Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 177

Mon, 12 May 2008

• 1. Re: Heter mechira (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Daas Torah and Zionism (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Re: Yom ha'atma'us etc. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Yom ha'atma'us etc. (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] Report to the Heavenly Court (Joshua Meisner)
• 8. "There's Hope for Everyone" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Heter mechira (Mike Miller)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] Report to the Heavenly Court (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: Yom ha'atma'us etc. (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: Heter mechira (Michael Makovi)
• 13. Re: Inconsistencies in following tannaim (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Heter mechira (Chana Luntz)
• 15. Re: Heter mechira (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)
• 17. Re: Daas Torah and Zionism (Richard Wolpoe)
• 18. Re: "There's Hope for Everyone" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 19. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Richard Wolpoe)
• 20. Re: Heter mechira (Richard Wolpoe)
• 21. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (T613K@aol.com)
• 22. Kedushah, Ahavah and Yir'ah (Micha Berger)
• 23. Re: Yom ha'atma'us etc. (Mike Miller)

This sounds nice but I can not see how this would work in practice. Someone 
is going to go and collect all the contracts, go to people's houses and 
assess the value?

Ben

> Chametz is sold for its market value, to be assessed after Pesach.
> If the goy wants to keep the chametz, we will hire an assessor and
> come up with a fair price which he will pay. 

It is clear that before WW II many gedolim were opposed to Zionism 
and the establishment of a Jewish state.  See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/against_zionism.pdf

Some maintained this position after the establishment of the State of 
Israel.  See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zion_or_zionism.pdf

According to the front page article in this week's Jewish Press, in 
1948 "The Brisker Rav, Rav Velvel Soloveitchik, strenuously opposed a 
declaration on the grounds that it would precipitate a war, and lead 
to the 'destruction, God forbid, of the entire yishuv.'"  (See 
www.jewishpress.com ) B"H, this did not happen. Indeed, today we see 
a vibrant yishuv in EY exceeding, I am pretty sure, the expectations of many.

These statements against Zionism were made by some of the most 
respected gedolim of the time. Thus, I presume, they are to be 
considered "Daas Torah." Yet today many view these statements as 
having been "wrong."

What does this mean for the concept of Daas Torah and for the idea 
that gedolim can see things more clearly than the average person?

Yitzchok Levine 

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Purim and Chanukah were partial yeshuos, commemorated without
> Hallel (this is explicit in the gemara - no Hallel because we
> were still under shibud Achasheveiros at the end of the story)
> but where was a recognized supernatural event on each of those
> dates.

Is there a typo in that paragraph? I think you did not intend to include Chanuka there, as we *do* say Hallel on Chanukah.

Akiva Miller

R' S kadish wrote:
> 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. 

R' Daniel Eidensohn _yadmoshe@012.net.il_ (mailto:yadmoshe@012.net.il)  wrote:

>>Would love to have a clear source that it is a  Torah obligation to 
proselytize "zera yisroel" or all the other groups you  mentioned. Where 
does Rav Uzziel and Rav Hildesheimer state such a position  - and where 
is the confirmation that contemporary poskim agree with  it?<<

I don't know a written source, but my father zt'l said that, unlike the  case 
with a regular would-be convert who is initially discouraged, in the case  of 
someone whose father is Jewish, if they say they want to convert, you don't  
discourage them.

(However it seems to me that this would not apply to Russian goyim  with one 
Jewish great-grandfather, who have no intention of living an observant  life, 
and who clearly have ulterior motives, as Israeli citizens, for wanting to  be 
considered Jews.)

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

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:micha@aishdas.org)  wrote:
: Well it IS  Israel Independence day but it is NOT the 5th of Iyyar.   If the
:  5th of Iyyar has qedusha, then does it make sense to say Hallel 2 days
:  earlier? [--RRW]

>>I discussed this question with my father, and  concluded that if there
is anything one is celebrating on YhA, it's that  there exists a state
in which holidays are moved lekhavod  Shabbos.<<

This is charming and well-said.  You have softened my heart towards  the 
Zionists.  I say that without irony.

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

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> I don't know a written source, but my father zt'l said that, unlike 
> the case with a regular would-be convert who is initially discouraged, 
> in the case of someone whose father is Jewish, if they say they want 
> to convert, you don't discourage them.

> (However it seems to me that this would not apply to Russian goyim 
> with one Jewish great-grandfather, who have no intention of living an 
> observant life, and who clearly have ulterior motives, as Israeli 
> citizens, for wanting to be considered Jews.)

