Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 87

Fri, 06 Jul 2012

• 1. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (hankman)
• 5. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Daas Books)
• 7. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (hankman)
• 8. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (hankman)
• 14. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Gidon Rothstein)

What I tell my son is that there are minimum standards that everyone 
must strive to perform, but beyond that one has quite a bit of 
flexibility about how much of an oveid hashem one desires to be, and how 
one immementizes that desire.

David Riceman

_______________________________________________
Do you mention that one should also take into account the needs of the
tzibbur( e.g. X finds fulfillment in learning all day by himself but would
be a very effective teacher)
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 Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 09:45:03AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RAF:
>> Well, by definition, someone who disobays intentionally is also not  
>> accepting the regularting authority.

> He could be losing milhemmes hayetzer while accepting the authority.

"Mumar" lehach'is vs. "mumar" letei'avon?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 6/07/2012 5:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> In some wars. Shemuel I 19:8, "vayeitzei David bayilachem baPelishtim",
> predate his appointment. II 8:1, "vayakh David es Pelishtim". v. 2
> "Vayach es Moav". Etc.. for a number of battles through that pereq.

> "Lo sivneh bayis liShmi, ki damim Rabim shafakhta artzah lefanai"
> -Divrei haYamim I 22:8.

> He went to enough wars to be disqualified from bulding bayis rishon.

1. Maybe he wasn't a talmid chacham then

2. There was a long period when he had no choice but to fight.  Nobody
says a talmid chochom *may* not fight, that he's some sort of sacred
person who must not lift up a weapon, like priests in some religions.
When Asa conscripted talmidei chachamim they fought, but he was punished
for it.


> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 07:30:21AM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
>:>  the Shofetim

>: Who, by and large, were not the greatest Talmidei Chachamim of their times.

> Yiftach bedoro keShmuel bedoro.

How is that relevant?  As the shofet he must be obeyed; how does that
make him a talmid chacham who is exempt from fighting?  On the contrary,
the only reason he was accepted as the shofet was as the price of his
agreeing to fight; if he were then to turn around and say "since I'm
the shofet I must be a talmid chacham so I won't fight" they'd have
made him "ois shoifet" on the spot!

Reminds me of the story I read on Areivim, about the Polish Jew in a
German shul who wore his talles over his head.  The gabbai said to him,
"Reb Yid, I see by the talles over your head that you're a talmid chochom,
so how is it that you don't know that bai unz an am ho'oretz doesn't wear
a talles over his head?"

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

I will try one more rephrase of my previous posts. The central theme (RMB
will probably still not like this as an answer to his question), and I
think equivalent to ?rotzon H?,? and of ?tikun olom,? is to do that which
will be a kidush H? and be megadel shem shomayim bo?olom. Every mitzva or
positive deed you do is to lesser or greater degree a kidush H? (and to
avoid the opposite). I think these ideas are essentially one and the same
viewed from different perspectives. I would have great difficulty to
attempt to differentiate between them, if in fact the overlap is not
complete.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster


---------------------------------------------------------------
CM wrote:
It just occurs to me to add to what I posted previously and reproduced
below that if the central theme is do Tikun Olom so hatava from HKB'H
can flow to you, the central theme of tikun olam is to emulate HKB'H
(ma hu rachum af ata rachum etc). The tikun olam is not just a means to
"earn" ones keep, but it is also the mechanism that enables the hatava to
flow. The emulation creates a sheychus and allows the relationship to H'
(the flow of hatava) to exist, the greater the emulation (the more G-D
like), the greater the relationship, the greater the hatava.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
--------------------------------------------------


I think that what I expressed comes very close to shivisi H' lenegdi
tamid.

I guess for for another try I will go back to basic notions from the
sefer Derech H'

So, the purpose of the bria is so HKB'H can be maitiv lezuloso. This
is structured so that we can "earn" our hatava by tikun olam (not sure
who originated this phrase) and of ourselves. The details of the tikun
("earning" our keep) are those laid out in the many details of the
commands of the Torah.

