Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 58

Fri, 16 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Mindfulness and Being Present in the Moment (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Mindfulness and Being Present in the Moment (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Derech Eretz Kadmah L'Torah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Skeptics (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Mindfulness and Being Present in the Moment (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Mindfulness and Being Present in the Moment (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Zev Sero)
• 9. A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (Gershon Dubin)
• 10. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (Zev Sero)
• 11. SEMI CIRCLE MENORAH (Menachem Posner)
• 12. Re: Mindfulness... (Richard Wolpoe)
• 13. Re: SEMI CIRCLE MENORAH (Daniel Israel)

On Thu, November 15, 2007 11:48 am, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
:   Are Mindfulness or "Being Present in the Moment" Jewish values?

Since I teach for an organization where the typical student is in
various states of being a JuBu, former JuBu, or somewhere along the
way, I have had some opportunity to both think about the question and
about how I should present my answer. The following is /not/ how I
would say it to one of the nevuchim. This is highlighting the
conflict; I would usually put it more like "Judaism doesn't have
Mindfulness; it has Mindfulness 2.0."


There are related ideas that /are/ Jewish values... Zehirus is
impossible without being mindful. Menuchas hanefesh, the ability to
stop all the internal chatter and think clearly, is also related. Less
central in mussar discussions, but considered a primary middah by
RSWolbe is hislamdus -- the ability to learn from watching the moment
and how one responds to it. That is very similar to mindfulness, but
still, a very different thing.Hislamdus requires one not only be in
the moment, but also be able to use it toward the next moment.

:   So, therefore, I have much more sympathy for Ju-Bu's or people who
: turn to Buddhism for something (Mindfulness or Being Present in the
: Moment) that they cannot find in Judaism.

Unless there is a reason why Judaism doesn't draw attention to this
value.

Buddhism teaches a person to stop striving, that desire and striving
are the cause of all misery. Judaism calls on us to shteig up the
sulam (to use three languages in as many words).

Metaphor for the math geek: Buddhism is about maximizing f(t),
Judaism, about maximizing df/dt.

Zehirus is about watching what we do in terms of its consequences, not
in-and-of-itself. Menuchas hanefesh, in terms of making the right
choices. Hislamdus, to make better choices the next time. All have
links to the future, not just leaving you in the here-and-now.
Mindfulness is simply a non-Jewish spin on the concept; again, IMHO.

I think Buddhism poses other problems. I think that Buddha nature
(Buddha-dhatu) is actually panentheistic, and therefore Buddhism is
AZ. Even though many O hashkafos are panentheistic, doing so in a
non-Jewish way is still assur. (Note that I wrote "panentheistic", not
"pantheistic"; I am referring to the notion that everything is G-d,
but G-d is more than that.)

I also think that Buddhism's ethic is too passivist. To explain by
narrative: It's the source of the Star Wars VI seen where the emperor
tries to convince Luke Skywalker that he has to choose between giving
in, and ending up on the Dark Side, or getting angry and fight the
emperor and Darth Vader and end up on the Dark Side because anger and
fighting are dark. That's Buddhist ethic. I do not see this as fitting
with our values -- "haba lehargekha hashqeim vehargo", milkhemes
mitzvah, "Lakol zeman va'eis ... eis milkhamah", etc... We believe
that silence in the face of evil is evil.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On a tangent...

On Thu, November 15, 2007 11:48 am, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
:   One could use the word "Kavvanah" for Mindfulness, but,
: traditionally, in Kabbalistic-ethical and other literature, being
: mindful was always about being aware of God, Sefirot, or Metaphysics
: and not in the sense of being fully aware of ones surroundings or
: being fully present in a conversation with others.  In fact there
: are famous passages in the writings of Rambam zt"l and the Baal Shem
: Tov zy"a that explicitly encourage people to be thinking of God or
: the Higher Realms when talking to other people.

Shevisi Hashem lenegdi tamid.

