Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 091

Wednesday, January 18 2006

• halacha whem the majority of Jews live in Israel
• Re: citations & g'neivas da'as
• Re: Three steps forward
• RE: citations & g'neivas da'as
• Re: citations & g'neivas da'as
• Re: RSRH and Transmigration
• Re: Bal tashchis and burning Chometz
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis
• Re: Timtum halev
• Re: Timtum Halev

Here is an interesting discussion on the changes in the way we keep
halacha, that will be mandatory when the majority of world Jews live
in Israel.

I think this is a good time to discuss this:
a) Articles on www.a7.org and elsewhere that point to research and
numbers showing that we are getting close to the border line after which
the majority of world Jews will be located in Israel.

b) Are we ready, and do we even know what changes will occur in our
halachic obligations, especially in Eretz Yisrael, when this situation
occurs.

Here is the article: <http://www.kumah.org/eshelnew/rov.html>

Shoshana L. Boublil

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
>>The latter would explain why no one in Cheshbon haNefesh or any of its
>>mafteichos mentioned Ben Franklin's connection.

> The original editions of Cheshbon HaNefesh did in fact mention Benjamin
> Franklin....

That just makes the point stronger! It means that R' Leffin, who was an
O maskil and therefore probably publishing for maskilim, expected his
readers to be able to disregard the source. However, when Rav Yisrael
Salanter had the book republished, he had to have consciously chosen to
take the reference out! Because how many traditional Litvisher yidden
would take an idea with Ben Franklin's name on it too seriously?

So, getting back to the point, we still see that RYS chose not quoting
the source if it meant the idea would be more accepted.

> There is a kuntres written by R' Yitzchok Borodanski (Menahel
> Ruchni of Yeshiva Kol Torah) which discusses the signifance of learning
> principles from non-Jews - and in particular the fact that Cheshbon
> HaNefesh was based on Franklin. It also discusses the issue of whether
> the author was a maskil. It is published in the Liebowitz-Kest series.

Does he also mention the probable origins of REED's advice on ma'avir
al midosav being a Reader's Digest condensation of Dale Carnegie's
"How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R. Avi Mansura wrote:
> In the footnote of Yalkut Yosef the reason you quoted is mentioned. He
> doesn't bring a source for it and might be his own svara. It is based
> on a Rashi in Berachot daf 47a: The gemara says that the person saying
> hamotzi can't cut the bread until the other people finish saying amen.
> ... To hint to this concept, claims the author (probably ROY son),
> the word is voweled not as the end of the sentence.

This would be unique in that it's more typical for nusach Ashkenaz to
violate diqduq for the sake of hinting at a second layer of meaning
than it is for Sepharad. (A quick glance at selikhos and piyutim shows
the difference in relative importance each kehillah gives "layering the
onion" and comprehensibility upon reading.

There is still the whole question of berakhos where the mevareikh
isn't motzi anyone (other than him/herself) -- should the vowelization
be changed?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 R' Chana Luntz Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk
> On January 15, 2005, Chana Luntz wrote (in reply to:
> What if he would have sent a note along with the present explaining
> that there was still a gid hanasheh attached? Would it still be assur?)

"Then his present would have been made up of two aspects, a deceptive
thigh and a note, and that note would have operated to cancel out the
deceptive nature of the thigh. A present of deceptive thigh plus note
explaining the deception is not the same present as a deceptive thigh
sans note. The total is not deceptive, even if one of the individual
components taken by itself might otherwise have been. "

I can't resist pointing out the logical parallel here to the issue of
Hashem creating the world that may "deceptively" look eternal or way
over 5700 years old, with the "note" that it was really created but 2448
years or so before Mattan Torah: "A present of deceptive thigh [read:
length of world's existence] plus note [read: Torah pesukim] explaining
the deception, is not the same present as a deceptive thigh sans note.

The total is not deceptive, even if one of the individual components
taken by itself might otherwise have been. "

Zvi Lampel

Micha Berger wrote:
>>The original editions of Cheshbon HaNefesh did in fact mention Benjamin
>>Franklin....

