Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 106

Thu, 22 Apr 2010

• 1. mesorah (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Sobering Thoughts as Israel's Independence Day Approaches (Micha Berger)
• 4. HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. Re: Sobering Thoughts as Israel's Independence Day Approaches (Zev Sero)
• 6. This is mine (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Devarim SheBeLeiv (Micha Berger)
• 8. HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut (Joseph Kaplan)
• 9. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut (Micha Berger)
• 10. What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: RSRH on Kedusha (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Revering Mother and Father (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: kach nahag rav shach (Harry Maryles)
• 14. Re: kach nahag rav shach (Micha Berger)

<<Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral
Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in
the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical
intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than
what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that
intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes
of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be,
which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas
Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of
Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. >>

I have great difficulties with this. What of know that they made a mistake.
There are places where it is clear that Rashi was wrong because he didn't
completely know Israeli geography or the burial procedures or medicine.
Achronim state that we follow Rambam against Rashi on sugyot in chullin because
Rambam was a doctor.
Rash claims that the pythagoras theorem is wrong except when the two
sides are the same.

I would assume that much of the modern world has accepted the geonim over R. Tam
for the definition of shkia because of astronomical reasons even though
R Tam was almost universally accepted even on erev shabbat in northern Europe.

I recently saw a claim that Rav Chaim connected two arguments between Rambam and
Ramban based on printing error in the Schach. In a previous discussion it was
pointed out that many disagree with chidushei R. Chaim because it does
not usually
seem to be pshat in the Rambam though a beautiful dvar Torah.

Micha's argument reminds me of the CI argument against manuscripts. I
recently read
an article by Ta Shma on the printing of chidushe Ramban, Rashba and Ritva.
This was done mainly over a period of some 50 years about about 1700.
So in fact many achronim did not have access to the actual texts of
the rishonim but
only abbreviated quotes from the bet yosef or various teshuvot. Do we
say according
to CI that we ignore all of this because it was only found in 1700 or
do we accept
those and only reject those found in the 20th century?

Sperber brings examples where we better understand a Mishna because of modern
archaeology of how various instruments looked or what clothing they wore.
In many cases it is clear that the Yerushalmi had a better knowledge of many
Mishnayot while the Bavli is based on what happened in Bavel and not
in Mishnaic EY.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:43:49PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral
:> Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in
:> the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical
:> intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than
:> what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that
:> intent was....

: I have great difficulties with this. What of know that they made a mistake.
: There are places where it is clear that Rashi was wrong because he didn't
: completely know Israeli geography or the burial procedures or medicine.

I intentionally didn't touch the subject of metzi'us. I spoke about how
we understand the evolution of halakhah. I spoke about how we're to
understand R' Yochanan, not the situation.

My argument is basically the against the use of Revadim or W-t in order
to clarify a shitah.

...
: Sperber brings examples where we better understand a Mishna because of modern
: archaeology of how various instruments looked or what clothing they wore.
: In many cases it is clear that the Yerushalmi had a better knowledge of many
: Mishnayot while the Bavli is based on what happened in Bavel and not
: in Mishnaic EY.

You don't have to convince me -- I wear a snail slime on my tzitzis that
Rashi didn't.

As for the question you raise, we discuss it 2 or 3 times a year. Basic
possibilities that we've found:

1- Many acharonim deal with it casewise, and don't have a kelal.

2- R' Kook, following an idea from the Gra, holds that changes in
   knowledge about the metzi'us can only drive chumeros.

3- More recently we saw R' Chaim Kanievsky write
   (see
<http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teeth-th
an-jews.html>
   for a scan of the Hebrew):
        Question: "I have heard from Rabbi Yitzchak Shinker, zatza"l,
        that one time there was an incident with a fatal illness,
        rachmana litzlan, and a great physician came and said "if he is
        a gentile, he will die, but if he is a Jew, he has hope, for it
        has been shown that this disease by Jews is not necessarily
        fatal." And he explained in this what we say in Tefillah, rofei
        cholei amo yisrael -- that there is a special healing in the
        Jews.
   But the case here is saqanah to the life of a non-Jew, so it might be
   a special case and in general RCK would not ignore new science lequlah.

4- RDLifshitz taught that mamashus depends on direct human sensation,
   not observation via equipment. Generalizing from bugs to beitzei
   kinim. This avoids many of these questions, since the new science
   tends to invoke things that by RDL's rules lack mamashus.

