Music for the Glory of God

q43   q43 in midi

My parents knew how to be parents. That is something I can't say about parents today. And even back then it was very rare. I can't claim to this special kind of knowledge. My brothers stayed longer with my father after my mother's death so they learned at lot more about being a mensch than me.

The main ideal that they strove for and wanted for us kids was "to be a mensch."
That translated from the Yiddish means to be a decent human being. To act always right. And to act right was always crystal clear. You did not need any philosophy to make issues muddy. But today acting right is to most people a very muddy issue. To  make it clear let me say the best expression of being a mensch is contained in the Ten Commandments.
That is to say the Torah has two areas of obligation. One is between Man and God and the other between Man and his fellow Man. The peak of human perfection is fulfilling both areas.
My parents were the closest I ever saw anyone come to fulfill this balanced approach.

[In a practical sense, Reform Judaism is right for the emphasis on obligations between man and his fellow Man. That is clear in all books of Musar. And see the Nahar Shalom by the Yemenite Mystic Shalom Sharabi who gives a deep explanation for this. In any case however obligation between Man and God are also obligations. But there is no reason to be searching for extra things to be strict about that the Torah does not require. It is a fact that there are people who just can't get enough strictness. That however is not the approach of the Torah. One can serve God though anything.  Hillel went to a bathhouse and his disciples asked him what he was doing. He explained he was doing a mitzvah. Similarly with others things he was doing.

The danger of ריבוי אור. Too much light.  Too much excitement in the service of God can  be from the evil inclination. As it says in the Torah that God told Moses to warn the people not to go up on Mount Sinai.

גם בעבודת השם יש יצר הרע גדול דהיינו התלהבות יותר מדאי וזה בחינת מה שהשם אמר למשה הזהרתה את העם מלעלות על הר סיני

There is another way in which Reform and Conservative Judasim are admirable. They don't do idolatry. That is they don't worship people nor try to get others to worship people.

I should mention that the way I learned Torah was mainly influenced by the two yeshivas I went to in NY. One place was for in depth learning that was mainly interested in what was going on on that page. The next place--the Mir in N.Y. was  more about how what was going on on the page fit in with the rest of the Talmud. I benefited from both approaches and I think that both approaches are implicit in what God has granted to me to write in these two booklets.

My background in California was Temple Israel in Hollywood. I had learned some Torah in Newport Beach before we moved to Beverly Hills, but I don't remember where or who. It was certainly Reform, but I don't remember what was the name.  But I gained a great deal at Temple Israel. I think the rabbi's name was Nussbaum.
[Later my family had a different rabbi,  Rabbi Roth, who is Reconstructionist. I don't know him very well because I was in NY, and later went to Israel. But he has been the family rabbi for my family for a long time.] [I should mention that I think Reform Temples are good, but we should learn more Torah.]
Incidentally, I see I wrote on my blog a lot of ideas about Shabat that never got into the Hebrew book. Most of the essays I found by typing Chaim Soloveitchik Shabat. But I have to look over them to see what I was saying.
______________________________________________________________________________
Ok Here is what I wrote in English that I was looking for:

"The question on this is that something not intended is not at all the same thing as being obligated a sin offering. So I still have to do some thinking about this way of explaining what Reb Chaim might be getting at. Until I can get this idea past my learning partner, I don't want to present it as anything but ad hoc.
I would like to say there is a connection between not intended and normal sin offerings. My idea is that sin offerings need some degree of knowledge but not to actual intend them. E.g picking up a radish on Shabat that one thought was already picked but turned out to be attached to the ground is not liable, but to cut it is to Abyee. So some knowledge is needed to be liable--but not too much. And that is what makes something an accident."


What I seem to be saying is that in the Gemara we have R Yehuda and R Shimon. R Shimon is says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה  and דבר שאינו מתכווין both are not liable. R Yehuda says they are both liable. Shmuel goes by R Yehuda in מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and like R Shimon in דבר שאינו מתכווין and that is how the Rambam goes. What I seem to be asking is that דבר שינו מתכווין even if it is פסיק רישא still should not be liable. And then I go on to show why it is liable because it is the normal thing in all sin offerings that we need that the fellow had some knowledge of what he was doing--but not too much.

But this is just a guess. Maybe I will merit to review this subject and then get a better idea of what was bothering me. 

_________________________________________________________________________________



The question on this is that דבר שאינו מתכווין is not at all the same thing as being מחויב חטאת. But there is a connection between דבר שאינו מתכווין and normal חויב חטאת. My idea is that חטאות need some degree of knowledge but not to actual intend them. E.g picking up a radish on שבת that one thought was already picked but turned out to be attached to the ground is not liable, but to cut it is to אביי. So some knowledge is needed to be liable, but not too much. And that is what makes something an שוגג.


In the גמרא we have רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. The opinion of  רבי שמעון is  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה  and דבר שאינו מתכווין both are not מחויב. But רבי יהודה says they are both liable. שמואל goes by רבי יהודה in מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and like רבי שמעון in דבר שאינו מתכווין and that is how the רמב''ם goes. What I am asking is that דבר שינו מתכווין even if it is פסיק רישא still should not be liable. And then I go on to show why it is liable because it is the normal thing in all קרבן חטאת that we need that the fellow had some knowledge of what he was doing, but not too much.

But this is just a guess. Maybe I will merit to review this subject and then get a better idea of what was bothering me. 

השאלה: דבר שאינו מתכווין הוא בכלל לא אותו הדבר כמו להיות מחויב חטאה. אבל יש לומר שישקשר בין הדבר שאינו מתכווין וחויב חטאת. הרעיון שלי הוא שצריך בחטאות מידה מסוימת של ידע, אלא שלא להיות בפועל מתכוון. למשל להרים צנון בשבת שבמחשבתו   הוא כבר הורם אבל התברר להיות מחובר לאדמה אינו מחויב חטאת, אלא לחתוך אותו  מחויב חטאת לאביי. אז יש צורך בקצת ידע להיות מחויב, אבל לא יותר מדי ידע. וזה מה שעושה משהו שוגג. בגמרא יש לנו  רבי שמעון ורבי יהודה. דעתו של רבי שמעון היא מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה ודבר שאינו מתכווין שניהם לא מחויבים. אבל רבי יהודה אומר שניהם מחויבים. שמואל סובר כרבי יהודה במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה וכמו רבי שמעון בדבר שאינו מתכווין וכך לרמב''ם . מה שאני שואל הוא שהדבר שאינו מתכווין גם אם הוא פסיק רישא עדיין לא צריך להיות מחויב. תירוץ: מדוע היא מחויב? בגלל שזה דבר הנורמלי בכל קרבן חטאת שאנחנו צריכים שהבן אדם קצת ידע על מה שהוא עושה, אבל לא יותר מדי

I should mention that to be obligated in a sin offering one needs one of two lacks of knowledge. He might not know that the action is forbidden. But he knows what he is doing. The other thing is he did something by accident. See the Mishna LeMelech at chapter two of the Rambam's Hilchot Shegagot.
It is this second kind of accident that I am referring to in the above essay.

 If one serves an idol from love thinking that that is allowed then he brings a sin offering. If on purpose then that is the death penalty. If he makes a mistake in material facts like if the statue is in fact an idol, then we see right in the Talmud itself that Abyee says, "that is nothing."



Now we find in tractate Shabat that there is an argument between Abyee and Rava about cutting a radish and it turns out that it was attached. Abyee says he is liable a sin offering. Rava says no.[Shabat 72b]. But in the case where he picked up a radish and it tuned out that it was attached then both agree he is not liable. So what do we have from this? This: if one picks up a radish on shabat thinking that it is allowed to do so then he brings a sin offering. If he did not know it was attached it is nothing. Exactly like idolatry.--except it is not exact. What is the difference between this and cutting the radish?


What I suggest is to look at Shmuel in Kritut where he discusses the Mishna about what kind of accidents are liable and what kind not. [circa pages 19, 20]. The fact is he requires both intention and thought, to be liable. And though it is hard to see how this can help us right now, still I think it is an important area to keep in ind because of the essential fact that the Rambam's opinion about work not intended and work not needed for its own sake comes directly from Shmuel.  So whatever Shmuel thinks is going to be directly related to anything the Rambam says.

I did not know the date of my mother's death. I had always observed it on the Hebrew calender. But my younger brother wrote and mentioned at it was today on the English calendar.

My parents knew how to be parents. That is something I can't say about parents today. And even back then it was very rare. I can't claim to this special kind of knowledge. My brothers stayed longer with my father after my mother's death so they learned at lot more about being a mensch than me.

The main ideal that they strove for and wanted for us kids was "to be a mensch."
That translated from the Yiddish means to be a decent human being. To act always right. And to act right was always crystal clear. You did not need any philosophy to make issues muddy. But today acting right is to most people a very muddy issue. To  make it clear let me say the best expression of being a mensch is contained in the Ten Commandments.

mp3 folder

I have been looking at Musar (Ethics) books for a while and at some point I started to notice that they  divide a persons obligations into two parts. בין אדם לחיברו and בין אדם למקום- Between man and his fellow man and between man and God.

You find some people stress one area over the other. But from what I can tell the books of Musar have the viewpoint that both areas are important.

What that means in a practical vein is that if you want to repent, you would have to look at each different area individually. That is probably so hard that you can see why some people stress one area over the other. And there might not be any choice but to take that approach. Still it is important to realize that at least in theory ones' obligations are divided evenly between these two areas.

Though the source of obligation is Divine the approach in Musar that the obligations between man and man precede those between man an God.  See Nahar Shalaom of Shalom Sharabi where he gives a mystic reason for this.

The evil inclination is also divided into two parts. One physical and the other spiritual. The spiritual is the tricky one. That is the one that gets and impersonates a Torah scholar and gets people to sin as they think they are doing a great mitzvah.

 "The evil inclination is dressed in Mitzvot." That is the evil inclination does not try to seduce people with "Let's go and do a sin."  It says rather, "Let's go and do a mitzvah."

Tracate Yoma about work on Shabat

  יומא ל''ד ע''ב


האם זה אפשרי שמשהו יהיה דבר שאינו מתכווין ועדיין להיות מלאכה שצריכה לגופה?
  אני מציע שזה יכול להיות. תן לי להסביר. אפשר שמלאכה שצריכה לגופה אין שום קשר עם כוונה. אחרי הכל אין שום דבר האמור בזה על כוונה.  הדבר היחיד שחשוב הוא האם  נצרך  או לא. אבל בתוספות ביומא ל''ד וכריתות נראה כי תוספות חושבים שלא מדובר במשתנים בלתי תלויים. יכול להיות מתכווין ועדיין מלאכה שאינה צריך לגופה, אבל לא להפך. הדוגמא הקלסית היא לחפור בור למטרה אחרת מאשר למטרת שלשם חפירה שנעשתה במשכן. כלומר הוא צריך העפר, לא בור. אבל כפי שניתן לראות בתוספות בכריתות, תוספות שם מחזיק אלה הם עצמאיים. יכול להיות דבר שאינו מתכווין אבל הוא עדיין צריך לגופה. אז מה הוא שיש לנו שלושה רעיונות בסיסיים של מה היא מלאכה שאינה מריכה לגופה. בשבת יש לנו רבינו יצחק, תוספות בכריתות, ותוספות בתחילת בבא קמא. אני רוצה להזכיר שאלות על תוספות זה בגמרא הכריתות יש לנו המקרה של הפיכה של גחלים 

Is it possible for something to be דבר שאינו מתכווין  and still be a מלאכה שצריכה לגופה?
 But I suggest there can be. Let us say we understand a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה has nothing to do with כוונה. After all there is nothing mentioned in it about כוונה. Rather the only thing that matters is whether it is נצרך or not.


In the תוספות  in יומא ל''ד  and כריתות it seems  that תוספות thinking that these are not independent variables. Rather something can be מתכווין and yet מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. But not להפך. The classical example is digging a hole for a purpose other than the purpose for which digging was done in the משכן. That is he needs the עפר, not the בור.

But as we can see in the תוספות in כריתות, the תוספות there holds these are independent. One can have a דבר שאינו מתכווין but it is still צריכה לגופה


So what we have in is three basic ideas of what is a מלאכה שאינה מריכה לגופה.  In שבת we have רבינו יצחק, the תוספות in כריתות that I am dealing with in this next essay, and the תוספות in the beginning of בבא קמא


\

I wanted to mention questions on this תוספות

In גמרא כריתות we have the case of turning over coals. For turning over the bottom coals רבי שמעון says he is not obligated. תוספות says there are three reasons to say he is ought to be obligated in a sin offering. It is מלאכת מחשבת and it is  damaging by fire which רבי שמעון says is obligated, and it is a case of   דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא. So why is he not obligated ? Answer תוספות. A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
Then why, תוספות asks, does not the גמרא say this? Why does it say the case is דבר שינו מתכווין? Answer to show the strength of רבי יהודה who says even though it is דבר שינו מתכווין, he is still obligated in a sin offering.

תוספות then approaches the גמרא in גמרא שבת דף ק''ג ע''א. There he is picking עולשים that can be eaten. If he does it to eat, then to רבי שמעון he is obligated only once and not for the additional obligation of making his field look nicer. But we ask is it not דבר שאינו מתכווין אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא?
 Answer: It is someone else's field.
That is just the straight גמרא.
The two questions on תוספות concerns the way he treats this later גמרא.
Question one: תוספות is satisfied with his being not obligated in someone else's field since it is אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא . This is in direct contradiction to what he said in כריתות concerning the parallel case of coals.
Think about it. The Gemara said R Shimon should have said it is liable and then answered it פסיק רישא ודבר שאינו מתכווין. But back in Kritut we said some thing can be that exact case and be liable. In fact it was listed by Tosphot as a reason to be liable!!!! The only reason in Kritut it is not is because מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה

Actually I just looked at my notes in Hebrew and I saw that I wrote there that this is in fact the intention of Tosphot--that is to ask on the previous idea in Kritut.




Question Two. In his own field, we should also make a distinction if it is  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה or not.

The second question is really just a note, but not really a קושיה.


תוספות says the reason in כריתות that the גמרא said it is a case of דבר שאינו מתכווין שאינו פסיק רישא is because it wanted to show the strength of רבי יהודה. So why, תוספות asks, then in a later on case when he draws the coals closer to himself, the גמרא does not say the same thing? Why does it say it is a case of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה?

Answer: In drawing coals it could be that he does not mind if they get hotter. So the גמרא can't say it is not intended. Only in the case of turning over coals in which case he is against the idea of the bottom coals getting hotter. He would rather they would not . But he simply has no choice since he has to get the top ones to the bottom of the pile where they will cool down and  become usable coals. My point here is that תוספות says that even so, רבי שמעון would say he is obligated to bring a sin offering except for the fact that it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה .

So why then in גמרא שבת is תוספות satisfied with the fact that it being דבר שאינו מתכווין שאינו פסיק רישא  makes him not obligated even thought it is simply a case of his not caring whether the field gets improvement in value.

I probably should mention here that I do not mind if he is not obligated in שבת ק''ג because it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. I only wish that that would be the reason that the גמרא or תוספות would use over there.

My learning partner made a suggestion that perhaps תוספות meant for the original three means of being obligated to רבי שמעון  were meant to work together. I.e.  that the idea דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא with the idea of מקלקל by fire.  Maybe תוספות meant for those three original means to be obligated to work together. But if you look at the actual language of תוספות you can see that is not what he says. But at least it might save תוספות in a conceptual manner, even if it is not exactly what he said.



[1] Work done not for its own sake. Classical example. Digging a pit for the dirt, not for the hole to plant in.
Work not intended: Classical example. He does something permitted but something forbidden might result.
פסיק רישא is he does something permitted, but something forbidden must result.

[3] There is a third question also on the same תוספות. It concerns the issue of how תוספות treats the גמרא in כריתות. In that גמרא there is a case where someone pulls burning coals closer to himself. the גמרא itself says it is not obligated in a  sin offering because it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה

Now to some degree we can accept this. We already are understanding that the only time lighting a fire is חייב is when he needs the coals. I might like to argue about this here but I am anxious to get to a much more glaring difficulty. Before תוספות says one of the three reasons רבי שמעון would say tuning over the bottom coals is חייב is that even though it is אינו מתכווין it would be חייב for even מקלקל by אש is obligated. I mean to say that תוספות. That is, you do not need intention to be חייב for lighting a fire. So even if he thinks he is pulling apples closer to him, he would be obligated in a קרבן חטאת. how then do we say he is not obligated because of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? That is for רבי שמעון you do not need מלאכת מחשבת for fire.