T-77 D major {I am assuming this still needs a good deal of editing.}
4.7.17
I thought that it might be a good idea to mention the events surrounding R. Yohanan and Ilfa. There is a lot to learn from that event but it seems to me that I was more in the shoes of Ilfa than R. Yohanan.
Nowadays the kind of test that Ilfa faced seems to have morphed . Certainly "parnasa" [livelihood] is a test and always has been, but today there are more kinds of things which draw one away from Torah. Mainly they are along the lines of, "Sure learning Torah is a good thing, but come and do this more important mitzvah that is even greater than learning Torah." Or "Come do this mitzvah so that your Torah will be more real and authentic and even better." There are countless of ways for the evil inclination to seduce one away from Torah. After all all the Satan has to do all day is think up new ways to draw people from Torah and make up deep sounding teachings that seem to imply how other things are better than Torah and then inspire his agents with these deep lessons.
The basic events were as follows. R Yohanan and Ilfa were sitting and learning Torah. דחק להם שעתא. The hour pressed upon them. (That is: they were starving yeshiva students.) They discussed going out for סחורה (to work). They were sitting near a stone wall. R. Yohanan heard two angels discussing whether to topple and push down the wall on top of them. One angel said "Let's push this wall down on them since they are thinking of leaving learning Torah to do business." The other angel answered "No. Let's leave them alone because for one of them עומדת שעתא the hour stands. (i.e. one of them will still continue to sit and learn)." Ilfa went out and became a business man. In the meantime R Yohanan continued to learn Torah and eventually became the Rosh Yeshiva (head of the yeshiva).
When Ilfa returned from one business trip he encountered R Yohanan and tried to show that he was still learning Torah even while doing business. He said, "Show me anything in the Tosephta and I will show you were it is hinted at in the Mishna." Then the Gemara brings that legal discussion.
The implications of these events are vast and few people are willing to heed the lessons. There is not question that what Ilfa did was perfectly justified. Still we see there is some level of appreciation of Torah that R Yohanan must had had. That is sometimes the real test is not whether you are sitting and learning. It is rather, "Do you appreciate the Torah enough? Or are you willing to give it up for a few bucks?"
My own appreciation of Torah was reinforced by a small book בניין עולם which brings the Gra on the Mishna in Peah who brings the Yerushalmi. A very important aspect of that discussion is the question "What is the minimum amount of a mitzvah or a sin?" This comes up concerning לא ירבה לו סוס and שריטה and קרחה.(note 1)
There is a lot to go into about this but the basic idea is that the Yerushalmi says even one word of learning Torah is worth more than all the other mitzvot.
But the Mishna not not say that learning Torah has an infinitesimal measure. Rather "No measure." Thus it is like שריטה that one would get one set lashes for lots of שריטות because it has no שיעור. This is different from things that have a שיעור like קרחה. Thus for קרחה one gets five sets of lashes even though there was only one התראה issued--because it has a שיעור.
There is much to think about here but in short it is not as if every word of Torah is a separate mitzvah. Rather is one sits an learns for example a whole day in the Mir Yeshiva in NY or Chaim Berlin, then he gets a big mitzvah. That is the same as if he did lots of שריטות. He gets one big sin. It is not as if he did lots of little sins. So with Torah that has no minimum measure, sitting and learning a whole day is a big mitzvah, not lots of small mitzvot.
I should mention that people that use Torah to make money are generally enemies of those that learn Torah for its own sake. So the fact that people are sitting and learning does not make them friends to Authentic Torah. For all we know they might be doing it for the money and ease of life style and to get out of the IDF and the prestige. In fact to get out of the IDF was the one main motivating factor is the formation of 99% of all Israel yeshivas.
This is the trouble with the religious system. It is a breeding ground for anti Torah and anti Israel zealots. The fact that people learn Torah all day says nothing about their integrity or true purpose. if fact 99% are in it for the ease and comfort of lifestyle of sitting and chatting all day and getting paid to do so.