From my point of view, this last paragraph just fleshed out (slightly)
what the rotzon of HKB'H was in my first response. Of course this has
more layers than an onion if you wish to flesh it out even more.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120706/4a7e8247/attachment-0001.htm>

Responding to few things at once:
Again, a Talmid Chacham is not immune to being robbed. He is viewed as
having an armed guard with him to prevent it. That's it. They aren't
obligated to pay for guards. But if it is available and granted to them by
law, why not?

As RZS said, Talmidei Chachamim are allowed to volunteer. See the RYM
Tickuczinky piece I've linked to a few times. It isn't even relevant
whether David Hamelech was a TC. The question is drafting them, which Asa
was punished for.

>> Because the quote is about the halachic authority of "hashofeit asher
bayamim haheim." See RH 25a-b. Yiftach is being described as his
generation's greatest TC, or at least greatest poseiq (and thus some
sort of TC). <<

No, he isn't. He was very far from it. Along with Gideon and Shimshon, he
is described as a Kal Olam who was appointed as a Parnas on the Tzibbur.
The Derashah of V'el Hashofet is not going on Yiftach Bedoro. Please see
the Gemara there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120706/194a8623/attachment-0001.htm>

> I have long felt exactly that way, and I've often quoted Devarim 10:12-13 in
> support of it:
> 
> "Now, Israel, what does Hashem ask of you? Only that you respect Hashem your
> G-d, go in His ways, love Him, and serve Hashem your G-d with all your heart
> and all your soul, keeping Hashem's mitzvos and laws, which I command you
> today, for your own good."

So the goal is ?your own good? - what is that good?

The ultimate teleological purpose of Judaism appears to me (echoing Micha)
to achieve deveikus b?Hashem

(But a maklokus Rishonim how to achieve this.)

See Devarim 4:4, 10:20, 11:22, 13:5, 30:20

(This may be the same as shleimus - See also Rav Hirsch, Horeb.)

- Alexander Seinfeld
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120706/d9775201/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB quoted:

"Rabbi Chizqiyah beshem Rav: Asid
adam litein din vecheshbon al kol shera'as einav velo akhal"? (Closing
of Y-mi Qiddushin.)

R?nTK quoted:

Ta'amu ure'u ki tov Hashem


CM speculates:
The Y-mi doesn?t give a mekor for this memra. I speculate that perhaps it
is the pasuk in Tehilim that R?nTK quoted. This is in the sense that the
pasuk tells us that we should (are required to) taste of the world so that
we should recognize the goodness (read hatava) of HKB?H (and come to bless
H? for it). (This would be better if the pasuk was reversed ? re?u
veta?amu. This also conflates two different meaning of this shoresh ? 1) to
see (or to come across in our context) 2) to comprehend).

In looking around I found a Meshech Chachma that relates this memra of the
Y-mi to the pasuk in Bereishis ?mikol eitz hagan ochol tocheil.? See MH on
Br. 2:16. (not as merely permission to choose among all the fruits of the
Gan but in the sense of an imperative to in fact be toeim from all the
fruit of the Gan).

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120706/3eacde43/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 06:15:04PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: As RZS said, Talmidei Chachamim are allowed to volunteer. See the RYM
: Tickuczinky piece I've linked to a few times. It isn't even relevant
: whether David Hamelech was a TC. The question is drafting them, which Asa
: was punished for.

Asa didn't draft them for national defense, he had them gathering the
stones off Ramah and building with them. Melakhim I 15:23, and the
gemara's calling them an angary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angary>.
(Thanks to RZS for identifying the term for me.)

It certainly wasn't for a milkhemes mitzvah, since R' Yehudah holds
Asa accountable for drafting grooms and brides, which the Rambam says
is approriate for a milkhemes mitzvah.

