- This topic has 159 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
In that case there is no difference between Judgement and Merciful. A person that wants to be merciful would do what is best for that individual, but that is what, according to your definition, is the role of judgement. We therefore do not have Hashem as a Judge between Din and Rachamim, since being that He is good, he is Rachamim itself.
Sometimes being merciful is not good because it encourages bad behavior. Only Hashem knows what is good for the person.
Thinker, in Israel it is not used. FYI, i was in a shiur given by a a rabv who learned in Kol Torah and he said לסבר.
This sounds like the argument over masechet Beitza. The Tifferet Yisrael says at the beginning of the masechta that the Gra’s son said that he Gra said “beitza”:. He gives an interesting reason for the change. Look it up.
Avi K, The Rishonim called Maseches Beitza, Maseches Yom Tov some call it Masches Beiah because of its connotation. The Magen Avraham says not to say beitza but beiah.
As to Meschet Beitza, it has absolutely no relevance to this case. Everyone agrees that the actual pronunciation is with a tzaddik, rather the MA (O”C 156) says that for different reasons one should say Beiah.
Laskern: I don’t think you understood my point. True mercy is when someone does what is best for the that individual. For instance if a father disciplines a child he is being merciful even if the child does not like it. One that spares the rod is not practicing mercy, rather harming him, which is not mercy, rather misguided mercy, i.e. wanting to do what is best (true mercy) but is not knowledgeable as to how to go about it.. The Middah of Rachamim, must be pure Rachamim, and thus must want what is best for the individual. Hashem, being the ultimate goodness according to your line of reasoning, too wants what is best for the same individual, therefore there is no practical difference between Mishpat/Goodness, and Rachamim.
His behavior is judged either with midas harachamim or midas hadin.
If he is found a tzadik, he is punished for his not good deeds in this world in order he should get full rewards in the next world, whereas a rasha will get his rewards for his good deeds in this world in order to get punished for his bad deeds in the next world. This is good for both because this is what they desire.laskern: Again, you haven’t addressed my point. According to your definition, there is no difference between the Middah of Mercy and the Middah of Judgement, since both of them seek to give to each individual what is truly best for them. For instance, there are two options for person X, option A) which is the best thing for him to actually happen (even if it may be a punishment), or option B) which is not as good.
Hashem, being ultimate Goodness would choose option A), and Middas Harachamim, wanting to do what is actually the best for this person X, would also choose option A). Therefore there is no difference between them.Laskern, the Tifferet Yisrael points out that ambam says that Hebrew is called Lashon haKodesh because it has no bad words. Rather he says that the reason is found on Sanhedrin 5b where a serious mistake was made due to either someone who did not speak clearly or talmidim whose did not hear clearly.
AviK: Your’e trying way to hard to sound knowledgeable. The correct way to say it is as ALL the Rishonim have used it לשבר את האוזן. It is completely irrelevant what modern Hebrew does or does not say. Lashon Hakodesh is NOT Hebrew. In the future before taking anyone to task about anything, make sure you know what you are talking about or risk sounding the fool….
They both can be for the good of the person with different results.
laskern: Think for a minute, if I have two options, both of them good, one of them is obviously better than the other (99 percent of the time). Both the Ultimate Good and the Merciful one will want the option that is the better one, and in that case there is no difference between them.
In other words Both the Ultimate Good and the Merciful one want the exact same outcome and the choice would always be the same.Hashem is Ultimate Good. You have two advisers Truth and Mercy. The two don’t have the same results. If they have the same results, no choice is necessary. He chooses the one which is better for the individual. How that is decided we don’t know.
I just had a thought I wanted to throw out to the oilem.
Reshaim presumably do not only do aveiros, but may also in fact do some mitzvos. I would think that HKB”H may be creating these people for the mitzvos they will do, so that He can give them reward, and hopes that they will do teshuva for their aveiros and stop doing them.
Faker, Lashon haKodesh changes and sometimes “converts” foreign words/ Sometimes the opposite happens. The Shela HaKadosh says this about learning four parshiot in tefillin from “tot” and “fot” in foreign languages. For example, in this week’s parsha the term “am haaretz” refers to the elite.
