Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 052

Friday, May 26 2006

• Re: Lubavitch acosmism
• Native spirituality
• A Yom Yershalayim Vort
• Re: Kedushah
• RE: Malachim
• RE: Avot and Mitzvot
• RE: Ambivalence, Dialectics, Eilu va'Eilu and Nevu'ah
• RE: Lubavitch acosmism
• Re: Lubavitch acosmism
• Re: Doctor's Fees
• Re: Kedushah
• Re: Kedushah

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:06:59PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> See the igeres of the LR translated at <http://tinyurl.com/maw4z>.

: The "acquaintance" mentioned in the letter is probably REED.

Huh? In 1949, the RL would intimate that REED was ignorant of qabbalah?

As for more sources for L acosmism, there's his essay on Lag baOmer
in Toras Menachem vol 1. The following is from R' Eli Kaploun's
translation (emph mine):
    Above all else, it is by studying the pnimiyus of the Torah that one
    is empowered to create this separating "mound", for through this study
    one becomes aware that "there is nothing else other than Him." Then,
    REALIZING THAT THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOTHING OTHER
    THAN DIVINITY, one works toward transforming it into a fit receptor
    for Divinity. The consummation of this process will become fully
    manifest, through the study and dissemination of the teachings of
    Chassidus, with the coming of Mashiach. In the words of the prophet,
    "The glory of G-d shall be revealed, and together all flesh shall
    see that the mouth of G-d has spoken."

And then there's the LR's statements at a fabrengen on 19 Kisleiv,
5728.

I beliecve the Mittler Rebbe says so explicitly, that the Ayin from
which we get yeish is the Ein Sof.

This comes from the Tanya, of course. LA ch 21 (tr R' Nissin Mindel):
    For all the "contractions" and "garments" are not distinct from Him,
    Heaven forfend, but "like the snail, whose garment is part of his
    body," (Bereishis Rabba 21) and as is written, "The L-rd, He is
    your G-d," as is explained elsewhere.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

A friend of mine has found herself in a professional situation where
she needs to ask she'elot about Native (i.e., "Native American" aka
"American Indian") cultural and spiritual practices and which of them
present problems of avodah zarah. She herself is not that well-versed
in the real nature and meaning of these practices and it is rather
challenging to find a posek who knows anything about this particular
area of metziut. If anyone out there knows enough about Native culture
to either answer such she'elot (if you are also a Rav) or to help a
posek unravel the metziut behind these she'elot, please contact me off
list. Thank you!!

 - Ilana

Yom Yerushalayim - roshei teivos is 2 Yud'n. 
The presence of the Almighty Himself (2 yuds) is contained in the
Re-unification of Jerusalem. Yom Yerushalayim - the Re-unification
of Jerusalem. We are a "Light unto the Nations," and as such we hope
some day to bring the world to the Re-UNITY of HaShem. YOM YERUSHALAYIM!

Richard Wolberg

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> LAD, "qedushah" is separated for a purpose, which is
>> why we usually have a "le-" if there is a prepositional
>> phrase. "Qadosh Lashem". "Mequdeshes li". ...
>> This is in distinction to "tahara", which is separation
>> from. Thus explaining the use in "zahav tahor" for pure gold.

Excellent point.

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> It might be interesting to see how Tevel and Terumah work into this.
> I've often thought of Tevel has having kedusha, but kedusha of a useless
> sort. This is not to be confused with mere *potential* kedusha; no,
> the kedusha of tevel is very real -- hence the issur on eating it --
> but there's nothing that can be done with it. But when that kedusha is
> concentrated into a small portion of the whole, that portion gets the
> useful kedusha of Terumah, and the rest loses all of its kedusha and
> becomes mere chullin.

> This is a very different sort of separation than "Qadosh Lashem" and
> "Mequdeshes li", where an individual is singled out and raised up,
> without changing the status of the others.

> I'm not sure where to take this from here. Anyone else?

