Volume 27: Number 31
Sun, 31 Jan 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:57:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Coca Cola ingredients
R' Martin Brody wrote:
> The shiur is 1.6%. Chazal knew what they were doing.
> Very few tastes can be identified below that level
The problem is with the word "identified".
Is that how Chazal described the process? That's not a rhetorical question;
I haven't learned Taaruvos in-depth, and I honestly don't know, and I
really think that this is the crux of the issue.
For example, lets take the example of a small amount of milk that falls
into chicken soup, and the taster says, "There's something in here that's
no chicken. I don't know what it is, but it's not just chicken soup." Is
that enough to render the soup assur, even though the taster was not able
to identify the foreign flavor as being milk?
Ditto where if some ground pork fell into a vat of ground beef. If the
taster would say, "There's some pork in here", it would obviously be assur.
But if he merely says, "There's something other than beef in here", what
then?
I think this is exactly the situation we are asking about. An average
person is not able to *identify* the component flavors which the
manufacturer added, but they make a real change in the taste of the final
product. If the critical point is the ability to *identify* the non-kosher
ingredient, then we have an awful lot of leeway, because they can't be
identified. But if the critical point is whether or not the component is
*perceived*, then these things which are added specifically for flavor
cannot be batel, even after the fact.
So here's the question for you YD experts: When the psak rests on whether
or not the ingredient is noticable, does that mean (A) whether or not it
tastes the same as if this ingredient was not added, or (B) whether or not
the taster can name the extra ingredient?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Online Trading
Free information on the best online trading options. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=P8GjJwaapYTiqAESMf257gAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADaAAAAAA=
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:27:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Coca Cola ingredients
Martin Brody
> "What is the "shiur" of "being felt"? Suppose that instead of garlic
> powder, there was a non-kosher ingredient used? Do we consider it batel
> unless the taste-tester says, "I can taste the lard in this"?
Bemin besheino mino that is the din in Shas rambam and m'chabeir
[IOW t'imas qk6eila rama'ah]
Rema is machmir to require 1/60. There is a big machloqes rishonim now
that works
- BOTH Nosein ta'am plus 1/60
- 1/60 instead of nosein taam [proxy]
- 1/60 acts only to permit eating until the Jew himself detects issur
Etc.
M Brody
> The shiur is 1.6%. Chazal knew what they were doing.
Hazal actually demanded t'imas q'feila armaah in min besheino mino
as above.
And yoreh deiah is replete with exceptions
simanim 100-104 has most but not davar hamaamid or the avidta l'chazussa
in maseches beitzah.
and Rambam has many more in maachalos assuros 15-17 EG orlah kilayim
This 1/60 ratio as posted earlier has been used as a mindless slogan
by those who aren't posqim. It's simply mis-leading to do that. My YD
rebbe admonished us about this 35 years ago NOT to parrot this slogan.
> Very few tastes can be identified below that level"
All kinds of tastes and textures can be detected below that level. What
may be true is that unintentional additions rarely do harm. I would bet
that intentional ones aderabba often would/could be detected!
> The ingredient was added deliberately, but by a non-Jew, so does it
> count as L'chatchila or B'diavad?
1 If added FOR A JEW it is not bateil ever.
See
SA YD 99:5-6
Esp. Shach 11
GRA 9
Taz 10
Hidushei R Aqiva Eiger
[2 points]
And see Rema when haticha naaseis n'veilah could kick in
Thus an unkosher ingredient could contaminate a mixture EG 50 times its
size - and in turn that mixture itself becomes n'veilah and in turn can
contaminate 3000 times the original issur!
Also see Rema about knowledge of a taaroves and its impact upon Bittull
2 if added regularly it is no longer seen as b'diavad. IOW b'di'avad
cannot be applied to an ongoing process - only an incidental one
[I posted a source about a week ago, but I don't have it handy]
Since almost all these points were well-covered already in previous posts
therefore R Martin Brody will apparently remain uncovinced. Nevertheless
- hopefully the onlookers will learn this for themselves and see what
posqim say.