However, WRT how we view the mesorah, it doesn't make the earlier
Torah "wrong". Rather, it is a valid pesaq that happens to apply to a
non-existent case. But if we did find maggots that did abiogenetically
emerged from the meat they are found within, all would agree with the
gemara's pesaq that the kashrus of the maggots are defined by the
kashrus of the meat.

Here I raised the question of the relationship between what a tanna or
amora meant and current pesaq. Or, for that matter, do we need to
distinguish between why the Rambam really differed from the gemara, or
R' Chaim's interpretation of the Rambam in order to pasqen?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:43:51PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Daniel Bukingolts wrote:
:>               why all the seemingly huge miracles to create and keep 
:>its existence? How do you explain 48 war? 67? Do you just write it off 
:>by saying... in the path a person wants to go Hashem guides him? (or 
:>whatever the phrase is...)

: In both cases any other result would have caused a massacre r"l worse
: than Tach Vetat, and a massive chilul Hashem ("lama yomru vagoyim ayeh
: elokeihem").  HKBH had "no choice" keveyachol but to give the Jews a
: victory....

As opposed to what HQBH allowed to happen just 3 years prior to haqamas
hamedinah?

My point isn't to assert one way or the other, just to point out how
these things are simply topics I would want to take a stand about.
We're dealing with HQBH's "Actions". Our ability to answer "why?" is
severely limited.

As for the phrase, it's "bederekh she'adam rotzeh leileikh, sham
molikhin oso".

And to play devil's advocate (almost literally), recall seifer Iyov. The
satan was given a lot of authority to do much to Iyov for the sake of
providing him the challenges his soul needed. The notion that Israel is
maaseh satan can't be *summarily* dismissed.

(Personally, I understand the anti-Zionist position more readily than
I understand Agudah's. Li nir'eh, it's obvious that the Medinah is a
significant event. I can faster understand someone attributing negative
significance than denying it altogether.)

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Did Rav Breuer have any thoughts on how to bring about this change?

I don't recall R' Dovid Lifshitz suggesting anything concrete either.
However, a few years back, I posted the following. See the third
paragraph:

    A few years back, when Yom haAtzma'ut was also celebrated on
    Thursday 3 Iyyar, my father asked me what I thought about not saying
    Tachanun or saying Hallel. The choice of 5 Iyyar as the point at
    which we gained atzma'ut, independence, is itself not perfectly
    compelling. It was not the date we were given independence, or the
    date the war was won, but the date we made a declaration. No overt
    miracles. So even a full Zionist could question changing the liturgy
    for 5 Iyyar. And 3 Iyyar doesn't even have that much!I replied that
    quite the contrary. Why is Yom haAtzma'ut celebrated early this
    year? Because the government has an office of the rabbanut, which
    did not want to establish a commemoration that would lead to Shabbos
    violation. The government doesn't want to take responsibility for
    celebrations on Shabbos, or on Friday that could run into Shabbos
    and violate its laws.

    Is not the existence of a country that adapts its commemorations
    for the sake of the Torah not extactly what we should be celebrating?

    Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke more than one year on the dual meaning of
    "atzma'ut". Yes, we gained our "atzma'ut" our independence, our
    ability to be a fully capable and productive individual nation.
    However, "etzem" not only refers to an individual, it is also a bone
    or core. For observant Jews, Yom haAtzma'ut recalls what can only be
    considered a huge gift from the Creator, but only half of the task
    is done. The Jewish essence, the "etzem" is not yet manifest. We
    must respond to His gift.

    Having a country that works to preserve Shabbos is one thing. Having
    one that doesn't even need to, quite something else.

    PS: In Rav Dovid Lishitz's minyan on a year where Thursday was both
    an early Yom haAtzama'ut and BaHa"B, we said Tachanun, Selichos,
    and afterward Hallel without a berakhah.

As for the position among the "Breuer's" community... What became Ezra
was founded by R' Yitzchak Breuer. (The name is a reference to the
marbitz Torah who resettled EY bederekh hateva.) And when Ezra became
part of the Agudah (in Germany, 1919), the heads were R's Eli and Elie
Munk. After he made Aliyah, R' Breuer was the ideologue behind Poalei
Agudas Yisrael, which inherited Ezra after the split.

RSRH's anti-Zionism didn't stick over the generations.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

RRW: "And a chaveir of mine who learned by the Rov for many years said
"zionism? What Zionism? The Rov never talked about it in shiur!"

FWIW this fellow is a member of Breuer's

As Dr. Lamm noted, after the Rov's p'tira the right will claim him and
so too the left

Now the Zionists claim him and so too the anti-zionists.

