Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 111

Thu, 11 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 2. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Writing God's name (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Naaseh V'nishma (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: can a navi make a mistake (hankman)
• 11. Jew Or Not? (David J Havin)
• 12. Re: Jew Or Not? (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Jew Or Not? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 15. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 16. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (David Riceman)
• 17. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 18. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)

RYZ wrote:
I just noticed that in the Meam Loeiz Bamidbar 12 (this weeks Parsha) he
says that some were "shown" only the Moshul, different then what I see in
the Rambam, one can also learn that way Pshat in Rashi Bamidbar 12:8 D"H
uMareh vLo bChidos "v'einee sosmoi loi bchidos" also the Loshon in the
Migdal Oz of the Yavatz one can learn different Pshotim (so I found a Tanoh
Dimisayo (partialy) to RCM).

CM responds:
Thank you for these cites. Although I was not aware of these cites, holding
this way is why I read the Rambam as I do. Although on repeated reading of
the Rambam I do see that your reading could be seen as more straight
forward. In your reading of halacha 3 "umiyad yechokek" you read in the
word ALWAYS whereas I do not. Thus our difference as to whether the novi
always get a pisron.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090610/7452e93d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB asked about the question of a ger toshav.  The gemora brings differing
: opinions on this in Avodah Zara 64b - which included one opinion that wine
: touched by them was permitted for drinking, but other opinions that it was
: not, and it may be yayin neseach...

I don't get the gemara. If he's a geir toshav, then he keeps the 7
mitzvos, or at least is a monotheist (following the machloqes on that
amud, this is R' Meir as given by the beraisa) or even that he accepts
all mitzvos except neveilos -- which would mean he doesn't have an AZ
to give wine libations to. So how could it possibly be yayin nesekh?

...
: The reality is that most of the permissible cases of amira l'akum involve
: things like helping the sick, disabled or vulnerable or assisting the
: community as a whole...

Also ein gezeira chal al gezeira would permit amira to do many of the
dinim derabban, no? I don't know about shevus, where you get into Brisker
Teireh about chakhamim defining the limits of a din deOraisa, or dinim
derabbanan that are to preserve the gefeel of Shabbos rather than actual
gezeiros (protection of a deOraisa from violation by habit or accident).


Thanks for yet another informative post. I don't say that often enough.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:10:51PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: One musing of mine is that often, we need not be concerned with
: intermarriage...

And often we need not be concerned with a 21st cent Jew grinding his
own medicine or tuning his piano on Shabbos. Gezeiros don't work that
way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:05:12AM +1000, Motti Yarchinai wrote:
: Then (to return to the topic), another solution occurred to me: There 
: is a very old printers' device, that has had something of a revival 
: in modern fonts. A ligature consisting of the right half of an alef 
: combined with a slightly deformed lamed on the left and merged into a 
: single character...

And in kesav Rashi they would use an upside-down pei peshutah to
simulate it.

...
: I don't really know for sure, but I am guessing that, halachically 
: (in the laws of safrut), if that character is used on its own (to 
: represent either the Hebrew word for "to" or the noun "God"), it is 
: not a legal word because it does not contain either a properly formed 
: aleph or a proper;y formed lamed of the required form.

It was only used for the noun "G-d" or as it appears within a word -- eg
"Yisrael". The ligature was invented to be a kinui, much like the two
yuds, yud smitchik, or the triagle of yuds that it got elaborated into
(but evaporated centuries ago).

This raises a question about how qinuyim become sheimos. On 8-Dec-1996,
RAM asked mail-jewish
<http://ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v25/mj_v25i40.html#CKT> about taking a text
with the double-yud kinui into the bathroom, and I didn't see an answer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS for those who left MJ during its silence from Oct 6 until a month ago,
it's back up. As hakaras hatov to the large portion of Avodah that was
once mj-machshava, I wanted to let the chevrah know. Moderating Avodah has
meant that I lost the time to follow anything but A/A and scjm (which I
read to stay connected to where our non-frum brothers are holding). So, I
myself didn't notice until checking its archives for the discussion there.

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


And often we need not be concerned with a 21st cent Jew grinding his own
medicine or tuning his piano on Shabbos. Gezeiros don't work that way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
_______________________________________________
Is there a good write up available of what is the source of the rabbinic
power to make gezeirot and that it takes a beit din greater in chochma
and minyan (what that really means is debated) to override? If we take
yeridat hadorot as built into the briah, this implies over the long run
there will many gzeirot that will become permanent even though the
conditions disappear - interesting to think about the intention of the
designer(s)
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.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:02:06PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> And often we need not be concerned with a 21st cent Jew grinding his own
:> medicine or tuning his piano on Shabbos. Gezeiros don't work that way.