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:53:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:08:05AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: >You would be talking about
: >someone who doesn't alternate hands three times when washing neigl vasr,
: Shabbos 109a "umakpedes ad shyirhotz yadav gimel p'amim".
But not being careful to place chesed/right before gevurah/left. (Lefties:
reverse sides) Also, that's not what the din requires -- otherwise, why
would al neqi'us yadayim be sufficient (beshe'as hadeachaq)?
Compare that gemara to Zohar Vayeishev 184b.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:10:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Proposed New Sefer on Business Ethics
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:18:56PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Today's climate cries out for just such a limud!
: NishmaBlog:
: Proposed New Sefer on Business Ethics
: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/01/proposed-new-sefer
: -on-business-ethics.html
In which he says:
> The Sefer Shmirat Halashon is IMHO one of the best organized s'farim
> in being "m'rakeiz" Talmud-Midrash-Zohar etc. On a single topic. I
> find this a definitive paradigm for combining machshavah on a single
> subject or group of related subjects.
> How about a Sefer on issues of Business Ethics along the same lines?
There have been a number of such books put out lately. Are you sure that
none tie halakhah to motivational aggadita?
Some broad titles, aside from single-topic works on ribis or the like...
Artscroll:
Cases in Monetary Halakhah, R' Tzvi Spitz
The Laws of Interpersonal Relationships (previously: Journey to
Virtue), R' Avrohom Ehrman
Business Halachah, R' Ari Marburger
Feldheim:
Pure Money (2 vol), Dayan Shlomo Cohen
Halachos of Other People's Money, R' Yisrael Pinchas Bodner
Watch Your Wealth, R' Moshe Goldberger
In Hebrew, I found Feldheim's 5 vol Mishpatekha LeYaaqov, although I
can't find the author's name.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:12:43 -0600
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Proposed New Sefer on Business Ethics
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 20:18 +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Today's climate cries out for just such a limud!
>
> NishmaBlog:
> Proposed New Sefer on Business Ethics
>
> http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/01/proposed-new
> -sefer-on-business-ethics.html
You could start with Sefer Dinei Mamonot by R' Ezra Batzri, (also
translated into English by R' Eliyahu Touger). Most of the space is
spent covering the halachot in great detail (which I think cover most if
not all of Choshen Mishpat), but it also has chapters at the back of
each volume on "The Ethical Dimension of the Halacha". Clearly those
chapters are much shorter than Shemiras HaLashon, but it's a start.
--Ken
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:29:08 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Chazal's Ruach HaKodesh
In R' Moshe Yecheil Tzuriel's Otzaros HaMussar vol. 1, in the Sha'ar
HaBitachon, there is an amazing and comprehensive compendium on this topic.
KT, GS,
YGB
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:08:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on free will
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
[Quoting Friedlander's translation of the Moreh 3:17, "Fifth Theory":]
:> According to this principle man does what is in his power to do,
:> by his nature, his choice, and his will; and his action is not due to
:> any faculty created for the purpose. All species of irrational animals
:> likewise move by their own free will....
I think this is a mistranslation. The Rambam can't be speaking of what
we would call "free will" and consider it "irrational" as well. To him,
decision centers around thought.
A bit of Aristotilian Physics I've discussed on Avodah before a few times
over the years, mainly to explain the Rambam's description of mal'akhim.
Taking from my blog entry "Maimonidian Qabbalah - Part III"
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/12/maimonidian-qabbalah-3.shtml>:
The need for intelligences to perform action is part of Artistotelian
physics. Aristotle didn't have a notion of momentum, which is
conserved. Unsurprising, because in the real world momentum is
generally turned into heat (the momentum of molecules) by friction,
and thus we see motion dissipate. Instead, Aristotle taught that
Intellects impart impetus to objects, which then continue moving
until the impetus runs out. It is for this reason that the Rambam
asserted that the spheres are intellects (Yesodei haTorah 2:7),
since the stars and planets continue in motion eternally, there must
be intellects repeatedly imparting impetus to them.
