Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 22

Sun, 10 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: A question for the chevre (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Keri'ah and berikha (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: A question for the chevre (Rich, Joel)
• 4. hechsher question (saul newman)
• 5. Re: A question for the Chevre (Moshe Zeldman)
• 6. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: A question for the chevre (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: A question for the chevre (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: hechsher question (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: A question for the Chevre (Micha Berger)
• 14. A question for the chevre (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 15. bee honey and davar hamamid/non kosher enzymes logically coherent? (Shaya Potter)
• 16. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: A question for the Chevre (Moshe Y. Gluck)

R' Moshe Zeldman asked:

> .... He has no opportunity there to continue his growth there
> and will never go beyond just keeping this one mitzva. Do you
> teach him: a) to love Hashem, or b) not to take bones out of
> a fish on Shabbos?

I do not know the answer. But I heard a story once, and perhaps it is relevant. (Unfortunately, I have no idea where I heard the story, or if it is true.) ---

A Jew was drafted into the Russian army, and went to the Chofetz Chaim with
the following shailah: They had given this Jew his choice of two units, one
where he could eat kosher but would have to be mechalel Shabbos, and
another where he could keep Shabbos, but would have to eat treif. Which
should he choose?

As I heard it, to my great surprise the Chofetz Chaim answered that he
should choose the unit where he could eat kosher: The Chofetz Chaim
explained that he could always hope to be Shomer Shabbos again some day in
the future, but once one eats the treif, it becomes part of him and it is
impossible to *totally* cleanse oneself of it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK ipads: $30.93
Get 32GB Apple iPad for as low as $30.93. Limit 1.Day. Grab yours Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/511426dece05b26de6d55st04vuc

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:20:03PM +0000, Arie Folger wrote:
: The Midrash Rabba Bereishit 39:12 includes a discussion about bowing...
:> Rabbi Chiya Rabba her'a kheri'ah lifnei Rebbi venitrape; uvar Sissi her'a
:> verikha lifnei Rebbi venifsach velo nitrape.

: Question: what was the likely nature of their injuries? Why was R' Sissi's
: injury worse?

1- I had always imaging a slipped disk. Chazanim have a hard time getting
up from keri'ah without using their hands -- and that's with people on
either side to grab his arms and help. If R' Chiya Ruba tried doing so
without help, and we do not know how old he was, it seems quite likely
he would injure his back by trying to do so.

"Venifsach" -- a gap was visible from the outside.

I also think the strain on the spine is likely an aggadic metaphor for
something related to Shemoneh Esrei. After all, one of the associations
for the 18 berakhos are the 18 vertrebrae. (I think that should be "is",
since it's an association, but it didn't feel right. RnTK is invited to
discuss on Areivim.)

2- I do not know why [R Levi] Bar Sissi's injuries were worse. He was
a classmate of R' Shim'on (Rebbe's son; AZ 19a), meaning a generation
younger than Rebbe. R' Chiyya Ruba, a compiler of the Tosefta (and the
older of the two compilers - the other, R Oshiah was his talmid), would
have to be a half-generation older. Maybe it was at two different times.
Or maybe RLBS was simply in worse shape.

But as this is aggadita, the question is what the two amoraim are
supposed to be representing. Maybe RLBS's youth was the whole point,
that there is a nisqatnu hadoros element to the nimshal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

As I heard it, to my great surprise the Chofetz Chaim answered that he
should choose the unit where he could eat kosher: The Chofetz Chaim
explained that he could always hope to be Shomer Shabbos again some day in
the future, but once one eats the treif, it becomes part of him and it is
impossible to *totally* cleanse oneself of it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Sounds though like a "local" (Kashrut )issue of timtum haleiv, not necessarily generalizable.
KT
Joel

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.

a  NYC  glatt restaurant  with a  hechsher  'we don't rely on'  is having
 a special  Valentines day  meal service.

1]  would the major  'accepted'  hechshers  approve of such a thing?