Talk about "A Man for all Seasons""

While it's true that the Rav was a very complex person, and while it's also
true that there is a great deal of revisionism going on concerning the
Rav's legacy, it is simply impossible for "anti-Zionists" to claim the Rav
in light of Chamesh Derashot, Kol Dodi Dofek and the Rav's breaking with
his family by leaving Agudah and assuming the honorary presidency of
Mizrachi.  And "he never talked about it in shiur."  So what?; that was
shiur.	He talked about it where appropriate; i.e., in his numerous
lectures for Mizrachi and in KDD.

Even Thomas More had limits.

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100421/ec06454d/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:43:51PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Daniel Bukingolts wrote:
> :>               why all the seemingly huge miracles to create and keep 
> :>its existence? How do you explain 48 war? 67? Do you just write it off 
> :>by saying... in the path a person wants to go Hashem guides him? (or 
> :>whatever the phrase is...)
> 
> : In both cases any other result would have caused a massacre r"l worse
> : than Tach Vetat, and a massive chilul Hashem ("lama yomru vagoyim ayeh
> : elokeihem").  HKBH had "no choice" keveyachol but to give the Jews a
> : victory....
> 
> As opposed to what HQBH allowed to happen just 3 years prior to haqamas
> hamedinah?

All the more reason why He couldn't allow it to happen again.  We can't
explain why He allowed what happened in the first half of the 1940s; but
the fact that He did makes it even more obvious why He prevented it from
happening again in '48.  In general, why Hashem prevented a massacre
doesn't need explaining; it's why He *allowed* one that needs explaining,
and that is so difficult to explain.

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

RSRH comments on Vayikra 19

10 And you shall not pluck the unripe grapes from 
your vineyard, neither shall you gather up the 
fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave 
them for the poor and for the stranger; I, God, am your God.

At harvest time, a person surveys what nature has done for him and
what he is about to take home as the fruit of his labor. At this time he
utters the proud and momentous words: ?My own.? Precisely at this
time, every member of the nation must bear in mind and signify in deed
that anyone who can say ?This is mine? is obligated to care also for others.
His field and his vineyard did not yield their produce for him alone.
In the labor of his hands he is not to work for himself alone
For in the state governed by the Law of God, the care of the
poor and the stranger is not left to feelings of sympathy; it is not dependent
on property owners? fears of the threat posed to them by the
despair of the poor. Rather, it is a right that God has given to the poor
and a duty that He has assigned to property owners. And over all of
them God proclaims: Ani HaShem Elokechem, thereby assuring all of them of His
personal care, encompassing all with equal love and justice, and obligating
all equally to be just and loving toward others. Thus He unites them
all to form a holy community that is sustained by justice and charity.

The foundation for a holy life (Kedoshim Teyu) starts with the fundamental
laws of the family and the individual, namely, with Kibud av v'em
and Shabbos; and this foundation is completed with the fundamental law
of society, namely, the mitzvah of tzedakah ? the right to receive it and
the duty to give it. It is significant that the social foundation is woven
into one group with laws pertaining to the service of God ? laws of
Shlamim and Pigil. For, in Jewish life that is sustained by God, there is no
antithesis of ?religious? and social; they are not even separate, coexisting
parts of one higher whole. Rather, they are interrelated in organic unity
? like root and stock, blossom and fruit. Judaism says: Oheiv es Ha Makom
v'oheiv es Ha Brios (Avos 6:1), for the love of God includes the love of His
creatures. The foundation of the Shlamim-joy of our happiness is also the
foundation of our responsibility for the happiness of others. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100421/4c153ac7/attachment-0001.htm>

The current section of Mes Pei'ah deals with shikhekhah.

Talk about treating devarim shebeleiv as devarim! You might think
shikhekhah boils down to a discussion of what's left behind, and thus
an expression of what's going on in the ba'al mind. Not so.

When one mentally forgot the sheaves in question makes a difference. For
example, Y-mi 6:6, vilna ed 30b-31a, discusses the relative times of when
one forgot an unharvested area and when one forgot sheaves as impacting
whether the unharvested area can "save" the sheaves from being small
and forgettable. (The sugya is complex; look it up.)

Also, it makes a difference whether one was at the field or in the city
when they forgot the sheaves (5:6, 27b), and whether people passed by
and noticed the sheaves.