I understand the Rambam in 3:17 as saying that animals have intellects,
and their actions arise from their intellects. IOW, they have wills, but
they are not free in the sense that ours is free.
R Yosef el-Qafech ("Kapach")'s translation is available at
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/c5-2.htm#3>. They emphasize the
key idea in purple, ayin sham. (BTW, I find the layout and colorization
nice tools for clarity not provided by the book edition.)
He renders it "cheftzam", nothing about freedom of that desire.
Justifying my assumption about the Rambam's intent in light of his
understanding of motion, the translation continues:
sheyehei kol chai na becheftzo
vesheyehi haadam baal yekholes al kol asher yechpotz o yivchar...
The comparison in the earlier "vekakh" is only in the fact that they
move by their own will. But "yivchar" is only used WRT people.
: 4. On an aside I read from R Zadok where he attacks Rambam for excluding
: animals from providence except for species. However, in the same maamar
: he quotes several times the Ari who says that every that that Ramban
: says is true. The problem is that Ramban also says that providence does
: not go to indivisual anaimals but only to the species as Rambam says
Actually, the LR thought that universal HP (hashgachah peratis, as opposed
to hashgachah tiv'is or hashgachah minis) was a chiddush of the Besh"t,
and over in Litta they credited that chiddush to the Gra. We've discussed
"universal HP" (suggested search term) numerous times.
I once proposed a resolution that doesn't involve a machloqes between
the centuries. I don't remember if it was here, though. So, to restate
quickly...
The rishonim lived in a world of classical philosophy. To them, the
concept of HP was dealt with on an ontological basis -- was this event a
direct product of G-d's Will, or indirect -- a product of His Will that
caused nature which in turn caused the event.
We live in a post-Kantian world, where there is far more mingling of
observer and observed. Just look at what Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
did to physics on that score! To us, the question of HP is more about
the thing one gets through bitachon, that obviates hishtadlus.
It's not that the dominant shitah (in terms of numbers both among the
hamon am and among the baalei machashavah) changed to one the rishonim
don't discuss. It's that we are really using a different definition of
the term.
An example: REED famously says that teva doesn't exist, it's a pattern we
find in how Hashem acts. However, he also holds that existence depends
on the observer, following the Maharal. That blood and water coexist in
maqas dam because observers at different spiritual planes can experience
fundamentally different realities. Blood didn't turn to water when
given to a Jew, it was always water in the Jew's version of reality,
and remained blood in the Mitzri's.
When reality is phenomenological (the thing as experienced), the
rishonim's version of HP is outside your realm of discussion. And, not
so coincidentally, you end up in a position much like the Rambam's --
the person capable of seeing Yad Hashem in more things will live in a
reality where Yad Hashem more directly impacts his life. Whether we're
talking about something as drastic as nissim geluyim (as the Maharal did)
or HP. Not that he reads HP into reality; he reads an HP-laden reality
into the unknowable things-in-themselves, beyond our perception of them.
Universal HP even for things that don't impact people? But things that
don't impact people aren't observed!
I'm saying that even the hamon am, who don't think in these rarified
terms, are influenced by the post-Kantian zeitgeist and are referring to
something different than the rishonim did.
Just as the discussion above of the Rambam's view of animals' wills
required backtracking to explain how he understood physics. The Rambam's
statement has no real analog in today's worldview. It's not that we
disagree, it's that we're playing a different game.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Gershon Seif <gershons...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chazal's Ruach HaKodesh
Thank you for posting this. Is this a readily available sefer?
<<In R' Moshe Yecheil Tzuriel's Otzaros HaMussar vol. 1, in the Sha'ar HaBitachon, there is an amazing and comprehensive compendium on this topic.
KT, GS,
YGB>>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:07:50 GMT
Subject: [Avodah] How much is an Omer?
The last pasuk in Parshas haMan tells us that "An omer is one-tenth of an
eifah." To me, it seems likely to me that the Torah told us this because it
was an uncommon measurement. But even so, it seems somewhat superfluous.