2]  if not , we must delineate what is the line between  'secular'  vs
 'religious/pagan' .  ie  i assume  that they would not allow  a Halloween
menu , but would a Memorial/Independence day
     the nafka mina would be Valentines , St Patricks, thanksgiving [and
maybe  for a chassidishe hechsher Yom Haatzmaut]  ie  something that might
have religious origins, of a non-jewish origin  but is mostly secular
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130207/98b6b534/attachment-0001.htm>

> You have a secular Jew who's on his way to Africa for the rest of his
> life, and you have an opportunity to teach him one mitzva that he'll keep
> until he dies. ... Do you teach him: a) to love Hashem, or b) not to
> take bones out of a fish on Shabbos?

> To emphasize, the question here is not a kiruv/chinuch strategy question
> -- it won't lead to more mitzvos. It's a question of priorities
> in halacha. To this Rav, it was pashut that you teach him about
> borer. Thoughts?

Did he say why? Given that Ahavat Hashem is a mitzvah as well, I would
have thought that it might get the nod based on a hashkafic point of
mitzvoth aseih being love of HKB"H vs. prohibitions being fear (Ramban
I think) which would explain why aseih docheh lo taaseh.

KT
Joel Rich

My response:
I also thought that "osei docheh lo taase" would be a good raya. But he
pointed out that there are exceptions to that klal. For example, it doesn't
apply when the Lo Taaseh is a chiyuv kares. Which seems to suggest that, if
we make the decision of which mitzvah is more important based on their
kadima in halacha, then shmiras Shabbos outweighs Ahavas Hashem. That was
the Rav's sevara altogether. He even went so far as to say that the mitzva
of not taking a bone out of a fish ONCE in a lifetime would outweigh a
lifetime of Ahavas Hashem.
It seems that in purely halachic terms, he's correct. But I have a chush
that there's something wrong with this approach.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130208/fce78215/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:00:05PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: >So why would tav lemeisiv not be treated as an umdena or rav, given the 
: >identifiable exceptions, rather than a chazaqah?

: Because, as I have said many times, chazakah is a rebuttable presumption.
: That is different from both an umdena or rav.   Where a chazaka or a rov
: coming into conflict, we posken, as we have discussed before, for the rov.
: ruba v'chazaka ruba adif - see eg Yevamos 119b ie chazaka carries *less*
: weight than a form of rov...

In http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-and-phenomenology-4.shtml
I discuss a similar sugya on Qiddushin 64.

You are referring to a different entity, even though both are called
"chazaqah". Yes, a chazaqah demei'iqarah is weaker than a rov, but
a chazaqah disvara is a presumption based on a logical causal chain.
Ein adam chotei velo lo -- a person with no motivation to sin wouldn't
choose to sin. (Assuming he knows it's assur.) But this causality is
only valid because it actually usually happens that way, barring other
factors. Every chazaqah disvara must also be backed by a ruba deleisa
leqaman, or else it would indicate that our sevara was wrong.

At least, that's how I understand Sheiv Shemaatsa 6:22.

But then, whenever a chazaqah demei'iqrah is against a rov, it also has
to be a chazaqah de'ika rei'usa. The rei'usa being another wording of
the same idea is having an "against".

But my attempted point was simpler...

When I mentioned umdena, I meant: If tav lemeisiv is a statement about
social standing that didn't apply to a matrionis, and matrionae were
easily identifiable, why does tav lemeisiv apply to them too?

And when I mentioned rov, I meant: In many cases it's efshar levareir,
so how can you rely upon the chazaqah / rov / any of the rules of
birur? It is at most a majority that you can prove this matrionis does
not belong to.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:54:19PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> Actually I think the pasuk is part of the excuse.  IIRC he said that if  
> one were to deny the presumption of "tav l'meisav ..." then vast areas  
> of halacha would be rendered moot.  My impression is that that was his  
> actual reason for disagreeing with Rabbi Rackman (my memory is fuzzy - -  
> I may not have the names correct).

Yes, it was RYBS taking on R' Emanuel Rackman and his beis din.

And your impression is proabaly correct, as that's how RALichtenstein
presented his father-in-law's argument. This whole topic of tav lemeisiv
was one line.