Perhaps the issue is that "Tevel" is an irbuvya of Qodshim and Hhulin;
one cannot use the Qodshim in it without involving the Hhulin, and vice
versa, which would be tartei desatrei. Once one is mafrish Terumah,
you have some pure Qodshim which can be (appropriately) used, and some
pure Hhulin which can be used. And perhaps that is why this world is
also called Tevel...?

	-Shlomo-

On May 25, 2006, Lisa Liel wrote:
> With respect, it's not even established that the melachim mentioned in
> the Torah were melachim in the Kabbalist/angelology sense.

With respect, where do you get off saying such a thing? Where do you
think the "kabbalistic" concept comes from? The spiritual entities
identified in kabbala (see for instance Maamar haIkkarim by the Ramchal)
as Malachim are precisely the same identified everywhere in Tanach as
Malachim. This is clear from countless ma'amarei Chazal. For instance,
Chazal say that the Malachim that destroyed Sodom "yatz'u me'michitzasam"
as a punishment for saying "ki mashchisim anachnu" and did not return
to Shamayim until they ascended the sulam in Yaakov's dream.

> A malach is
> essentially an extension of Hashem's will.

Everything is an extension of Hashem's will.

> Technically, everything in
> creation that lacks free will is a malach in a certain sense.

So are sticks and stones Malachim? How about goats? And if by
"everything" you mean everything which possesses intelligence, then
why are their distinct classifications amongst spiritual entities? Not
all spiritual entities are Malachim. Some are referred to as neshamos,
some kochos nivdalim etc. (see the above mentioned Ramchal). According
to some ancient authors (for instance the Rambam) there is even another
classification of intelligence which is higher than humans but lower
than Malachim. This classification is referred to as kochavim. It is
clear that Malachim are real entities and, as Rashi says in va'Yera,
are created to do the shelichus of Hashem.

> That would
> include people, if Hashem overrode their bechira to cause them to bring
> a message.

According to this logic, I suppose we would have to consider Pharaoh
and the Egyptians angels because Hashem removed their bechira in order
to send a message to the Jews that he is the one and only G-d.

> There are dual traditions about Esther, and how she could have slept
> with Ahasuerus. Maybe more than just two, but the two I'm thinking of
> are instructional. One is that Hashem sent a malach to take Esther's
> place.

Where does it say such a thing in Chazal?

> Another is that "Esther karka hayeta". The two can actually
> be reconciled if we see her submission to Ahasuerus as a case of her
> bechira having been suppressed.

But her bechira wasn't suppressed. She volunteered to be his wife.

> Or maybe not. But in any case, the ambiguity throughout the Torah in
> which we see men acting as malachim can be reconciled in this way.

What ambiguity?

Simcha Coffer

On May 25, 2006, Lisa Liel wrote:
> R' Avigdor Miller makes it extremely clear that his history books are
> didactic history. That they say what they do in order to teach Jewish
> concepts. Taking the specifics as literal history when we already have
> a rule about not taking every midrash as literal fact is a mistake.

Just because Rabbi Miller's books are didactic does not detract from
the veracity of the historical events portrayed therein. Anyone who
knew Rabbi Miller knows that he shied away from allegorical/spiritual
type explications of Judaism. Almost everything he ever spoke about
was empirically/historically verifiable or at least related to the
empirical senses.

Simcha Coffer   

On May 25, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:04:14PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I'm sorry but I just can't let that slide. Phenomenology is the study
>: of how things are 'perceived' as opposed to their ontological status. I
>: agree that Rav Dessler and the Maharal frequently use phenomenological
>: imagery in their explications but this has nothing to do with ontology.

> Phenomenology is a feature of schools of philosophy which teach that one
> can't know the ontological, only our perceptions of it. Such as Berkley,
> Kant, the existentialists, Mach, REED...

I do not agree. Kant's philosophy defines l'maasedic ontology as that
which can be experienced by the senses. Yes, Kant establishes that
perception is synonymous with reality but he is referring to sensory
perception, not conceptual perception.

> Such schools simply ignore the thing-in-itself, beyond proving its
> unknowability.