Let me offer two versions of what is probably the same question:
a) Why was this information included in Torah Sheb'ksav? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing which is usually relegated to Torah Sheb'al Peh?
b) Are there any other examples of where the Torah goes out of its way to
define a word? We have lots of places where the Torah explains why a person
was given a certain name, but that's not quite the same thing.
The Torah tells us not to eat pork because pigs have cloven hooves but they
don't chew their cud. But in that case, the Torah is NOT telling us how to
recognize what a chazir is. The Torah presumes that we would recognize a
chazir when we see one, and it's just explaining why it is tamei. I'm
looking for an example of where some technical term appears in the Torah -
and names of animals or plants *would* qualify for this - and the Torah
goes out of its way to explain it for us. (There are probably lots of
examples, and I just can't think of any.)
Akiva Miller
PS: Hmmm... Here's a very wild guess: As I wrote above, there are many
examples of where, in the course of the story, we are "present" at the
birth of a baby, and the Torah tells us how the baby got that name. In
Parshas haMan, we are present at the creation of a new kind of food, about
which we asked, "Mann hu?" This whole parsha is one which defines for us
the meaning of the word "mann". An argument could also be made that this
parsha defined the word "Shabbos" as well. So maybe that's why it defined
"omer" too. Did I just answer my own question? Any comments?
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=8SyqlU0s6quHicW7WGBKZAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:40:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How much is an Omer?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 03:07:50AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: a) Why was this information included in Torah Sheb'ksav? Isn't this
: exactly the sort of thing which is usually relegated to Torah Sheb'al Peh?
I think the point is to allow derashos between the mahn and challah
and/or qorban minchah, for which the shiur is an eiphah. I think that's
the point of Rashi concluding "vehu shi'ur lechalah uleminachos".
See Eiruvin 83b, which uses this pasuq bedavqa to relate omer to
challah, and thus challah to the quantity of a proper day's diet.
Gut Voch!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:41:42 +0100
Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin Scare
Last week a young man flying from La Guardia Airport in Queens, NY, to
Kentucky, aroused suspicion in the eyes of teh crew when he strapped a
contraption of boxes to his arm and head. Eventually, the crew and the
world got to learn about the mitzvah of tefillin, and how it is
entirely safe to use on a plane.
However, the blogosphere has filled up with arguments whether or not
people should don tefillin while praying during travel, and what the
alternatives are.
This discussion (minus the security aspect) is not new.
For an interesting prelude to some aspect of the tefillin scare from
the mid 19th century, see my latest blog post:
After the Tefillin Terror Scare
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/after-the-tefillin-terro
r-scare/
Comments welcome!
[PS: The story had been posted on Friday, was updated with additional
anecdotal material yesterday 21:22 GMT]
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Videovortrag: Tehillim als Gebet
* CNN: Only Israel Has A Fully Functioning Field Hospital In Haiti
* Das innige Gebet einer Frau
* Internet Halakha: Should we Expect Privacy?
* Newsflash: King David had Literate Servants
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:38:21 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] saying kaddish together
Several people in my shul (including myself) are having an argument
with our rabbi.
Our rabbi is pushing allowing everyone to say kaddish in their own
nusach and to wait
for the longest version. The rest of us insist that everyone should at least be
encouraged to use the nusach of the shul (sefard-chassidic) though it should not
lead to fights.
I know of many poskim including RMF that insist that everyone should
say the kaddish
in unison and the same nusach. Does anyone know of any teshuvot that lechatchila
allow a variety of nuschahim to be said for kaddish?
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:57:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How much is an Omer?
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 03:07:50AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : a) Why was this information included in Torah Sheb'ksav? Isn't this
> : exactly the sort of thing which is usually relegated to Torah Sheb'al Peh?
>
> I think the point is to allow derashos between the mahn and challah
> and/or qorban minchah, for which the shiur is an eiphah. I think that's
> the point of Rashi concluding "vehu shi'ur lechalah uleminachos".
>
> See Eiruvin 83b, which uses this pasuq bedavqa to relate omer to
> challah, and thus challah to the quantity of a proper day's diet.