So, what happened to the kelal?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

> RYL posted an excerpt from Hakhel Email Bulletin which quoted comments
> made by RYBS about saying Hallel on Yom Ha'atzma'ut (he was opposed).
> HEB implied that RYBS's students were required to follow their rebbe. 
> However, the excerpt did not quote what RYBS said at the end of that
> discussion: "Whatever I said, don't consider them as piskei halacha. I
> am not a posek. It is simply sharing my thoughts with you. If you feel
> that I am wrong, I wouldn't feel offended.... But it's not piskei
> halacha, it's not advice, it's not that. It's simply thinking aloud."
> 
> Joseph Kaplan

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:33:42PM -0400, Joseph Kaplan quoted RYBS:
: Whatever I said, don't consider them as piskei halacha. I am not a
: posek. It is simply sharing my thoughts with you. If you feel that I
: am wrong, I wouldn't feel offended.... But it's not piskei halacha,
: it's not advice, it's not that. It's simply thinking aloud.

"I am not a poseiq"? Really? What then was his role in Boston? How did
he give hashgachah?

There is more to this quote than meets the eye.

In any case, it's clear RYBS didn't intend this particular statement
about Hallel on YhA to be pesaq.

Perhaps because he knew that Briskers are pickier about change than most
rabbanim? I dunno, just guessing because it reminds me of RMF's initial
refusal to rule on the Flatbush eruv. R' Dovid Cohen says he warned the
sho'el that the answer would be based on his minority position WRT 60
ribo. However, RDC felt that once pushed to answer, RMF's kavod requires
being bound by that answer. (This is RDC circa late '70s.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

Yesterday I sent out an article about the illegal dumping of Sheimos 
in Lakewood, NJ. (See 
http://www.app.com/article/201004121815/OPINION01/4120322)  I wrote, 
"Is this not a huge Chillul HaShem?"

Someone responded saying that just because someone does something 
that is illegal, does not make it a Chillul Hashem. This has raised 
the issue in my mind about what constitutes Chillul HaShem.

 From Rav Shimon Schwab's article Chillul Hashem at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chillul_hashem_r_schwab.pdf 
there is no question in my mind that if a Jew does certain things 
that are illegal, and it becomes public knowledge, then this is 
considered Chillul Hashem. Furthermore, RSRH writes in his commentary 
on Vayikra 19

12 And you shall not swear falsely by My Name, for you would profane 
the Name of your God; I am God.

Scripture says to Israel as it dwells among
the nations: v'chilalta es sham Elokecha. You are God's messenger among the
peoples, and God's Name is associated with you. As His people, you
are obligated to be a model for the nations and present before them a
society that is based on justice, truth, and faithfulness. If you stain
yourself with practices that are related to theft and falsehood, then you
desecrate God's Name which is associated with you; you undermine the
recognition of God, which you should herald and nurture through deeds.

But how far does this go? If a someone whom others recognize as an 
observant Jew by his or her dress jaywalks, is this Chillul 
Hashem?  What if he or she is seen in public looking unkempt and 
dirty? What if he or she double parks or is rude? And on and on.

What indeed constitutes Chillul Hashem? Given that Rav Schwab wrote

"Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of
the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator
happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a
so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not
only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but
strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the non-observer
and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of
religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is
responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity,
heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should
not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation
we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul
Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot
fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)."

it seems to me that it is very important to know what the parameters 
of Chillul Hashem are.  Can anyone supply them?


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100422/d12e579d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:46:14PM -0400, Yitzchok Levine quoted RSRH's
Chumash (Vayiqra 19:2):
: The mitzvah of Kedoshim Teyu is a command to strive for the highest
: degree of human moral perfection (cf. Commentary, Bereshis 2:3); and
: rightfully it should be addressed expressly to each individual...
: Kedusha ? to be ready and willing to perform all that is good; a person
: cannot attain this virtue unless his whole being is so steeped in morality
: that the opposite of the good, viz., the inclination to evil, no longer
: has a place within his being....
: ? Kedoshim Teyu means Perushim Teyu? underscores this negative
: aspect of Kedusha. It also points out the way that leads to Kedusha...

However, the preposition used WRT qedushah is "le-". "Me-" is used with
taharah. (Tum'ah can be "me-" or "be-" -- a person can be tamei from
something, or even ch"v internalize the tum'ah.)

So the way I analyzed things, I concluded that both taharah and qedushah
are subtypes of havdalah. Taharah is havdalah from something negative;
RSRH says it's the illusion that we're merely physical beings who can not
rebell against our physical natures. Qedushah, I saw also as a separation
(perushim tihyu) but the focus is not what one is set away from, but
what one is separated for (le-) and commited to. (And that definition
works for "harei at mequdeshes li..." as well as even the pagan temple
prostitute, the qedeishah.)