:> Because the quote is about the halachic authority of "hashofeit asher
:> bayamim haheim." See RH 25a-b. Yiftach is being described as his
:> generation's greatest TC, or at least greatest poseiq (and thus some
:> sort of TC).

: No, he isn't. He was very far from it. Along with Gideon and Shimshon, he
: is described as a Kal Olam who was appointed as a Parnas on the Tzibbur....

In a relative sense. Thus the contrast to Shemuel. But the context is
that "lo sasur" applies to Yiftach. The sugya begins (25a) with the
anonymity of the 70 zeqeinim of the first DB haGadol. As Rashi writes:
"Selo yomar adam -- al BD shebeyamav..." In the gemara itself, that
"parnas" is described with "uvasa el hakohanim, haleviim, ve'el hashofeit
ash yiyhey bayamim haheim. This is halachic authority, not political.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 6/07/2012 11:15 AM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> No, he isn't. He was very far from it. Along with Gideon and Shimshon,
> he is described as a Kal Olam who was appointed as a Parnas on the Tzibbur.
> The Derashah of V'el Hashofet is not going on Yiftach Bedoro. Please see
> the Gemara there.

True, the gemara doesn't directly relate them, but wasn't Yiftach
the Shofeit for six years?  And doesn't that mean, by definition,
that he was the "shofet asher yihyeh bayamim hahem", with the power
of "lo tasur"?  Isn't the point there that you have to obey his BD's
psak, even though he was an am ha'aretz?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 6/07/2012 12:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 06:15:04PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> : As RZS said, Talmidei Chachamim are allowed to volunteer. See the RYM
> : Tickuczinky piece I've linked to a few times. It isn't even relevant
> : whether David Hamelech was a TC. The question is drafting them, which Asa
> : was punished for.
>
> Asa didn't draft them for national defense, he had them gathering the
> stones off Ramah and building with them. Melakhim I 15:23, and the
> gemara's calling them an angary<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angary>.
> (Thanks to RZS for identifying the term for me.)

This *was* a national defense project.  Ramah was an enemy fortress
besieging Yerushalayim; Asa conscripted the entire nation to demolish it.


> It certainly wasn't for a milkhemes mitzvah, since R' Yehudah holds
> Asa accountable for drafting grooms and brides

He does nothing of the sort.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 12:08:53PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> It certainly wasn't for a milkhemes mitzvah, since R' Yehudah holds
>> Asa accountable for drafting grooms and brides

> He does nothing of the sort.

I'll simply quote the gemara in question, Sotah 10a. Until my words above,
we were discussing Rava's take on Asa:
    Darash Rava:
        Mipenei mah ne'enash Asa?
        Mipenei she'asa angaria betalmdei chakhamim.
        Shene'emar (Melakhim I 15:22):
            "VehaMelekh Asa hishmia es kol Yehudah
            ein naqi"

Anagry is a reclemation project, claiming the enemy's property to reuse
for the war. And as Rashi definea "angaria" -- "avodas hamelekh." They
weren't fighting.

Now in what may still be Rava (as RZS assumes) or may be the gemara's next
thought (which you shouldn't presume because of my lack of indentation):

    Mai "ein naqi"?
    Amar R' Yehudah amar Rav:
        afilu chasan meichedro
        vekalah meichupasah.

R' Yehudah amar Rav doesn't mention TC in particular
and therefore I would not assume is being quoted by Rava as proof.
But he does mention chasan and kalah, who the Rambam says /should
be drafted for a milkhemes mitzvah.

Rava has him giving TC heavy labor while the army is off to war.

R' Yehudah assumes this work isn't a draft for a milkhemes mitzvah,
and therefore Asa overreached.