> *-*
This is the view that I heard from Rav Nosson Kaminetsky in the name of 
his father Reb Yaakov. He only said they should not be pushed away but 
were not to be proselytized to convert. Thus they need to show some 
initiative.

Daniel Eidensohn

Back on March 7, a poem was posted on Areivim describing how a woman
who dressed in a non-tzanua fashion found that all of her z'chuyos had
"leaked out", leaving her with nothing.  The poem was roundly
condemned for various reasons.  One poster argued that it violated
fundamentals of Yiddishkeit including "Ein HKBH m'kapei'ach s'char kol
beryah" and the Mesillas Yesharim's statement that mitzvos and aveiros
don't cancel each other out.  Another poster cited the Chofetz Chaim's
statement that lashon hara can have a similar effect, although did not
know the source of this statement or whether it could be applied to
other sins.

A b'raissa on Sotah 21a states: Aveirah m'chabah mitzvah v'ein aveirah
m'chabah torah.  Rashi and Tosfos (DH V'hein) make it clear that this
clause of the b'raissa is dealing with s'char le-asid lavo (although
Tosfos wonders why the gemara later on seems to imply that it's
dealing with pur'anus in this world) .  Without sliding back into the
specifics of the poem, wouldn't this ma'amar appear to imply that it
would be possible for certain sins to erase one's mitzvos?

Joshua Meisner

Reb Micha wrote the following:

Truth is, universal love with no differentiation is the same as
non-love. Picture this marriage proposal:
Tom: Cindy, will you marry me?
Cindy: But Tom, do you love me?
Tom: Of course, I love everyone!

Here's the weakness of the argument (as I see it).

The Torah talks about love FOLLOWING marriage.  So when Tom says he  
loves everyone, that's ONE kind of love. But the love that follows  
marriage is the special kind as alluded to in the Torah.
"...Yitzchok married Rivka, she became his wife, and [THEN] he loved  
her..." Bereshis 24:67  So when Tom says he loves everyone, that's the  
kind of love the Torah refers to in Kedoshim. There are all different  
kinds of love, so the above mashul doesn't mean that universal love  
has no differentiation. Of course, there is differentiation. But that  
differentiation should not preclude universal love.

(By the way, with the names Tom and Cindy, I was wondering if it was  
an intermarriage). :-)

Kol tuv,
ri

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1456@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> This sounds nice but I can not see how this would work in practice. Someone
> is going to go and collect all the contracts, go to people's houses and
> assess the value?

Perhaps. It also depends on the community; how many people are
selling, what they're selling, and how mehudar (aka less meikel...)
things can be. Our shul's mechiras chometz requests a price up front
for each class of food (cereals: 50 NIS. liquor: 300 NIS. vineger: 10
NIS, etc), and everything is packaged up and moved to a machsan which
is rented by the goy for the duration of the chag (the goy also does a
kinyan hagba'ah before pesach).

After Pesach, if the goy wants to carry through... why not. FWIW, it
once happened that the goy refused a price that was too high, and the
Rav spent a good chunk of the day before Erev Pesach tracking down the
seller to see if he'd lower his price....

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

> A b'raissa on Sotah 21a states: Aveirah m'chabah mitzvah v'ein aveirah
> m'chabah torah.  Rashi and Tosfos (DH V'hein) make it clear that this
> clause of the b'raissa is dealing with s'char le-asid lavo (although
> Tosfos wonders why the gemara later on seems to imply that it's
> dealing with pur'anus in this world) .  Without sliding back into the
> specifics of the poem, wouldn't this ma'amar appear to imply that it
> would be possible for certain sins to erase one's mitzvos?

> R' Joshua Meisner

Exactly. Similarly, tzedaka can nullify averot. If we can extrapolate,
and perhaps someone with more bekiut can provide more sources if there
any any more, we cay say there is a possible hypothetical machloket:

a) Mesilat Yesharim: If a person does a mitzvah for +X and an averah
for -Y, then G-d will reward him with X and punish for Y.  G-d will
not say that X is so great that Y simply disappears into nothingness,
and he is rewarded for X only. Likewise, G-d will not say that Y is so
great that he will be punished for Y only, and X disappears into
nothingness.

b) Hypothetical shita: If a person does a mitzvah for +X and an averah
for -Y, then G-d will reward him for (X-Y) or punish for (Y-X). This
is not canceling X or Y out, in that G-d will not simply ignore X
and/or Y and m'vatel it in the other. Rather, He punishes or rewards a
person for the difference. If a person does a mitvah of +10 and an
averah of -5, he is simply rewarded for +5; there is no inyan here of
G-d's ignoring mitzvot or averot.