BUT, I think that given RYBS's Brisker lineage and academic background,
I think he would take far less license constructing a "da mah lehashiv"
type argument than would have many of his contemporaries. "Intellectual
honesty" was a recurring theme in talking to talmidim. If RYBS said it,
he was pretty convinced at the time, and not just giving an efshar lomar
or something probably true.

So, rejecting tav lemeisiv wouldn't IMHO (and as implied by RAL) overturn
his masqahah. But it doesn't make the idea itself less firmly RYBS's
position on the topic of chazaqah.

:-)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 Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 01:29:35AM +0200, Moshe Zeldman wrote:
: You have a secular Jew who's on his way to Africa for the rest of his life,
: and you have an opportunity to teach him one mitzva that he'll keep until
: he dies. He has no opportunity there to continue his growth there and will
: never go beyond just keeping this one mitzva. Do you teach him: a) to love
: Hashem, or b) not to take bones out of a fish on Shabbos?

So many axis to think about:

1- Mitzvah maasis vs chovas haleiv

2- Lav vs asei

3- Emunah ("os hi... ki sheishes yamim Asah hashamayim ve'es ha'retz")
   vs ahavah

And 1 and 3 combine -- One is a practical mitzvah that leads one to emunah.
The other is ahavah itself. Which i why I can't totally agree with
: To emphasize, the question here is not a kiruv/chinuch strategy question--
: it won't lead to more mitzvos...

I'm not sure one can consider the full value of Shabbos without the
"lead to".

Also, how does one teach the mitzvah of ahavas Hashem? We are presuming
the student already has the emunah that there is a Hashem to love. Tell
him to spend time every day contemplating creation (not the Torah, if
he knew any, we wouldn't be in this bind) to develop awe, an awareness
of dependence and hence love for the Creator?

All in all, I can't get a handle on the question, never mind suggest
an answer.

From a pragmatic point of view: borer has measurable goals, and the
talmid is more likely to stick with it. And if he isn't doing borer,
he might figure out ahavas Hashem on his own, since we now got him
thinking about Shabbos, creation and G-d.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:27:17PM -0500, Rich, Joel replied to RAM's post:
:> The Chofetz Chaim explained that he could always hope to be Shomer
:> Shabbos again some day in the future, but once one eats the treif, it
:> becomes part of him and it is impossible to *totally* cleanse oneself
:> of it.

: Sounds though like a "local" (Kashrut )issue of timtum haleiv, not
: necessarily generalizable.

Either timtum haleiv or the psychological parallel, and that's assuming
they're different. It didn't require metaphysics for people to start
believing "you are what you eat".

If the CC were worried about self-definition, then there are other
mitzvos that might change his self-perception more than chilul Shabbos.
Prioritizing beris ahead of Shabbos, for example.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:29:11PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: > As I wrote yesterday, I think that the particular area of nistar we tend
: > to call Qabbalah is from the Bahir, not the Zohar.
: 
: That's the first, yes, but the Zohar is the far more developed (library of)
: text(s).
...
: > The Bahir develops angelology futher. But it also mixes in ideas from
: > peirushim on seifer haYetzirah. Thus, seifer haYetzirah's 10 sefiros,
...
: > which are only discussed in terms of being a 10-fold count, are identified
: > with 10 high angels / spiritual existences to become the sefiros we
: > later find in the [concept of the] Eitz Chaim.
...

Saying the Bahir is the first place where we find in print ideas from
Seifer haYetzirah explained in the context of the stream of Merqavah
and Heilkhalos literature was more my point. Whether he drew it from
the Yetzirah itself or there actually was pre-existing commentaries
from Yetzirah in this vein was secondary. (I just assumed the latter.)
And that synthesis is really what we think of as "Qabbalah".

My point was to show that the concept of 10 sefiros -- Keser through
Malkhus -- was even in written circulation before the Rambam published
anything about theology. Thus, one can't simply reject the idea based on
one's understanding of the Rambam -- the Rambam would have been (probably
unintentionally) bucking an existing trend in Jewish theology if he had
said something that would make belief in the sefiros assur.