: Is there a good write up available of what is the source of the rabbinic
: power to make gezeirot and that it takes a beit din greater in chochma
: and minyan (what that really means is debated) to override? If we take
: yeridat hadorot as built into the briah...

... vs halakhah kebasrai. A topic we return to often.

However, not nogai'ah here. We're talking about actual gezeiros made
by an actual beis din hagadol vs an era which doesn't have beis din of
any sort -- there is nothing to be gadol mimenu. If you want to apply a
shadow of the concept fo post-BD pesaqim, then one can compare earlier
rav to later rav, ask about what made the acharonim place the opinions of
rishonim on a pedestal, etc... But here, WRT the actual kelal, you need
a BEIS DIN hagadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan and that we certainly lack.

IOW, we live with headaches on Shabbos because the halachic system
is broken without a beis din hagadol. It's all part of the galus.
Yet another reason to daven, "Hashivah shofeteinu kevarishonah!"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Micha Berger wrote:
> However, not nogai'ah here. We're talking about actual gezeiros made
> by an actual beis din hagadol vs an era which doesn't have beis din of
> any sort -- there is nothing to be gadol mimenu.
I wonder.  Is it possible to date the gezeirah of stam yeinam to before 
Sanhedrin left Lishkat HeGazit (40 years before huban habayit)? 
Ohterwise the justification is universal acceptance, which is in many 
ways more stringent.

David Riceman

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:04:43AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: The Maharal of Prague asks, ?If the Jewish people had already accepted  
: the Torah at Sinai with the declaration of Naaseh V?nishmah why was it  
: necessary for God to hold a mountain over their heads to compel them  
: to accept the Torah? The Maharal answers that it is true that the  
: Jewish people had said Naaseh V?nishmah; however, the mountain over  
: their heads was to demonstrate to them that they must accept the Torah  
: because it is the Will of God regardless of their own preference....

I would suggest that the mountain over our heads represents the explicit
and miraculous reward-and-punishment of the bayis rishon period. Like
in seifer Shofetim, the cycle of military threat followed by teshuvah
followed by a shofeit and military success followed by contentment
followed by sin which in turn motivates Hashem to provide the next
military threat.

When does this end? With Purim and hesteir panim. This is why "qiymu
veqibly haYehudim -- qiymu mah sheqiblu qevar". Nevu'ah is gone. Blatant
sechar va'onesh is gone. We are out from under the mountain, and the
acceptance of mitzvos enters another level.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Micha Berger wrote:

> Also ein gezeira chal al gezeira would permit amira to do many of the
> dinim derabban, no?

No. Shvut dishvut is still assur without an additional factor, such as
tzaar, or tzorchei tzibur, or the completely inability to do a mitzvah
without it.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RRW wrote:
3. It is assur to Test a Navi too much [Hinuch Parahs Vo'eschanan]  So
   once a Navi is established who says he cannot err?
CM responds:
I do not think it is mistavr that the novi must be infallible when
becomming a novi but thereafter can err. It's about the nature of nevuoh
and that will not change whether the novi is muchzok or not.

RRW wrote:
 7. What about the shtuyos embedded in Yosef's dreams?  Didn't even
   legitimate dreamers have extraneous material?
CM responds:
I do not think that Yosef or any of the shevatim were considered neviim.
(although I once saw, don't recall from who, that when Yaakov scolded Yosef
for telling his dreams to the brothers that the reason 
Yosef did so was because he thought it would be kovesh nevuoh). What
shtuyos are you talking about. They thought Yosef was talking about his
mother, but Rochel was dead, so this could not come to pass. They did not
realize that it meant Bilah who raised him.

RRW wrote:
8. If every navi is infallible then how is Moshe superior to brother
   Aharon and siter Miriam?  
CM responds:
I responded to this in a previous posting.As I said then, (one of) the
differences is in the clarity and depth of the vision. not the correctness
of what they took away from the nevuoh, (Moshe more the others less).

RRW wrote:
But how is that shayach when EVERY navi bats one  thousand!?
CM responds:
The only column the novi always bats "one thousand" is for lack of error in
the nevuoh, but not for depth and clarity of the vision. Some neviim saw
with greater clarity others less so, but none of them were wrong in their
vision. 

