Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 35

Fri, 16 Apr 2021

• 1. Tefillos and Segulos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Tefillos and Segulos (Zev Sero)
• 3. When Should a Rabbi Speak (was Are We Trying To Grow?) (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Are We Trying to Grow? (Joseph Kaplan)
• 5. Re: Closed In vs Separated (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: When Should a Rabbi Speak (was Are We Trying To Grow?) (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: Are We Trying to Grow? (Joseph Kaplan)
• 8. Re: When Should a Rabbi Speak (was Are We Trying To Grow?) (Zev Sero)

The discussion about segulos on Areivim raises issues that belong here.

Tefillah is an obligation.

Lechishah is an issur.

Both can involve using pesuqim. Both can be about getting something we
don't have.

But there is a real difference between making a baqashah of Hashem and
trying to use the metaphysical force the pasuq has / taps into to get
what you want.

Lechishah shows that working on things usig metaphysical engineering is
starkly different than a similar act aimed at building a relationship
with and beseaching the Almighty.

And different than physical engineerng. How it's different is another
question. After all, while lechishah is assur, weari a qemai'ah is not.
So, what's prohibited manipulation of non-physical forces and what isn't?

Also, the line between physics and metaphysics, or that between science
and magic, often comes down to a matter of opinion. I don't think
that people living in the Sassanid empire (the culture that surrounded
amora'ei Bavel) thought of sheidim all that differently than physicists
today think about fields.

But, some kind of difference between physical and metaphysical engineering
must exist, or else why would lechishah be assur?

Which brings us to segulos. They, like quoting a pasuq, could be done
as a physical expression of a tefillah, or in stead of approaching the
Almighty. People who vehemently criticize segulos rarely have problems
with simanei milsa. Or to put it another way, if dipping an apple in
honey is just about putting more gravitas into the baqashah when you say
"Yehi Ratzon", who says segulos aren't cut from the same cloth?

So instead of objecting to segulos, object to their oversimplification. To
the people who use them as a short-cut to getting a desired goal rather
than turning to the Borei.

To be frank, it seems to me such complaints have more to do with people
of one derekh trying to find reasons to dismiss other derakhim. And had
it not been about that, the question wouldn't be tauted as an upshlug.
(And perhaps not brought up with such frequency.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 18th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                           balance?

On 15/4/21 2:48 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
> But, some kind of difference between physical and metaphysical engineering
> must exist, or else why would lechishah be assur?

The simple answer is we don't know, and our speculation about the reason 
can only be *based on* our opinion on "metaphysical engineering".  We 
also don't know what kishuf is; we don't even know *what* is forbidden, 
let alone why.  Again, our speculation about the reason can only be 
based on our opinion about its nature.  Therefore any attempt to prove 
the latter from the former is begging the question.

It seems to me that Chazal did not perceive any difference between what 
we would classify as "segulos", "medicine", and "technology".  The 
rishonim did see a difference, but most if not all of them didn't think 
it was all that significant.  Modern people think the difference is 
obvious, but we have Clarke's Third Law to remind us otherwise.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name

I will only respond to part of what Akiva Miller wrote,  because I am 
sure that many are now bored with this back and forth.

At 02:55 PM 4/15/2021,R/ Akiva Miller wrote:
About a rabbi that I referred to but did not name.

"I think what you meant was that he raised the level of observance and Torah
learning of SOME OF his baalei batim."

On the contrary, while it is true that those who did not like his 
approach left the shul, he eventually attracted a very large 
following, much larger than the number of those who left.  To this 
day tapes of his talks are listened to by many and are reprinted 
in  frum publications. Also, his books are read by many. All 
this  despite the fact that he passed in 2001! He is still regarded 
as a formidable and influential personality in many Orthodox circles.

>It sounds to me like you would prefer that this rabbi *would* speak about
>such things. Now I'm really confused. If you would prefer shuls that have
>no rabbi and no speeches, then how would these topics be dealt with?

There is nothing confusing.  I am not in favor of a rabbi speaking 
DURING davening on Shabbos or Yom Tov  mornings.  However, I am in 
favor of a rabbi speaking and writing about important issues during 
shiurim or shmusen that are given say a half hour before davening or 
in the evening during the week. If this is what a rabbi does,  then 
one has the choice of going to listen to him or not, instead of being 
a captive audience and being forced to endure a long Shabbos or Yom 
Tov morning davening.