Even if we combine the two, we aren't talking about the draft.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

[RCM speculates:]
> R'nTK quoted:
>> Ta'amu ure'u ki tov Hashem

> The Y-mi doesn't give a mekor for this memra. I speculate that perhaps
> it is the pasuk in Tehilim that R'nTK quoted. This is in the sense
> that the pasuk tells us that we should (are required to) taste of the
> world so that we should recognize the goodness (read hatava) of HKB'H
> (and come to bless H' for it). (This would be better if the pasuk was
> reversed -- re'u veta' amu. This also conflates two different meaning
> of this shoresh -- 1) to see (or to come across in our context) 2)
> to comprehend).

Amazing how two people can look at the same thing and see it two
completely different ways!

"Ta'amu ure'u" doesn't mean "enjoy the pleasures of this world"! (Not that
Hashem doesn't want us to enjoy the delicious and beautiful things He gave
 us in His world -- of course He does!)

It means: Learn Torah, taste how sweet the Torah is, taste Shabbos,
taste Yom Tov, EXPERIENCE Torah life ("ta'amu") and make an effort to
UNDERSTAND IT INTELLECTUALLY ("ure'u") and you will then know in your
bones as well as in your heart and in your mind, that Hashem is good! And
even when things
 don't go so well and people suffer hardships, pain and tragedies, they
will still know in their bones that Hashem is good and that ultimately
He runs the world and that everything -- the honey and the sting, the
obviously good, sweet and delicious as well as the apparently bitter
and painful -- is all for our good and all done by Hashem for our benefit.

We daven every morning, "Veha'arev na Hashem es divrei Sorascha befinu
u'vefi amcha bais Yisrael" -- please make the Torah sweet in our mouths,
that we will be able to TASTE how sweet it is!

Ta'amu ure'u ki tov Hashem. Of course there are sub-categories (all
implicit in the pasuk): That He exists. That He created us -- and the
world. That He wants us to do certain things -- that He created us with
obligations and responsibilities. That everything He did and does is for
the good. Even that He wants us to emulate Him, and be good like Him
(mah Hu rachum af atah rachum....).

Ta'amu -- "Tavlin yesh ushemo Shabbos" -- there is no substitute for
EXPERIENCING and LIVING Torah -- but the main idea of Judaism is that
G-D IS GOOD.

--Toby Katz

--
Romney -- good values, good family, good hair

R'nTK wrote:
> Amazing how two people can look at the same thing and see it two
> completely different ways!

> "Ta'amu ure'u" doesn't mean "enjoy the pleasures of this world"! (Not
> that Hashem doesn't want us to enjoy the delicious and beautiful things
> He gave us in His world -- of course He does!)

> It means: Learn Torah, taste how sweet the Torah is, taste Shabbos,
> taste Yom Tov, EXPERIENCE Torah life ("ta'amu") and make an effort to
> UNDERSTAND IT INTELLECTUALLY ("ure'u") and you will then know in your
> bones as well as in your heart and in your mind, that Hashem is good!

What you see in this pasuk probably is a correct interpretation, but that
does not necessarily mean that what I saw in the pasuk is wrong. Shivim
panim laTorah.

You wrote: Ta'amu, means Torah, rather than "enjoy the pleasures of this
world." But with the correct kavanah "enjoy the pleasures of this world"
could be the literal intent of the pasuk too, such that it could be the
mekor for the Y-mi quoted by RMB.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

In a message dated 7/6/2012 12:02:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
hank...@bell.net writes:
> What you see in this pasuk probably is a correct interpretation,
> but that does not necessarily mean that what I saw in the pasuk is
> wrong. Shivim panim laTorah.

You are correct, one correct interpretation doesn't mean another
interpretation is wrong. I shouldn't have said so dogmatically, "A
doesn't mean X, it means Y." I should have said, "It never occurred
to me that A could be understood to mean X, I always understood it to
mean Y."

R' Micha recently asked why people join Areivim -- I don't remember if
he asked about Avodah also -- what do people get out of it?

For me, what I get out of it is, "Ta'amu ure'u -- ki shivim panim
laTorah!"