Let's put it in terms of money. Suppose A owes $100 to B (schar WRT
B), and simultaneously, B owes $20 to A (onesh WRT B).

Mesilat Yesharim: A gives $100 to B (B's schar), and B gives $20 of
that right back to A (B's onesh).

Shita B: A gives $80 to B. Done. (B's schar minus B's onesh).

In neither case, however, do we say that the $20 simply disappears,
and A simply gives $100 to B. This is b'vadai.

Mikha'el Makovi

> R' Micha Berger wrote:

>> Purim and Chanukah were partial yeshuos, commemorated without
>> Hallel (this is explicit in the gemara - no Hallel because we
>> were still under shibud Achasheveiros at the end of the story)
>> but where was a recognized supernatural event on each of those
>> dates.

> Is there a typo in that paragraph? I think you did not intend to include Chanuka there, as we *do* say Hallel on Chanukah.

> R' Akiva Miller

Phew, I'm not the only one! AFAIK, with Chanuka, we say Hallel *davka*
because we were delivered from gentile rule. Rambam waxes about 200+
years of Jewish independence, and therefore we say Hallel.

My Rav Kookish rabbi said, "150+ of those years were Tzadukim, and yet
we celebrate Jewish independence!" (Notice the connection to today's
rulers?)

Mikha'el Makovi

> In addition, there is the following difference: if, during Pesach, the purchaser should come to
> our door with his shtar in hand and ask to take possession of the items sold to him, I
> imagine that we would turn them over.
> R' EMT

In fact, this happened on a certain Israeli kibbutz; the Arab drove up
with a convoy of cargo trucks, and they took *everything*. And they
didn't stop him. The rabbi of the kibbutz decided to do a "real" sale,
and so he found a real live Arab, and this is what happened.

> Now imagine that the sheik who purchased EY comes to an olive grove during Pesach and
> tells the once and future owner that he is going to have all the trees chopped down, then and
> there, and pave it over for a parking lot.  Do you imagine that the sellers would stand idly by
> and let him do it?  If not, then again his refusal indicates that the sale was never meant.
> R' EMT

So just as you sell your chometz to a gentile whom you trust to not do
anything like what happened to the kibbutz, so too, you sell EY to a
gentile whom you trust to not do anything funny. Maybe sell EY to a
pizza boy in NY, for example.

Mikha'el Makovi

Micha Berger wrote:
(citing RZL)
> I should note, however, that Rav Assi was a talmid of R. Yochonon, the
>> one who declared that one can no longer disagree with Mishnaic

> teachings

>> [of d'oraissos] since they may be Halachos L'Moshe MiSinai. One may
>> argue that Rav Assi made his hybrid pesak before his rebbi stated the
>> principle.

See H. Shehitah 11:10.

David Riceman

RMM writes:

> I believe, but I'm not sure, that there's a view that selling 
> it to a ger toshav is permitted.

Rav Hertzog says this explicitly in T'chuka L'yisroel al pi Hatorah (p15
of my edition in perek sheni under the heading lo techanem b'yachid
ub'uma sheana ovedet avodah zara) - indeed he states barur shelo ne'emar
lav zeh shel lotechanem al ger toshav. He goes on to say that what is
not clear is whether one can say this about a goy who does not worship
avodah zara but is not in the status of a ger toshav because he has not
accepted the sheva mitzvos benei noach before beis din or it it is like
today when beis din does not accept such declarations.  However he
brings Rav Kook as having stated in Mishpat Cohen that not only is this
issur not chal on a ger toshav in the times of yovel, but also upon
Arabs of the Muslim faith because this is a people that is mukzak that
they do not worship avodah zara - even if you hold that these are not
strictly speaking be gerei toshav.

 Though we don't have gerei 
> toshav today, there's an opinion (again, AFAIK) that any ben 
> Noach is a ger toshav.

Well you don't need to go as far as this.  If you look at the discussion
that Rav Hertzog brings a couple of paragraphs before (on p11) he brings
the opinion of the Rambam that now that beis din does not accept gerei
toshav non Jews are not permitted to live in Eretz Yisroel, and he
brings the counter opinions of the Ra'avad and the Shulchan Aruch that
disagree and say that this only applies to somebody who is an oved
avodah zara and that if somebody is not an oved avodah zarah, they are
allowed to live in Eretz Yisroel.  And given the paragaph I discuss
above, he appears to hold that even if you do not hold that such people
have the status of gerei toshav, the issur of selling land to them in
Eretz Yisroel does not apply.

