@Reb Eliezer @DaMoshe

My question, specifically, is why achdus is valued for reshaim. What purpose does it accomplish? Everyone’s patting each other on the back….as they build the tower?

Thank you avira, Always, and others who offered good answers. To summarize, the classic allegort of someone born on top of a mountain versus someone born at the foot of the mountain.
But then Pinchas, who one way or the other surely was at the top of the mountain, should not have needed his yichus to represent him. Would a better rebuttal of the scoffers have been who he himself was?

“Clothes, dishes, and books isn’t a full צורה so there are מקילים”
I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that it’s not boleit? that heter doesn’t apply to the sun and moon. You mean there’s only half a sun in the picture? מאי פסקא?

“Also ask tzemach if the gedolim think it’s assur”
who’s tzemach?

“והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך you should see your teacher or rebbi.”
“Rav belsky had several pictures in his house, not just his office, of rav reuven, rav yaakov, and i believe rav shlomo heiman, but i don’t remember that very clearly.”
So you are suggesting that it’s worth it to be meikel and see the face of a godol (or to support someone). It wouldn’t answer having pictures of ordinary people. (I’m aware you might just be addressing the question of if there’s an inyan, and not if it might be assur.)

” To support a yid, he put on his hat, made a big smile and posed for a picture”
I saw that picture and he’s not smiling.

see
תפילה למשה אוצר פי׳ ראשונים על התפיות ח״ג
bottom of page 768

What you wrote is:

“Emunah based on mesorah isn’t childish; it’s the acknowledgment of jewish history being filled with

*divinity and awareness of Hashem*.

It’s the *understanding that our nation stood by har sinai*, and that its authenticity shouldn’t be any more suspect than the American revolution. Havchana, seeing Hashem in creation and history, isn’t derishah vechakirah; it’s advocated by basically everyone.”

I don’t understand how we arrive at said awareness and understanding without probing the options.
And if its veracity is as strong as the belief in the american revolution, something tells me it’s not worth too much at all. Not that I, or anyone I ever heard of, is skeptical about the revolution. Just that I, and I assume most people, don’t cling to the fact that the revolution happened with unwavering belief. Were someone to shoe me evidence that it never occurred, I’d believe it.

@Haleivi
Let’s say one of the rishonim, an undisputed chain of the menorah of Torah as we have it……didn’t believe in Torah Min Hashamayim. Sure, a great and wise man or group of men wrote it, and every word is truth and should be “horved on”. What’s the big deal?

If the Rambam is telling us this is something that is an IKAR HADAS, a foundation of our heritage, and an Amora didn’t believe in it, yeah, that’s a huge deal.
Sure, maybe amoraim made mistakes. Even torah mistakes. But not something heretical.

@Avira before I reply to you I should make sure I understand you.

Are you saying that seeing Hashem’s role in creation is condoned, and rather it’s yichud hashem (that there is nothing else other than Hashem; that all the Malachim and mazalos and middos are but expressions of the one God) that’s discouraged?

“When I was in yeshiva, I noticed that whenever someone learned the same topic consecutively, (For example, he switched yeshivos and was learning again what he learned the zman Bedford..) They basically knew it verbatim from any point that they picked up the discussion.”

Verbatim? I never saw anyone do that.

“In sum, learning by heart is more about mental preparedness,”
How do you prepare your mind for it?

Thanks for the suggestions. I just need to know how long it’s reasonable to expect it to take. Obviously no one can give anyone an exact timeline; I’m more wondering if this is the type of thing you can pick up in your spare time or it’s something you have to focus on, full semesters in college etc.

@always that story is told about the author of the ketzos hachoshen and r’ aryeh leib tzintz. They were referring to content, not style.

shuv matzasi this exact question in shu”t radvaz chelek 5 siman 89. If anyone can explain his answer to me, I’ll be very grateful.

@laskern, it “contains” the neshama and sechel–does that mean that the neshama and sechel are contributing factors? The only factors? Or mere residents in the moach?

@chabadshlucha, yes please explain.

@Haleivi
“Square Root of 2, why do you say that the pint is not to be embarrassed? What about those being punished?”
I am quite honestly quite frustrated–angry, really–with everyone who comments without reading the posts. You apparently didn’t even read the title.

“As for my point of Bechira, you have to truly envision such a universe before tossing the explanation. If the fact is that there is no concept of a Cheit (whether preordained or selective universe) then there is no active Bechira. (Yes, I know your point of view, which is why I worded it that way.)”
So please explain your point of view on bechira and how that’s contradictory to a world where only tzaddikim live.