--Toby Katz

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:40:24AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: "Ta'amu ure'u"... means: Learn Torah, taste how sweet the Torah is, taste
: Shabbos, taste Yom Tov, EXPERIENCE Torah life ("ta'amu") and make an
: effort to UNDERSTAND IT INTELLECTUALLY ("ure'u") and you will then
: know in your bones as well as in your heart and in your mind, that
: Hashem is good!

That's my kavanah when I have kavanah during LeDavid on Shabbos or
YT morning.

I also think that's the essence of how to have emunah. As per my truism,
"The mind is a wonderful organ for justifying conclusions the heart
already reached". What really convinces people, makes them ready to
"see" the proof is the taste left by Torah umitzvos. (I'm agree with
the Kuzari's disdane for proofs, but providing a different alternative.)

I think it's also a lesson one can take from sweet charoses. (Which
is post-chazal, but universal minhag today AFAIK, across all qehillos'
many recipes.) Unlike the mortar we made for Pitom veRaamseis, avodas
Hashem only looks like slave labor from the outside. ("Mah ha'avodah
hazos lakhem?") Once you taste the "mortar" you realize its sweetness.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/04/sweet-charoses.shtml>

As for the original Y-mi, I thought Rav's "a person is destined to give
an accounting on everything he saw but did not eat" was like the notion
that among the first questions beis din shel maalah asks a meis is "Did
you enjoy my world?" But I couldn't find that quote. The other questions
usually cited are on Shabbos 31a, not far below Hillel's "de'alakh sani".
That non-existent proximity (that I hadn't yet checked) is why I started
playing with it as an (absurd) candidate for a Mission Statement.

If it wasn't for RSRH's wanting to be able to answer "Did you enjoy
My Alps?" I would have thought I identified a phantom maamar.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

Dear All,

I'm not sure R. Berger wanted a response from me when he CC'd me on this
email (although I thank him for including me), and I'm obviously coming
into the middle of a discussion, but let me point out that the first half
of my book deals with two questions related to the discussion in R.
Berger's email:

1) What is the indispensable core of Judaism (Yiddishkeit)? and
2) How can we identify that core in ways that anyone committed to Orthodoxy
would have to agree must be part of the center? That second discussion
shows why I would be leery of using any one statement in the Gemara (or any
one central idea, such as *hatavah*) as the essence of the religion.  I try
to show there that if we approach the question with a multitude of
strategies, they all come to a fairly central core set of ideas, which I
could only summarize briefly by doing an injustice to those ideas. One
place to look, though, might be Makkot 24a, where the Gemara sees Habakuk
as having summarized all of Judaism by saying *tsaddik be-emunato yihyeh*.
For more, feel free to buy my book (from me or online!) Thanks again for
including me, Rabbi Berger! Gidon Rothstein