This discussion has involved a lot of back and forth.  Let me add 
something that a friend of mine used say his father would say about 
speaking.  His father would say, "Speaking is like drilling for 
oil.  If you do not make a strike  within a few minutes, then stop 
boring!" >:-}

And let me add that speeches during davening are a relative new 
innovation, and were not welcome by many when introduced.

From

"<https://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/jp/Architect%20of%20Traditional%20Judaism%20in%20America.pdf>Isaac 
Leeser: Architect of Traditional Judaism in America" The Jewish 
Press, June 22, 2007, page 1.


Pioneer Preacher

Lesser felt his role as chazzan at Mikveh Israel required more than 
simply leading the prayers at services and teaching the congregants' 
children. He considered it his obligation to educate his congregants 
in a manner that would improve their commitment to Judaism. As a 
result, shortly after he assumed his duties as chazzan, he introduced 
the then-radical innovation of regularly delivering a sermon during 
services on Shabbos morning.

While some appreciated his sermons, most of the congregational 
leaders felt that they were not necessary. His preaching was a point 
of contention for a long time, and it took thirteen years before the 
board of Mikveh Israel formally sanctioned his work as a preacher.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210415/518bb598/attachment-0001.html>

RYL wrote (39/34), in part, his views of shul rabbis:

?When he first became the rabbi of his shul, he consciously tried to 
drive away anyone who would not follow his approach to Yahadus.  When he
saw women whose necklines were too low,  he publicly said in shul, "Ladies,
cover your utters!"  He was staunchly anti-Zionistic and 
made this clear time and time again. He made it clear that married women
have to cover their hair.   Those who did not like his views and approach
to Yahadus left.  From the core that remained he built a dynamic Torah
shul.
***
?Why isn't the rabbi the one giving most or all of the shiurim?  The 
rov I referred to above who greatly improved in a positive way his 
congregation,  gave vitally al of the shiurum in his shul.
***
?These are questions that should be asked of a recognized posek. In
general, the rabbi of a shul is not a recognized posek. The Jewish Press
used to write, "Ask you local competent Orthodox rabbi."  From this I
deduced that there must be a local Orthodox rabbi who is not 
competent! >:-}?

This is why, thank God, we have so many shuls ? and I say this in a
positive tone. I could not possibly belong to or daven regularly in a shul
with rabbis of the type RYL describes and my strong guess is that he would
probably feel the same about the rabbis of the shul I belong to who are so
very different in tone and attitude and  philosophy. But by having all
these shuls with such very different types of rabbis, we all have the
opportunity to each find a shul/minyan in which we feel comfortable to
daven and with a leader we can respect. And, my strong guess also is, we?ll
never convince each other who?s right. I know I wouldn?t even begin to try.
:-)
Joseph


Sent from my iPhone

.
R' Micha Berger asked:

> Don't know what to make of this, but I think it means
> something...
> Unqelus translates "tzaraas" as "segirus" or "segirusa".
> "Tzarua" is "segir", etc...
> Later in the parashah, he renders "nidah" as "richuqeih".
> "Closed in" vs "distanced". Both causes of tum'ah.
> As I said, it's bound to be significant somehow, but I
> don't know if anyone discusses what.

ArtScroll's "Onkelos" says this on Vayikra 13:2 -

<<< Onkelos consistently refers to tzaraas as s'giru - literally,
confinement or closure - alluding to the obligation to confine the
afflicted one in certain cases, as stated below (Tirgem Avraham; Me'at
Tzori; Parshegen to v. 4). The term s'giru contains additional allusions as
well: According to the Zohar (Vol. III, p. 47a), it alludes to the fact
that tzaraas is caused by an obstruction to the Heavenly light. Others say
that it comes to teach us that tzaraas comes upon a person for not closing
his mouth against speaking lashon hara (Derashos R' Yehoshua Ibn Shuib), or
that one who speaks lashon hara (the main cause of tzaraas) causes the
gates of Heaven to be closed to to his prayers, as stated in the Zohar,
Vol. III, p. 53a (Iyun Yaakov to Sotah 32b). >>>

and on Vayikra 15:19 -

<<< The Hebrew term niddah, as well as the Aramaic term richuk, mean
"separation" or "distancing." The period when a woman is a niddah is thus
called because during the time she is distanced from touching other people
(Rashi). [I.e., her husband; and in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, others
as well, lest she render them tamai.] >>>