Note however that he himself appears to go further than this.  As he
then brings (again) what I think is Rav Kook (a position with which he
is clearly in agreement) that if a complete people is mekabel upon
themselves to accept the sheva mitzvos also bezman hazeh they have the
din of gerei toshav.  He therefore concludes (and appears to indicate
that Rav Kook concluded) that therefore at least the Muslims have the
din of gerei toshav today.

He then goes on to have a discussion about Christians, and the whole
question of shituf.  And while again bringing both sides and clearly
finding the whole discussion a bit more difficult than vis a vis the
Muslims, concludes that non Jews are not commanded in the issur of
shituf and ultimately that they too fall within the same category as
Muslims.

> Mikha'el Makovi

Regards

Chana

PS I think in general you would like T'chuka L'yisroel al pi Hatorah

Ben Waxman wrote:
>> Chametz is sold for its market value, to be assessed after Pesach.
>> If the goy wants to keep the chametz, we will hire an assessor and
>> come up with a fair price which he will pay. 

> This sounds nice but I can not see how this would work in practice. 
> Someone is going to go and collect all the contracts, go to people's 
> houses and assess the value?

Yes.  Or rather, we'll go around with a truck and collect all the
chametz, and bring in an appraiser to work out what it's worth.
That's what we agree to before Pesach.  And we'll be happy to do so,
because we have no particular attachment to the chametz, and would
be perfectly willing to get its fair value instead.

In practise we never have to actually do this, because the goy never
does want to keep the chametz; instead, after Pesach we agree to buy it
back at the assessed price plus, say, $50, and since (x + 50) - x = 50,
we no longer care what x is.

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

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (Question: Why then don't we do korbanot today as a similar zecher?
> Perhaps, the theological problems of offering outside the beit
> ha-mikdash are greater than any benefit of zechira.)

> Mikha'el Makovi

There are Midrashim e.g. re: Avaraham  "Q: ...but what about after thee
hurban? A: people will recite the parsha of Karbanos...]

The recitation of Karbanos bizman hazah falls under the rubric [perhaps more
aggadic than halachic, neverthless very real] of un'shalmah parim sefaseinu.

We know there is a gap between Mikra and TSBP re: ayin tachas ayyin
In th case of Korbanos , there is a gap between the pshysical offerings in
the time of the Mikdash and the recitations post-Mikdash.  [Thus the minhag
of reciting Korban Pesach on 14 Nissan. and te Avodah on YK Mussaph]
IOwWthe mitzvos of korbanos still exists but only in the recitation form
just as ayyin tachas Ayyin is only literal in the recitation form but
implemented in Beis Din as only tashlumin.

Why does Mikra write ONEthing and TSBP DO anyother thing entirely?  Rashban
deals with this, and very loosely based upon his point I wil say this:

There is the Physical aspect of DOING Torah and their is the consciousnes
and awareness of Torah.   The literal rectiations are on a a dina dishmay
level but also on a level of mind and imagination [remember Rod Serling?]

Bottom line: in our mind's eye we DO visualize korbanos today w/o performing
them.  Whether this is a Zeicher [or Zecher!] for the original or a real
viable alternative is a bit fuzzy.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine@stevens.edu>
wrote:

> What does this mean for the concept of Daas Torah and for the idea that
> gedolim can see things more clearly than the average person?

>  Yitzchok Levine

It means Gedolim are human
My father OBM used to say:

>   A Mench Tracth und Got Lacht!

and this apparently has been true for many Gedolim, too. Remember Rabbi
Akiva nd Bar Kochva?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
wrote:

> Reb Micha wrote the following:
> Truth is, universal love with no differentiation is the same as
> non-love. Picture this marriage proposal:
> Tom: Cindy, will you marry me?
> Cindy: But Tom, do you love me?
> Tom: Of course, I love everyone!

> Here's the weakness of the argument (as I see it).

> The Torah talks about love FOLLOWING marriage.  So when Tom says he loves
> everyone, that's ONE kind of love. But the love that follows marriage is the
> special kind as alluded to in the Torah.
> "...Yitzchok married Rivka, she became his wife, and [THEN] he loved
> her..." Bereshis 24:67  So when Tom says he loves everyone, that's the kind
> of love the Torah refers to in *Kedoshim*. There are all different kinds
> of love, so the above mashul doesn't mean that universal love has no
> differentiation. Of course, there is differentiation. But that
> differentiation should not preclude universal love.