>That just makes the point stronger! ...
>So, getting back to the point, we still see that RYS chose not quoting
>the source if it meant the idea would be more accepted.

Rav Bulman told me that the removal of Franklin's name was relatively
recent.- perhaps in the last 50 years. That would mean that R' Yisroel
Salanter did not remove the name.

>>There is a kuntres written by R' Yitzchok Borodanski (Menahel
>>Ruchni of Yeshiva Kol Torah) which discusses the signifance of learning
>>principles from non-Jews - and in particular the fact that Cheshbon
>>HaNefesh was based on Franklin. It also discusses the issue of whether
>>the author was a maskil. It is published in the Liebowitz-Kest series.

>Does he also mention the probable origins of REED's advice on ma'avir
>al midosav being a Reader's Digest condensation of Dale Carnegie's
>"How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

No. But he does show that Cheshbon HaNefesh is not simply a translation
of Franklin but rather that he applied Franklin's psychological techniques
to Jewish cateogies of midos.

Daniel Eidensohn

In Avodah V16 #90, RYL wrote:
> The selection below is from "new" Hirsch Chumash, page 891. It is
> part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 50, 2. Am I misreading it when
> I say that it implies that RSRH did not subscribe to the idea of the
> transmigration of souls, and felt that it was a non-Jewish concept.

I read RSRH as contrasting Jewish and Egyptian views of the [former's]
eternity of the soul vs. the [latter's] attempt to eternalize the
body, not as nixing gilgul, but I can see where a reader could note
Egyptian-worldview "soul wandering" and infer that according to RSRH,
neither the soul or any portion thereof again travels from its "circle"
tachas Kisai haKavod back to this world.

I'm no baki in these matters, but IIRC those who are speak not of all
of NaRaN returning back to this world but rather of specific elements
of the n'shamah (or of even "higher" elements?). I don't recall RSRH
breaking "the soul" down and speaking of constituent aspects, but I do
recall him speaking at length on Ruach H' in his essay on the Menorah,
and it seems to me he would consider Ruach (and its Y'sha'yahu 11:2
breakdown) an aspect which is not only eternal but also universal rather
than individual. Not being individual/"one-time only" is not in any
way the same as the Egyptian "soul wandering."

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

In Avodah V16#90, RDS wrote:
> Continuing a discussion that started on Areivim.

A discussion I didn't see, so forgive me if what's written below has
been noted by someone else.

> There seems to be a feeling that it's better to sell or give away
> chometz rather than burn it, so as to prevent Bal Tashchis.

Why should fulfilling "tashbisu" violate bal tashchis any more than
a soldier fulfilling the dictates of a milchemes mitzva or a gowail
hadam or a homeowner dealing with habaw bamachteres would violate the
lav of r'tzichah? Speaking of a milchama and bal tashchis, see D'vorim
20:20 ;-).

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

In Avodah V16 #86 dated 1/12/2006 R' Simcha Coffer writes:
> Science has documented
> countless of cases of dinosaur fossils. Anyone who says dinosaurs never
> existed is simply misinformed.

and later writes:
> Are you saying that Hashem couldn't create huge star worlds instantly,
> stabilize the physical laws associated with these worlds in an instant,
> and then create man in a fully mature and stabilized environment?

I would be interested to hear /when/, according to RSC, dinosaurs
existed.

I think they lived and died on Thursday or maybe Friday morning, or
possibly lived and died during the existence of those "many worlds"
which G-d created and destroyed before this one, but I would like to
hear RSC's theory.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In a message dated 1/18/2006 8:27:28am EST, [R Simcha Coffer]
rivkyc@sympatico.ca writes:
>Why do you believe this? What's wrong with saying they existed 5766
>years ago and subsequently went extinct? What empirical scientific
>evidence forces you to jump through the nebulous hoops of boreh olamos
>etc.?

The fact that they lived for millions of years -- that there are so
many layers of fossils, way too many for just a few thousand years --
and the fact that they did not co-exist with human beings.

