Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 174

Fri, 09 May 2008

• 1. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (s kadish)
• 2. Re: Olam Haba is static (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Olam Haba is static (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Heter mechira (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Treatment of ger toshav (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: Treatment of ger toshav (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Olam Haba is static (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Olam Haba is static (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Olam Haba is static (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Olam Haba is static (Rich, Joel)

I noticed quite a few comments recently about the recent conversion
controversy. Since my family and I have been deeply and personally
involved in the world of Israeli gerut for quite a number of years
already, I would like to relay what we have learned from this intense
interaction. We have been in many of the "Special Conversion Courts"
dozens of times, including once at Rav Druckman's, and been personally
involved with a great many gerim. We know a great many of the dayanim
involved and have spoken to them personally about the issues. Frankly, we
are not interested in getting involved in a debate about the controversy,
but we are interested in perhaps clarifying some of the metzius based
on our experiences, and the conclusions we have drawn from them.

Kabbalas ha-mitzvos: All of the special conversion courts including
Rav Druckman's require KHM. There has been a lot of debate recently
about the shitah best known from Rav Uzziel, which was shared by Rav
Unterman and Rav Goren zt"l (the latter is considered a RZ "gadol"
today in Israeli circles), and by Rav Goren's two talmidim, Rav Chaim
Druckman & Rav Zephania Drori shlit"a (commonly considered two of today's
gedolai Torah in those same circles). It was also the live tradition in
many non-Ashkenazic communities (and shared for instance by Rav Chaim
David Halevi, in his own right a gadol ba-Torah). This a very important
shitah, and a very convincing one in my personal opinion, but all of
that is completely besides the point in the recent controversy. The
reason is simply that there is simply no court that actually relies
on this lekhatechilla (including Rav Druckman's). Period. In reality,
all of the courts try to find evidence that the prospective convert is
keeping Torah and mitzvot in their personal lives.

I have seen a great many prospective converts given quite a hard time,
including instances where I thought the dayanim went much too far. I have
never seen *any* Israeli conversion court that takes its task lightly,
and I have been in many different ones. The differences between them are
mainly in the personalities of the dayanim, not in the shitos involved,
though those differences in personality can be quite significant. In
my opinion, most people who are accepted are sincere at the time; they
have gone through a long, meaningful process. How many remain observant
by common Orthodox standards in the long run is a great deal less, but
(contrary to the rumor among Russian-speaking immigrants) there is no
"gerut police" and such a thing has no place in any gerut system.

There are also political differences between the courts, the most vivid
being between Rav Druckman and Rav Rozen (which came out in the most
recent controversy). I respect both of them. The point often lost is
that the attempt to disqualify Rav Druckman as head of Minhal ha-Giyur
means not just to disqualify the single court he headed, but ALL of the
non-charedi batei din alike (including Rav Rozen's)! These batei din
include gedolei Torah who are among the leaders of religious Zionism
and supported by its entire Torah world.

Another thing that should be clarified is that Rav Uzziel's shitah has
*two* components, not just one:

1. Kabbalat ha-Mitzvot is a matter of accepting responsibility, and not
that the beit din acts as some sort of a "frummo-counter". This is the
most controversial aspect of it, which has been much debated recently.

2. "Russians" are not "stam goyim". There is a Torah obligation to
encourage those with a personal connection to the Jewish people to
formally join it through gerut. Especially for people who are born into
Jewish families ("zera yisrael"), identify as Jews, and have even suffered
anti-Semitism (and quite a few have). Or who are married to Jews. This
in not just the opinion of Rav Uzziel and those cited above, but also of
many Ashkenazic poskim in modern times such as Rav Azriel Hildesheimer,
and is widely accepted (including to the best of my knowledge by the RCA).

Despite the widespread discussion of #1, in our experience it is #2 that
is truly the motivation for the batei din. The ingathering of the exiles
was never promised to be lily-white: The State of Israel has accepted --
rightly and justly -- the surviving remnant of communities that suffered
Hitler, Stalin, and 70 years of communism. These included intermarried
families and their descendants. It is precisely this point that those
who disqualify the RZ batei din most disagree with: The charedim view
the recent aliyah of 1,000,000+ Russians as a Torah tragedy rather than
as a historical vindication of Netach Yisrael. That is the difference
that makes all the difference.