Thank you AviT . I don’t know if you’re following up on this, but if you are: There are many sources that reshaim will remain reshaim in olam haba as well. One example: Midrash in the beginning of shir hashirim that says leasid lavo at the seudas livyasan, the reshaim will serve the tzadikim.

So, in a nutshell, reshaim were not created for their own good.

I apologize for yelling.

There seems to be a large miscommunication here. Being as how nobody understood me, it’s probably my fault ,so let me repeat the question very slowly.
1. Hashem created people in order to do good.
2. There are people who don’t do good, i.e. reshaim.
3. The fact that they do bad on their own volition is irrelevant.
4. Hashem knows, before he even creates them, that they will be reshaim.
5. reshaim don’t do good, and hence there is no reason for them to be created.
6. Why does Hashem create people he knows will be reshaim?

seems like either ,my question was misunderstood or people are taking the yediah/bechirah paradox to heart. Although a person has the freedom to be a rasha, and Hashem doesn’t create him as a rasha, nevertheless Hashem creates people he know will be reshaim. And hence my question. Why?

@Laskern. Please elaborate. I don’t understand.

@coffee addict, basically you’re saying that reshaim’s creation is indeed a disservice to them, but it’s done for the tzaddikim’s good?

@laskern, what does that rashi by Kayin have anything to do with this?

@a pashute yid, please refer to my second post on this thread.
I fail to see how I took it out of context.
And please answer this rashi, instead of referring me to others, unless the others shed light on this one. Which it doesn’t.

Laskern, rashi doesn’t bring that part of the gemara; it would seem he holds that for “pashut pshat” of the pasuk it’s not necessary. Additionally, the gemara itself seems to put the focus on gehenom and not teshuva: if the “hey” alluded to the fact that Hashem created the world with mercy and instilled teshuva, that would be understandable. But when the gemara puts the emphasis on gehenom, with a side point that it’s possible to do teshuva, it’s not so much more encouraging.

An underlying difficulty I have is that if the mesillas yesharim is correct, then why is the world so prone to bad and not good? If the entire point is to get sechar, why is it that “noach lo leadam shelo nivra”–why did Hashem not make it that it would be easier to get gan eden than gehenom? Why is it that those who get saved from gehenom are one in many, and those that make it to gan eden are the minority?

Rashi in parshas va’eira says that Moshe and Aharon were equal in righteousness. R’ Moshe Feinstein explains that although Moshe Rabeinu undoubtedly reached higher heights than Aharon, it was because his neshama was naturally more prone to kedusha than was Aharon’s. This seems to be not like what you said.

I don’t know if I have a hechere neshama. I am mortal which by default is finite. My neshama is immortal and I guess infinite (?). 🙂

what about a sheailas chalom? Anyone know how to do that?

Thanks avrah, I’ll look that up.
Catch yourself, I don’t see how the theories of why Hashrm created the world with koach hateva answers why it is that we’re to look at the world with an attitude of “everything here is by default going to stay unless there’s a definite change.”

Arvah, thanks again for your reply. Admittedly I did get a bit lost in middle of the paragraph, but you seemed to be quoting the nefesh hachaim that the world, though dependent on Hashem, will stay unless its base–Hashem–“moves”. You didn’t provide the exact source, so it’s hard to look up, but that seems contradictory to everything I always heard about chiddush haolam–that Hashem is constantly creating the world, and it’s not at all steady-but-dependent; it is nothing save for the command of Hashem.

Daas yochid and catch yourself, I understand that Hashem commanded us to do mitzvos even though in reality our actions are futile and it’s Hashem that allows the action to happen (or more accurately, performs the action himself). My question is why Hashem specifically wants us to act as though all is to be taken for granted, that we should apply a logical–or logic-related–assumption that everything should be staying the same unless we see proof that it changed.

I’ll illustrate the point further. The gemara (gittin and other places) discusses chezkas chai–we can assume that he who was alive yesterday is alive today. Is that not antithetical to our core beliefs? Are we supposed to have such an attitude, “we’re here to stay by default, unless some change happens”? Don’t we make a bracha every day amplifying that point exactly that our life was given to us by Hashem and that if not for his kindness we wouldn’t be here?

To reiterate, I’m 100% aware that this is a Torah-ordained doctrine. The question is WHY it is so.

I did press the submit button. The reason you thought I did was because you’ve become used to the fact that Hashem gave people to make decisions and cause things to happen.

avrah (the only one who answered the question):

Thanks for your answer, however, that is what I’m struggling with. If we’re to assume that there is no greater amount of change in plurality as opposed to a singular change, why would we be instructed (by the torah, as catch yourself so brilliantly pointed out;” a halachic principle”, to quote the pearls of DY) to, in essence, ignore that very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous?