Volume 32: Number 96
Thu, 19 Jun 2014
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:35:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Classifying rishonim
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:13:10AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
:> RMB:
:> I ignored the genre of explanatory sefarim altogether.
: How are tosafos any different?
I was thinking more of the Beis Yosef's style. He doesn't explain the
sugya in front of us by seeing how it fits in the big picture. He doesn't
explain the gemara, like a Rashi or Me'iri. It's not his code. It's an
explanation of where the halakhah pesuqah comes from.
Tosafos is horizontal, across sugyos.
Beis Yoseif is a vertical and chronological study of the one sugya.
Which is why I view Tosafos has having the same kind of holistic approach
as the Y-mi -- no sugya stands alone. The BY is less so.
The mishna is somewhere in between a taxonomy and a connectionist
approach. Overall, it's a taxonomy of halakhos, with some digressions
(like when one mishnah says "Ein bein X le-Y" and then it does other
ein beins...). But then, for example the opening mishnah, connections
are presumed. Shema isn't from tzeis to 1/3 of the night, it's from the
start of being able to eat terumah to the end of the first ashmorah. So
Rebbe implies a relationship between Shema and tevul yom, between Shema
and shemiras hamiqdash.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Moshe Y. Gluck
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:44:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any Holistic Sepharadi Rishonim?
R? David Wacholder:
Friday night - that preparation starts earlier and is mandatory - why the
Shofar was blown in Mikdash, a stone of that spot was found. Thus ZKS
Friday night is earlier! Custom [inevitable?] with no known basis has basis
and arrives in Shulchan Aruch without its basis.
--------------------------
I?m afraid I didn?t follow your entire post, but this bit jumped out at me.
What?s your source that there are those who hold that Zman Krias Shema is
earlier on Friday night?
KT,
MYG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140615/6ea5f57b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:05 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:08pm EDT, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote on Areivim:
: Do the ends ever justify the means? In anything?
I replied:
> One must misrepresent the truth for the sake of peace.
> One must murder someone to present their murdering someone else.
> One must eat on Yom Kippur to stay alive.
> Ect....
> The question, as Zev noted, is why anyone would ever judge the means
> on their own merit without looking at all their consequences. You're
> advocating a deontoligism so extreme, I don't think it's viable.
> (Deontology: the moral act is one that follows the rules. Don't murder,
> or don't be a murderer.
> Consequentialism: the more act is the one that has the best outcome. Make
> sure that your act minimizes the number of dead people. In extreme
> forms, neither work. And there are other, less discussed, theories of
> morality. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological )
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:11pm EDT, RMYG replied (still on Areivim):
:> One must murder someone to present their murdering someone else.
:> One must eat on Yom Kippur to stay alive.
: As above, that's not murder, nor is the eating Achilas Issur.
Now, my current reply:
Exactly, BECAUSE the ends justified the means.
Retzichah is unjustified murder. Harigah that is justified is the same
means, to different ends. The achilah is not assur because staying
alive is an ends that removes the issur.
Back to RMYG's quote of my post and his reply:
:> The question, as Zev noted, is why anyone would ever judge the means on
:> their own merit without looking at all their consequences. You're advocating
:> a deontoligism so extreme, I don't think it's viable.
: I'm no philosopher, but it would seem that this is a bit of a middle of the
: road perspective. The ends don't justify the means, but sometimes the moral
: judgment of the means' ethicalness is relative, based on outside factors (in
: these cases, the halachic guidance as to what to do in these cases).
I did write "so extreme" because I agree we need something closer to the
middle of the road.
Still, it means there are times the ends, the consequences of an act,
are the greatest factor in how we judge the act. As you note in your
last sentence, you can't judge the means without looking at ends. I just
disgree with the sometimes; it always is relative to outside factors.
It is just that only sometimes those factors end up being the difference
between moral and immoral.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:16:55 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Emes, Truth, and Leading to Good
Further on the same Areivim post by RMYG as my prior email, but I also
have problems with the first example that really belong on their own
thread.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:11pm EDT, RMYG quoted my first example and
replied:
:> One must misrepresent the truth for the sake of peace.
: I specifically thought of this example before posting. In this case
: (and in the ones you write below), it's not a maaseh issur, it's a
: maaseh heter. Supposedly, R' Yaakov Kamenetzky once said something like,
: "Emes is what you have to say, Sheker is what you may not say."
RYK is casting it into the same terms as retzichah, and I would apply
my same answer. It's not a maaseh issur, despite being the same means
of uttering a falsehood, *because* halakhah allows the ends to justify
it.
