Subject: Misdemeanors and dina demalkhusa - msg#00055

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: learning in bathroom

At 06:03 AM 6/29/2005, you wrote: OTOH the Rama states explicitly that he studied philosophy in the bathroom while the Maharshal chides the Ramah that he should have studied grammar. So It was not unusual to study non-Torah subjects in the bathroom. Are you quite sure? IIRC he says he studied philosophy on Shabbos when everyone else was out on their shpatzir. YGB

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: SheLo Asani Isha

Micha Berger <micha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >:> In order for that answer to make sense, we must understand how Hashem >:> is meitiv us. Even WRT sechar va'onesh, and therefore of the mitzvos >:> that earn us that sechar. >: How... does not explain... why. > And why do we need it to? The "why" of my statement is precisely what my original quetion was. "Why" simply means: to what purpose... to what end? To ask why we need ask why is to push aisde my entire question. > I fully disagree with that. People do love their infant before it is born, > never mind before they feel loved by it. There is an insinct to love a child pre-birth or an infant to love a parent. there is no instinct to love God. In the case of a child, the feelings are based in physical reality. Our emotions are generated by perceptions, anticipations and interactions with the newborn. They are based on experiential data imprinted in the mind. OTOH it is extremely difficult to work up a love of a Being that is completely super-natural without any aid. There are none of the above stimuli. As for God, there is no natural tendancy to love a Being that has no physical presence and therefore no physical interaction. It requires pro-activity for man to come to love a supernatural Being. It is of course possible to work up a love of God since we are mandated as such. But it is work... and not something that can be achieved in the same way as the love of a parent for a child. Even if it is still in the womb the child is a tangible reality. Not so, God. There is nothing tangible about Him. God's existence is based on belief. His true nature is beyond our comprehension and relating to Him has to be learned. It is not innate. To love God without the benfit of the knowledge of Schar VeOnesh is an imposibilty, IMHO. > To repeat RSShkop's position, people love themselves, and love others > when they realize that "no man is an island", that there are bridges > across the barrier between "me" and "you"... I think R. Shimon Shkop has then just argued my case for me. It is the realization that "no man is an island", etc. that generates love. Until that realization is reached love is impossible. If a parent does not communicate at least his or her own existence to a child in some... at least rudimentary way, a child will not love his parent at all. To understand that we need God to exist is not any more motivation to love Him than the realization we need air to exist to motivate us to love air. IOW if God is the cause of our existence but doesn't indicate he cares about us in some at least rudimetary way, no love will be generated in us. >:> Second, you seem to be saying that only conditional love exists. >: I wouldn't call it conditional. I would call it a necessary component >: of the human condition that in order to give love properly one must >: have been properly (or at least minimally) nurtured in childhood. > But isn't that a different beloved? How does this link loving G-d > to His nurturing us, rather than our experiencing nurturing in > general? There is the difference between what we can perceive with one or more of the five physical senses which I personally believe creates the "instinct" to love. I don't know that one would experience the emotion of love if one did not have any of the physical senses. IOW even though love is an emotion, I beleive that emotion would be impossible to achieve without some physical interaction with humanity. On the other hand one cannot have any physical interaction with God. > Second, the love of an abused child is a diseased thing, but it still > exist. But it wouldn't exist at all if there was no physical interaction at all. Or to put it another way there has to be some physical interaction in order for love to exist even for an abused child. If the abusive parent could not even be perceived there could be nothing to love (or hate for that matter). For one to realize God's existence without realizing His bounty is tantemount to realizing that a parent exists but is irrelavant to his well being. One must be actively made aware of God ...AND... His bounty in some rational way. Bounty can de defined as Schar. > Third, you do make our love of G-d about His nurturing, which is a > conditional love. Conditional love has a harsh connoation. That phrase makes it sound like one is giving God an ultimatum. That is absurd. I see it as the natural order of things... the nature of humanity. HM

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Territorial compromise

Arnold Lustiger writes: > Here is a translation of a five minute segment of the Rav's 1967 Teshuva > drasha... > For an almost diametrically opposed POV, listen to the Rav's talmid > muvhak, RHS' lecture on the Gaza disengagement (I don't have the website, > but there are at least two pro-settlement links to the lecture out there, > in addition to the YU site.) The Rav's position was that territorial compromise is permissible on grounds of Pikkuah Nefesh and that just as one listens to the physician in case of illness, one listens to the authorities on military matters. I don't what R. Schachter said recently on the sites referred to. I do recall what he wrote years ago. The position taken there is NOT diametrically opposed to the Rav's. R. Schachter held then that since the military people are divided on the subject, the analogy to Pikkuah Nefesh would be to a case where the physicians disagree and then you have to consult the sick person (by analogy, the Jewish population of Israel). Again, I don't know what he has said recently.

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

[Hirhurim] Spectator Sports

Avodah Zarah 18b (Soncino translation): Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because entertainments are arranged there in honor of the idols. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where such entertainments are given there is the prohibition of being suspected of idolatrous worship, and where such entertainment is not given the prohibition is because of being in 'the seat of the scornful.'According to the Sages, there are two reasons to prohibit attending theaters and circuses: 1) the idolatrous practices that were attendant at ancient celebrations, 2) Moshav letzim, "the seat of the scornful," which is a phrase taken from the first verse of Psalms. This latter reason seems to apply even when there is no idolatrous aspect to the proceedings (see the Rashash's gloss to Rashi, sv. nasa ve-nasan). This point is made further by the Magen Avraham (224:3) who prohibits attending theaters and circuses run by Jews, that entirely lack idolatry (cf. MA 338:8). What does it mean to be in "the seat of the scornful"? One might be tempted to say that it refers to wasting time rather than studying Torah. However, the Maharsham (glosses to Shulhan Arukh 224:1) states that this prohibition applies to women, who are not obligated in consistent Torah study. Clearly, it refers to being in an inappropriate environment, as the Seder Ya'akov (Avodah Zarah, ad loc.) elaborates. With all this in mind, is it permissible for any of us to go to the theater, circus or even a sporting event (as a spectator)? Every rabbi with whom I have discussed this seriously told me not to pursue the issue further. In other words, they have no good answer but don't want to say not to go. Last year, word came out of Lakewood that kollel families should not go to circuses. This was roundly mocked (or, perhaps, "scorned"), but sounded to me quite reasonable. That is, after all, the standard halakhah. R. Asher Meir, the Jewish Ethicist, tackles this issue and also doesn't really have a good answer. (6/29/2005 6:44:41 AM)