With the exception of Ponovitch and its off shoots most yeshivas there have no interest in Torah at all.
No lower measure also means as it does for peah--that one fulfills it with an infinitesimal amount.that one fulfills the mitzvah by saying one word of Torah.
(note 1) If one does many scratches שריטות there is one set of lashes. But for קרחה even with just one warning there are five sets. The reason שריטה has no שיעור.
the idea of minimum measure comes up in truma and maaser. if one gives less than 10% it has not the legal category of maaser. the rambam writes the same about truma in laws of truma ch 3 halach 6 and 7. the trouble is halacha 6 where it is truma and it is unclear what the difference is--unless you go to the Yerushalmi. there it is clear the difference is if one intend to take more truma or not. Rav Shach explains the Rambam thus: If his intention is to take more then it does not have the category of truma at all. If not it is truma. That is the opposite of how the Rash [rabainu Shimshon explains the yerushalmi.]
Nowadays the kind of test that Ilfa faced seems to have morphed . Certainly "parnasa" [livelihood] is a test and always has been, but today there are more kinds of things which draw one away from Torah. Mainly they are along the lines of, "Sure learning Torah is a good thing, but come and do this more important mitzvah that is even greater than learning Torah." Or "Come do this mitzvah so that your Torah will be more real and authentic and even better." There are countless of ways for the evil inclination to seduce one away from Torah. After all all the Satan has to do all day is think up new ways to draw people from Torah and make up deep sounding teachings that seem to imply how other things are better than Torah and then inspire his agents with these deep lessons.
The basic events were as follows. R Yohanan and Ilfa were sitting and learning Torah. דחק להם שעתא. The hour pressed upon them. (That is: they were starving yeshiva students.) They discussed going out for סחורה (to work). They were sitting near a stone wall. R. Yohanan heard two angels discussing whether to topple and push down the wall on top of them. One angel said "Let's push this wall down on them since they are thinking of leaving learning Torah to do business." The other angel answered "No. Let's leave them alone because for one of them עומדת שעתא the hour stands. (i.e. one of them will still continue to sit and learn)." Ilfa went out and became a business man. In the meantime R Yohanan continued to learn Torah and eventually became the Rosh Yeshiva (head of the yeshiva).
When Ilfa returned from one business trip he encountered R Yohanan and tried to show that he was still learning Torah even while doing business. He said, "Show me anything in the Tosephta and I will show you were it is hinted at in the Mishna." Then the Gemara brings that legal discussion.
The implications of these events are vast and few people are willing to heed the lessons. There is not question that what Ilfa did was perfectly justified. Still we see there is some level of appreciation of Torah that R Yohanan must had had. That is sometimes the real test is not whether you are sitting and learning. It is rather, "Do you appreciate the Torah enough? Or are you willing to give it up for a few bucks?"
My own appreciation of Torah was reinforced by a small book בניין עולם which brings the Gra on the Mishna in Peah who brings the Yerushalmi. A very important aspect of that discussion is the question "What is the minimum amount of a mitzvah or a sin?" This comes up concerning לא ירבה לו סוס and שריטה and קרחה.(note 1)
There is a lot to go into about this but the basic idea is that the Yerushalmi says even one word of learning Torah is worth more than all the other mitzvot.
But the Mishna not not say that learning Torah has an infinitesimal measure. Rather "No measure." Thus it is like שריטה that one would get one set lashes for lots of שריטות because it has no שיעור. This is different from things that have a שיעור like קרחה. Thus for קרחה one gets five sets of lashes even though there was only one התראה issued--because it has a שיעור.
There is much to think about here but in short it is not as if every word of Torah is a separate mitzvah. Rather is one sits an learns for example a whole day in the Mir Yeshiva in NY or Chaim Berlin, then he gets a big mitzvah. That is the same as if he did lots of שריטות. He gets one big sin. It is not as if he did lots of little sins. So with Torah that has no minimum measure, sitting and learning a whole day is a big mitzvah, not lots of small mitzvot.
I should mention that people that use Torah to make money are generally enemies of those that learn Torah for its own sake. So the fact that people are sitting and learning does not make them friends to Authentic Torah. For all we know they might be doing it for the money and ease of life style and to get out of the IDF and the prestige. In fact to get out of the IDF was the one main motivating factor is the formation of 99% of all Israel yeshivas.
This is the trouble with the religious system. It is a breeding ground for anti Torah and anti Israel zealots. The fact that people learn Torah all day says nothing about their integrity or true purpose. if fact 99% are in it for the ease and comfort of lifestyle of sitting and chatting all day and getting paid to do so.
With the exception of Ponovitch and its off shoots most yeshivas there have no interest in Torah at all.
No lower measure also means as it does for peah--that one fulfills it with an infinitesimal amount.that one fulfills the mitzvah by saying one word of Torah.
the idea of minimum measure comes up in truma and maaser. if one gives less than 10% it has not the legal category of maaser. the rambam writes the same about truma in laws of truma ch 3 halach 6 and 7. the trouble is halacha 6 where it is truma and it is unclear what the difference is--unless you go to the Yerushalmi. there it is clear the difference is if one intend to take more truma or not. Rav Shach explains the Rambam thus: If his intention is to take more then it does not have the category of truma at all. If not it is truma. That is the opposite of how the Rash [rabainu Shimshon explains the yerushalmi.]
3.7.17
הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א
To understand the רמב''ם it is necessary to make a distinction between איסור הנאה and איסור למזבח.
In that way the רמב''ם is clear. He says in הלכות איסורי מזבח that any object that is נעבד is אסור למזבח. It makes no difference if the object belongs to him or not. But in terms of אסורי הנאה he says in הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' that most surprising of laws. He says even on one's own animal, if he is עובד it, it does not become forbidden in הנאה unless he does at least a small מעשה. Clearly he is saying that if he bowed down to his own animal, the animal does not become forbidden in הנאה and it is even מותר באכילה. It is possible to miss this point of first reading because of the order the רמב''ם places the subject. At first he says one does not make forbidden in הנאה anything that אין בו תפיסת אדם even an animal unless he does a small act like שוחט סימן אחד. When do we say this. On his own objects. But objects that belong to another, even if he does a complete שחיטה he does not forbid the animal or whatever object it might be. אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו.
What this means is vast. It means that he is looking at the statement of רב הונא as referring to only his own animal and he is deciding the law as רב הונא. But it also means that he looked at the statement of Rav Amram אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו and decided the law like that also. He decided both statements are true and do not contradict.
Thus he must have had a different version of the statement of רב הונא.
רב הונא said in חולין page מ' ע''ב when a person bows down to the animal of his friend he does not make it forbidden but if he is שוחט סימן אחר he does make it forbidden. The version of the רמב''ם must have said: "When a person bows down to his own animal he does not make it forbidden בהנאה but if he is cuts one סימן he does make it forbidden."
This is as many things in the Rambam very easy to miss. Or perhaps I should say I missed this entire thing until today. To me it seems amazing and phenomenal. In one second the whole approach of the Rambam became clear to me and how he deals with the different gemaras that are part of this sugia. Maybe I should write down the Gemaras as background information, but at any rate, the basic point of what the Rambam holds and how he looks at the Gemara in Hulin is clear.
רמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' כדי להבין את הרמב''ם יש צורך לעשות הבחנה בין איסור הנאה ואיסור למזבח. בדרך זו הרמב''ם ברור. הוא אומר בה' איסורי מזבח כי חפץ שהוא נעבד הוא אסור למזבח. זה לא משנה אם החפץ שייך לו או לא. אבל במונחים של אסורי הנאה הוא אומר בהלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' גם על בעל חי של עצמו, אם הוא עובד את זה, זה לא גורם לו להיות אסור בהנאה אלא אם כן הוא עושה לפחות מעשה קטן. ברור שהוא מכוון שאם הוא השתחווה לבהמה שלו, הבהמה אינה הופכת להיות אסורה בהנאה וזו אפילו מותרת באכילה. אפשר לפספס את הנקודה הזו בקריאה הראשונה בגלל הסדר שהרמב''ם מציב את הנושא. בהתחלה הוא אומר אחד לא עושה איסור הנאה בדבר שאין בו תפיסת אדם אפילו חיה אלא אם הוא עושה מעשה קטן כמו שוחט סימן אחד. אבל זה באובייקטים שלו. אבל חפצים ששייכים לאחר, גם אם הוא עושה שחיטה גמורה הוא אינו אוסר את החיה (או כל אובייקט אחר). אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. פירוש הדבר הוא שהוא מסתכל במשפט של רב הונא כמתייחס רק הבהמה שלו, והוא מחליט החוק כפי רב הונא. אבל זה גם אומר שהוא הביט בחוק של רב עמרם אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו והחליט החוק ככה גם. הוא החליט שהטענות נכונות ואינן סותרות. לכן הוא בטח קיבל גרסה שונה של ההצהרה של רב הונא. בגרסה שלנו רב הונא אמר בחולין דף מ' ע''ב כאשר אדם משתחווה אל חיה של חברו הוא לא עושה את זו אסורה אבל אם הוא שוחט סימן אחד הוא עושה את זו אסורה. הגרסה של רמב''ם בוודאי אמר: "כשאדם משתחווה אל בהמה שלו הוא לא עושה את זה אסורה בהנאה, אבל אם הוא חותך סימן אחד שהוא עושה את זו אסורה.
In that way the רמב''ם is clear. He says in הלכות איסורי מזבח that any object that is נעבד is אסור למזבח. It makes no difference if the object belongs to him or not. But in terms of אסורי הנאה he says in הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' that most surprising of laws. He says even on one's own animal, if he is עובד it, it does not become forbidden in הנאה unless he does at least a small מעשה. Clearly he is saying that if he bowed down to his own animal, the animal does not become forbidden in הנאה and it is even מותר באכילה. It is possible to miss this point of first reading because of the order the רמב''ם places the subject. At first he says one does not make forbidden in הנאה anything that אין בו תפיסת אדם even an animal unless he does a small act like שוחט סימן אחד. When do we say this. On his own objects. But objects that belong to another, even if he does a complete שחיטה he does not forbid the animal or whatever object it might be. אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו.
What this means is vast. It means that he is looking at the statement of רב הונא as referring to only his own animal and he is deciding the law as רב הונא. But it also means that he looked at the statement of Rav Amram אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו and decided the law like that also. He decided both statements are true and do not contradict.
Thus he must have had a different version of the statement of רב הונא.
רב הונא said in חולין page מ' ע''ב when a person bows down to the animal of his friend he does not make it forbidden but if he is שוחט סימן אחר he does make it forbidden. The version of the רמב''ם must have said: "When a person bows down to his own animal he does not make it forbidden בהנאה but if he is cuts one סימן he does make it forbidden."
This is as many things in the Rambam very easy to miss. Or perhaps I should say I missed this entire thing until today. To me it seems amazing and phenomenal. In one second the whole approach of the Rambam became clear to me and how he deals with the different gemaras that are part of this sugia. Maybe I should write down the Gemaras as background information, but at any rate, the basic point of what the Rambam holds and how he looks at the Gemara in Hulin is clear.
רמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' כדי להבין את הרמב''ם יש צורך לעשות הבחנה בין איסור הנאה ואיסור למזבח. בדרך זו הרמב''ם ברור. הוא אומר בה' איסורי מזבח כי חפץ שהוא נעבד הוא אסור למזבח. זה לא משנה אם החפץ שייך לו או לא. אבל במונחים של אסורי הנאה הוא אומר בהלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' גם על בעל חי של עצמו, אם הוא עובד את זה, זה לא גורם לו להיות אסור בהנאה אלא אם כן הוא עושה לפחות מעשה קטן. ברור שהוא מכוון שאם הוא השתחווה לבהמה שלו, הבהמה אינה הופכת להיות אסורה בהנאה וזו אפילו מותרת באכילה. אפשר לפספס את הנקודה הזו בקריאה הראשונה בגלל הסדר שהרמב''ם מציב את הנושא. בהתחלה הוא אומר אחד לא עושה איסור הנאה בדבר שאין בו תפיסת אדם אפילו חיה אלא אם הוא עושה מעשה קטן כמו שוחט סימן אחד. אבל זה באובייקטים שלו. אבל חפצים ששייכים לאחר, גם אם הוא עושה שחיטה גמורה הוא אינו אוסר את החיה (או כל אובייקט אחר). אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. פירוש הדבר הוא שהוא מסתכל במשפט של רב הונא כמתייחס רק הבהמה שלו, והוא מחליט החוק כפי רב הונא. אבל זה גם אומר שהוא הביט בחוק של רב עמרם אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו והחליט החוק ככה גם. הוא החליט שהטענות נכונות ואינן סותרות. לכן הוא בטח קיבל גרסה שונה של ההצהרה של רב הונא. בגרסה שלנו רב הונא אמר בחולין דף מ' ע''ב כאשר אדם משתחווה אל חיה של חברו הוא לא עושה את זו אסורה אבל אם הוא שוחט סימן אחד הוא עושה את זו אסורה. הגרסה של רמב''ם בוודאי אמר: "כשאדם משתחווה אל בהמה שלו הוא לא עושה את זה אסורה בהנאה, אבל אם הוא חותך סימן אחד שהוא עושה את זו אסורה.
Rambam עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א'
To understand the Rambam it is necessary to make a distinction between איסור הנאה and איסור למזבח.
In that way the Rambam is clear. He says in הלכות איסורי מזבח that any object that is נעבד is אסור למזבח. It makes no difference if the object belongs to him or not. But in terms of אסורי הנאה he says in הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' that most surprising of laws. He says even on one's own animal, if he is עובד it, it does not become forbidden in הנאה unless he does at least a small מעשה. Clearly he is saying that if he bowed down to his own animal, the animal does not become forbidden in הנאה and it is even מותר באכילה. [It is possible to miss this point of first reading because of the order the Rambam places the subject. At first he says one does not make forbidden in הנאה anything that אין בו תפיסת אדם even an animal unless he does a small act like שוחט סימן אחד. When do we say this. On his own objects. But objects that belong to another, even if he does a complete שחיטה he does not forbid the animal or whatever object it might be. אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו.
What this means is vast. It means that he is looking at the statement of רב הונא as referring to only his own animal and he is deciding the halacah as Rav Huna. But it also means that he looked at the statement of Rav Amram אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו and decided the halacah like that also. He decided both statements are true and do not contradict.
Thus he must have had a different version of the statement of Rav Huna.
Rav Huna said in Hulin page מ' ע''ב when a person bows down to the animal of his friend he does not make it forbidden but if he is שוחט סימן אחר he does make it forbidden. The Rambam's version must have said when a person bows down to his own animal he does not make it forbidden בהנאה but if he is cuts one סימן he does make it forbidden.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In that way the Rambam is clear. He says in הלכות איסורי מזבח that any object that is נעבד is אסור למזבח. It makes no difference if the object belongs to him or not. But in terms of אסורי הנאה he says in הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה א' that most surprising of laws. He says even on one's own animal, if he is עובד it, it does not become forbidden in הנאה unless he does at least a small מעשה. Clearly he is saying that if he bowed down to his own animal, the animal does not become forbidden in הנאה and it is even מותר באכילה. [It is possible to miss this point of first reading because of the order the Rambam places the subject. At first he says one does not make forbidden in הנאה anything that אין בו תפיסת אדם even an animal unless he does a small act like שוחט סימן אחד. When do we say this. On his own objects. But objects that belong to another, even if he does a complete שחיטה he does not forbid the animal or whatever object it might be. אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו.