Laskern, they can be two sides of the same coin. for example, one who does din with reshaim does chesed for tzaddikim. Even with the same person din can really be chesed as it directs him.
laskern: Again you seem to be missing the point. The ‘advisor’ of Mercy (which wants the best for him) and The Ultimate Good, also wants the best for him. In that case there is no difference between Mercy and the Ultimate Good.
The Tzemach Tzedek in derech mitzvosecha addresses these subjects at length. I can write a bit up that i think may dispel a bit of the confusion and feel free to ask on whatever point of contention remains (im not really seeing any one clear question):
Hashem is One simple essence, Who expresses Himself to His creations through different mediums He created
in order for us to relate to Him. These are the ten sefiros of chochma bina daas chessed gevura tiferes etc.By using these mediums to relate to us, we in turn are able to grow spiritually as He implanted in us the same 10 soul powers. Thus we can fulfill the mitzva of “lhidamos lo” as the Rambam states, “Ma Hu rachum af ata thei rachum” etc. Hashem shows us throughout the Torah “Personal” examples of how to refine ourselves, such as visiting the sick, and seeing the situation up close before passing judgment, to quote a few examples in recent parshas.
We can also call Him rachum and chanun etc even though He, at His essence is not defined or limited by either, because it is He Himself, His essence, expressing itself through the midda of chessed or gevura etc.
Just as it’s the same light coming through glass stained windows, although you perceive it in different colours.
To be continued
Part 2: (many times my later post gets posted before my first one.)
If we could only relate to Hashem through the mediums of chessed. Like trying to be kind as He is kind (although here too there is a vast difference as His chessed is unlimited and ours is limited, but at least it’s a defined midda we have so we can relate to the idea and also know what’s right and wrong and how to grow), chochma etc, as we do in davening, thanking Hashem for His kindness, praising Him by limited attributes that we can appreciate, and asking His help in mundane really insignificant matters that matter to us, we would have a pretty shallow relationship looking at things from a broader perspective where all the Sefiros for Hashem, are just as low as action. (Whereas by us, intellect is the loftiest expression and capacity we have, and action is the lowest, by Hashem they are both equally low as is hinted to in the posuk “kulam bchochma asisa” where chochma is described as physical action.)
Luckily we have another way of relating to Hashem that He granted us (goyim don’t have this) which is our inborn emuna which believes and relates to Hashem even where we don’t understand and can have no comprehension, where darkness is light and He can combine two extremes that make no sense together etc.
(Goyim can appreciate and relate to Hashem based on logical observation of the wonders of nature etc. which is the first level described above. The name or description Hashem goes by for this is Elokim – which is the same gematria as Hateva. The higher level that we relate to solely through emuna, Hashem uses the name Hevaya for, “Shabbos Hayom laHevaya” the idea of shabbos and miracles and only yidden relate to this.)
OK I’m done. Hope to see the five posts approved soon (preferably in order ;)) and looking forward to follow up 🙂
Part 3:
I forgot to add that these two different ways of relating to Hashem are actually two different mitzvos:Mitzva 1 is to know Hashem – this is accomplished by thinking about Hashem’s Greatness in ways we can relate to based on our experience of our own chochma chessed etc. (You can only understand our relate to something within your experience. For example you can imagine an elephant in a subway because you know what the two are even though you haven’t seen both together. However someone who has never seen either can’t imagine both together.)
We use our knowledge of Hashem, which we only know by learning about it, to create love and fear of Him, another two mitzvos. Incidentally, these mitzvos are part of the 6 constant mitzvos which apply to women as well. Hence women have an obligation to try to understand as much as possible about Hashem to be able to love and fear Him.
The other mitzva is Believing in Hashem – separate mitzvah. This relates to what we can’t understand.
Interestingly, the Tzemach Tzedek points out that the more we learn about Hashem, the more we understand, and the more we realise what there is that we can’t understand. Ie we take things that were previously in the realm of emuna and now we understand it because we learned and thought about it. So now our yedias Hashem is greater, and our Emunas Hashem jumps to the next level.