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:37:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> >> For example, why mashiach more than "Rabbi Chizqiyah beshem Rav: Asid
> >> adam litein din vecheshbon al kol shera'as einav velo akhal"? (Closing
> >> of Y-mi Qiddushin.)
>
> > I don't understand the question.  How does the fact that a person will
> > have to account for something turn it into a goal, let alone a "main
> > idea of Judaism"?
>
> You're repeating my question: I asked the chevrah how they decide what's
> a main goal, and what isn't.
>
> If R/D Gidon Rothstein (CC-ed) is correct in the need for a sefer titled
> "We're Missing the Point: What's Wrong with the Orthodox Jewish Community
> and How to Fix It" <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1602802025/aishdas>,
> how would you find "the point"?
>
> To be more loyal to my earlier phrasings.... I am assuming that deep down,
> all authentic descriptions of the main idea of Judaism are describing
> the same thing, but focusing on different aspects. That perforce, any
> Divine Idea will be only represented as simplified models, "2D shadows"
> of something too complex for human intellect. And therefore different
> people, given their neti'os, will find different aspects. Two people
> standing at the foot of a mountain but at different sides will end up
> heading in different directions to reach the same peak. But they are
> all answering "mi yaaleh beHar H'?"
>
> > "Lehavi liymos hamashiach" is in a sense the ultimate goal of everything
> > we do, because that is what the world was created for....
>
> Unless the world were created for something enabled or made much easier by
> the mashiach's arrival.
>
> Classically, chassidus defined the main idea of Judaism in terms of
> deveiqus. Perhaps RCM's answer of "shevisi H' lenegdi tamid" is meant
> in this sense. RBW cited ("(?)" noted) the Sefar Emes that the main
> idea is "to batel himself to Hashem or to the Am or to the Torah." But
> I have always thought of that in terms of Anokhius getting in the way
> of deveiqus. A derived value, even if it's the hard part of the job.
>
> Litvaks and Yekkes talk in terms of sheleimus. Sheleimus only half
> answers the question. The point is to refine one's tzelem E-lokim,
> to ever reach for the ideal. So then, what's the ideal? What does
> a shaleim, a tamim, look like?
>
> RSRH's "sheleimus" is ennoblement, in term of human creativity and
> mastery of his world -- Yefetic high culture fused with Semitic calling.
>
> Novhardok, which taught bitachon and dependency did so through the route
> of becoming a nidvaq -- a definition of sheleimus. Which is why N fit
> within the Mussar Movement.
>
> Many suggested the "main idea" is to be meitiv others. RCM writes:
> > I guess for for another try I will go back to basic notions from the
> > sefer Derech H' So, the purpose of the bria is so HKB'H can be maitiv
> > lezuloso....
>
> And:
> > It just occurs to me to add...
> > that if the central theme is do Tikun Olom so hatava from HKB'H
> > can flow to you, the central theme of tikun olam is to emulate HKB'H
> > (ma hu rachum af ata rachum etc).
>
> Which turns hatavah into sheleimus terms, in the sense of "af ata". IOW,
> the work isn't only DOING good but BECOMING a meitiv.
>
> >                                  The tikun olam is not just a means to
> > "earn" ones keep, but it is also the mechanism that enables the hatava to
> > flow. The emulation creates a sheychus and allows the relationship to H'
> > (the flow of hatava) to exist, the greater the emulation (the more G-D
> > like), the greater the relationship, the greater the hatava.
>
> And this aspect is in deveiqus terms.
>
> Which may just mean the classic East European fork in the hashkafic road
> shouldn't be overemphasized.
>
> My own derekh, at least the past several years, has also been
> hatavah-based. Repeatedly presenting RSSkop's haqdamah, and repeating
> looking for new ways to approach it, has convinced me of the centrality
> of this idea. In this perspective, the main thrust of MBALM is to make
> sure one is providing hatavah as the Manufacturer defines it, and that
> one maximizes the ability to do so. As per a snippet by R Dr Nathan
> Birnbaum that I'm working on translating, in which Daas, Rachamim,
> Tif'eres becomes: Knowledge of G-d, being the stream of ahavah from the
> Creator to Whom you're connected to others, and refining one's entirety
> of being into a harmonious conduit of that good.
>
> I enjoyed RDB's non-answer:
> > I'm still not 100% sure I understand what you are getting at, since what
> > Hashem wants from people, broadly, is to transform their will to His
> Will.
> > He has many things He wants us to accomplish, and the goal is for us to
> > want to accomplish them all.
>
> > If you want something more specific, I would go with Rav Wolbe's concept
> of