Okay, that's what each means individually. If you want a comparison of the
two concepts to each other, I have to say that I'm reminded of something I
saw last week regarding the tum'ah of different animal species.  (It's
easier to cite "ISBN 9780826601964" [Google it with the quotes] than to
give the title and editors of this Chumash that I've fallen in love with.)
On Vayikra 11:8, these editors explain why they did not translate "tamei"
as "defiled" in this chapter, but rather they sometimes used the phrase
"spiritually defiled" and sometimes "ritually defiled". Here's their
explanation:

<<< In contrast to eating these animals, which renders a Jew *spiritually*
defiled, touching or carrying the carcasses of these animals renders a Jew
*ritually* defiled, as will be seen presently (below in vv. 24 ff.).
Contracting ritual defilement requires the person to ritually purify
himself before entering the Tabernacle precincts or eating consecrated
food. Although we are not allowed to spiritually defile ourselves by eating
these animals, we are allowed to ritually defile ourselves by touching or
carrying their carcasses (as long as we understand the ramifications of
doing so (below, v. 35)). The only exception to this is the pilgrim
festivals, during which we must not render ourselves ritually defiled by
touching their carcasses (Rashi). >>>

According to this, the nonkosher animals can impart two different kinds of
tum'ah: Merely touching it is usually muttar, though it puts one into a
halachic category which has various ritual restrictions. But ingesting it
is always assur; it affects one's neshama in bad ways.

Perhaps nidah and tzaraas parallel the above. Perhaps niddah is merely a
ritual tum'ah, requiring only a certain physical distancing, whereas
tzaraas is a spiritual tum'ah that has severe negative effects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210415/055cc899/attachment-0001.html>

.
R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> I am not in favor of a rabbi speaking DURING davening on
> Shabbos or Yom Tov mornings.  However, I am in favor of a rabbi
> speaking and writing about important issues during shiurim or
> shmusen that are given say a half hour before davening or in
> the evening during the week. If this is what a rabbi does, then
> one has the choice of going to listen to him or not, instead of
> being a captive audience and being forced to endure a long
> Shabbos or Yom Tov morning davening.

> And let me add that speeches during davening are a relative new
> innovation, and were not welcome by many when introduced.

I'd like to learn more about the perspective of the anti-speech crowd.

My understanding is that there were many in the Torah leadership who felt
that a weekly Shabbos morning sermon was assur, being an innovation that
imitates what the non-Jews were doing. To me, this is an entirely
reasonable view (as long as it is kept separate from the question of
"Perhaps it is worth doing anyway").

My question, I suppose, is a historical one: What were our communities like
in the very long era before the weekly speech became established? In fact,
can someone please educate me about how things are currently, in those
communities where such things are not done even today?

No community is monolithic. Every community contains a wide spectrum of
people, ranging from those who are active and interested, to those who are
detached and uninterested. How do we reach out to the uninterested?

It is natural that those who are active and interested will attend a fair
number of shiurim and such. It is also natural that those who are detached
and uninterested will opt out of these events. Over our many centuries, how
did we reach those people?

My guess is that there was no real need to reach out to them. In the
pre-modern world, where for various sociological reasons the Jews stuck to
themselves, Jewish values and Jewish knowledge were imparted naturally by
osmosis, without any need for a weekly captive audience. Exceptions were
made for special occasions, notably the Shabbos Hagadol and Shabbos Shuva
sermons, where even the average person needed some extra input (even at the
risk of forcing the above-average person to endure a long drasha).

But now, in the modern, fragmented world, we cannot rely on sociological
factors to instill Jewishness, and so the same reasons that allowed the
twice-a-year drasha now allowed the weekly sermon. And in those communities
which are tight-knit even today, this is not needed as much, or perhaps
even at all.

Perhaps I've answered my own question. In places where there are many shuls
to choose from, it is easier for every individual to find the one which
meets his spiritual needs best, and the weekly speech is unnecessary. But
where the choices are limited, this is more difficult and less likely, so
each shul needs to be more innovative in how it reaches out to the
less-interested people, and providing the captive audience with a
hopefully-interesting speech can be one of those tools.