Part 4:
Something else that has been brought up in this thread is if Hashem isn’t defined by chessed etc how do we matter to His essence which isn’t defined by giving etc whether it is for Him or for us?This question really at its core expresses: how much does Hashem really care for us and to what point do we really matter? If it’s a matter of giving, it would seem that at His essence He could care less about us, but once He lowers Himself to deal with the world, at that point (from atzilus onwards, ie from the point of the created sefiros) then what we do matters.
There is a posuk that expresses how our actions, whether mitzvos or aveiros, only reach so far. “V’im tzodakta, ma titen Lo?” Like at some point, who cares?
Kind of like the principal who sternly lectures the talmid for coming late and compliments the one who comes on time. This is very important for the talmids development : if the principal would show that in essence he could care less, or even more confusingly, one day yell at the Talmid for coming late, and the next day reward him for it, this would be very bad for the talmids development. So the principal has to show that it matters. However, at his core, the principal could really care less. He has loftier concerns on his mind.
But this would mean that all our hard work in Avodas Hashem, all our sacrifices, and really our very existence, only matter to a certain point, but at His core, he could care less cvs.
Luckily this is not the case. Hashem chose, with His Ultimate bechira chofshis, that He desires to care about us. And that we matter, all the way up. Our being matters. Because He chose so.
He chose with His bechira that He’s gonna get the ultimate enjoyment out of our victories and ultimate victory over evil. As the medrash says, “Nisave Lo Hkbh liyos Lo Yisbarech dira bitachtonim.
He chose us down here. Not the angels or all the higher spiritual realms. But us down here, that’s what matters.
Post 5:
In case anyone was wondering, women usually care about practical things and I am not an exception. Why is all of this very clear to me?
Because we were learning in class about Hashem and how all the Sefiros etc are only applicable to the world of atzilus. After that, any description is a limitation. At some point, perhaps above kesser, Even saying He is unlimited is a limitation – He cannot be limited…
Thinking about this I got very upset. I realized that based on this, all the davening and personal relationship, appreciation for hashgacha protis and personal miracles etc, are all limited to a superficial (relatively speaking) and that means that I can only relate to Hashem on a superficial level, but we can’t be intimate on a core level. That got me really upset and I burst into tears. Eventually, thinking about it, I realized that that’s where emuna comes in, and that’s how we relate to Hashem on a higher more intimate level as well. At that. I calmed down.
By hp a few days later. I learned this idea in derech mitzvosecha when the Tzemach Tzedek was discussing the difference between the mitzvos of yedias and Emunas Hashem as explained above
in the posuk “kulam bchochma asisa” where chochma is described as physical action.)
It’s an adverb, not a verb.
Post 2:
In other words, it’s not being described as a physical action, it’s being used to describe a physical action.DY I know there is the pshat of the posuk. Note I used the word hint. However, chachmei hakabala have seen this posuk also expresses a deeper truth which is as noted above- that the hekesh(conjugation?) of chochma to asiya denotes that to Hashem, the loftiest chochma is equal to physical action…
I think how this is even hinted at all, is because in the phrase “Ma rabu maasecha Hashem, kulam bchochma asisa ” hiskalta could have replaced asisa, as by kulam we are anyway referencing the maasecha, and it would fit better linguisticly
Chabadshlucha: According to what you have just written, it is quite clear that you are quoting Derech Mitzvasecha the first five chapters of Mitzvahs Emunas Elokim. However without knowing for instance Mitzvahs Hatfillah it is impossible to know what he means with Hashems names and the Sefiros.
Furthermore, although you correctly differentiated between the two mitzvohs, your application seems rather faulty. Emunah is Sovev, by definition Sovev has NO connection to us (that we can feel) as the Rashab explains beautifully in Heshach 5772 part 1. The Sefiros that you are reffering to is in Memalah not Sovev.
Another point, you explanation of Hashems seems to be contradicted by the Rashab Hemshech 5766 pages 200-260 (in the new edition).AviK: From the negative way you write, it is quite obvious that you are not interested in the truth rather you all you care about is being correct. It’s a big pity since it is quite obvious that you of all people are wholly ignorant with matters such as these.
