results.

I believe that Rav Zadok offers us a profound psychological insight. If
a person's knowledge impacts positively upon the world, or allows him to
become more ethically sensitive or spiritually alive, then that knowledge
has found a worthy home. The person in turn, finds satisfaction with his
learning. If, on the other hand, a person's knowledge has no impact upon
the world, or upon his personality, then the knowledge finds no expression
and the person wonders what the years of study have produced. At that
point, the only thing left to do with one's knowledge is to brag about
it. Envision two brilliant academics, one who goes about his or her
work with quiet dignity, and the other who constantly attempts to show
off his or her knowledge. Rav Zadok's insight lies at the root of the
distinction in their behavior.

It emerges that arrogance can be both the cause and the effect of
ignorance. Arrogance towards the material, or towards teachers and peers,
prevents the accumulation of knowledge. At the same time, arrogance
also reveals that the knowledge accumulated has failed to impact on
the knower. The Talmud refers to such knowledge as "from the mouth and
outward" (/Sanhedrin/ 106b). For Rav Zadok, that image conveys both the
lack of internalization of knowledge, and the need to brag about it.

Rav Yitzchak Blau, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion, is a Rebbe at
Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev, located on the outskirts of Efrat, Gush
Etzion.
...
Copyright (c) 2004 Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.

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


[ 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         ]