Kant felt that anything that was not able to be experienced by the senses
was essentially unknowable and should not be modified by philosophical
enterprise. Not that he felt that the unknowable didn't exist, just
that it was pointless to discuss it in 'positive' terms because of its
essentially empirical unknowability. IMO, the mistake you are making in
presenting Kant's views is that perception *establishes* existence as
opposed to perception is *all we can talk about* regarding existence.

>:> Look at the ma'amar on cheileq 1 again. He has a section that addresses
>:> this question. It's the equivalent of saying the extra shoes don't
>:> exist in the tailor's olam. Yes. How else does he both assert
>:> the reality of multiple olamos and then explain them in terms of
>:> perception....

>: Iruv parshiyos kasuv kan. Of course bi"ya (beriah yetzirah assiah) have
>: ontologically unique qualities but this doesn't mean that if in Beriah,
>: for instance, time is perceived (or even exists) one way, that it has
>: to detract from an alternate reality in a 'lower' world. In Beriah,
>: your 'shoresh' does not enjoy physical sensations. Does that mean that
>: physicality is not real? ...

> Strawman. Who said anything about unreality?

You did. Look at your quote. You said "How else does he both assert
the reality of multiple olamos and then explain them in terms of
perception...."

Obviously you understand Rav Dessler as associating reality purely with
perception, a notion I categorically reject.

> Again, see MmE vol I pp 304-306, "Olamos" ch 1. In it he addresses the
> question that if it depends on the madreigah of the person in question,
> "im kein, lamah qeruyyim olamos velo madreigos"?

> We're in yet another example where I feel you're imposing a false
> understanding of REED on the text. He speaks of bechinos, of phenomena,
> whereas you cast his philosophy as being about pneumena, what is
> ontologically there.

Once again you are misrepresenting Kant's philosophy. Noumena is not
"what is ontologically there". It is what is ontologically unknowable
to us. As far as Rav Dessler, please see my next comment.

>                  And so, every time you cite one of these texts, you
> come up with an interpretation that differs from those of us (including
> RACarmell) who see REED in more Kantian terms than Scholastic ones.

I also see Rav Dessler in Kantian terms but lav mi'tameich. You see,
Kant introduced the idea that perception is reality and anything else
cannot be entertained philosophically. Rav Dessler took this idea one
step further (Havaya v'Hasaga) and claimed that because a) perception is
reality to us and b) spirituality really exists, we must become aware of
the fact that our perception (hasaga) is not as ontologically sound as
'higher' levels of existence (havaya) and in fact, hasaga adds nothing
to our essences as opposed to spiritual accomplishments which expand
our essences. There is a certain quality about ourselves which is almost
verbally indefinable because it is not subject to detection by our five
senses and yet this quality is what we really are, i.e. our egos. This
doesn't mean that physicality doesn't have any real ontological status;
rather, it means that since physicality is a phenomenon which exists only
for the facility of the spiritual, once a being in the physical world
enters the spiritual realm, physicality ceases to exist *for him*. It's
a subjective thing, not an objective one.

Simcha Coffer

On May 24, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I don't know what RJB has to say (don't have time to follow the
>> link...maybe later) and I don't know what acosmism means but the baal
>> haTanya clearly does not equate Or with Maor on levels higher than Atzilus

> Acosmism = there isn't really a cosmos.

Thank you.

>> As far as your reference to Tzimtzum, the baal haTanya (BH) did not
>> chs'v mean to imply that because Tzimtzum is eino kipshuto and only
>> in Or, that everything is "of Him" in the sense that eitzim va'avanim
>> are merely manifestations of Hashem's essence.

> See the igeres of the LR translated at <http://tinyurl.com/maw4z>.

I am intimately familiar with this and several other letters written by
the LR on tzimtzum.

> He
> disagrees with your "clearly" in the first quoted paragraph that you
> wrote, and the "ch"v" in the 2nd. 

R' Micha, WADR, I don't think you understand what you are reading at
the site you were mitzayen above. The LR is saying precisely what I am
saying regarding the shita of the baal haTanya.