The idea is pretty fundamental, not just to the couple of sources cited.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

Quoting myself, v4n36:
> I think this is a different usage of DE. I've identified what I
> believe to be three different usages:
> Yafeh TT im DE -- involvement in the outside world
> DE kadma laTorah -- midos and being a mentsh
> zu p'rishus DE -- proper usage of ta'avos gashmios (or at least one
> of them)

TiDE presumes a definition of DE that has to do with beingpersonally
refined. More like the usage I associated with DEKL.

My unifything theme is aretz, life in olam hazeh. Especially as
gemillus chasadim is developed by the Maharal on Avos 1:2 -- "gemillus
chassadim" is the perfection of one's relationship to other residents
of olam hazeh. (In contrast to avodah - one's relationship to the
Borei, and Torah - one's relationship with the sole resident of one's
mind, oneself.) And thus marital relations with full kavod given to
one's partner are the ultimate in DE, being the synthesis of actions
to build the physical world, enjoy the physical world, and bond with
another resident of that world.

And then in v4n395:
> Derech Eretz (as I concluded in v04n036) has three meanings that
> share the basic notion of knowing how to live in Olam haZeh
> ("eretz"). Avraham Avinu discovers HKBH by noticing the wonders of
> eretz, is mekareiv people, willingto associate with what he thought
> were three sand-worshipping idolaters. This is TIDE. He is mekareiv
> them how? By performing chessed -- DE in the sense of DE kadma
> laTorah. And he is given the b'ris milah -- DE as in the "perishus
> DE" of the haggadah.
...
> While TIDE looks at an external DE, including mentchlach because of
> its impact on others, mussar looks at DE as a means of improving the
> self.
> It therefore only centers about the chessed/mentchlachkeit aspect of
> DE. Mussar included an asceticism that doesn't jibe with the other
> uses of the expression "DE"...

> We discussed on Avodah the overlap between TuM and Chassidus, in the
> sense that Chassidus too utilizes the gashmi -- in some contexts.
> The tisch and the use of alcohol come to mind immediately. What
> they really share is an outsideness. The mountain and the field are
> very different -- one lifts the earth, the other glories in its raw
> G-dliness, but they are both ways to be outside the home.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Tue, November 13, 2007 7:17 pm, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: In the end we are left with existential uncertainty and -- because we
: are human, and because we are Jews -- a profound yearning to know the
: Truth and an even more profound yearning to connect with the Almighty,
: the Master of the Universe, the Creator, the Father of all Humanity.

The side-issue of the fascination of the Jewish atheist (although I
can cite counter-examples, I believe the statement is true in general)
with his atheism reminds me with a comment of the Barditchiver Rebbe
on the Haggadah.

Bitechilah ovedei AZ hayu avoseinu: Before "qeirvanu haMaqom
la'avodaso", yes, we [Terach] were sinners. But think about it --
Terach wasn't a hedonist, an epicurean, etc... he was a *spiritual
sinner*. Even as sinners, the pintele yid was already there...

Now, to the main topic...

Perhaps it's causal. Aren't people more fascinated and more moved by a
topic they have to defend, than one that is open-and-shut true? How
many people went to war over "1 + 1 = 2"? (I know, the Pythagorians
had some people killed to hide the fact that the square-root of 2 is
irrational, but that was at a time when people still were arguing the
point.)

IOW, a well proven religion is less effective than one that relies on
evidence that can't be shared.

Which surreptitiously brought in another subject: There is a
difference between how sure I am of something, and how surely I can
prove it to others. I believe things because of my own experience,
whether or not that experience is easily or reliably shared.

So, 'twould seem to me the ideal religion is one that you could prove
very well, but only to yourself. Kind of like "na'aseh venishmah" --
unless you try living by it (and try in the right way), there is
nothing to hear. (Which I also believe is the point of using a
substance that looks like mortar but tastes sweet to symbolize our
avdus to Par'oh, and by extension -- to the RBSO, at the seder.)

This may be related to R' Carmy's (aforementioned in this iteration
to) observation about the difference between knowing G-d and proving
He exists. The latter is about knowing /about/ G-d, not knowing Him.
And thus lacks the motivational power.