However... This idea earlier appears in Michtav meiEliyahu (vol 1 pg 94):
Emes is what leads to good and to the fulfillment of Hashem's
Will. Falsehood is anything that lends success to the officer of
sheqer -- the yetzer hara.
My first problem is with transvaluation of terms in general. We can
then take preexisting maamarim about Truth (which could be using "emes"
in a manner different han REED), or make our own arguments about Truth
and then apply them to "emes" in this sense of the word.
It's like an intentional decision to make a semantic shift fallacy. A/k/a
"equivocation". E.g. "Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?"
Even if it requires creating the ambiguity oneself.
I see this kind of argument in non-O abuse of sources all to often to
see its usage here. (I borrowed the word "transvaluation" from Mordechai
Kaplan.) One that stuck in my mind was the speaker who denied olam haba,
found the nearest parallel in his theology (the vision of G-dliness and
potential for a better future within this world) and then talks about
what the Ramchal thereby means in MY ch. 1.
The second problem I have with the particular case of the word "emes"
is that emes and shalom are often described as being in opposition.
The problem of tact. Of meshanim es ha'emes mipenei hashalom. The
Bereishis Rabba in which the angelic Shalom drops his objectiion to the
creation of man once Emes is knocked to the ground.
Then there is Beis Shammai vs Beis Hillel on how to answer "Keitzad
meraqedim lifnei hakalah". Even BH's "kalah na'ah vechasudah" is not
because it's emes because it's the will of G-d, but because one can
misrepresent the truth for the sake of shalom. As Rashi explains it we
don't have to tell the chasan we mean "na'ah vechasudah only in the
chasan's eyes". But sheqer it is, and is only permitted because the
means of letting the chasan misunderstand your statement is justified
by the ends of his future shalom bayis. Actually outright lying would
not be allowed. But is shalom bayis not HQBH's Will?
Perhaps it's because I was raised by a talmid of RYBS's. I am more
comfortable saying that emes and shalom stand in dialectic tension than
redefining emes to that there is no conflict. I am both more comfortable
philosophically -- it is such tension between conflicting positive values
that gives bechirah much of its meaning -- and I think it better fits
the sources.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
PS: Fellow Avodahites... I CC-ed two non-members -- R/Dr Alan Morinis and
R' Avi Fertig. This is because this thought from REED was in The Mussar
Institute's "Middah a Month" package for this month, and one of them
probably produced that material. So I would like their thoughts on
my discomfort as well. If you wish to CC them on any replies,
I would appreciate it. I hope they would...
--
Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:55:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
Note that in the machlokes between R Zecharia ben Avkulis and the chachamim,
both sides agreed that a sufficiently important end would justify the means
proposed (either bringing a baal mum as a korban, or killing Bar Kamtza);
they even agreed that, ceteris paribus, the current end was enough to justify
it; R Zecharia's objection was merely on the grounds that it would have another
unintended consequence, which was enough to outweigh the desired consequence.
Also note that those who accept Toldos Yeshu either as history, or at least
as morally sanctioned could-have-been-history, and who (at least in principle)
fast on 9 Teves for Peter/Paul's yortzeit, even AZ can be justified by a
sufficiently important end.
--
Zev Sero Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name from malice.
- Eric Raymond
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:32:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:55:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Also note that those who accept Toldos Yeshu either as history, or at least
: as morally sanctioned could-have-been-history, and who (at least in principle)
: fast on 9 Teves for Peter/Paul's yortzeit, even AZ can be justified by a
: sufficiently important end.
Or at least, playing Morrano.
To my mind the distinction is significant, since pretending to be an
oveid AZ is not yeihareig ve'al yaavor. It may well e that the whole
concept of YVY is that these aveiros could never be outbalanced by other
factors. And therefore, although piquach nefesh is the most pressing
need to justify ends, even it doesn't help for these three.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:24:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why didn?t R? Elyashiv publish
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:12:30AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: I've had this question for a while, and I'm sharing an answer I rcved from r
: yitchak berkovitz (jer'm) with the olam.
:
: (its from a daily hashkofa shir that he gives)
First, if you couldn't read the post in the digest because of all the
Hebrew, see the copy at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.jewish.avodah/33776
In this reply, I'm replacing the Hebrew with my own transliterations.
: ... R Moshe felt he had the [acharahyus] -- America was a new world. It
: was a new era -- times had changed. Besides the fact that the [she'eilos]
: were different. The question was what was appropriate for the Klal. R
: Moshe shaped [halakhah] for the new world. R Elyashiv decided he wasnt
: the person for it.