Finally, I am not sure on what basis you want to differentiate between
"private (telling only one person?) and public nevuoh." I do not know of
any such difference, but if you have a mekor for this I will stand
corrected. See Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 7:7  where he speaks of nevuoh to the
novi himself (not to tell anyone) or of a nevuoh to tell others, but notes
no difference between a "private" nevuoh to tell a yochid and one to tell
to a rabim. See also 10:3 in the Rabam.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090610/ae6805c4/attachment-0001.htm>

I have a friend whose son is presently courting a girl from New Zealand.

She was not raised as a Jew but I have now ascertained that her mother's,
mother's, mother's, mother's parents were both Jews and that they were
married by the Minister of the first congregation in Sydney in 1853.  The
original marriage register exists and it has been microfilmed by the
Australian Jewish Historical Society.  I hope to have a photocopy of the
extract within the next few days.

She will need to verify as a matter of fact that she is the sixth generation
matrilineal descendant of the couple - presumably by reference to various
Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Australia and New Zealand.

Assuming that all this can be substantiated, is she entitled to be
considered a Jew by a Beth Din without further ado?

DJH

In a message dated 6/10/2009, djha...@iprimus.com.au writes:

>>She was not  raised as a Jew but I have now ascertained that her mother?
s, mother?s,  mother?s, mother?s parents were both Jews.... 
She will need to  verify as a matter of fact that she is the sixth 
generation matrilineal  descendant of the couple.... 
Assuming that all  this can be substantiated, is she entitled to be 
considered a Jew by a Beth  Din without further ado?<< 
DJH
 
>>>>>
I think most rabbanim would say that she needs a gerus misafek if, at the  
time of her birth, her mother was a Christian (even if the mother was  
halachically Jewish by matrilineal descent).  
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

 
 


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



_____________________

**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntu
sdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090610/8e82ad86/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 09:59:42PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I think most rabbanim would say that she needs a gerus misafek if, at the
: time of her birth, her mother was a Christian (even if the mother was
: halachically Jewish by matrilineal descent).

This might be what RnTK meant, but...

Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require miqvah and
qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD. Reaffirming a return to the
Jewish faith, even if already born into the Jewish people.

This is a difference between C & R on one hand, and shmad on the other.
Someone who leaves Yahadus for a movement that self-identifies as Jewish
can be accepted as a BT without qabbalas divrei chaveirus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:27 AM, hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>  Any proof to your reading of the Rambam?
>

I think it is Poshut.  My Hechrech is if there is times that they don't
understand part or all of a Nvuoh, how come the Rambam does not write so
Mfurosh, that would be the screaming difference between Moshe and others.


>  Bemechilas kvodcha, that is not how I understood the Rambam. The novi
> understands that which Hashem wishes him to understand and relates that
> which hashem tells him to relate, not just based on the novi's assumption of
> what is for publication. Part of my reasoning is that it would be hard to be
> mechayav the novi for kovesh nevuoso when he is the determinant (on his own)
> of what is for publication, as opposed to there being a tsivui (part of the
> nevuoh) to the novi as to what exactly to publish.
>

I don't get it, Kovesh Nvuosoi is Chayov Misah Byidei Shomayum (Rambam 9:2).
Klapei Shmayo Galya.

>
>
> RYZ wrote:
> if the lack of Pisron is what defines what part the
> Novi relates. in that case a Nvius without a given Pisron means it need
> not be said, and the Novie cannot be called Kovesh Nvuosoi, so why did the
> Novi give it over?
>
> CM responds:
> No, lack of pisron is not what defines what the novi relates.
>

So if a Novi has to relate even a Moshol w/o a Pisron, so what does define
what the Novi relates


>  Again, the novi can receive moshol or moshol with its pisron or a
> combination of both within one mareh nevuoh which also makes clear which
> parts of the mareh are for publication. Thus the Rambam concludes with his 3
> possible cases of what gets published.
>

Again nowhere does the  Rambam say that at times he doesn't understand it or
a part of it.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/7b44ca24/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:22 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

> Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com <mailto:y...@aol.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>    He didn't say the Nvuoh (it was a Nvuoh for him personally).
>>
>> How did he get Yitzhak's consent?


He told him "e-lokim yireh lo haseh "l'oloh" (not Lshchita) bnee (22:7 and
rashi that they both "understood" that he will be Nishchat, but not that the
word was used).


