Volume 66 Number 36
Produced: Sun, 02 Apr 23 03:43:52 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Chazal" being of more than one mind
[Micha Berger]
"Reward" For Learning
[Micha Berger]
Bracha rishona
[Micha Berger]
Does anyone actually keep two days chagim in Eilat or the Arava?
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Talmudic Arguments: The Use of Insults, Reprimands, Rebukes and Curses
[Micha Berger]
Trials?
[David Ziants]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 23,2023 at 01:17 PM
Subject: "Chazal" being of more than one mind
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 66#35):
> Comment to a magid shiur:
> I've often said what you said at the beginning about "Chazal" being
> of more than one mind on an issue (especially hashkafically), but that
> generally seems to be the absolutely the last answer anybody wants to
> give. Have you seen any sources discussing this in any detail?
R EE Dessler in particular had the position that there never were major
machloqesin in hashkafah.
To the extent that leshitaso, the Besh"t and the Gra agreed about what tzimtzum
is. And that their machloqes boiled down to how we should relate to the idea and
thus what to teach. This position was repeated to R MM Scneerson, either not
besheim omero or the LR didn't realize the beqi'us of the mashgiach in Gateshead
in such matters. And the LR responded by poo-pooing the suggestion and writing
this clear description of the various shitos about tzimtzum:
https://chabadlibrary.org/books/admur/ig/1/11.htm
(Which I think slightly distorts the Gra's position by casting it in Chabad's
terms, like Ein Sof vs Or Ein Sof, instead of his own terms of Borei and Retzon
haBorei, and the connotations he gives each. It is closer to Rationalist to say
that to make a world of Teva and Bechira Chofshi, Hashem withdrew His Will, than
to talk about metaphoric Light.)
I am also reminded of the Leshem's principle that the metaphysics in the Moreh
and early chapters of Yesodei haTorah is describing the same reality that
Qabbalah does, and they only differ in metaphor. So, one speaks about an Or
entering olamos, each one more coarse than the one before, until you get to this
physical one. The other speaks of Yedi'ah -- Hashem's, down the various levels of
Mal'akhim, each thinking the one below it into existence, until you get to the
celestial spheres and earth. To the Leshem, those are just different models, not
conflicting ideas about the reality.
My own pet peeve is when a speaker says "Chazal", "the posqim hold", "the
rishonim say", "it is written in the heiliger sefarim", "the baalei mussar say".
Often it hides a machloqes, or presents common "knowledge" that doesn't have a
primary source, etc ...
Micha Berger
http://www.aishdas.org/asp
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 17,2023 at 10:17 AM
Subject: "Reward" For Learning
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 66#35):
> To a maggid shiur:
>
> Your recent class was on the topic of "reward" for sponsoring a shiur is on
> a topic that I find fascinating... I am not God's accountant, but it doesn't
> seem that the reward for learning Torah in that case would be transferable,
> except perhaps to the extent that more people attend due to the dedication.
Perhaps:
This shiur was going to happen either way. Although I see the point about having
more money to market the shiur, provide those "light refreshments" or in other
ways encourage more people to come.
But what about the next shiur? Said maggid shiur has to put food on the table.
Or at the very least, has to prioritize his various projects and a lack of
sponsorship feels like it is flagging a lack of interest. If this shiur isn't
properly sponsored, how much less likely is the next shiur?
So, "perhaps", we should talk more about the sponsor's sekhar of causing its
continuation.
And now for the nitpicky tangent:
"Transferable" isn't a perfect term. When you light one candle from another, you
aren't usually putting the first flame out. It isn't being "transfered" from
wick to wick.
I don't think too many people say the world's Yissochors lose sekhar for not
being self-supporting, when sekhar is being transfered to the Zevulun.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
http://www.aishdas.org/asp
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 8,2023 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Bracha rishona
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 66#35):
> If a society always eats dessert as part of a meal, do they make a bracha
> rishona on the dessert before birchat hamazon?
You've hit a trigger for me. Because I am still wondering about a more
fundamental version of the question:
If a society no longer eat the majority of their food by using flatbread as
"cutlery", why does HaMotzi cover all the foods in the meal that would otherwise
have gotten other berakhos?
The whole concept of meat being "liftan" is not how we eat today.
The reason why deserts are different is not because they are optional, but
because they were not typically eaten on bread. Same thing with that fruit you
had as appetizer. Parperes is only included if you actually do force its
icludion by eating it on bread. But liftan is included by default based on norms.
We altogether aren't qov'in se'udah the way the gemara assumes. So every time
questions like this one are raised on list, I need to back up the conversation a
step ...
Tell me how do the rules work nowadays if at all. When do we follow the gemara's
rulings, and when do we follow the sevara that led to them. Because my
understanding is that today's metzi'us doesn't get you from that sevara to the
whole idea of HaMotzi covering core of the meal.