RSShkop defines qedushah as commitment to Hashem's goal. And what is
that goal? Since it is impossible He needed to get anything out of
creation, clearly creation must be for our sake. Qedushah is therefore
the total commitment to a life of doing things for others.

Here's my translation of the relevent part of his haqdamah:
    In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem's mitzvah
    "Be holy, [for I am Holy]." The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24)
    says about this verse: "Can it [truly] be 'Like Me?' This is why
    it continues, 'for I am Holy' to teach that My Sanctity is above
    yours." And about the foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity
    the Toras Kohanim has "'be holy' -- be separate". Nachmanides,
    in his commentary on the Torah, explains at length this notion of
    separation as it is stated in this mitzvah, that it is separation
    from excessive comfort and pleasure -- even if they are actions that
    are not prohibited to us. In one illustrative statement, he writes
    that it is possible for a person to be disgusting with [what would
    otherwise be] the permission of the Torah, see his holy words there.

    According to this, it would seem the Midrash is incomprehensible.
    What relevance does the concept of separation have to being similar
    to the Holy? The verse tells us with regard to this that His Will
    is not like this. As it says, "Can it [truly] be 'Like Me?' This
    is why it continues, 'For I am holy' to teach that My sanctity is
    above Yours." This explanation is incumbent upon us to understand;
    in truth there is some similarity in the holiness He expects of us
    to His [Sanctity], except that His Holiness is more general and
    inclusive. If we say that the essential idea of the holiness He
    demands of us (in this mitzvah of "be holy") is distance from the
    permissible, this kind of holiness has nothing to do with Him.

    And so, it appears to my limited thought that this mitzvah includes
    the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our lives. All
    of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing
    good for the community. We should not use any act, movement, or
    get benefit or enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of
    helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart
    for an honorable purpose -- which is that a person straightens his
    path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the
    community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health of
    his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy,
    for through this he can also do good for the masses. Through the
    good he does for himself he can do good for the many who rely on
    him. But if he derives benefit from some kind of permissible thing
    that isn't needed for the health of his body and soul, that benefit
    is in opposition to holiness. For in this he is benefiting himself
    (for that moment as it seems to him), but no one else.

    In this way, the concept of separation is an aspect of the underlying
    basis of the mitzvah of holiness, which is recognizable in practice
    in the ways a person acts. But with insight and the calling of
    spirituality this mitzvah broadens to include everything a person
    causes or does even between him and the Omnipresent. In relation to
    this, this holiness is comparable to the Holiness of the Creator
    in whatever little similarity. Just as the Act of the Holy One in
    all of creation, and in each and every moment that He continues to
    cause the universe to exist, all His actions are sanctified to the
    good of others, so too it is His Will that our actions be constantly
    sanctified to the good of the community, and not personal benefit.


    HOWEVER, what of a person who decides to submerge his nature,
    to reach a high level so that he has no thought or inclination in
    his soul for his own good, only a desire for the good of others? In
    this way he would have his desire reach the sanctity of the Creator,
    as His Desire in all of the creation and management of the world
    is only for the good of the created, and not for Himself at all. At
    first glance one might say that if a person reached this level, he
    would reach the epitome of being whole. But this is why our Sages
    of blessed memory teach us in this Midrash that it is not so....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:19:20AM -0400, Yitzchok Levine quoted RSRH,
Vayiqra 19:3:
: The essence of Yirah is obedience: subordinating one?s will to the
: will of the one to whom Yirah is directed.

Again, I have a hard time agreeing. (And have the chutzpah to say so,
because I am saying I agree with others.)

See R' Avram Elya Kaplan's "Be'iqvos haYir'ah"
<http://www.aishdas.org/raek/yirah.pdf>. From RYGB's loose translation
of some excerpts at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/raek.htm>:
    ...But one who has not traversed the actual pathway of illumination
    [that of the prophets and the sages],he who stands opposite the
    rays of light, at some distance, possesses little understanding of
    this term [yir'ah]. It would be better had he never known this term,
    and was now learning it for the first time. But this is his problem:
    He knows it, but does not know it properly. He possesses a dangerous
    translation of the entire concept, and cannot avoid its negative
    ramifications. For example, when we mention yir'ah to this person he
    can only translate it thus: Bent head, wrinkled brow, glazed eyes,
    hunched back, trembling left hand, right hand clapping al cheit,
    knocking thighs, failing knees, stumbling heels. And he does not know
    that this translation is heretical for the one who knows what yir'ah
    is and what it means, the source from which it flows, and from whence
    it comes... There are times that demand tears and eulogies... It
    is necessary then to stoop like rushes and take up sackcloth and
    ashes. Times come upon the world when our sins require these. Such,
    however, is not Yir'as Hashem, not it and not even part of it. It
    is not yir'ah's essence, but only preparation for it...