You have totally misunderstood the Shela Hakodosh, and again, before you start typing things, do the research. Lashon Hakodosh can and has NEVER changed. As the Pardes Harimonim (by the Ram”ak) clearly states the difference from L”K and all other languages is that in L”K the word chair is not a description of it, rather the חיות וקיום, of a chair is from the word כסא in L”K. The Shelah HIMSELF quotes it and expounds on it. L”k CANNOT change just as the essence of the world does not change!
[All the SHela means is that in regards as to how WE use words it can change, not the actual language].
And to go correct someone for using a word the correct way as ALL the Rishonim do, and when called out on it cannot be a man and own up to, is an extremely arrogant and abhorrent thing to do.
Be a man and admit to your mistakes, you may learn something one day….The fake maven:
I was including both actually. I haven’t finished shoresh mitzvas hatefilla (its really long for those who are unaware I mean like 50+ pages) but have started a few times.As I wrote (just didn’t use the terms mimale and sovev) our appreciation of Hashem on a kochos level only reaches to atzilus ie mimale. However emuna which derives from chaya and is not one of the eser kochos hanefesh, relates to sovev, which is makif but still related to mimale, otherwise wouldn’t even be makif.
We can relate even to atzmus through the koach of mesiras nefesh, where we cannot separate ourselves from Hashem which shows we are one, but I didn’t detail that above.
In any case, I’ll admit I have not yet learned the hemshechim of the Rebbe Rashab. I would love to do that sometime. Please quote where you felt I misunderstood / am wrong, and prove it by writing up how the Rebbe Rashab contradicts what I said, (as I did with derech mitzvosecha instead of simply saying go look it up yourself.)
It does seem you may have misread my posts. I would love to be corrected if I’m wrong. Thanks.
TheFakeMaven, do you know pshat or are you just questioning me?
Faker,
1. What is the difference between how we use words and the actual language?
2. The Shela haKadosh says that some words (e,g, “tot” and “fot”) were lost from Lashon haKodesh and preserved in foreign languages.
3. The Tanach also introduces Persian words into Hebrew (e.g. meltzar). Does that mean that the Book of Esther is not written in Lashon haKodeshlaskern: I cannot say that I KNOW peshat, I have my opinion that I have formulated from I have learnt. But I am always open to hearing others opinions which is why I am questioning you as I am having problems understanding you reasoning.
Chabadshlucha: Since it seems we are both interested in the truth rather than being right, I will gladly tell you (later tonight iy’h when I have the time) which parts I differ from you. If you feel I am wrong or misunderstood you I’m sure you will correct me accordingly.
AviK: Your ignorance knows no bounds! I’m left shaking my head in wonderment at how one can be so ignorant, yet not hesitate to make statements as if they were facts.
Take a look at the first Ran in Mesechet Nadrim where he states the general rule that a language is convention. In other words no language is true or false. For instance if we both decide to call a house chair and chair house then we are just as correct as those that call chair chair. Another way to think about it is that if there would be no humans alive there would also be no language.
All this is said of every other language BESIDES for L”K. Hashem created the world with this language, it obviously predates man, and is therefore NOT a matter of convention. Furthermore, in l”k the words are not merely prescriptive rather they are the ESSENCE of each being (see Tanya part 2 chapters 1, 8-12). It is then also not for us to change since it is not a matter of description rather the essence of each creation. Anybody lumping together L’K with all other languages shows complete ignorance.
Your second point is pointless, what does one thing have to do with another.
As to the third point of ignorance, is the Targam Onkelos L’K?Is Daniel written is Lashon Hakodesh?
TheFakeMaven,
Your ad hominem attacks make it impossible for me to read what you write.
What is the point of all your learning if you can’t behave respectfully? Derech Eretz kodmah l’Torah.
StuartW: Two points, first of all where is your indignation to AviK? Only after his repeated personal attacks against me did I question his wanting a honest discussion or a trading of bards.
Secondly, my points are irrelevant of my character. Either my arguments are valid based on the truth or they are not, my personality is irrelevant to this.hekesh(conjugation?)
A hekesh is a drasha by which two things are able to be compared because of their proximity to each other.
TheFakeMaven,
I admit that I didn’t read all of AviK’s posts. If he was disrespectful then my comments apply to him as well.