> > Sulamos - ladders of growth, and whatever stands at the pinnacle of the
> > ladder constitutes what Hashem wants of you.
>
> It is presumptuous to think there is a main theme to begin with --
> at least not something someone can some up. RAM voices a similar
> objection. Doesn't dissuade me, but I appreciated the invite to rethink
> my assumptions.
>
> I think the gemara that introduces the whole notion of 613 mitzvos does
> just that -- tries to then sum them up with a Mission Statement for Life.
> People find Mission Statements useful, and I think one's avodas H'
> suffers if they can't contemplate a mental image of the forest rather
> than focusing
>
> RDB, continued:
> > The thing is, though, that as you say, there are many valid answers to
> > that question. Many different sources have different ladders...
>
> Does each person have many ladders, or each approach given a few
> fundamental ladders for different kinds of people? Or both? I
> would agree with the ladder.
>
> > And, thus, the GRA there circles back to this: "Nowadays we should not go
> > with grand and phenomenal ideas (Gedolos Veniflaos). We must only
> > ascertain  that our actions should be unto Hashem, meaning, in accordance
> > with His Will... and via fulfillment of those actions themselves, i.e.
> > fulfilling Mitzvos Asei and avoiding Lo Saaseis, *they* will make your
> > thoughts in consonance (with the truth), for  "Kol Po'al Hashem
> > Lema'anehu," meaning, the primary Will of Hashem is the Torah and the
> > Mitzvos."
>
> I am not sure he is against Mission Statements, such as the central
> themes of his talmid's Nefesh haChaim. He could be arguing that halakhah
> comes first, and one's definition of "the forest" must fit that data,
> rather than the other way around.
>
> > In other words, in theory, the place to look for the answer to that
> > question is *within oneself.* [Which, by the way, is where one needs to
> > look to properly understand Aggadeta.]
>
> Well, other than the text you're trying to understand. Aggadita comes
> from man's *encounter* with the Torah. Which is the idea I tried to
> capture above with the metaphor of different people standing on
> different sides -- but of the same mountain.
>
> RMYG:
> > I like the Ramchal's formulation (in Mesillas Yesharim 1): "l'kayem
> > mitzvos, v'laavod, v'laamod b'nisayon."
>
> I was more enchanted with his exposition in the haqdamah on the
> pasuq RAM cited, "ki im
>         - leyir'ah es H' E-lokekha
>         - lalekhes bekhol derakhah
>         - ule'avah Oso
>         - velaavod es H"E bekhol levovkha uvkhol nafshekha
>         - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chukosav..."
>
> Al ta'am vareiach...
>
> RnTK:
> > Ta'amu ure'u ki tov Hashem
>
> To tease out more detail... How does that get reflected in a Mission
> Statement, as a vision of the forest comprised of halachic "trees"?
>
>
>
>
> The following is slightly off topic, but I emailed it to someone recently,
> wanted to share it, and it relates to what I said earlier about Mussar's
> explicit pursuit sheleimus and its similarity (in some forms of Mussar)
> to TiDE's puruit of ennoblement.
>
> In the 1990s (including the period in which AishDas was founded),
> I identified more with RSRH's derekh. It is quite likely that if Dr
> Alan Morinis didn't have me repeatedly preparing Mussar material, I
> would have ended up back there. Instead, I ended up studying R' Shimon
> Shkop's and R' Dovid Lifshitz's (links no.s 127 and 128 in the chain from
> rebbe to talmid from MRAH to myself) perspectives, Mussar in general,
> and convinced myself -- not just his talmidim. The level of success
> AishDas has had with ve'adim shouldn't be underplayed as a factor
> either. (My point being to emphasize the non-ideological issues that
> end up shaping such fundamental decisions.)
>
> My problem with RSRH's derekh which is what I was following before Mussar
> is explified by his dependence on symbology. I can't believe the essential
> point of a mitzvah is something you need to be in on the secrets to get
> value from. If basar bechalav (eg) is a symbol to teach about separating
> animal productivity from human creativity, then how did the vast majority
> of Jews gain by avoiding it?
>
> Mussar is only a short stone's throw away, looking at the unconscious
> influence of actions rather than the educational-symbolic lessons
> imparted. Notice that both TiDE and Slabodka focus on refinement and
> ennoblement of man. Mussar makes it about middos and pschospirituality. As
> I wrote above, TiDE makes it about human creativity and mastery of his
> world -- Yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
> mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
> http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120706/bf3bd378/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 87
**************************************

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..."