On Wed, November 14, 2007 3:11 pm, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: well , from the skeptic's perspective, there has to be a point where
: counter information is enough to negate the premise.

Let's put this another way: The skeptic is wrong on the basic
assumption of what he thinks is sound support for an idea. He is
therefore asking me to turn my experience into a philosophical proof.
It's a mistake to even enter that space, as that epistomology is
wrong.

To continue this idea...

On Wed, November 14, 2007 4:01 am, R David Guttmann wrote:
: The problem that I have with RMB approach and also even more RRW is
: how does one know that the  experience is not a figment of the
: imagination? ...

The problem is that the typical skeptic (thinking of the blogger
population) is using pre-Kantian epistomology. To translate that that
out of (probably abused) jargon: As the Rihal as the chaver tell the
Kuzari, proofs are not more certain than knowing first-hand.

I don't mean knowing G-d first-hand. I mean knowing the Torah
first-hand. I am not a navi, never lived through a blatant neis
nigleh, can't talk about first-hand experience of the Borei. But I can
speak of first hand experience of studying and trying to live
according to something that purports to be His Will for people to live
by.

: If one
: reads some of the skeptics, the more intelligent ones, that seems to
: be the core question. By telling them that it is an "experience" it
: is feeding into their skepticism. They have gone beyond the Aish
: touchy feely approach....

If they're asking about how can we be sure, how can we test the
evidence, then they're back in the Scholastic belief that proofs
outweigh experience, and they're already on the wrong path.

It's not that they "have gone beyond the ... touchy feely approach".
It's that they have lost touch with homo religiosis and expect
cognitive man to have a path to religion. Or, leaving RYBS speak: They
want science, not religion. Science is inherently suited for the
empirical, and you can't get from the empirical to the religious.
There is no way to prove "ought" from "is". (Search wikipedia for the
Is-Ought problem, the Natualistic fallacy, and related pages.)

There is a "beyond the touchy feely", but the path that will take them
there for modern man isn't classical philosophy. Philosophers moved on
for the same reason; it doesn't fit the way we think anymore.

(And frankly, Aish's superficiality has more to do with proofs based
on specious claims than reliance on the experience of a Shabbos.
Tzadiq vetov lo stories not just wouldn't, but shouldn't convince a
skeptic.)

They are seeking something that just can't be obtained. No proof is so
sound that you can prove to yourself you aren't being misled. In fact,
the odds of being misled about a multiple-postulate proof is greater
than the odds of being misled about repeated experiences.

Let's put it yet another way: What makes you so sure the sun will be
yellow when it comes up tomorrow? (Or even that it will come up?) Is
it the astronomy theory, or the fact that you have (hopefully) seen it
nearly every morning of your life, and made a generalization? Notice
that no one, even someone totally uninformed as to the physics of
stars, wonders how to prove that tomorrow it won't show up bright and
purple...

To my mind, the real problem is rampant orthopraxy. If people
experienced the religion rather than just doing it, the question
wouldn't cross their minds. Any more than the need to *prove* the sun
won't come up purple tomorrow. Now if only people would work to
putting some passionate fire to that rite (aish + das)....

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Wed, November 14, 2007 6:41 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
: The actual obligation of tzedaka on each person is very small: only
: a third of a shekel a year (YD 249:2).  Anything more than that is
: voluntary, and therefore can be given to other causes.

What about maaser kesofim?

Isn't this because the mechabeir holds (as articulated explicitly by
the Bach) that maaser kesafim is at most a minhag? And given his
omission altogether in a book that contains minhagei Yisrael, it would
be a minhag chasidus that happens to be the norm, not even subject to
minhag Yisrael kedin.

Since in these more affluent times, many poseqim (and English guide
writers) are chosheshim for the Shelah (ma'aser kesafim deOraisa) or
the Maharil (deRabbanan), I wonder if one can blindly rely on this
tiny shiur lemaaseh.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Thu, November 15, 2007 11:48 am, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
> :   Are Mindfulness or "Being Present in the Moment" Jewish values?
>
>   
I sometimes wonder about the state of mind of someone who kept himself 
tahor (see Albeck's citation of his father in Hashlamot V'Tikunim on 
Berachot 1:1).