I did not understand RMF's haqdamah this way. To me it reads more like
RMF holds that the most capable posqim are required to pasqen. Not that
his period or situation was unique, but a general rule.
Why does RSYE have to agree in theory with RMF that we have to distinguish
between them on an umdena level?
...
: "R' Elyashiv -- would be [machmir] they say because he knew too much. R'
: Ovadia was mekil because he had a bunch of [acharonim] to rely on and R'
: Elyashiv would have a question on all of them from a [rishon]!"
I don't understand this quote. Is it remorely plausible to put ROY on
the other side of a contrast with a rav who "knew too much"?
IMHO (and possibly RARakeffetR's, I'm not sure how much of the following
is my extrapolation from what he said) the difference is that Litvisher
lomdus is great for understanding Torah halakhah velo lemaaseh, but
actually can get in the way of one's ability to pasqen. RARR believes
that this is why Brisk required the dayan, R Simcha Zelig Rieger, to
serve as poseiq. The rav, R' Chaim, was too good at seeing both shitos
to ever choose between them.
RMF comes from the Litvisher rabbinate like RSZR or the AhS, not the
yeshivos -- like RCBrisker.
And then there's our never-ending discussion of whether the MB's
reluctance to call one side over the other and "baal nefesh yachmir"
(in principle; the phrase itself only appears 24 times) reflects
the ability to explain both sides or the CC's not attempting to
write a sefer of pesaq lemaaseh.
Rav Ovadia doesn't have this burden. The notion that sevara and lomdus
should be the way to pick proper pesaq isn't part of his derekh's
heritage. Acharei rabim lehatos.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Shoshana L. Boublil
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:36:21 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Chamira sakanta mei'issura
I realize that I haven't been active lately, but I'm hoping that members,
especially those connected with kashrut boards could assist me.
I've been reading up lately on the issue of genetic engineering in plants
and I came across some serious studies, going back to 1996 plus additional
stuff published by Monsanato.
For example:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system
/genetic-e
ngineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html
Apparently, it was found that people who have allergies to brazil nuts,
found out that they were also allergic to soy bean products that underwent
genetic engineering using brazil nut genes.
In Monsanato publications they write that they have to update the genetic
engineering in corn and other produce - that was intended to make the plants
resistant to weed killers, as local vegetation has also become resistant.
This means (which they do NOT say) that there is a possibility that the
genes from the corn etc. somehow got into the local vegetation (something
which has been proclaimed as impossible). So, now they want to do another
round of genetic engineering + changing the weed-killer etc. formulas.
All this has raised some questions:
While most allergies can be tolerated, some people are so sensitive that
this can become a life threatening situation. Yet, there is no warning
label on the produce, so a person cannot know that they are facing such
danger. Not only that, but imagine having a guest over, and preparing food
that is 100% safe - yet the guest gets sick b/c of unknown genetically
engineered product contents.
The shu"t I've seen on the issue of genetic engineering is mostly in the
medical fields. In the produce fields it ranges from "shouldn't be done"
(Ma'aseh Bereishit and/or Kil'ayim) to a series of question marks without
answers.
I haven't found any shu"t that discusses the issue of perhaps placing
limitations on genetic engineering of produce.
Should kashrut agencies concern themselves with these issues, at least from
the aspect of sakanta?
Could it be that such produce should be labeled, not only with a "Genetic
Engineered Produce" label, but also with the source of the genes, so that
people with allergies can know to be careful?
Shoshana L. Boublil
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:26:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chamira sakanta mei'issura
On 17/06/2014 8:36 AM, Shoshana L. Boublil via Avodah wrote:
> I've been reading up lately on the issue of genetic engineering in plants
> and I came across some serious studies, going back to 1996 plus additional
> stuff published by Monsanato.
>
> For example:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-f
> ood-system/genetic-e
> ngineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html
If you have seen serious studies, or material published by Monsanto, please
link to them, instead of to a crackpot group like the "Union of Concerned
Scientists". Anything published on the UCS site is by definition of no
credibility.
> Apparently, it was found that people who have allergies to brazil nuts,
> found out that they were also allergic to soy bean products that underwent
> genetic engineering using brazil nut genes.
"People who were allergic" did not "find this out". The developers of this
proposed product found it out in the course of routine testing. The protein
they wanted to add to the soybeans was not known to be an allergen, but it
came from a source that was known to have allergens, so as a matter of course
they tested it on serum from people who were allergic to brazil nuts. When
they found that there was a reaction, they cancelled the project. Although
the product was not intended for human consumption, they didn't want to take
the risk that some of it would somehow end up eaten by people, and that those
people would happen to have this allergy.