 -Toby Katz

On January 18, 2006, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> I would be interested to hear /when/, according to RSC, dinosaurs
> existed.

I can never understand why people become so confused regarding the
existence of dinosaurs. I don't know precisely when they went extinct,
perhaps during the flood. But they were created during a normal (as
opposed to a day-age) MB and continued their normal existence until
they became extinct. Many species have become extinct and many more
are constantly becoming extinct. Once we had these huge elephants; no
more. Once we had the ferocious sabre tooth tiger, an animal that would
dwarf the average lion; no more. What happened? Where are they? They
went extinct, that's all.

> I think they lived and died on Thursday or maybe Friday morning, or
> possibly lived and died during the existence of those "many worlds"
> which G-d created and destroyed before this one, 

Why do you believe this? What's wrong with saying they existed 5766 years
ago and subsequently went extinct? What empirical scientific evidence
forces you to jump through the nebulous hoops of boreh olamos etc.?

Simcha Coffer

>><RGD> Does anyone have a mekor for the idea that timtum halev is caused only
>> by devarim teme'im such as shekatzim uremasim or behemos teme'ios and
>> not by such things as nevela uterefa?

> <RSC>Who says this is true? Although the Gemara does illustrate the idea of
> timtum halev by quoting a pasuk in regards to sheratzim, I don't believe
> TH is exclusive to sheratzim. The Gemara says "aveira mitamtemes", not
> "sheratzim mitamtimim".

I'd hoped to have more time to look at this before posting, but luckily
I'm not a haver, so no one who knows me will expect anything more than
tentative ideas. Among those rishonim who mention ideas related to
"timtum halev" I've seen several different versions. Here are three:

RSC cited the Ramban in Torath HaAdam (ed. Chavel, p. 270). There the
Ramban gives two reasons that a shogeig is called a hotei: 1. because he
failed to be meticulously careful about avoiding sin, and 2. because "any
prohibited thing dirties the soul and renders it impure." The Ramban
cites the passuk v'nitmeisem bam, and R. Chavel cites the gemara in Yoma
(39b) about timtum halev.

The implication seems to be that the Ramban here implies that the act
of aveirah, without intent, induces timtum haleiv. I think the most
plausible way to explain this is habituation: having done an aveirah once,
even unintentionally, makes it easier to do it intentionally the second
time ("keivan sheshinah bah na'asah lo k'heteir"). In that case the
korban is m'chaper in a very mechanical sense: associating the act with
punishment (and I've heard speculation that a typical korban would cost
several thousand dollars today) would negate the habituation. There's
also no hint in the Ramban that eating is any different from any aveirah.

Rabeinu Bahya (Lev. 11:43) has something close to RSC's version: "Don't
impurify [it's the best translation I could think of on the moment; I
apologize to purists] yourself by eating them bodily, for if you do so
your soul will become impure ... because the heart is sealed when you
eat prohibited things, and you won't attain ruah hakodesh." I have no
idea what mechanism he has in mind, but I don't normally study Rabeinu
Bahya. Perhaps someone who knows him better can suggest an explanation.
Incidentally see the Pesikta which Rabbi Chavel cites in his notes.

The Zohar (Shemini 41a-b): "R. Elazar cited "Zos hahayah asher tochlu
mikol habhemah asher al ha'aretz" you are permitted to eat from any
which are attached to this side, and you are not permitted to eat from
those which are not attached to this side, for some animals come from
this side and some come from the other impure side.... An impure spirit
dwells upon all of those [animals fish and birds] which come from the
impure side, and therefore the pure soul of Jews ought not to be mixed
with them and rendered impure by them." The implication here is that
beheimos [etc.] temeios are (to borrow some philosophical terminology)
necessarily impure, whereas neveilos and treifos are only accidentally
impure. The mechanism is emanatory: if you mix things of different
types souls they won't work properly.