>
>  Just to add, had he repeated it (as he did to HKB"H) he would have used
>> the exact same words that was said to him (as Rashi says he said to HKB"H).
>>
> Mimah nafshach? If so, he would have misinterpreted his nevuah.  If, as you
> argued previously, "he [thought] MORE then was meant", he was oveir the
> issur.  Misunderstanding seems to be the preferable choice.


When using the same words he can't be oveir, only when he misrepresents what
HKBH told him, (the Rambam you quoted A"Z 5:8 says "Hamisnabei Mah Shelo
Shoma" ).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/b0ebc013/attachment-0001.htm>

I hate to keep coming back to this, since we've both set out our 
opinions very fully.  The problem is that usually, even when I disagree 
with you, your opinion makes good sense.  Here, though, I don't even 
know what your words mean.  So let me set out what I think we agree and 
disagree on and where I remain puzzled.

The Rambam says that when a prophet receives a prophecy he also receives 
its explanation.  You claim that the Rambam is describing a property of 
every prophecy, and I claim, no, he's describing the standard procedure, 
but there are a group of exceptions.

We considered two of those exceptions in some detail.  The first is 
Daniel's prediction of the date of the redemption, which he says 
explicitly he didn't understand.  In this case I think you agree with me 
that he didn't receive the explanation, but you exonerate the Rambam on 
the grounds (IIUC) that this is a unique property of the redemption.

The second exception is the Akeidah.  Here's what we agree about: God, 
using deliberately ambiguous language, told Avraham to "ha'aleihu sham 
l'olah", which could mean either "slaughter him as a sacrifice" (Tanhuma 
B: "zeh lish'hot v'zeh lishahet") or "raise him onto the altar".  
Avraham (and Yitzhak) understood the former, and God meant the latter, 
though He also meant Avraham to misunderstand him.

Here's where we disagree: I think this is an example of a prophet 
receiving a prophecy but not its explanation.  You don't.  I think you 
mean something like this: the prophecy was deliberately ambiguous, and 
God meant Avraham to misunderstand at first, and later to recognize the 
ambiguity, so the prophecy accomplished its goal.

But why isn't that a counterexample for the Rambam? The prophecy had 
been phrased ambiguously, but it did have a precise meaning, which was 
revealed several days later.  That means that Avraham did not receive 
the explanation instantly when he received the original vision!  And 
that contradicts the words of the Rambam!

What you said was "HKB"H had a Kavana (which we don't find and therefore 
cannot put in by other Nvi'im) that he should think MORE then was meant, 
as he would stop him anyway."  But I have no idea how that solves the 
problem with the Rambam.  Isn't thinking "more than what meant" failing 
to understand the prophecy?

David Riceman

I just read Kuzari 2:47-48, where I realized that according to Rav
Hirsch, the Kuzari (i.e. the king) is correct and the Haver is
incorrect. Rav Hirsch's criticism's against the Rambam (19 Letters)
fully and completely apply to the Haver as well, and the Kuzar King's
remarks are in marked line with Rav Hirsch's own beliefs.

I then remembered that which I had read a few months ago, Howard I.
Levine's "Enduring and Transitory Elements in the Philosophy of Samson
Raphael Hirsch" (Spring 1963). This essay, tthough otherwise rife with
error (see Rabbi Danziger's rejoinder at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Clarification%20of
%20RSRH_danziger.pdf),
does one make very true and essential point, the same that I make on
the Kuzari:

In brief, Rav Hirsch's machloket with Rambam is also his machloket
with Kuzari and Ramhal. That is, whereas Rambam saw the purpose of
life as the perfection of the intellect and cleavage to the Active
Intellect (and G-d) via metaphysical speculation, and the Kuzari saw
the purpose of life as the perfection of holiness and cleavage to the
Inyan haEloki via performance of the ritual mitzvot, and Ramhal
similarly - by contrast, Rav Hirsch saw the purpose of life to be
justice and righteousness in mundane life.

As Levine notes, "It is through their [the mizvot] effect upon both
nature and history that, according to Hirsch, they enable Israel to
fulfill its mission to humanity." Additionally, Rav Hirsch, in a few
places, explicitly says that the duty and purpose of man and life is
tzeded u-mishpat; see for example his comment on G-d's musings over
Sodom and Amorah, about Avraham teaching his children tzedek
u-mishpat.