But I don't think the Rambam does say that. Qabbalah refers to Ratzon
haBorei and doesn't try to describe the Ein Sof Himself. (The Gra says
this explicitly in the first of his Asarah Kelalim.) The whole discussion
occurs in the same realm as the Rambam's discussion of Hashem's middos --
a discussion about how Hashem chooses to show Himself to us through his
Actions. The Rambam can accept the 13 Middos haRachamim, or Chazal's
notion that Havayah is used to denote Hashem when acting in a way that
looks like Rachamim and E-lokus when Hashem is acting in a way that
looks like Din. This is much more of the same.

...
: Continuous revelation!  Which is how the Reform talk about revelation, and
: how (R' Brill characterizes) the chasidim think.  Since the term was
: floated by the Reform, the Chasidim, who really believe in it, will
: quickly demur that that's what they're doing. I suppose it could be 
: justified in the chasidic system as improving perception of the divine
: reality that underlies the finity of the "real world".

It's the revelation of new explanation of ideas already
understood. (Unlike R, where the alleged constant reformation of Torah
means to them that old ideas chould be overturned.

I think a more useful mashal is RCBrisker explaining a set of rulings
in the Rambam in a way that never crossed the Rambam's mind. If you
believe the Rambam's rulings have objective reality, then why can't a
later thinker find a pattern and a rule behind that pattern that the
original discoverer of these rulings didn't realize? The Rambam reached
this paneh laTorah one way, but that doesn't stop someone else from
finding new implications in another.

: If you're going to believe in the Chasidic system, you have to believe
: in continuous revelation insofar as the system depends on revelations:
: 
: -1275 CE      The Torah
: -1235 - -516  The Na"ch
: c. 140        the Zohar

I think c. 140 through 1558, when the process of redaction and growth of
the library (RJJB's term) concretizes it. One can believe in the Chassidic
system while still agreeing with R Yaaqov Emden about its origins. Existence
proof:
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/3
80410/jewish/The-Zohars-Mysterious-Origins.htm

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:59:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> If you're going to believe in the Chasidic system, you have to believe
>> in continuous revelation insofar as the system depends on revelations:

> Very different.  Reform's idea of "revelation" is someone having an idea,
> with no way of verifying that it's true, let alone knowing where it comes
> from.  It's all made up.  How can you compare that to Eliyahu Hanavi and
> Achiya Hashiloni coming from the Other World to teach the Arizal and the
> Baal Shem Tov, etc?  That is not some wishy-washy "inspiration", it's
> direct communication of hard data from one person to another.

You presume your conclusion when taking those visitations as evidence,
rather than part of the claim being proven.

And while I can't make this same argument WRT visitations from Eliyahu or
Achiya, who are people, the notion of the Mechaber or the Ramchal being
visited by magidim is so far beyond understanding ruach haqodesh as Divine
Inspiration that it seems to me to be positing nevu'ah bizman haseh.

I therefore wonder how literal any of this visitation talk was originally
intended to be. Did the mechaber get an angelic visitor? Or is that
the metaphysical description of things being so clear to him the ideas
played themselves seeingling on their own. (As fiction authors often
report about their characters surprisng them.) And so the author of
the SA was visited by the archetypal halachic code in angelic form.
But not that he saw an angel -- that would be nevu'ah.

:-)BBii!
-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

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:59:17PM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: a  NYC  glatt restaurant  with a  hechsher  'we don't rely on'  is having
: a special  Valentines day  meal service.

: 1]  would the major  'accepted'  hechshers  approve of such a thing?

I'm not sure that's a discussion for Avodah. We can't really discuss
halakhah in an informal forum. Here, the more relevant question would
be more: Do you think they should or shouldn't? (Show all work.)

