בחירתם של האיש והאשה וענין דו פרצופיך
אמרו ז"ל (עירוביך י ח: ) בתחילה בבראו אדם וחוה בגוף אחד אלא שהיו לו שני פרצופים, ואחר כך הופרדו" עיין שם (:
והנה "גוף" פירושו הבחינה התחתונה שבנפש (כמבואר אצלנו במקום אחר). ושם בחירת האדם. ומה שבתחילה היה לאדם וחוה גוף אחד היינו שלכתחילה לא נבראה האשה אלא להיות כלי לאיש לענין העמדת תולדות ולא היתה לכל אחד מהם בחירה בפני עמצו, אלא בחירתם – "גופם" היתה אחת.
והנה אדם הראשון היה חכם גדול מאד. היינו שהשגתו באמת היהתה גדולה כי היר קרא שמות לכל בעלי החיים, היינו שהכיר את תוכנם ותפקידם האמיתי בבריאה: ונאמר "וכל אשר יקרא לא האדם...הוא שמו" היינו שהסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום (חזקוני) . והוא בעצמו לא היה חוטא בשום אופן ולא היה מעלה על דעתו כלל לחטוא. כמו שנראה שגם אחר כך לא אכל מן העז אלא לעשות רצון האשה כי השגותיו היו גדולות כל כך שבהיותו הבוחר היחידי אי אפשר היה לשטן לפתותו ואז לא היה משקל שוה בין יצר טוב ליצר רע. ולכן הפריד ממנו השי"ת את האשה, היינו שנתך לה בחירה בפני עצמה, ועל ידי זה נתחזק כח היצר הרע עד שבין שניהם הושוה המשקל ביו יצר טוב ליצר רע. (כמובן הכל מדובר לפי מדרגת גן עדן עיין כרן ב, עמ' 137 ואילך) .
והטעם למה לכתחילה נבראו באופן זה. שלא תהיה כניסה כלל ליצר הרע, היה כדי להעמיד את צד הטוב על חזקתו, שתתחזק הכרת האדם באמת.זה יהיה לו לסיוע אחר כך כשתהיה הסתה מצד היצר. ובמצב הראשון היתה האשה רק כלי לאיש בלי בחירה משלה, כמבואר לעיל.
ובאמת גם עתה גדרה ובחירתה הם להיות כלי לאיש, באמרם ז"ל (סנהדרין כב.) "האשה גולם היא ואינה כורתה בברית אלא למי שעושה אותה כלי" וטבע האשה להרגיש כבודה וחשיבותה בכבודו וחשיבותו של בעלה. והענין בזה הוא, כי תכלית האשה היא בבחינת "נר מצוה" וזו של האיש בבחינת "ותורה אור" (עיין זהר תרומה קסו.). והיינו שבחירת האשה היא בתיקון הגשמיות במצוות ומעשים טובים להכין את הנר (הכלי הגשמי, דהיינו הבית) ובחירתו של האיש – להתעלות בתורה ולהדליק את הנר באור תורה, שאור התורה הרוחני ימלא את הבית, וכמו שנר בלי אור אינו כלום, כך אור בלי נר אינו יכול להאיר (זהר שם) והיינו שבחירת האיש ובחירת האשה משלימות זו את זו)
I am curious as to why Dr Eidensohn is such a great fan of R Dessler, especially since according to r Dessler's shita, someone with a secular education should be shunned, and virtually cut off from the community of believers, almost to the same degree as someone who is intermarried.
ReplyDeletehis attitude towards secular education is not relevant. I am concerned with understanding hashkofa and his writings are very influential. I cite sources because of their significance - not whether I agree with the author's attitude towards secular studies.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the statements in this excerpt are false, or at least contradictory to teh torah, eg
ReplyDelete" והוא בעצמו לא היה חוטא בשום אופן ולא היה מעלה על דעתו כלל לחטוא."
He claims Adam did not sin in any way, shape or form. This is a fictitious statement, and his derogatory comments towards women are not at all surprising.