Further, Levine notes, "Rabbi Moses Chaim Luzzato provides a sharp
antithesis to the Hirschian view." Indeed, I distinctly remember an
incident a few years ago, at yeshiva: my havruta asked me what I
thought the purpose of life was, and I described that which was
apparent from Rav Hirsch's corpus. My havruta was astounded at my
words, and pulled out Messilat Yesharim's introduction. I was not
fazed; I told him that Rav Hirsch disagreed with Ramhal. Now I see
that Levine would agree with me.

Levine then goes on to adduce Rav Hirsch's sixfold classification of
the mitzvot in Horeb as showing his emphasis on ethics and justice. I
enjoyed this because I independently made precisely the same diyuk
when I contributed to Wikipedia's article on "Tikun Olam". (I
contributed the material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam,
s.v. "Building a model society" and "Practical Physical/Social/Worldly
Effects of Mitzvot"; although the material has been extensively
reorganized by others, I am the one who initially contributed most of
the material. I am also responsible for the extensive citations from
Ramhal on that same page.)

Also, in the footnotes to that same Wikipedia article, I cited Rabbi
Danziger and Dr. Judith Bleich as upholding my interpretation of Rav
Hirsch's upholding a sociological and temporal conception of tikkun
olam.

Regarding Kabbalah, Levine rightly notes, "It need be stressed that
though Hirsch's sharpest criticisms are directed against practical
mysticism and its performances, the logic of his position requires his
opposition to the very basis of the Kabbalah: a belief in
supra-mundane worlds and the effects of the religious act in spheres
not directly related to man and his world."

Regarding the Kuzari, Levine rightly notes, "Again, in contrast to
Hirsch, the Mitzvot do not merely represent an instrument for the
fulfillment of our mission to the nations. Insofar as Halevi is
concerned, the ethical and moral content of the Torah, irrespective of
its vital importance as the first step in our religious life, cannot
be regarded as the higher purpose and fulfillment of Judaism. The
revelational laws are distinguished from the moral or rational laws in
that they are the higher stage of religious experience and are a
distinctive trait of Jewish religion."

Michael Makovi

> In brief, Rav Hirsch's machloket with Rambam is also his machloket
> with Kuzari and Ramhal. That is, whereas Rambam saw the purpose of
> life as the perfection of the intellect and cleavage to the Active
> Intellect (and G-d) via metaphysical speculation, and the Kuzari saw
> the purpose of life as the perfection of holiness and cleavage to the
> Inyan haEloki via performance of the ritual mitzvot, and Ramhal
> similarly - by contrast, Rav Hirsch saw the purpose of life to be
> justice and righteousness in mundane life.
>
> Yours truly

I forgot to add one other point. Rambam, in his Introduction to the
Mishnah, and in Shemonah Perakim (see Professor Lawrence Kaplan's
elucidation of the point I am about to, in his "An Introduction To
Maimonides? "Eight Chapters"", at
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/kaplan2_2.pdf), and in
Moreh, holds that the rational mitzvot exist only to create a stable
society, conducive to metaphysical speculation. The Kuzari, in 2:48,
agrees, only he replaces speculation with performance of ritual
mitzvot. In Kuzari 2:44, the Haver says that all mankind and creation
exists for those who cleave to the Inyan haEloki, and Rambam in his
Introduction to the Mishnah agrees, only he replaces Inyan haEloki
with the Active Intellect, and he limits perfection to Jews (Rambam
would seem to include non-Jews in the capability of perfection).

(It is likely, I believe, that the Kuzari's Inyan haEloki is a
concession to the Active Intellect. The Greeks had the Active
Intellect, and the Kuzari wished to apologetically one-up the Greeks,
by saying we had something even better, and only for Jews moreover.
Professor Haim Kreisel, at
http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/kuzari1.htm, notes that the
Kuzari makes such apologea rather often. The Kuzari's oft-made
repetition of prophecy seems to be also a concession.)

Professor Harry Wolfson, in "Maimonides and Halevi"
(http://www.archive.org/details/maimonideshalevi00wolfuoft), makes the
same criticism on Rambam that Rav Hirsch does, only with extensive
quotes from Rambam's own words, to prove his point. I believe,
however, that all these criticisms can be leveled at the Kuzari as
well, as long as we make the following substitutions between Rambam
and Kuzari:
--- ritual mitzvot (via theurgy and drawing Inyan haEloki) =
metaphysical speculation (drawing Active Intellect)
--- Inyan haEloki = Active Intellect
--- kedusha = intellectual perfection

Michael Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 111
***************************************

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..."