>
And see Gur Aryeh ad. loc., who makes essentially the same point.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:47:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] saying kaddish together
R Eli Turkel:
> I know of many poskim including RMF that insist that everyone should
> say the kaddish in unison and the same nusach. Does anyone know of
> any teshuvot that lechatchila allow a variety of nuschahim to be said
> for kaddish?
Here would be my order of preference
1 Only 1 individual saya kaddish at a time in the shul nusach only -
acting as sh'liach tzibbur original format.
Note: if necessary, say an extra mizmor to give each individual at least
ONE kaddish per hiyyuv. [Shelo k'da'as haGRA]
2A Unison in shul nusach as per the current minhag - a compromise to
make shalom
2B Only 1 individual say kaddish at a time but in his own nusach only
acting as sh'liach tzibbur - in a tzibbur that tolerates different
nusachos
...
99
Allow everyone to say kaddish in their own nusach [I would also demand
9 listeners per reciter] "...and to wait for the longest version."
If 9 listeners per, I could dispense with this last clause completely.
-----------------------
If you accept halachah changing via evolution, then this rabbi's revision
is OK.
If you stick to core principles, it's IMHO a really lousy alternative.
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:08:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] saying kaddish together
rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Allow everyone to say kaddish in their own nusach [I would also demand
> 9 listeners per reciter] "...and to wait for the longest version."
> If 9 listeners per, I could dispense with this last clause completely.
Since when are 9 listeners, or any listeners at all, required for kaddish?
AFAIK they are only required for chazarat hashatz.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:35:58 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] saying kaddish together
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 05:08:37PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Since when are 9 listeners, or any listeners at all, required for kaddish?
: AFAIK they are only required for chazarat hashatz.
... and for a davar shebiqdushah -- including Qaddish, Barekhu,
Qedushah, Barukh Sheim recited out loud YK night, etc... I don't think
you would need 9 *listeners* if the people saying Qaddish were doing
it togather. But if each person saying Qaddish is going his own pace,
getting his own answerers, wouldn't each need 9 others?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:57:18 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] RSRH Digest
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:38:34 -0500
Subject: The value of working hard while relying on the blessing of
Providence in seeking a livelihood
The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 16: 16 - 18. BTW, RSRH
writes a good deal about earning a parnasa in Parshas Shalach. However,
I did not come across one reference to a segula in his writings on this
topic in this parsha, and I am pretty sure that there is no reference
to relying on segulos for anything in any of his writings! YL
16 This is what God has commanded: Let each man gather of it
according to the need of his nourishment; one omer a head,
according to the number of your souls let each one take for the
members of his tent.
17 The Children of Israel did so; they gathered, some more and
some less.
18 But when they measured it with the omer he who had gathered
much had nothing left over, and he who had gathered little did
not have too little; each one had gathered according to the need
of his nourishment.
16-18 They were to gather it, each man according to the needs of
his household, according to the number of souls, one omer for each
person. If, at the time when the manna melted away (below, v. 21),
some had gathered more than the correct amount, and some had gathered
less, nevertheless, when they came to measure it, it was found that
he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little
had no deficiency: they had gathered as much as they needed to eat.
However, the intention to gather the appropriate quantity was
apparently an essential, indispensable condition; otherwise, after
the first experience, they need not have bothered to gather more
than a minimal amount, since, in any case, everyone would receive
what he needed, and certainly no more than his share.
In this lay the important lesson on the value of working hard while
relying on the blessing of Providence in seeking a livelihood for
oneself and ones family.
[Email #2. -mi]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:32:33 -0500
Subject: How to Regard the Obligation to Earn a Livelihood
The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 16. In my opinion it
gives fundamental insights into how we are to regard the obligation of
earning a living. It is a long selection, but well worth reading, IMO.
When I read it to my wife, she asked, "Why don't they teach this in
the yeshivas?" Indeed, why don't they? YL
2 And the whole community of the Children of Israel complained
against Moshe and Aharon in the wilderness.