What this means is vast. It means that he is looking at the statement of רב הונא as referring to only his own animal and he is deciding the halacah as Rav Huna. But it also means that he looked at the statement of Rav Amram אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו and decided the halacah like that also. He decided both statements are true and do not contradict.
Thus he must have had a different version of the statement of Rav Huna.
Rav Huna said in Hulin page מ' ע''ב when a person bows down to the animal of his friend he does not make it forbidden but if he is שוחט סימן אחר he does make it forbidden. The Rambam's version must have said when a person bows down to his own animal he does not make it forbidden בהנאה but if he is cuts one סימן he does make it forbidden.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Musar [learning the books of Ethics written during the Middle Ages
I noticed that Rav Shach mentioned Musar twice in his introduction to the Avi Ezri. He even goes so far as to bring the idea that without good character and fear of God, all one's Torah learning is negative and poison.
Musar, after it got mixed with kabalah, takes a different direction than the Musar of the early Middle Ages. For example, the attitude of the Rambam and his son's and grandchildren's Musar books have very different attitudes than later books of Musar. A lot of fanaticism gets introduced after the Middle Ages. [Muar of the Middle Ages held of the approach of Faith with Reason, Reason with Revelation.]
Later books can mix up people.
However this is not to imply anything negative about the Ari (Heaven forbid.)
My feeling about this is that if one feels ready to learn the Ari (Isaac Luria) and has been through Shas a least a few times, then the best thing is to learn the Ari straight. [The main thing I think is the Tree of Life though my learning partner, David Bronson, thinks that the מבוא שערים is even more essential.]
[Though I am myself ashkenazic, I can not stress enough to avoid all the ashkenazic sitra achra [dark side] books of mysticism written after the 1600's.] The only commentary on the Ari from the ashkenzic world is the Gra. So for good commentary on the Ari, the best thing is the Gra, Rav Shalom Sharabi (Yemen) and or Rav Yaakov Abuchazeira.
The truth be told I do not think it is possible to get the "spirit of Torah" outside of a Litvak Musar yeshiva. I have absolutely no respect for synagogues at all. If one is not in the area of a genuine Litvak yeshiva then the best thing is to learn at home.
Musar, after it got mixed with kabalah, takes a different direction than the Musar of the early Middle Ages. For example, the attitude of the Rambam and his son's and grandchildren's Musar books have very different attitudes than later books of Musar. A lot of fanaticism gets introduced after the Middle Ages. [Muar of the Middle Ages held of the approach of Faith with Reason, Reason with Revelation.]
Later books can mix up people.
However this is not to imply anything negative about the Ari (Heaven forbid.)
My feeling about this is that if one feels ready to learn the Ari (Isaac Luria) and has been through Shas a least a few times, then the best thing is to learn the Ari straight. [The main thing I think is the Tree of Life though my learning partner, David Bronson, thinks that the מבוא שערים is even more essential.]
[Though I am myself ashkenazic, I can not stress enough to avoid all the ashkenazic sitra achra [dark side] books of mysticism written after the 1600's.] The only commentary on the Ari from the ashkenzic world is the Gra. So for good commentary on the Ari, the best thing is the Gra, Rav Shalom Sharabi (Yemen) and or Rav Yaakov Abuchazeira.
The truth be told I do not think it is possible to get the "spirit of Torah" outside of a Litvak Musar yeshiva. I have absolutely no respect for synagogues at all. If one is not in the area of a genuine Litvak yeshiva then the best thing is to learn at home.
30.6.17
Not enough attention is place on making a distinction between the Ari and occult practices.
Not enough attention is place on making a distinction between the Ari and occult practices. It is almost inevitable that one gets involved in learning the Ari that he get caught up in some kind of occult activity. People find supposed proofs in his writings for all kinds of very stupid activities; or sometimes just the opposite. They attack true tzadikim thinking of themselves as having privy information about some deep secrets of the Torah revealed by the Ari.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)