Points are orthogonal to character, but I and perhaps others can’t read the points when the nastiness comes out.
My suggestion: if someone is disrespectful, give then a warning to tone it down, and cut them off if they continue. Please don’t answer back with insults.
No need to answer me. Please consider what I said.
You have also not responded to my point about “tot” and “fot”.
FM.
1. You’re memory is failing you (I am judging you favorably). You started the personal attacks on Oct 30 at 2:26 PM. Moroever, you are the one who chose your screen name.
2. You have not answered my question regarding the difference between what a word is and how we use it. For example, the change in the meaning of עם הארץ from Bereisheet 23:7 to Ezra 9:1 to Pesachim 49b. If you want more examples, there is גבאי (originally a collector form לגבות) and חזן (originally the president of the congregation because he had to foresee, לחזות, their needs).StuartW: Thank you for you comment. I hear you loud and clear.
Thanks DY. I was wondering if conjugation was the right word to use for hekesh. Still not sure from your answer but thanks for defining it :).
Fakemaven you have not yet responded. Looking forward to seeing it
Chabadshlucha: I responded late last night after the mods already closed shop for the day. It was a rather long post, but I expect it to be up soon.
AviK: October 29, 2018 1:39 pm, Fake Maven, you are indeed. Your words verbatim. I have actually answered your points. In l”k changing how we USE a word does not effect what it actually MEANS as with all other languages. Thus anybody saying לשבר את האוזן is one hundred percent correct far more than anybody using לסבור since the Hashem intended it is לשבור as all the Rishonim did too. Regardless from how my discussion with deteriorated right from the start, it seems that this will not be a productive conversation at all, and is a waste of time on both of our parts.
Shame it hasn’t been approved, hopefully it will soon. I was looking forward to a learned discussion and learning new things 🙂
There are many facets to this topic. Broadly speaking I think we can separate them into two categories, Hashem Himself, and our connection to Him. I’ll address the second one (first). According to your understanding, we can connect to Him on two levels, A) through ‘imitating’ His attributes, since it is using the same Sefiros (Tanya part 1 ch. 2-3). B) Through emunah which is unique to us Jews. You further correlated these two concepts to the two mitzvohs, Yedias Hashem and Emunah. “Knowing” Hashem by definition can only be actualized by things that we can envision, whereas emunah is believing in Hashems ‘essence’ something that no human can actually “know”. (It is this point which is the first category that I mentioned above).
There are a few points which I think you have misunderstood. Let’s start with the connection through ‘imitating’ His attributes. As mentioned above, you equate this with the mitzvoh of ‘knowing Hashem’ and you further claimed that in this regard the gentiles can also ‘know’ Hashem. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Torah means by וידעת היום, והשבית אל לבבך וגו’, this mitzvah of Yediah does NOT mean simply understanding through logic (which is what a gentile can do as well). Furthermore I believe that this misunderstanding is why you also misapprehend what the mitzvah of emunah is.
The Tzemach Tzedak in mitzvahs Emunah ch. 3 explains what yediah actually means. In truth, the Tanya states this all the way at the start in ch. 3, and in Torah Ohr Mishpatim the first Drush. In a nutshell, all three of the first three Sefiros (Chabad), are unique. Chochmah and Binah are the intellectual faculties, i.e. what we use to actually reason with, however just knowing something does not change a person in the slightest. It is the third Sefira, Daas, which does this. Daas is what the person uses to connect his knowledge with himself.
[The Rashab in hemshech 5772 part 1 explains it succinctly. A person may know that a certain food or item is good, however as long as he doesn’t take HIMSELF into the equation, i.e. which is good for him, his knowledge of the item would not cause him to do anything about it].
Knowing the omnipotence of Hashem in all its intricacies, does not do anything for the person, he stays the same as he has always. However when he goes to the next step through meditating on these concepts and how they relate to HIM, that changes the person.