And then I could participate in a search to see how deserts that are a
taken-for-granted part of the meal should be treated.
Micha Berger
http://www.aishdas.org/asp
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <menely2@...>
Date: Sat, Apr 1,2023 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Does anyone actually keep two days chagim in Eilat or the Arava?
Avraham Friedenberg wrote (MJ 66#35):
> This came up at lunch today with friends who live in Eilat. Does anyone
> actually keep two days of the chagim in Eilat or the Arava? I have heard of
> the practice theoretically, but is it actually done?
I wrote about that, spoke about that ... the practice is one day. The chief
Rabbi Uziel, who was asked after the capture of Eilat what to do, wrote that
although the messengers were sent to Babylon, there were Jews in Egypt, who also
had to know when was Rosh Hodesh. Eilat is in the 10 days journey time from
Jerusalem. Also, it is not logical that in one state, to have different days.
One can assume that a few may keep 2 days, but by and large, the prevalent
custom is to keep one day in Eilat. BTW, my wife's parents live there, but we
stay at home.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 22,2023 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Talmudic Arguments: The Use of Insults, Reprimands, Rebukes and Curses
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 66#35):
> In Talmudic Arguments: The Use of Insults, Reprimands, Rebukes and Curses as
> Part of the Disputation Process by Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D
>
> https://www.academia.edu/36323670/Talmudic_Arguments_The_Use_of_Insults_Reprim
> ands_Rebukes_and_Curses_as_Part_of_the_Disputation_Process?email_work_card=vie
> w-paper
>
> he has the punchline:
>
>> Regardless of the reason a sage chose to incorporate heavy language, as long
>> as no embarrassment or intently personal attacks are found, it can be used.
>> This rule is not limited to ancient Babylonia, but it is true to any society
>> where dispute carries with it, in a healthy manner, the element of verbal
>> jabs and attacks. But do so with caution, because even Rav Huna and Rav
>> Hisda let the debate become personal, and even Hashem [God] regrets, as it
>> were, knocking someone else down (Dratch, 2014).It is clear that some
>> insults in the Talmud caused serious problems and did not end well. In
>> particular, the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish where the
>> former said:
>> A robber understands the tools of his trade.
>>
>> The story of Abdan and Yishmael b. Yosi also had a disastrous conclusion.
>> These stories demonstrate that even sages have to be careful when using
>> sarcasm, insults, and derision as a tool to enhance the disputation process.
>
> Is this as COGNITIVE DISSONANCE being resolved TODAY OR AN ACCURATE DEPICTION?
Since the alternative is saying that there was a widespread problem with ona'as
devarim among Chazal, Rishonim and numerous Acharonim, I think the what RJS
fears is "apologetics" is the only possible explanation.
I am reminded of the day R Dr David Berger came in to shul all excited. At the
time R Schach was on a campaign against YU, whose "uMada" -- and likely any
"Torah and..." -- was an anathema to the value system RES wanted to promote.
And a few weeks after warning his talmidim away from some of the more famous
RIETS RY, R Schach lashed out against RDDB -- a Jewish History professor who
would eventually become dean of YU's Revel Graduate school, but hadn't yet. (My
guess is, because both had attacked Chabad Messianism, someone thought or might
think they were on the same side.)
The thing is, though, RDDB found it a compliment. For RES to know you exist and
have a message that is serious enough to need addressing ...
I have a feeling that attitude is both
(1) more common among talmidei chakhamim (and academics, and people like RDDB
who are both) and
(2) more common in most other eras. We are a pretty soft bunch, as history goes.
-Micha
http://www.aishdas.org/asp
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sat, Apr 1,2023 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Trials?
Joel Rich (MJ 66#35) quotes from Derashot Harav, pp. 116-11, Rav Y.B.
Soloveitchik (RYBS) and I understand from this quote that although concerning
sensitivity to the poor RYBS implies the Jews do well as opposed to the Nations
of the World, when it comes to diverting wealth to support spiritual matters
Jews have fared poorly.
I disagree with the aspect where he says the Jews have fared poorly.
Certainly, the Sephardim (at least in Israel) tend to put in a lot of money into
their batai k'nesset to make them ornate, as I see this in my city where I live.
I don't particularly agree on the way it is done, by auctioning the aliyot and
other honours. In England, also the Ashkenazim put a lot of money into the shuls
- especially the mainstream United Synagogue - and here this has generally come
from big donors.
With regards to yeshivot, I think most religious Jews who have a steady income
try and support their pet yeshiva (maybe where they learned or a local
institution) - and this is regardless of the sector or aida (i.e. ashkenazi/
sephardi etc.). There are here, also the big donors.
I mentioned here what I am familiar with and how I perceive. Maybe in the USA,
it is different.
David Ziants
<dziants@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 66 Issue 36