: 2]  if not , we must delineate what is the line between  'secular'  vs
:  'religious/pagan' .  ie  i assume  that they would not allow  a Halloween
: menu , but would a Memorial/Independence day

And formerly religious. A practice that comes from AZ but since became
secularized is still assur -- bechuqoseihem lo seileikhu. (Which this
time around I will not conflate with darkhei Emori.) The question
of when the origins no longer matter is the topic of a discussion
by RMJBroyde <http://torahmusings.com/2012/02/valentines-day-and-jewish-law>
who ends up permitting Valentines Day although in a discussion of New
Year's <http://torahmusings.com/2011/12/is-new-years-kosher> prohibits
Halloween.

We can generalize: just look at assur vs. mutar. When I was a bachur,
an eatery offering Middle Eastern food in Queens lost its hekhsher when
someone decided he could no longer give a hekhsher to a venue that had
belly dancing. That it was doing more to draw people to belly dancing
than drawing people to a kosher venue.

Just assur vs. mutar. If I were making this kind of decision, my thought
process would go something like this:

1- Who is the target audience? People who wouldn't be marking Valentine's
Day if there weren't this discussion in the O community? Or people
who would go out either way? Or are there even many for whom this is a
motivation to get them to eat at a place with a hekhsher I would trust,
since they will be eating out in a restaurant and aren't as committed
to avoiding stacking on the qulos as I would be? (Since it's my own
imaginary hekhsher, I assume I would think it's relible.)

2- Is it really assur? And if I think it's assur but smeone else is
matir, am I sure enough he's wrong to go to the next step? After all,
my sign is about food, not other activities.

2b- If my answer to #1 is that this is a pretty committed audience, am I
actively helping the decay of lifnim mishuras hadin by enabling it with
my hekhsher? I could see someone deciding that Glatt Yacht is mutar,
but it's so against the obligation to develop histapqus that he wants
no part of it.

3- After thinking about the real issues, what will either statement do
to my ability to continue making statements? If I allow it, will I
lose clientele off the right side, and therefore end up winning the
battle but losing the war? And if I refuse to give the hekhsher under
these conditions, will I lose my ability to reach those on the left?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 06:05:20AM +0200, Moshe Zeldman wrote:
: It seems that in purely halachic terms, he's correct. But I have a chush
: that there's something wrong with this approach.

If someone ch"v is in a plane crash and all he has to eat are the local
pigs or the people who didn't survive the crash, which does he choose?

RYAmital used this question to explain the difference between his more
chassidish perspective and RALichtenstein's (his co-RY's) more Brisker
approach.

RYA was sure that both would end up eating the pork. But, RYA suggested,
RAL would feel guilty about it afterward. The question is whether one
thinks in purely halachic terms.

One might also argue that if the mitzvos were Shabbos vs yir'as Shamayim,
one should chooce yir'as Shamayim. Without which one can't accept tzivuyim
from the One in shamayim, ie no real concept of mitzvos. But ahavas H',
no matter how lofty, isn't necessarily as central. So become a mussarnik
rather than a chassid -- you can still get holy without putting ahavas
H' in the centerpiece.

I acknowledge that ahavah and yir'ah are inseparable, but they are
distinct mitzvos to teach. Just as Shabbos, even "just" boreir, if done
right should enhance both.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 Do you teach him: a) to love Hashem, or b) not to take bones out of a fish on Shabbos?

To me the answer was obviously "not to take bones out of a fish on Shabbos."
Here's why. We are more into DEED than CREED. One might argue that to love 
Hashem is also "deed" but I would argue that it is peripherally "deed" whereas the 
"not taking bones out" is overt action and can be seen. To love Hashem is more 
of a recondite concept.

Is it possible to present a coherent logical system for why bee honey
is kosher (per hazal) and there's a concept of davar hamamid when it
comes to kashrut (which I have been told is more of a concept from the
rishonim?) and in modern times (and even before re rennet and cheese)
this is applied to enzymes which have a large role in industrial food
production.

Now, the concept of davar hamamid seems difficult in general from what
I understand the gemara's concept of kashrut is, which is that its all
based around taam.  Davar hamamid on the other hand is that the food
couldn't be made without the item, but it really has no impact itself
on the taam of the item.