Shabbat Shalom,
Seth (Avi) Kadish
Karmiel, Israel

Webpage
http://skadish1.googlepages.com/english

 

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Michael Makovi
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:27 AM
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
Subject: [Avodah] Olam Haba is static

A tangent from Areivim of the same title. The question was whether a
meit in Olam haBa can raise his own level, or whether he needs the
living to elevate him; I took the following tangent. The current title
doesn't fit my tangent, but I can't think of a better one, so I'll stick
with it.

I was glancing at the Daat Mikra Tehillim the other day, and in Psalm
16 or 33, I think, on one of those lo ha-meitim yehalelu kah types of
pesukim scattered throughout Tehillim, Daat Mikra noted that this gives
many meforshim difficulties - how can this possibly be the case in Olam
haBa??!!

In the introduction to the Soncino Tehillim, it is simply said,
something to the effect that Torah teaches that this life is valuable,
as the only place one can do mitzvot and serve G-d. Therefore, Tehillim
rarely if ever mentions the afterlife (according to the commentaries to
individual Psalms; references to being saved from Sheol and such, are
interpreted as being saved from early death and such).

I'm inclined to agree with Soncino, but Daat Mikra had a very
interesting solution, similar to Soncino's but a step further: ditto the
line about this life being valuable as the only place you can
practically serve G-d, but an addition: surely the dead DO praise G-d,
but in a different, perhaps inferior way: we say that the natural world
praises G-d, but surely the praises from man are superior to the praises
from rocks and trees! Similarly, the dead may very well praise G-d, but
not as competently as the living do, in their deeds and mitzvot in this
world.

(As an aside, my personal favorite explanation of techiat ha-meitim is
that of Rav Berkovits in the end of G-d Man and History, viz.: techiat
ha-meitim is simply the resurrection of all the dead into Olam haZe,
period. The Messianic Era comes, and everyone is resurrected to live in
it for all eternity, plain and simple. If so, Olam haBa would simply be
a temporary layover on the way to techiat ha-meitim; being death and
resurrection, someone has to go *somewhere*, after all, but this
somewhere would have little intrinsic significance.

Rabbi Isidore Epstein in Faith of Judaism takes a Ramban-ish perspective
on techiat ha-meitim:
For the first half of his analysis, he goes on about how important
Judaism sees Olam haZe as, and therefore we have techiat ha-meitim (i.e.
because the physical world is so great and valuable, we aren't dead
forever). This whole section of his analysis I am thrilled with, up to
the point when he (very abruptly IMHO) says that however, techiat
ha-meitim is largely (maybe 50%) spiritual and not truly/completely in
Olam haZe/physical.

I'm not even really sure I understand Rabbi Epstein, because the shift
is truly so abrupt and perplexing. But if I understand him, then it
seems too complex; everything he said until this point leads to the
conclusion that techiat ha-meitim ought to be resurrection into Olam
haZe, Messianic Era, end of discussion. I'm inclined to accept
everything Rabbi Epstein says up to this point, but then tack on Rav
Berkovits's fantastically simple idea that techiat ha-meitim is simply
resurrection into THIS world, plain and simple, and discard the second
half of Rabbi Epstein's analysis, viz. his explanation of why techiat
ha-meitim is half spiritual if logically, according to the foregoing
words of his, it ought to be wholly physical.

My doing this preserves Rabbi Epstein's ta'am for techiat ha-meitim
(viz. physical is great) in the first half, but eliminates the need for
his complex justification/defence in the second half (viz. techiat
ha-meitim is only half physical, despite physical being so great as
himself has just spent several pages explaining). With Rav Berkovits, I
can say "physical is great, and so techiat ha-meitim is wholly
physical", end of discussion; very simple.)

Mikha'el Makovi
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 

A tangent from Areivim of the same title. The question was whether a
meit in Olam haBa can raise his own level, or whether he needs the
living to elevate him;
=====================
Not sure why this is an areivim topic. What are the mekorot that a meit
can elevate himself in olam haba?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

> 1. Selling land in EY to a goy is assur.  Perhaps the issur isn't
> very strong, but it is an issur, unlike selling chametz or pregnant
> animals.  That means you're starting out with a negative; it's not
> pareve.
> R' Zev Sero

I believe, but I'm not sure, that there's a view that selling it to a
ger toshav is permitted. Though we don't have gerei toshav today,
there's an opinion (again, AFAIK) that any ben Noach is a ger toshav.