I must stress the "hopefully-interesting" aspect. No speaker in the world
intends to bore his audience. To use the tools suggested by the Baal
Haggada: Even when we speak to the rasha, the goal must be to wake him up,
and not drive him away. As the Lubavitcher Rebbe explained, we must always
keep in mind that the rasha is indeed at the Seder, unlike his brother -
the Fifth Son - who didn't even show up.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210416/d428f3a0/attachment-0001.html>

I note that I didn?t say ?completely? comfortable. You added the word
?completely? which changed the meaning of my comment. And, with all respect
to Rav Yisroel Salanter (and I mean that sincerely), if you are, indeed,
quoting him correctly about using the language ?getting rid of,? then I
would dissent from such a position. (I wonder if he didn?t say something
more like ?uncomfortable? rather than ?getting rid of.?) In fact, my rabbi
doesn?t always make me feel comfortable with his words or admonitions or
positions. But he?s never insulting to congregants and he doesn?t want to
get rid of any congregants. He?s not bothered by congregants who disagree
with him or don?t follow his halachic requirements. He?s not looking for ?
and the congregants are not looking for ? a completely homogeneous group or
an echo chamber as long as respect and civility are the values and modes of
interaction that all, rabbi and congregants alike, share. Of course, as I
wrote, some are looking for a more ho
 mogeneous environment. And I think it?s wonderful that you found what
 you?re looking for. But that doesn?t mean it?s the best ? it just means
 it?s the best for you.

Similarly, as to what the ballei battim who left supposedly missed, it is
possible, perhaps even likely, that what they found was more meaningful to
them. The rabbi they left undoubtedly has certain skills and talents; why
do you think the rabbi they found does not have other and different skills
and talents that benefit them in other ways that are more important to them
and that you're missing out on? We can?t have it all, which, again, is why
it?s so wonderful that we have so many different type of shuls and yeshivot
and other Orthodox institutions to serve the needs of our diverse Orthodox
population.

Joseph

> On Apr 16, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Prof. Levine <larry62...@optonline.net> wrote:
> 
> At 11:27 PM 4/15/2021, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
>> This is why, thank God, we have so many shuls ? aand I say this in
>> a positive tone. I could not possibly belong to or daven regularly
>> in a shul with rabbis of the type RYL describes and my strong
>> guess is that he would probably feel the same about the rabbis of
>> the shul I belong to who are so very different in tone and
>> attitude and  philosophy. But by having all these shuls with such
>> very different types of rabbis, we all have the opportunity to
>> each find a shul/minyan in which we feel comfortable to daven and
>> with a leader we can respect. And, my strong guess also is, we'll
>> never convince each other who's right. I know I wouldn't even
>> begin to try. :-)
> 
> Regarding finding "a shul minyan in which we feel comfortable to daven
> with a leader we can respect,"  let me recall something that I believe
> Rav Yisroel Salanter said.  "Any Rabbi that the Baalei batim do not
> want to get rid of is not a rov,  and any rabbi that the shul does get
> rid of is not a mensch."
> 
> This is what he meant by this.  It is the rabbi's job to make the
> Baalei Batim feel uncomfortable so that they will realize that they
> need to improve. Someone who is complacent will not feel the need to
> change anything. On the other hand,  the rabbi has to know how far to
> go with this.  He should not press to the point where the Baalei batim
> fire him.
> 
> In light of this,	it seems to me that davening in a minyan where one
> feels completely comfortable is not desirable and will not lead to
> improvement in Torah learning and doing mitzvos.
> 
> Regarding the rabbi who at times spoke harshly, and this led to
> congregants leaving the shul, let me point out some of what they
> missed by leaving.  This rov gave many gemara shiurim in a most unique
> way.  At most gemara shiurim the person giving the shiur speaks, and
> those present more often than not listen passively.  This rov would
> learn a piece of gemara for say 5 minutes and then stop.  Those
> present were then supposed to say over that piece of gemara to the
> person sitting next to them.  This method led to many who attended his
> gemara shiurim being able to make a leining on a piece of gemara. This
> is something that many never attain.
> 
> This rabbi gave many shiurim on Chovos Ha Lavovos on Shabbos
> afternoons, and a free wheeling hashkofa shiur on Thursday nights.
> These influenced positively the outlook of many who attended.
> Attendance at all of his shiurim and the Thursday night talks was not
> limited to his congregants.  Those present spanned the spectrum from
> Chassidim to even some knitted yarmulkas.

On 15/4/21 4:27 pm, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> 
> While some appreciated his sermons, most of the congregational leaders 
> felt that they were not necessary. His preaching was a point of 
> contention for a long time, and it took thirteen years before the board 
> of Mikveh Israel formally sanctioned his work as a preacher.

My understanding was that the objection was to the fact that he preached 
in English rather than Portuguese (which by then very few congregants 
actually spoke, but was still the congregation's tradition).

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a healthy summer
z...@sero.name


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)