David Riceman

R' Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
> However, would you include Mindfulness or "Being Present
> in the Moment" as Jewish values?  For now, I am blurring
> the distinctions between them, even though they are
> distinct virtues.

Plucked out of the air, these sound synonomous to me. If you're "blurring the distinctions", then I suppose they mean different things to you.

If my understanding of them is even close to yours, I'd have to guess that these are very important Jewish values. Mindfulness sounds, to me, like an expression of Mitzvos Tzrichos Kavana, while its opposite, which we are taught to avoid, is Mitzvas Anashim Mlumada, doing thinks brainlessly, unaware of one's actions.

Akiva Miller

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, November 14, 2007 6:41 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
> : The actual obligation of tzedaka on each person is very small: only
> : a third of a shekel a year (YD 249:2).  Anything more than that is
> : voluntary, and therefore can be given to other causes.

> What about maaser kesofim? 
> Isn't this because the mechabeir holds (as articulated explicitly by
> the Bach) that maaser kesafim is at most a minhag? And given his
> omission altogether in a book that contains minhagei Yisrael, it would
> be a minhag chasidus that happens to be the norm, not even subject to
> minhag Yisrael kedin.

It was a minhag Ashkenaz; in the Rosh's will he asked his sons to
follow it, even though they generally followed the minhagim of their
native Sefarad, where maaser kesafim was apparently unknown.


> Since in these more affluent times, many poseqim (and English guide
> writers) are chosheshim for the Shelah (ma'aser kesafim deOraisa) or
> the Maharil (deRabbanan), I wonder if one can blindly rely on this
> tiny shiur lemaaseh.

This itself is the current *minhag*; and that same minhag is also that
this maaser can go not just for actual tzedaka defined narrowly, but
for any good cause within the broad definition of "tzedaka".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

From: "SBA Gmail" <sbasba@gmail.com>

<<A few points to ponder and questions on the parsha.>>

Yasher koach.


<<Simple.  They were placed outside the walls of the city ? where they died.

(Sounds a bit like the Eskimo solution..)
Would this be the first published example of institutionalized euthanasia?>>

I'm not sure if it's this or another midrash, but the way I remember it is when they get tired of living (this is common among very old people;  Rav Moshe's last words were "Ich ken shoen nisht" or something to that effect.) they go outside the walls on their own;  nobody puts them there.  The question becomes if that constitutes suicide rather than euthanasia.


<<29:32 - Rashi dh Vatikra shemo Reuven - 'Omro re'u ma bein beni leben
chami...'


The first obvious question is, the Torah gives a clear reason why Leah
called him Reuven - 'ki ro'o Hashem be'onyi', so why is Rashi giving a
different reason>>

For all the other shevatim, the reason comes first:  ki shama Hashem ki senuah anochi...Ata hapa'am yilaveh ishi eilai...Hapa'am odeh es Hashem, FOLLOWED by al ken kar'ah shemo...the name.

Here, it's vatikra shemo Reuven, ki amra...  implying that there is another, hidden reason for giving the name before the reason is even given.

<<31:34 - Am I understanding it correctly that Rochel was sitting on her cvamel INSIDE the tent? And if so, was/is this the done thing - having camels in the tent that you live?>>

In my chumash it says she was sitting on the camel PILLOW;  presumably when they brought that inside they left the camel outside (except maybe for his nose <g>)


Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

SBA Gmail wrote:

> 28:19 ? Luz. 
> The Midrash 69:8 says that the Malach Hamoves had no power in the city 
> of Luz. So what happened to the senior citizens who were well past their 
> use-by dates?
> Simple.  They were placed outside the walls of the city ? where they died. 
> (Sounds a bit like the Eskimo solution..)
> Would this be the first published example of institutionalized euthanasia?