    Yir'ah is not anguish, not pain, not bitter anxiety. To what may
    yir'ah be likened? To the tremor of fear which a father feels when
    his beloved young son rides his shoulders as he dances with him and
    rejoices before him, taking care that he not fall off. Here there is
    joy that is incomparable, pleasure that is incomparable. And the fear
    tied up with them is pleasant too. It does not impede the freedom of
    dance... It passes through them like a spinal column that straightens
    and strengthens. And it envelops them like a modest frame that lends
    grace and pleasantness... It is clear to the father that his son is
    riding securely upon him and will not fall back, for he constantly
    remembers him, not for a moment does he forget him. His son's every
    movement, even the smallest, he feels, and he ensures that his son
    will not sway from his place, nor incline sideways - his heart is,
    therefore, sure, and he dances and rejoices. If a person is sure
    that the "bundle" of his life's meaning is safely held high by the
    shoulders of his awareness, he knows that this bundle will not fall
    backwards, he will not forget it for a moment, he will remember it
    constantly, with yir'ah he will safe keep it. If every moment he
    checks it - then his heart is confident, and he dances and rejoices...

    When the Torah was given to Israel solemnity and joy came down bundled
    together. They are fused together and cannot be separated. That is the
    secret of "gil be're'ada" (joy in trembling) mentioned in Tehillim.
    Dance and judgment, song and law became partners with each other...
    Indeed, this is the balance... A rod30 of noble yir'ah passes
    through the rings of joy... [It is] the inner rod embedded deep in
    an individual's soul that connects end to end, it links complete
    joy in this world (eating, drinking and gift giving) to that which
    is beyond this world (remembering the [inevitable] day of death31)
    to graft one upon the other so to produce eternal fruit.

    A Swedish wise man, when once discussing sanctity, said: "The
    sanctity of an individual proves that he who possesses it has a
    direct relationship with the strongest source of existence." In my
    opinion, in the conception of Judaism this is a definition of yir'ah
    (but sanctity - kedusha - is loftier still, we have a different idea
    of it, but this is not the place to define it). What is yir'ah? It is
    the broad jump over the vast gap between myself and my Creator... It
    is a mitzvah to separate - to separate from smallness! Fly over
    barriers! And from there quest Him, for there you will find Him...

    Indeed, this is the direct relationship. Indeed, this is the true
    vision that we call yir'ah...

RAEK notes the words we say in "Vayosha H', leading to Az Yashir. What's
the progression?
    Vayar Yisrael - vision, which causes
    Vayir'u ha'am - yir'ah, which then inspires
    Az yashir Mosheh...

Yir'ah is the overlapping emotion between awe and fear. It's knowledge
that you're dealing with something significant. Yir'ah is the additional
factor in your own child's wedding -- the uncertainty about the future
and the amount your life is changing personally -- that makes that event
a more joyous occasion for you than your friend's child.

(A sign of my age: My mashal was about a child's wedding; speaking of
one's own wedding didn't come to mind as readily.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IC1swo
gp6gc/S84c5TsT1yI/AAAAAAAAE3c/gKMGZkJPvxU/s1600/5+%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8.
JPG 
at one point , the hanhagot were different, the perception was different , even future anakei olam were different.....
--------------------------------------
?
It?doesn't say whether?Rav Shach?actaully said Hallel along with the Tzibur. It only says he would not walk out unless they said it with a Bracha.
?
Intersting and quite a different repsonse than what the CI was reputed to
do. It is said about him that he said tachaunun once at a Bris that took
place on YhA so taht people wouldn't think he skipped because of the
holiday.
?
HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100422/9b56cf74/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:24:39AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Intersting and quite a different repsonse than what the CI was reputed
: to do. It is said about him that he said tachaunun once at a Bris that
: took place on YhA so taht people wouldn't think he skipped because of
: the holiday.

Sounds like the Gra sitting in the Sukkah in the rain on Shemini Atzeres
for a parallel reason.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 106
***************************************

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..."