> (By the way, with the names Tom and Cindy, I was wondering if it was an
> intermarriage). :-)

> Kol tuv,
> ri

The problem is at leat partially one of semantics  The greeks have a term
for "universal uncondtional love" called Agape. it is not romantic love but
different.

Ideall, v'ahata lere'ach kamocha is this kind of agape, a love for others
because of their inherent humanity. Or the ideal of "Tzelem Elokim" that we
should have agape for all of humanity because we are all in the image of
HKBH. But it is not the love of romance.

And perhaps the love of parents-children is even different than both of the
above.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com

> Who in the world ever demanded a promise of perfection as a prerequisite
> for gerus?!
> And who ever nullified a gerus on the grounds that the convert turned out
> to be a less than perfect tzaddik?!

> *--Toby Katz
> =============*

> I posted this before but let me repeat in other words::
Ka salka da'atach thatthe kabbalh has to be 100% w/o reservations - and then
if he sins LATER ON he is ok but  NOT if he expresses reservations up front.

Came Rav Parness [not RRW!} and said if the propsetive Ger  says: "I accept
but K know the flesh is weak and I  might or am likely to sin..."  ka mashma
lan it is still an OK kabbalah.

People have been conflating the issue of KABBALAS Mitzvos with performance.

Lemashal: let's say a person is a smoker and a prerquisite for joining a
group is to renounce smoking.  Waht if he says "I renounce smoking but I
know that I am an addict and once in a while I will probably sneak smoek!"

Or lehavdil when a Jew was forcibly Baptized what if he said at the time of
the BAptism " i mgith be tempted to have some matza on Passover or light a
candle on a Friday Night once in a while, would he be accepted?"

What this Ger is saying is he accepts Mitzvos but realizes that  he is
subject to human frailty and  if if is for Te'avon he is OK. That is the
hiddush here.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1456@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> This sounds nice but I can not see how this would work in practice. Someone
> is going to go and collect all the contracts, go to people's houses and
> assess the value?

> Ben

Many rabbis ask for an estimate of the value of the hametz up front.
All the contracts are collected by the rabbi at the sale and in theory would
be able to produce a round number with a simple hand claculator .

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> Yet in  the Torah world Talmud learning for girls is considered a radical,
>  politically motivated innovation, and we do not in practice see the same
>  correlation between advanced Talmudic learning and dikduk bemitzvos  among
> women that we see among men.[--TK]

>>YOu  have answerd your obserfation!  If ONLY radicals are permitted to  
learnr
Talmud then ONLY RADICALS  will draw Halcha from it

Once  you mainstream more in-depth analyssi for nice BY girls then they will
have  more dikduk in mitzvos<<

But we do NOT find that Bais Yakov girls are less medakdek bemitzvos than  MO 
girls, quite the contrary!

The original point was that amaratzim tend not to be careful with  halacha, 
and that halachic observance and yiras Shamayim improve with more  Torah 
learning. (Torah meaning Talmud.)  However, this is only true  for men.  For girls 
and women, it is enough to learn halacha and  hashkafa.  They do not /need/ to 
learn Gemara in order to have yiras  Shamayim and dikduk bemitzvos.  

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Some women derive intellectual pleasure from learning Gemara.  Fine,  good 
for them.  Irrelevant to my point.

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

From this week's Shabbat BeShabbato:

: Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 12:09:22 +0200
: From: Shabbat BeShabbato <shabbat.beshabbato@gmail.com>
: Subject: Shabbat-B'Shabbato ? Parshat Behar
: To: dan@zomet.org

:         No 1222: 12 Iyar 5768 (17 May 2008)

...
: TO SEE G-D'S GOODNESS
: What is Holiness? - by Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, Rosh Yeshivat Ramat Gan

: Question: Before we fulfill a mitzva, we recite a blessing with the phrase,
: "He who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us..." What is the
: simple meaning of the concept of holiness? In what way do we become holy
: when we fulfill a Divine mitzva?

: Answer: The link between humanity and the Creator always consists of two
: elements ? love and fear. As our sages have said, a bird has two wings, and
: without them both it cannot fly properly. These two elements are intertwined
: and always appear together, and each one complements and balances the other.
: The need for balance stems from the contradiction that faces us because of
: the complex relationship between us and the Almighty.