2 First we learn of the vital need for the institution of
Shabbos. They had just come from Eilim, a place of plenty, to the
wilderness, when kol adas benei Yisroel the whole community which
bore within it the seeds of its noble destiny immediately began to
murmur against Moshe and Aharon.
The memory of the miracles of deliverance and salvation in Egypt
and at the sea, along with the basic instructive experience at
Marah all these vanish before the specter of starvation that now
threatens their wives and children. This, too, may be the point
of the Rabbinic dictum: kashin mezonasov shel adom yoser m'krias
Yam Sof, The provision of ones daily bread is more difficult than
the splitting of the Red Sea (Yalkut Shimoni, Yeshayahu, 474). The
threat of hunger real or imagined undermines all principles and
rescinds all noble resolves. As long as a man cannot disengage
himself, not from the responsibility to provide for his family, but
from the overwhelming anxiety resulting from this responsibility,
he is unable to fully realize Gods Torah.
Freedom from this overwhelming anxiety comes only with the deep
awareness that concern about ones livelihood, the foremost among
all human concerns, does not rest not even primarily on man alone.
He must realize that toward this end, too, man can and should do
only his part namely, what God expects him to contribute toward the
achievement of this objective. As for the success of his efforts, he
must leave that to God, Who watches over every household and every
single human soul and extends His mercy to all His creatures. Man
must realize that his work for his livelihood is not a privilege
[with which one is endowed], but a duty [with which one is charged].
As long as man is not instilled with this awareness; as long as he
feels that it is he and he alone who, with his limited powers, is
bound to the yoke of earning his livelihood, there is no end to his
anxiety. This anxiety is likely to turn his world into a wilderness,
even if he dwells in the midst of civilization, where there is much
wealth but also much competition. His anxiety can make him believe
that he must secure not only the morrow, but his whole future, and
even that of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This
belief goads him into an endless and ruthless pursuit of greater
wealth, leaving him no time for the pursuit of other aims and goals.
For this reason God led the future people of His Torah into an actual
wilderness, where there were no means for a livelihood. There they
would face the anxiety of present needs that cannot be met and a
future that seems hopeless. There they would see for themselves and
for all their future descendants the thoughtlessness to which such
a situation, even if it is only temporary, can bring a person. As
can be deduced from the next verse, the entire generation that left
Egypt had been unaccustomed to worrying about their sustenance. While
they were slaves, it was in their masters interest to keep them alive
and strong, just as one cares for his working animals and beasts of
burden. Bamidbar, in the wilderness, the whole community of Israel
began to murmur against Moshe and Aharon.
[Email #3. -mi]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:57:18 -0500
Subject: No intermediary or intercessor is necessary for God to take
note of a man's needs
The following are some selections from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 16
8 And Moshe said: If God gives you meat to eat in the evening,
and bread in the morning to satiate [you], if God has heard your
complaints that you are stirring up against Him what, then,
are we? Your complaints are not against us, but against God.
Indeed, the entire success of Moshes mission hinges on the people
recognizing that the mission is wholly the work of God Himself,
and not at all the work of man.
However, if commanded by God; if required by God as a sign of our
unreserved recognition and trust, then what otherwise would be folly
becomes the deepest wisdom, what otherwise would be considered a crime
becomes the highest virtue befitting of man, and its nonfulfillment
is considered a denial of God and a dishonor to man.
The foregoing points are especially significant for the institution
of Shabbos, whose foundation was laid through the fall of the manna,
which was witnessed by the people of Israel for forty years. More
than any other mitzvah, Shabbos requires the unshakable conviction
that God watches over the individual and over all the little but
indispensable requirements of his daily livelihood and that of his
family. Man can whisper all his little wishes and worries directly
to God; no intermediary or intercessor is necessary for God to take
note of a mans needs, be they great or small.
Shabbos, as well as the Torah in its entirety, were destined to
outlive Moshe. Hence the anxious concern of this man Moshe: His whole
desire was to diminish his own personality in the eyes of the people,
to dispel the notion that he stood between the people and God. Moshe
wished to be a man and no more. This was his supreme greatness.
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 31
**************************************
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..."