They did no such thing.  Old people lived until they were tired of it,
and when they were ready to die *they* went outside the city.  They
were not "placed" outside by ungrateful children who didn't want to
go on feeding them!  No comparison to "euthanasia" at all.



> 30:27 Rashi dh Nichashti says that the proof that Lavan had no sons 
> until Yaakov arrived was the fact that he sent Rochel to the well with 
> his sheep, 
> Something he would not have done had he any sons.
> But we see that his father Besuel who did have a son - Lavan - still 
> sent his sister Rivka to do the same thing...?

Rivkah wasn't looking after any sheep.  She was going to the well to
draw water for the family, which has traditionally been women's work,
as the Eved Avraham said - "and the townspeople's daughters are coming
out to draw water".   Shepherding was traditionally men's (or boy's)
work.

Though given Rivkah's age, I imagine there was probably another woman
of the household sent to draw the water for dinner, while Rivkah
tagged along with a small pitcher, to "help".




> 31:34 - Am I understanding it correctly that Rochel was sitting on her 
> cvamel INSIDE the tent? And if so, was/is this the done thing - having 
> camels in the tent that you live?

No, she was sitting on the *saddle*.  Which was indeed kept indoors,
as one would expect.  No part of a camel -- proverbial or real -- belongs
in a tent, not even the nose.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Does anyone know of a definitive ruling as to whether a Chanukah menorah may or may not be shaped in a semi circle? Or rather, why is it that no orthodox Jews ever use such Menorahs since there is no apparent reason why not to?
 
Gut Shabbos!
Menachem Posner

_____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on earning a criminal justice degree today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifmtFIpDIpBQZXKMTt79zIfWS8IBJcXiYQVQDkZj7fPyuoHo/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071116/a7c3a346/attachment.html 

On Nov 16, 2007 5:31 AM, Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:48:37 -0800 (PST)
> R' Yonatan Kaganoff
> Wrote: Subject: [Avodah] Mindfulness and Being Present in the Moment
>
> >I was talking to my wife the other week about the following question
> >and wanted to ask the members of the list if they had any ideas about
> >it.
>
> >Are Mindfulness or "Being Present in the Moment" Jewish values?
>
>
See Avos 3:9  "hamafsik mitalmudo .... mischaveyiv benafsho"

There are all kinds of interpretations on this text

The simple read is whilst learning one should not be distracted by  external
events  Who is this Mischayeiv beNafsho?  When a surgeon is not mindful, he
could cost a life. Same for a driver of an auto.

My day school rebbe told us there is a different about complaining about the
room being too hot/cold at the BEGINNING of the Shiur and in the middle.

If one complains at the beginning - FINE
When one complains in the middle it means he is distracted.

OTOH, [unlike say l'havdil in ZEN]  I don't see mindfulness as an end in
itself, rather a means to an end.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071116/4b5e6be8/attachment.htm 

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:08:14 -0700 Menachem Posner 
<menachemp@juno.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know of a definitive ruling as to whether a Chanukah 
>menorah may or may not be shaped in a semi circle? Or rather, why 
>is it that no orthodox Jews ever use such Menorahs since there is 
>no apparent reason why not to?

R' Seth Mandel posted an excellent discussion of the shape of the 
Menorah in the BhM on Avodah, you can find it in the archives:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml#12

As far as the relevance to your question, the last Lubavitcher 
Rebbe held that (a) the menorah had straight arms, and (b) a 
Chanukah menorah should be the same shape as the one in the BhM.  
Based on this, I presume, many Chabad Chassidim light a straight 
armed menorah.

RSM goes on to make a strong argument for the curved arm menorah in 
the BhM; I would guess that someone who accepted RMMS's point (b), 
but not (a), could conceivably be makpid on curved arms.  However, 
RSM writes that he can find no source for (b) other than RMMS, and 
that historical evidence is that Chanukah menorahs were not 
constructed according to any shita of what they looked like in the 
BhM.

Interestingly, the RSM's post ends with a comment about a future 
posting regarding point (b), but if that essay was ever posted, I 
can't find it.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 58
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."