> In Monsanato publications they write that they have to update the genetic
> engineering in corn and other produce - that was intended to make the plants
> resistant to weed killers, as local vegetation has also become resistant.
Which publications say this? According to http://www.weedscience.org
(a Monsanto site) there are only 432 unique cases (species x site of action)
of herbicide resistant weeds globally, in 235 species. That's *all* herbicides,
not just Roundup. That doesn't seem enough to justify the expense of changing
the formula for Roundup, let alone the genetic makeup of Roundup-Ready crops.
> This means (which they do NOT say) that there is a possibility that the
> genes from the corn etc. somehow got into the local vegetation (something
> which has been proclaimed as impossible).
No, it doesn't mean that at all. *If* Roundup-resistant weeds were
appearing in fields where Roundup had been sprayed, it would merely mean
that the weeds had undergone a mutation which gave them this resistance,
and the resistant weeds had then, of course, flourished and multiplied.
It would be silly to suspect that they had somehow, by some sort of magic,
"learned" the resistance from the crops among which they were growing.
> So, now they want to do another
> round of genetic engineering + changing the weed-killer etc. formulas.
Again, please point to Monsanto sources proclaiming this intention.
For all I know it might well be true, but if so it should be easy to find
it somewhere on Monsanto's sites. It's not as if they would try to hide it.
> While most allergies can be tolerated, some people are so sensitive that
> this can become a life threatening situation. Yet, there is no warning
> label on the produce, so a person cannot know that they are facing such
> danger.
On which produce do you expect such a label? No GM produce has ever
been marketed, even for animal consumption, that contains any allergen
(except, of course, those that are obvious, i.e. GM soybeans have the
same allergens that non-GM ones do, and products containing them are
appropriately labelled).
> Not only that, but imagine having a guest over, and preparing food
> that is 100% safe - yet the guest gets sick b/c of unknown genetically
> engineered product contents.
That would be frightening, so it's a good thing that this does not happen.
This is exactly why they test these things; because they don't want such
a nightmare on their hands.
> The shu"t I've seen on the issue of genetic engineering is mostly in the
> medical fields. In the produce fields it ranges from "shouldn't be done"
> (Ma'aseh Bereishit and/or Kil'ayim)
Which shu"t raise these issues?
a) There is no such issur as "maaseh bereishit". If Hashem doesn't want
us to do something, He can either tell us not to do it, or make it impossible.
If He has done neither, and it has some use, then He wants us to do it.
b) Even if a seed were produced by an actual issur of zeri`as kil'ayim,
unless it was kil'ei hakerem there is no issur on sowing that seed. Kal
vachomer where there was no zeri`as issur at all, because the seed was
produced in a lab.
> Should kashrut agencies concern themselves with these issues, at least from
> the aspect of sakanta?
No, they should not, because there is no sakanta, and it is FORBIDDEN to
make up fake sakanas and scare people, let alone doing so for the express
purpose of destroying another human being's parnassah, as these wicked
anti-GMO activists do. And that would be so even if the campaign were
merely against such neutral products as Roundup-ready crops, which merely
make farming easier, and thus make food cheaper and more available for
the poor. But in fact the campaign is also against Golden Rice, and that
is a serious crime against humanity. People are literally dying for lack
of the vitamins that Golden Rice would give them, so anyone who helps
delay its introduction, even by giving moral support to the anti-GMO
campaign, or by helping it spread panic against GMOs, carries a serious
moral burden.
> Could it be that such produce should be labeled, not only with a "Genetic
> Engineered Produce" label, but also with the source of the genes, so that
> people with allergies can know to be careful?
No, it could not be. This would not be useful information. Every additional
labelling requirement is a significant burden on manufacturers everywhere,
which should not be imposed without a *very* good reason. Also, requiring
anything to be labelled inherently conveys to the customer a false message
that there's something wrong with it, and depresses sales. There is no
reason to notify the consumer even of the mere fact that the product contains
GMOs, let alone of the specific details of this modification, any more than
the consumer needs to know the location of the field, or the name of the
farmer's daughter's kitten.
--
Zev Sero Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name from malice.
- Eric Raymond
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Moshe Y. Gluck
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:43:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chamira sakanta mei'issura
R'n SLB re: genetically engineered crops:
> Should kashrut agencies concern themselves with these issues, at least
> from the aspect of sakanta?