Now let’s take this a step further. What happens through this meditation, and why it effectuates a dramatic change is because through this we can actually ‘feel’ Hashems presence. To elaborate on this point would take up too much time, so a brief explanation will have to suffice for now. Because the Nefesh Elokis is made of the same ‘substance’ of (a certain level of) Hashem [this point needs serious elaboration for a different time], it is naturally drawn to Him, however the physical world prevents it from ‘connecting’ to its source. However, as the Baal Shem taught (that is what the Tanya means in part 2 ch. 1 see Likutei Sichos 29, p. 26) all physical entities’ existence is only from the Ohr that lies within it, which is directly from Hashem. Therefore, Chassidus teaches that when used correctly (Tanya p. 1 ch 7-9) one CAN connect to Hashem through the physical itself. But again, this only happens BECAUSE of Ten Sefiros that lie inherently in a Jew.
In other words, the world is full of opportunities to see Hashem in literally everything, as long as it done in the correct way, i.e. to draw closer to him. This ability is inherent ONLY to Jews because of where their soul comes from. Although a gentile may be able to understand (certain concepts) of Yechid Hashem, the next step, i.e. internalizing it, that is an ability ONLY a Jew has. (see Tanya p.1 ch 1, and chs. 18-22).
This, in a nutshell, is what the Mitzvah of Yedias Hashem is.
Emunas Hashem is a totally different mitzvah. It means believing the parts of Hashems’ Omnipotence that we cannot logically understand. And, by definition, being that we cannot understand it, we can also not internalize it in any way that it will change us and bring us closer to Hashem.
In any case, I have looked up derech mitzvosecha myself, mitzvas haamonas Elokus, to respond to your quote below:
“Emunah is Sovev, by definition Sovev has NO connection to us (that we can feel) as the Rashab explains beautifully in Heshach 5772 part 1. ”
And I quote, page mem hei, line 18 ( exact translation, faster to type in English and cant / don’t know how to post a screen shot on here)
“And this concept is referred to as “Sovev kol olmin” in the Zohar, that regarding this (sovev -ed), is the mitzvah of belief. But regarding the level of mimale kol olmin, the term emuna doesn’t apply to it. Rather, as it is written, “Mivsari echeze Eloka,” (from my flesh, ie own experience, I envision Hashem), I can actually envision it, although we cannot see Him with physical vision, nevertheless, its as if we can actually see the concept of how Hashem enlivens all worlds, because seeing with the minds eye can be with the same certainty as physical sight.”As the Tzemach Tzedek clearly states, we can relate to sovev through emuna (which is our koach hamakif), and not only that, but that is the only level where emuna should be applicable…
Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote before . non any case, here’s the source.
FM,
1. If you do not like the name why do you use it?
2. You have not answered my question. What is the “real meaning” of
עם הארץ, גבאי and חזן? Is it a separate spiritual language? If so, how can one speak it?Fake maven thanks for your post (just read it properly). I don’t see where you contradict what I wrote other than rather tersely explaining (would love to see more detail) in what way a goy can relate to mimale kol olmin (which is what I wrote) and how he can’t (which I wasnt aware of and thus didn’t write.)
So just to clarify, if you think something I wrote is wrong, can you quote it and disprove it as I did in my post above?
Otherwise it seems you are just adding and differentiating further with reference to the difference between a goy and a yid.
I would also like to see more examples (Mivsari echeze…) of the practical difference between a goys yediah of Hashem, and a yids, based on a solely mimale level. It does seem goyim can relate to Hashem completely on this level. Otherwise, how do you explain noach, iyov and other righteous goyim who were granted some form of nevuah, were righteous people, and seemed able to feel G-dliness, not just acknowledge it. There also seem to be Noahides today so learn Chassidus and it resonates with them.
Maybe that’s the idea of chassidei umos haolam who have a different neshama than regular goyim as the Rebbe notes on perek aleph Tanya?
Regarding emuna, it seems we are saying the same thing in different words and I fail to see where you think I went wrong there. It does seem you have just misread my posts on the topic. Or maybe you don’t experience emuna as a feeling/ sense? But i would think that’s a misunderstanding on your part, as it definitely is a feeling, just one that is makkif and above logic, not below and influenced by logic…
Looking forward to seeing your response.
@mods I’m enjoying seeing how quickly my latest posts have gone through. Thanks for all your good work!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.