Now, we know the gemara allowed bee honey, we also know that bee honey
is produced via enzymes in the saliva of the non kosher bee (i.e. non
kosher enzymes) fixing the nectar the bees get from flowers and
turning it into honey.  How is this fundamentally any different than
using a non kosher rennet (ignoring the rest of gvinat yisrael issues)
to turn milk into cheese?

This is an issue that has been bugging me for a while now, and haven't
heard any answers that I find satisfying.

On 8/02/2013 1:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:59:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> If you're going to believe in the Chasidic system, you have to believe
>>> in continuous revelation insofar as the system depends on revelations:

>> Very different.  Reform's idea of "revelation" is someone having an idea,
>> with no way of verifying that it's true, let alone knowing where it comes
>> from.  It's all made up.  How can you compare that to Eliyahu Hanavi and
>> Achiya Hashiloni coming from the Other World to teach the Arizal and the
>> Baal Shem Tov, etc?  That is not some wishy-washy "inspiration", it's
>> direct communication of hard data from one person to another.
>
> You presume your conclusion when taking those visitations as evidence,
> rather than part of the claim being proven.

No.  I'm not talking about whether the claim is *true*, but about what
the claim is.  I presume (as I think every Jew must) that the AriZal
and the Baal Shem Tov were not liars.  But one doesn't need to presume
that in order to accept what it is that they were claiming.  And what
they claimed, and chassidim accept as true, is that an actual person
came to them and taught them.  Not that they had an idea that seems to
them to be true, and they speculate that it may have come from Above.


> And while I can't make this same argument WRT visitations from Eliyahu or
> Achiya, who are people, the notion of the Mechaber or the Ramchal being
> visited by magidim is so far beyond understanding ruach haqodesh as Divine
> Inspiration that it seems to me to be positing nevu'ah bizman haseh.

And therefore?  The Rambam had a kabbalah from his ancestors that nevuah
would return in 1216.  Both the Mechaber and the Ramchal were well after
that date.  One of the baalei tosfos was called "hanavi"; that *may* be
hyperbole, but why not take it literally?

Another example of revelation, without actual nevuah, is the ShuT Min
Hashamayim.  He was also a baal tosfos, and the answers he got weren't
just ideas that popped into his head, but objectively verifiable (to him)
communications from Above.   (That is to say, *we* may not know whether
he was really receiving these answers, but *he* did; it was objectively
verifiable to him.  Whereas with the R idea of "revelation", even the
recipient has no way to objectively verify that he has received anything.)
  
Then there's just people from the Next World appearing to living people
to tell them things, whether in a dream or while awake.  That's reported
quite often, and while if it happens in a dream it can be explained away,
there's no explaining away a waking visitation.  For instance, the Alter
Rebbe wrote, quite seriously and matter-of-factly, that before his
imprisonment the Maggid and the Baal Shem Tov used to come to him only
in dreams, but from then on they used to come to him while he was awake.
And more recently the Rebbe Rashab told his son the previous LR that his
father the Maharash had come to him and told him stories that he had heard
in the Next World.  That's not metaphor, and it's not nevuah, it's a claim
(true or not) of an actual visitation by a neshomo, just like Rebbi used
to come home to make kiddush, or R Elozor br Shimon used to pasken shaylos
from the attic after his passing (which you surely agree happened).


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

R' MZ:

> You have a secular Jew who's on his way to Africa for the rest of his
> life, and you have an opportunity to teach him one mitzva that he'll keep
> until he dies. ... Do you teach him: a) to love Hashem, or b) not to
> take bones out of a fish on Shabbos?

> To emphasize, the question here is not a kiruv/chinuch strategy question
> -- it won't lead to more mitzvos. It's a question of priorities
> in halacha. To this Rav, it was pashut that you teach him about
> borer. Thoughts?
-------------------


would think) one is more likely to achieve d'veykus via Ahavas Hashem than
by not taking bones out of a fish on Shabbos, therefore my vote goes to the
Ahavas Hashem choice. (See Mesillas Yesharim perek 1.)

 

KT,

MYG

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130210/12116f06/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)