> The most relevent bits, as a teaser (all insertions by R' Eli Touger,
> the translator):

>> d) the tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, and it affected
>> only His light

Which is exactly what I said was the baal haTanya's shita; Tzimtzum is in
'Or' and is 'eino kipshuto'.

>> [As chassidim,] we follow solely the fourth approach mentioned
>> which explains that the concept of tzimtzum should not be interpreted
>> literally, and that it affects only [G-d's] light, but not the Source of
>> light. [Indeed, within the light,] it affects only the lowest level of
>> the light which existed before the tzimtzum, as explained in the texts
>> and manuscripts of Chabad [teachings].

I disagree with the LR on several fronts. 

1) First of all, he implies that Tzimtzum in Or and eino kipshuto is a
Chassidishe approach whereas I believe that none of the gedoley Yisrael
on the two sides of the Chassidim versus Misnagdim debate believed
differently. In fact, the problem R' Chaim (Volozhiner) had with the
Chassidim was this very issue; he understood from the 'hamon am' that they
understood Tzimtzum to be in Maor as opposed to Or (but eino kipshuto)
which is why they were not nizhar regarding tefilla and limud haTorah in
mikomos mitunafim (because since the Tzimtzum is eino kipshuto, the tinuf
is really just another manifestation of Hashem's essence chs'v) or like
the Gra characterized it in one of his bans "ha'omer l'eitz Avi atah".

2) He states that the Gra understood Tzimtzum to be in Maor. IMO, this
is a grave error. The Gra would never say such a thing chs'v. In fact,
in the likutim at the back of his pirush on Safra d'tzniyusa, he says
exactly the opposite. (See Sod haTzimtzum pg. 138 in Bezalel Naor's
edition of Safra di'Tzniyusa). Obviously the LR did not see this sefer
or he would have never said such a thing.

3) He states that R' Chaim's shita was that it was eino kipshuto but in
Maor. This too is impossible to say and is contradicted several times
by a close reading of Nefesh haChaim v'ein kan makom l'ha'arich.

4) He states that R' Chaim argued on his Rebbi in this sugya, an assertion
which I consider wholly untenable.

The crowd on Avodah is of the highest quality but I keep on entertaining
the notion that we may be violating the prohibition of Kvod Elokim Haster
Davar by discussing these musagim in public.

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 25, 2006, Zev Sero wrote:
> The "acquaintance" mentioned in the letter is probably REED.

It is. 

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 25, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> Huh? In 1949, the RL would intimate that REED was ignorant of qabbalah?

Yes. The LR was not familiar with Rav Dessler. He only knew what he heard
in the communication he received from the British Rav and responded
accordingly. Had he ever spoken to Rav Dessler, he no doubt would not
have characterized him in such terms.

[Email #3. -mi]

On May 26, 2006, I wrote:
> Yes. The LR was not familiar with Rav Dessler. He only knew what he
> heard in the communication he received from the British Rav and responded
> accordingly. Had he ever spoken to Rav Dessler, he no doubt would not
> have characterized him in such terms.

I would like to append a story to this email. R' Aryeh Carmel relates that
R' Itchele (Yitzchok) Masmid was one of the "mofsim" of Chabad. He was
a chasid of the Rashab (three Rebbe's ago incl. RMMS) and apparently,
he knew everything! He once had occasion to visit London and stayed
by Rav Dessler for several weeks. During that time, these two gedolim
traversed the pathways of pinimius haTorah such that Rav Dessler reported
that these several weeks were the most enriched of his life. But here's
the kicker. R' Itchele was so enamoured with Rav Dessler's tefisa in
penimius haTorah that his (Rav Dessler's) Rebbetzin reported that for
the entire time that R' Itchele stayed with them, she didn't have to make
his bed. He simply didn't sleep due to his excitement over Rav Dessler.

This story seems to support my contention above regarding the LR.