: On one hand, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not Mine"
: [Yeshayahu 55:8]. In the Zohar it is written that "Thought cannot grasp Him"
: ? Human knowledge and understanding cannot begin to understand the greatness
: of His actions, and certainly not the essence of His being. There is no way
: to grasp, to think about, to understand, or to form a link to something that
: is innately beyond the concepts and definitions of humanity. And this is the
: reason that the presence of G-d brings great fear to an understanding and
: sensitive soul. On the other hand, since G-d truly loves us, and since He
: wants to do good for all the creatures, He approaches very close to us and
: is available to us whenever we need Him ? "G-d is close to anybody who calls
: out to Him" [Tehillim 145:18].

: The same idea is true of the concept of holiness. Love and fear complement
: each other. From the point of view of fear, sanctity is seen as an action of
: separation and division: "'For I am holy' [Vayikra 21:8] ? My holiness is
: greater than yours" [Vayikra Rabba 24]. But on the other hand, "You shall be
: holy, for I am holy" [19:2] implies that the Almighty's holiness is relevant
: for the service performed by man, and He calls out for man to be attached to
: Him and to act like He does.

: The first rabbi of Chabad, the author of the Tanya, explains the text of the
: blessings for a mitzva as follows: He who sanctified us with His mitzvot ?
: this can be compared to a man who marries a woman, saying to her, "You are
: sanctified to me," meaning to be attached, uniquely linked, and in close
: contact. (Compare "kidushin" of the marriage ceremony to "kid'shanu," You
: have made us holy, in the text of the blessings.) Every mitzva plays the
: same role as a wedding ring by which the Almighty brings our souls closer to
: Him and lets us enter "the innermost room, where no slave or minister is
: allowed." And even though the body is linked to this true unity, it is only
: in such a way that man maintains the ultimate choice. In truth, with every
: mitzva a person becomes attached to the Almighty in a way that is different
: from any other link in this world. Even the link between a man and a woman
: doesn't represent this ultimate attachment, which explains why Shir Hashirim
: remains a mere parable of the close link with the Almighty.

: Our sages have taught us that there is no real reward for performing a
: mitzva in this world. The Chassidim explain this as follows: If we put on
: one side of a balance all the pleasures and desires of this world, both
: physical and spiritual, even including the achievements of all the righteous
: people since the day of creation until this very day ? this will not be
: sufficient to pay the reward for observing a single mitzva as it will be
: performed in the world to come. This wonderful future joy will stem from
: being truly joined together with the Almighty, as it were being drawn into
: the "body of the king."

: However, there are two sides to this coin, and they both appear at the same
: time. Together with the supreme feeling of close attachment to the Almighty
: there is an understanding - as part of a feeling of deep sanctity - of the
: great qualitative difference between man and the Creator. The closer we come
: to Him, the more sharply do we become aware that the very possibility of
: becoming attached to a being who is beyond every human limit is a true
: wonder in itself.

: Thus, to be holy is to experience an approach to G-d that cannot be matched
: by any other feeling. It refers to a person whose soul perceives its life in
: this world through the spiritual joy that stems from performing the mitzvot.
: But at the same time, the soul recoils from its great distance to Divine
: heights and perfection as compared to the lowly and lacking earthly reality.
: Those who sanctify G-d's name can reconcile the fact that the Almighty is at
: one and the same time infinitely far above us and also infinitesimally close
: to us.

: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
: SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
: distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
: published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
: of the National Religious Party.
: Translated by: Moshe Goldberg

: To subscribe, go to www.zomet.org.il and press the link, "Subscribe to
: Shabbat BeShabbato". Contact dan@zomet.org about any problems or comments.

: Visit the Zomet Institute web site: http://www.zomet.org.il

: Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
: link between modern technology and halacha at: zomet@netvision.net.il
: Or: Phone: +972-2-9931442; FAX: +972-2-9931889 (Attention: Dan Marans)

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phew, I'm not the only one! AFAIK, with Chanuka, we say Hallel *davka*
> because we were delivered from gentile rule. Rambam waxes about 200+
> years of Jewish independence, and therefore we say Hallel.

> My Rav Kookish rabbi said, "150+ of those years were Tzadukim, and yet
> we celebrate Jewish independence!" (Notice the connection to today's
> rulers?)

Nope. There, we had a start that was proper which degenerated into a
heretical leadership. In EY today, we can't say we started with pure
leadership (I'm not sure if things have gotten better or worse
overall; some things are certainly better, some are certainly worse
today than 60 years ago).

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

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


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

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 177
***************************************
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..."