I have not seen this inside; it is all AFAIK and guesswork by me. On
Hirhurim, regarding saving a gentile on Shabbat, the Ramban to Sefer
haMitzvot is brought that one can violate Shabbat to save a ger
toshav. Someone asked "is it davka ger toshav or even any ben Noach",
and R' Gil replied that it is davka ger toshav, but he said that there
is an opinion that any ben Noach is a ger toshav, and R' Gil added
that this opinion is relied on by those who hold by heter mechira.
From these statements of R' Gil, I derived my first paragraph;
apparently, heter mechira-ists hold that selling to a ger toshav is
permitted, and that any ben Noach is a ger toshav (even without
kabbalah before a beit din and even without yovel).

> 2. It's not clear that you are allowed to do melacha on a goy's land
> in EY.  Nor does everyone agree with the Shulchan Aruch that the
> produce of a goy's land is exempt from shmita.  OTOH with chametz and
> behema the solution is lechol hadeot.
> R' Zev Sero

With what I say above about ger toshav and ben Noach, etc., not
everyone holds by. Neither does everyone hold by what you say here. So
you are correct that we are relying on controversial, even minority,
opinions.

But we are trying to accomplish two things:
1) Do whatever it takes to permit farming, so that farmers aren't
financially ruined
2) Save the nonobservant from inadvertent sin

These are grounds to use even minority opinions, especially when we
consider that heter mechira is d'rabanan today.

> 3. What if the goy doesn't want to sell it back?  Are you prepared to
> part with it permanently?
> R' Zev Sero

So do what we do with chametz - sell it to him for $5 down payment
now, and tell him that after Pesach, he has to pay another
$1,000,000,000 to keep it. So too with the land - sell it for a
pittance now and a fortune when shemitta ends. I don't know if we do
this, but we could if we needed to.

> 4. But shmitah is a positive mitzvah, "veshavta ha'aretz", which if it
> can be kept should be.
> R' Zev Sero

But farmers will be (or used to be) ruined by it, and even today, the
nonobservant cannot keep it due to their ignorance. So some sort of
halachic loophole is still vital, if only for the nonobservant.

Mikha'el Makovi

In Rav Kook's Ein Ayah, commentary to Ein Yaakov (as well as
homiletical commentaries to a few halachic sugyot besides), in
Bikkurim chap 3, translated in R' Bezalel Naor "Of Societies Perfect
and Imperfect", s.v. "come in peace, brothers of a certain place", Rav
Kook first speaks in general terms about universal love versus
particular love, but he then makes a tangent into the ger toshav:

He says that Vayikra 25:35 "ger v'toshav" refers to two aspects of the
ger toshav:
ger - foreigner, = has former ethnic and national allegiances
toshav - resident, = lives with us, has joined our people

Rav Kook says, as long as the ger toshav has decided to be a toshav
and follow the Noachide laws, we CANNOT expect him to drop the ger
aspect and give up his former allegiances. He will retain sentimental
feelings and allegiance to his former home and people, and we cannot
expect him to drop these. We cannot expect him to be a toshav only; we
must accept that he will be a ger too.

It seems to me that this is in contrast with the ger tzedek; Ruth said
"your people will be my people"; she dropped her Moabite loyalties
completely. But a ger toshav is not required to go this far. Perhaps
it is davka going this far that makes him a ger tzedek.

Mikha'el Makovi

> Rav Kook first speaks in general terms about universal love versus
> particular love

On this, see Rav Kook therein, but also see:

Ze'ev Maghen, "Imagine: On Love and Lennon", Azure.co.il
R' Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Thoughts to Ponder no.2, "Universal Love - Is
it Possible?", which is a summary of Maghen

Mikha'el Makovi

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:26:36AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Rabbi Isidore Epstein in Faith of Judaism takes a Ramban-ish
: perspective on techiat ha-meitim:
: For the first half of his analysis, he goes on about how important
: Judaism sees Olam haZe as, and therefore we have techiat ha-meitim
: (i.e. because the physical world is so great and valuable, we aren't
: dead forever). This whole section of his analysis I am thrilled with,
: up to the point when he (very abruptly IMHO) says that however,
: techiat ha-meitim is largely (maybe 50%) spiritual and not
: truly/completely in Olam haZe/physical.