I had hoped to delay posting because I really don't understand this
Zohar (why, for example, are gentiles permitted to eat artichokes?) and
I was hoping to find some time later this week to check it out. In the
meanwhile I hope some facts will add fuel to the debate.

David Riceman 

R Marty Bluke wrote:
> The Abarbanel (Devarim 17,4) disagress with the Ran. He holds that
> a person is never harmed by following the Chachamim. If it is mutar
> then it cannot be harmful. It would seem that the Abarbanel holds that
> non-kosher is not objectively harmful, rather it is harmful because it
> is prohibited. If for you there is no prohibition then it is not harmful.

It would strengthen my position if I agreed, but I can't find this
sevarah compelling. Which formulation is the ikar: "[A] person is never
harmed by following the Chachamim", or "If it is mutar then it cannot be
harmful." If the Abarbanel meant the latter, then he may be saying that
it is impossible that they would permit something whose etzem davar is
harmful. In which case, the Abarbanel would be saying that there are
things for which the etzem davar is harmful for lema'alah min hateva
reasons.

Rashi, OTOH, does clearly say that Eliyahu would not harmed by eating
meat that was shechted by a mumar IFF Hashem told him to eat it.

Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
> You have spoken periodically about some of the work your wife does in
> placing Jewish special needs children with Jewish families, knowing that
> if the Jewish families don't take them, there are Xtians falling over
> themselves to.

> What would happen if this played itself out with one of your cases.
> Ie for some reason the child, if placed with a Jewish family, would not
> be able to develop to the level of a bar/bas daas, and if placed with
> the Xtian family he/she would. Which way would you go? Is the answer
> so pashut?

This comes up lema'aseh, although not when choosing homes. (Ba"h there are
so many Jewish homes -- one has to be a good enough fit. As long as people
continue opening their homes...) I mentioned here a number of times that I
know of a psychologically ill boy from a home of shomerei Torah umitzvos
who is in a non-Jewish boarding school. (There is a shortage of schools
for children whose problems are psychiatric rather than intellectual.) The
parents received a pesaq from the Novominsker (R' Perlow, as RHM knows
him) that "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah" mandates getting the child healthy
first, and then worrying about Shabbos, kashrus, et al. The child was 12,
and it was pretty clear he would be there after bar mitzvah.

...
> So I confess I am tempted to read this Chatam Sofer as raising a more
> general issue about the environment that this kid is being put into in
> rather than one that deals with the specifics about the food being given.

Not much to "confess" if you believe that "timtum haleiv" inherently
means something psychological rather than mystical.

Do I even really mean "rather than"?

In Nefesh haChaim vol I, RCV is quite clear that the only way acts
in olam hazeh have impact in higher olamos is via the one bridge that
ties the olamos together -- humanity, which is a combination of all the
kochos. So, is there a spiritual force other than the impact of a ma'aseh
on the self? (Not so much a question for food being metamteim haleiv,
more about the mezuzah that was hung and maintained kedin but kelapei
Shemaya galia that inside that roll, it's flawed.)

This also goes back to a three way machloqes RMLevin
posted besheim R Y Benzechry (hasqamah by R' Y Hillel)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n075.shtml#15>, whether qabbalah
is to be understood as a mashal of how Hashem runs the world (Gra),
or of how people work (Besh"t), or if it is to be studied literally
and not understood until le'asid lavo (much of Sepharad). Not that none
see these ideas as literal forces. This shtims with RYHillel's numerous
condemnations of "practical qabbalah" (mezuzah reading et al).

R S Coffer wrote:
> The concept of timtum halev (TH) is introduced by the Gemara in Yuma
> 39. The Gemara learns it from a pasuk associated with eating tarfus. This
> is why TH is most often associated with ma'achalos assuros although
> personally I believe TH is not necessarily limited to tarfus....

As I already mentioned, RSSchwab used the expression WRT less-than-perfect
business practices. So I'm maskim.

...
> As far as the definition of TH, it means the capacity of certain aveiros
> to interfere with the ability of one's mind and heart to internalize
> the chochmas haTorah (based on Rashi in Yuma).