Simcha Coffer

[Toras Menachem, as translated by R' Eli Kaploun and emphasized by Micha:
-mi]
>     Above all else, it is by studying the pnimiyus of the Torah that one
>     is empowered to create this separating "mound", for through this study
>     one becomes aware that "there is nothing else other than Him." Then,
>     REALIZING THAT THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOTHING OTHER
>     THAN DIVINITY, one works toward transforming it into a fit receptor
>     for Divinity. The consummation of this process will become fully
>     manifest, through the study and dissemination of the teachings of
>     Chassidus, with the coming of Mashiach. ...

Please excuse my ignorance, but how is this paragraph substantially
different from what is written by the Slonimer Rebbe in "Netivot Shalom"?

 --Rena

The approach I've heard is that schar batalah can be considered what one
would have made should he have gone into an alternate profession. Since
physicians are highly educated, had they not gone into medicine they may
well have gone into a highly compensated alternate profession and may
charge as such. Isn't this the same svarah which is applied to paying
mechanchim, who in theory should not be paid ala "ma ani b'chinam af
atem b'chinam). I can't speak for the disparity in compensation except
that perhaps the following theories.

1)Alternately, as far as I understand there is no issur in charging
non-Jews for ones services. Therefore, schaar batalah could be calculated
as how much one would be compensated by a non-Jew for an equal time
and effort.

2)I'm not sure how the fact that insurance actually is the primary
payor (for the most part) would fit in. I have seen that regarding
malpractice it is mutar to sue and use arkaos to litigate a case even
in a situation where al pi din one would not be entitled to collect
(up to the limits of the malpractice insurance) since the insurance
company is the primary interested party in the suit. Same thing with
regard to automobile accidents etc

Kol Tuv
Gary Schreiber

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> It might be interesting to see how Tevel and Terumah work into this.
> I've often thought of Tevel has having kedusha, but kedusha of a useless
> sort. This is not to be confused with mere *potential* kedusha; no,
> the kedusha of tevel is very real -- hence the issur on eating it --
> but there's nothing that can be done with it...
> This is a very different sort of separation than "Qadosh Lashem" and
> "Mequdeshes li", where an individual is singled out and raised up,
> without changing the status of the others.

[R Shlomo Argamon:]
> Perhaps the issue is that "Tevel" is an irbuvya of Qodshim and Hhulin;
> one cannot use the Qodshim in it without involving the Hhulin, and vice
> versa, which would be tartei desatrei. Once one is mafrish Terumah,
> you have some pure Qodshim which can be (appropriately) used, and some
> pure Hhulin which can be used. And perhaps that is why this world is
> also called Tevel...?

The definition of kedusha is separation, which is why a kedesha is
called such, al tigash bi ki kidashticha, with the opposite meaning of
"sanctity".

I don't believe tevel is kadosh simply because it's asur ba'achila;
it cannot by definition above be kadosh until it's separated.

And certainly Tavail (Tov)=Inhabited world is not connected with Tevel
(Tes) =unseparated matanos. Although it's tempting to say so in context
of Rashi's second lashon on "tevel asu" (Vayikra 20:12) that Tevel (tov)
means mixed up.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:58:17PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: The definition of kedusha is separation, which is why a kedesha is
: called such, al tigash bi ki kidashticha, with the opposite meaning of
: "sanctity".

My suggestion was that qedushah is more specific, a particular kind
of separation. Viewed as you phrase it, it's a synonym for havdalah
in general. The metzorah isn't qadosh, but he is separated from the
rest.

I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite meaning of sanctity".

Nor how your pasuq proves the role of havdalah in qedushah. It could
simply show that qedushah carries an issur negi'ah.

: I don't believe tevel is kadosh simply because it's asur ba'achila;
: it cannot by definition above be kadosh until it's separated.

At least, conceptually separated, ie identified.

The pasuq prohibing tevel (Vayiqra 33:15) is "velo yechalelu es qodshei
BY..."

Implied is either that the qedushah is bestowed by HQBH, and only
gathered up by man, or
One can be mechalel qedushah that doesn't yet exist by preventing
its manifestation.

The first possibility is problematic in either RGD's or my ta'am
hamitzvah for qedushah. But it's smoother peshat in the pasuq IMHO.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

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


[ 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         ]