: I'm not even really sure I understand Rabbi Epstein, because the shift
: is truly so abrupt and perplexing. But if I understand him, then it
: seems too complex; everything he said until this point leads to the
: conclusion that techiat ha-meitim ought to be resurrection into Olam
: haZe, Messianic Era, end of discussion.

The subject of what is olam haba is a machloqes rishonim, discussed here
in the thread titled "Cave or desert island".

Rambam:
Olam haba is the supernal world, which is the only place where one can
get the greatest join, lehanos miziv hashechinah, without the interference
of a body.
Techiyas hameisim is for the justice of judging man in the same
condition as he acted. There is a 2nd death after techiyas hameisim,
since that's how to get the most sechar.

Ikkarim:
Similar, but techiyas hameisim as an opportunity for working on a higher
plane. One in which all the external challenges are eliminated and only
the internal ones remain. Still, techiyas hameisim is not eternal.

Ramban:
Olam haba is the post-techiyah existence.

Rav Kook:
There is no real machloqes -- techiyas hameisim describes a period
in which the illusion that there are two worlds is removed. Thus, one
returns from the supernal post-death experience to this world without
leaving shamayim behind.

Maybe RIE is thinking along the lines of RAYK. That after techiyas
hameisim, the concept of physical vs spiritual becomes blurry. That's
closer to what you summarized than the Ramban is.

There is also reason to believe that R' Yehudah places 1,000 years
between mashiach and techiyas hameisim, the millenium of Shabbos. More
than 1,000 years -- tosefes Shabbos.


:                                         I'm inclined to accept
: everything Rabbi Epstein says up to this point, but then tack on Rav
: Berkovits's fantastically simple idea that techiat ha-meitim is simply
: resurrection into THIS world, plain and simple, and discard the second
: half of Rabbi Epstein's analysis, viz. his explanation of why techiat
: ha-meitim is half spiritual if logically, according to the foregoing
: words of his, it ought to be wholly physical.

REB's "fantastically simple" idea involving taking sides in an unresolved
and unresolvable machloqes. Nu, so he prefers the Ramban over the Rambam.
I fail to see the grounds for having a favored position WRT the future.

What we can do is say we need an explanation of "lo hameisim yehallelu
Kah" aliba deRAYK moreso than other shitos. OTOH, the Rambam and Ikkarim
have to take Yeshaiahu's "eretz chadashah" as idiomatic, whereas the
Ramban and R' Kook do not.

Personally, I think the answer to "lo hameisim" lies in the difference
between hallel and other forms of praise. Pesuqei deZimra are said
daily. Saying Hallel daily, however, is beyond the merely assur and
implies kefirah. I don't have a fuller answer, at least not yet.


Back off the tangent to the topic we drifted to on Areivim...

I had a problem with the notion of doing things lezeikher those who died
in the Shoah. Presumably dying al qiddush Hashem means entering shamayim
(to avoid the words "OhB" in the same post as discussing the machloqes
on how to translate them) in a state of kaparah, biqedushah uvetaharah,
and the person's soul is at a level of getting all the ziv hasheniah it
is capable of getting hana'ah from. Certainly more than 11 months later.

At the moment of petirah, their potential is fully realized.

My question was: Therefore, isn't it incredible hubris to think that our
actions will contribute anything they could not? Isn't it like giving
$1 to the Rockefellers.

Answers came along the lines of "Yes, it's still $1 more."

Now I'm adding the notion that there is a maximum. A person is judged
for fulfilling his potential. And that potential includes actions they
inspite that occur after their petirah.

But if dying al qidush Hashem is a short-cut to reaching one's maximum
potential, then there is no 1 billion and 1 dollars.

And why would I assert that? Because "biqrovai aqadeish" (Vayikra 19:3)
means Nadav vaAvihu, not Moshe veAharon. As Rashi quotes Chazal, Nadav
veAvihu were "qerovai" because they were closer to their postential even
than MRAH! (It's that his potential was all the greater.) Qidush Hashem
through misah is for qerovim Lashem.


RSBA wrote:
> See KSA Hil' Yom Hakipurim 133: 21, where he gives reasons for being
> Mazkir Neshomos, including: "...shegam hamesim tzerichin kapara venodrim
> tzedaka baavuram...umo'ila hatzedaka baavur hamesim.." Ayin shom.

> It is known that the Belzer Rebbe R' Aharon zt'l used to light a candle
> on 7 Adar le'ilui nishmas Moshre Rabenu - saying that even MR benefits
> from actions undertaken on behalf of his neshama on this world.