-----------------------------------
Should Kashrus agencies concern themselves with cholesterol, calories,
sugar, fat, food coloring, non-organic food, pesticides, herbicides, salt,
etc.?
KT,
MYG
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:17:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chamira sakanta mei'issura
On 6/17/2014 8:43 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote:
> R'n SLB re: genetically engineered crops:
>> Should kashrut agencies concern themselves with these issues, at least
>> from the aspect of sakanta?
> -----------------------------------
>
> Should Kashrus agencies concern themselves with cholesterol, calories,
> sugar, fat, food coloring, non-organic food, pesticides, herbicides, salt,
> etc.?
V'rapo yeirafe. If agencies, private or government, are okaying the
food on health, that should be enough.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:16:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tikkun Olam
R Mordechai Torczyner (CC-ed)
<http://www.yutorah.org/browse/browse.cfm#speaker=81072>
participated in
a panel discussion on rationing resources by reducing or eliminating
life-sustaining care which does not cure a disease. Tied to the
Ontario case of Hassan Rasouli, which went to the Supreme Court
of Canada.
Audio: <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/814110>
Article referred to in the talk:
<http://www.yutorah.org/_materials/Article-517511.pdf>
Worth your time.
The discussion of rationing care touched on the subject of the halachic
weight of society's compelling interest. That there are times the right
thing to do is determined more by society's needs rather than direct
policy.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:34pm EDT (2-1/4 years ago), I wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n003.shtml#01>:
: RnCL just noted on Areivim that many people presume that the source of
: the liberal, non-O, conception of "tikkun olam" comes from Aleinu's
: "lesaqein olam bemalkhus Shakkai", but it's not really the likely source.
:
: I wanted to compile a canonical list of "tiqun olam" and "tiqun ha'olam"
: in sifrei chazal...
: Mishnah Gitin 4:2-5:3
: The following rules are made mipenei tiqun ha'olam:
...
: 7- We do not pay extorionist prices to ransom captives. (4:6)
...
Other uses in sifrei Chazal aside from Gittin pereq 4, mishnah and
gemara, there are also three instances in the Tosefta: Kesuvos 12:1,
Gittin 3:8, and Terumos 1:14-15. (See the list.)
I think RMT implicitely is defining tiqun olam as society's compelling
interest. (I asked him in personal email if it was intentional, but this
post is being sent without waiting for his answer.)
I'm curious to know if y'all think it works in general.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: saul newman
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:51:08 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] prayer in time of tragedy
http://finkorswim.com/2014/06/18/the-role-of-prayer-in-times-of-tragedy/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140618/29366cb5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:11:36 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Outlook on Life
The following is from pages 14 - 15 of Volume I of RSRH's Horeb
But just as your past and your present have come to you immediately
from the hands of God, so your future lies only in God's hands-and
in your own. For it is the future which you create for yourself according
to your good or evil use of the past and present; for it is according to
this free behaviour of yours that God fashions your future both to
requite you and to train you; and so it is man himself who half makes
his own future.
But just because of this, no creature, not even the universe, can tell you
what is in store for you; it is .known only to God, from Whom they,
like you, directly receive their future. And just because of this, no
creature, not even the universe, can mark out any act for you as one
which ought to be done or not. Only God knows and can do this, and
He has it put down in the living word of His Torah.
From the cradle to the grave the Torah accompanies you, teaching you 26
what are the duties for which God has granted you life and means,
prescribing for you duties and restraints for every occasion, for every
benefit received. To discern, however, what is the occasion and what
is the position presented by any particular moment, and therefore
which particular duty requires your attention in it, for this you must
thoroughly grasp the nature of each moment as it comes, in order to
judge whether you have now the means for performing this or that
duty, whether the present situation requires this or that duty of you,
and how you can best perform the duty devolving on you. For this purpose
God gave you understanding, opened your eyes in order that you
might be able to measure object and means and examine what lies before
you. Use your understanding. Nature and man are the means and the
context of your activity; these are before you; learn to know them, from
your and their past gain experience. Which duty you ought to perform
you can learn from the Torah, but whether and how you can perform it
at any given moment you must learn from experience and discretion.
Therefore, for your duty consult the Torah, but for its performance
consult experience and discretion; and lay your future entirely in God's
hands. Perform what you have recognized to be your duty at any
moment, and do not be led astray by circumstances which it would be
craziness to regard as being of importance for your conduct and as
indicating your proper course.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140619/9849f19b/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)