Again, agreed. But not that this is about the *aveirah* not the cheftzah.

> As far as R' Micha's question of yiras shamayim, the answer the Ramban
> gives (same place in Toras haAdam) is that all aveiros done bishogeg
> have an element of mayzid to them because had the person been more
> "chareid el divar Hashem" (my lashon :-), he would have made sure
> that whatever he was doing was in line with the ratzon Hashem....

(Tangent about your lashon: There was a time when "chareidi" meant
"Orthodox". The Hebrew name of the OU also refers to "qehilos
chareidios".)

Again, agreed. That doesn't work for Eliyahu, who ate it bereshus HQBH,
an infant, or the mentally ill teenager. Would you again agree with me
that none of those situations should cause TH? The CI says otherwise,
in the latter case. All of your statements feed the idea that TH is part
of the mechanism of aveirah goreres aveirah -- the impact of cheit on
the self.

So far, exactly the thesis I was promoting. But then, in the thread
titled "Tzadik vtov lo" RSC writes:
> But I'll bring you several ra'ayos that you are incorrect. First of all,
> the Rambam paskens (halacha beis), even according to us who hold like the
> chachamim (halacha gimmel), that the sa'ir is michaper without teshuva on
> asey's and lo saaseys without kares. So you see that there is a certain
> power of kapara in the rituals of YK alone even without teshuva and even
> according to the chahcamim.

(RSC is refering to pereq 1 meHil' Teshuvah.)

I don't see where you see the Rambam holds like the Chachamim, but that's
also the position of the L Rebbe (Liqutei Sichos IV). But putting that
aside...

I would say there is a power of kaparah in experiencing the avodas YK
(may we all be zocheh to which bb"a). This fits what you posted in the
first post, that it's the impact on the self, not some lema'alah min
hateva force. We really don't get to a problem in the Rambam until:
> Another ra'aya is that the Rambam states, even according to the
> chahchamim, that *eetzumo shel yom* is michaper to shavim. According to
> you, it really has nothing to do with eetzumo shel yom.

This is Teshuvah 1:4. This is Rebbe's idiom, not the Chachamim's --
a chiddush of the Rambam's. FWIW, Tosafos (Kerisus 7b) understand
itzumo shel yom meaning the entire day, not the day itself -- even if
not observed.

>> This ties into my problem with the notion that the mezuzah provides
>> shemirah, not only the mitzvah of the mezuzah. How would someone's life
>> be better served by one thing or another based on the state of a kelaf
>> he can't even know?

> I don't understand your problem. Hahem created chukey hateva. There are
> chukey hateva hagashmee and chukey hateva haruchani....

I'm going to switch leshonos, as to me "ruchani" implies "lema'alah
min hateva".

Why are there chuqei hateva? They enable bechirah chofshi in two ways
(1) by allowing hesteir Panim, and (2) by enabling us to decide on an
action based upon its likely outcomes. Chuqim that are lam'alah min
hateva do not fit either role.

We need significant reason for the existence of forces that get in the
way of sechar va'onesh or hatavah.

Third, when is the person supposed to get his fair sechar va'onesh
if there are effects of ones chata'im that follow him into the olam
ha'emes that can cause him loss even without a cheit, or benefit without
a mitzvah?

Taking one of the metaphor approaches to qabalah, I would say that when
we speak of the power of itzumo shel yom, the cheftzeh of the mezuzah,
or lehavdil of tarfus, we're speaking of the kind of improvement and
thereby sechar or r"l damage and therefore onesh caused by experiencing
various things (or neglecting to). And thus NOT a factor WRT tinoqos,
shotim, or lehavdil Eliayahu hanavi obeying HQBH. Or the mezuzah that
was checked kelahakhah but happened to crack a letter the next day.

 -mi

PS: Kindly respond with sevaros, answers to my questions. Ra'ayos that
I'm wrong are useful, but if I can't understand why or how, I can't
internalize an alternative shitah.

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

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


[ 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         ]