As above, it may well be that MRAH has a higher place in olam haba,
but due to his great potential, it still isn't as high as he could be.

But the KSA only states as fact that which I said I couldn't understand --
the value of saying yizkor for those who died al qiddush Hashem. I wasn't
denying the fact; I was saying it so far defied my attempts to explain.

I also have to kvetch a bit to fit two other concepts.

One I mentioned already -- the implied fungibility of zekhus. My doing
a mitzvah can be accredited to someone else's account. Are we talking
midas hadin or midas hacheshbonos? As I wrote in passing above, I believe
it's crediting the person for living the sort of life that later moved
someone to do a mitzvah.

Which means that it's actually sechar for something(s) done during life.
Doesn't fit the aforementioned notion of 50 years, but then, we never
found a basis for it.

But it also doesn't explain why Qaddish would be timed to end at 11
months. It wouldn't need to imply that the meis was ch"v in gehennom
for more than 11 months, since the sekhar was effectively already by
the ultimate Ro'eh es hanolad when they acted.

And that brings me to my second difficult concept. What 11 months?
Time is part of olam hazeh! Certainly in Einstein's physics, there is
no time without space, matter and energy and the concept of "when" is
meaningless without specifying a frame of reference within that context.
But also according to REED, the Baal haTanya, Kant and Mach and their
philosophies of science as phenomenological rather than something
objectively "out there".

So, according to the baalei mesorah and thinkers I named, there is
problems asserting time outside of olam hazeh. Shamayim is beyond static,
since that would imply time without change. But according to anyone, even
if one doesn't have those problems saying it exists, but defining it and
how it stays "in sync" with time as we understand it is still difficult.

Thus, when RJR asked a couple of hours ago (9:52am EDT):
> What are the mekorot that a meit can elevate himself in olam haba?

I would assert (without sources) that even if there is somehow time in
Shamayim, they can't. But they could still praise G-d. For that matter,
their mere presence in shamayim is to His "credit" (kevayakhol), and
thus praise of Him.

However, things can occur in olam hazeh while he is in shamayim (or
should I say "she", since even a man's neshamah is belashon neqeivah?)
which the person set into motion while alive, and thus figure in
the din.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

 
 
From: "Michael Makovi" _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewinddale@gmail.com) 

 

>>I was glancing at the Daat Mikra Tehillim the other day, and in  Psalm
16 or 33, I think, on one of those lo ha-meitim yehalelu kah types  of
pesukim scattered throughout Tehillim, Daat Mikra noted that this
gives  many meforshim difficulties - how can this possibly be the case
in Olam  haBa??!!<<

 
 
 
 

>>>>>
My understanding of this pasuk may be simple-minded but to me it just  seems 
so obvious that this pasuk is talking about olam hazeh.  In this  world, once 
a person is dead, his body -- the part of him that's dead -- can no  longer 
praise Hashem (or do anything).  The part of him that's alive is by  definition 
not dead -- thus the neshama does not come under the category of "lo  hameisim 
yehallelu Kah."




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





**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080509/2449a753/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 11:21:39AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: My understanding of this pasuk may be simple-minded but to me it just seems 
: so obvious that this pasuk is talking about olam hazeh. In this world, once 
: a person is dead, his body -- the part of him that's dead -- can no longer 
: praise Hashem (or do anything). The part of him that's alive is by definition 
: not dead -- thus the neshama does not come under the category of "lo hameisim 
: yehallelu Kah."

Along the lines of "tzadiqim bemisasam qeruyim chayim"?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Thus, when RJR asked a couple of hours ago (9:52am EDT):
> What are the mekorot that a meit can elevate himself in olam haba?

I would assert (without sources) that even if there is somehow time in
Shamayim, they can't. But they could still praise G-d. For that matter,
their mere presence in shamayim is to His "credit" (kevayakhol), and
thus praise of Him.

However, things can occur in olam hazeh while he is in shamayim (or
should I say "she", since even a man's neshamah is belashon neqeivah?)
which the person set into motion while alive, and thus figure in the
din.

:-)BBii!
-Micha
====================================
I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that let man dpalig that once one leaves
this world, it's only through the actions of those in this world that
(s)he can move up.  The original post seemed to me to imply that there
was a machloket on this point on areivim.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 174
***************************************

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..."