Eddie - there is more than one view in the Torah and those that disagree with you are not false because you don't like them. Rav Dessler didn't make up this view - there are quite a lot of statements in Chazal and Rishonim and Achronim that are expressions of this view.
Delete"there is more than one view in the Torah and those that disagree with you are not false because you don't like them."
DeleteIt is not disagreeing with me, it is disagreeing with what is written in the Torah. Adam did something which was forbidden, and even if his wife misled him so the snake misled Chavva.
I don't know the specific statements regarding Adam in Chazal, but I have seen similar statements regarding King David for example. Again, the TeNach itself said David sinned, the Navi said so, and he himself admitted he sinned. A good way of understanding these claims is that they are whitewashing, whilst on the other hand, Noah is tarred with sinning for drinking wine.
Eddie your view that Chazal whitewash and twist the facts - is not an acceptable Yeshiva view or Modern Orthodox view. It is simple unacceptable. Our understanding of the Torah is through the perspective of Chazal and that means that they are not out to whitewash or tar anyone - but to tell us what the Torah is saying. Where did you receive your Torah education? Was such a view acceptable there?
Delete"Whitewash" is perhaps a modern term which has political connotations (eg Nixon), so perhaps it is not the most neutral term to use. However, the suggestion that King David didn't actually sin with Bathsheva, is to lessen the impact of the harsh criticism of Navid that was given by the Navi, Nathan. In that sense it is "whitening" a sin which is described in very harsh or black terms.
DeleteI will use Rambam in both criticism, and support of what I wrote. In criticism, in his introduction to his commentary on Helek, he argues that the aggadic comments of Chazal must not be taken on their plain meaning, and must be looked into deeper, to extract the correct meaning. Although, he also says that these comments of Chazal can not go against reason.
In support of my argument, I will cite Rambam's introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah, where he says that sometimes an individual argument can be so clear and rational, that it overrules the majority view of Chazal; and furthermore, in his teshuva on Astrology, he says we must ignore some views of Chazal if they do not go along with the rational viewpoint that eh espouses.
My views were not acceptable anywhere!
"[...] according to r Dessler's shita, someone with a secular education should be shunned, and virtually cut off from the community of believers, almost to the same degree as someone who is intermarried."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware of this - if either Eddie or R' Eidensohn could provide the source, it'd be much appreciated.
Ah. I guess it's from here: http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2010/11/rav-dessler-yeshiva-should-deny-self.html
ReplyDelete"Those yeshivah students who did insist on going to study at University to be professionals or academics were therefore disregarded. The connection between Rashei Yeshivah and these Orthodox university students was severed in order to prevent their exercising a detrimental influence on the the rest of the yeshivah students."
Though disquieting, this is quite a bit less extreme than the initial impression I got from Eddie's comment above. Leaders shunning former students who have left for university as a personal action, no matter how powerful the influence of personal example may be, is quite a bit less onerous than what I thought Eddie was claiming as the Lithuanian derech, e.g. a rosh yeshiva explicitly laying down public policy among his students and larger community to cut off all social and familial contact with university-trained Jews, effectively putting such people in cherem.
Chizki, what you describe is virtually in effect vis a vis Yeshiva University, where Modern (secularly trained) rabbis are shunned, and their views not taken seriously.
DeleteWhat is interesting though, is that Lakewood did have a tradition of sending their students to also study at university.
Eddie your definition shunning is not the conventional one.
DeleteAs far as I have heard - Lakewood never had a tradition of sending students to study at university. Though I did meet a rabbi who said that Rav Aharon had told him to go to collged but he said he was an exception - not the rule.
You are totally correct. I meant Ner Yisroel under R' Ruderman, which is in Baltimore. I mistakenly wrote Lakewood, which was quite the opposite. Please accept my correction.
Delete"Chizki, what you describe is virtually in effect vis a vis Yeshiva University, where Modern (secularly trained) rabbis are shunned, and their views not taken seriously."
ReplyDeleteActually this is a total falsehood. I take the totally incorrect views of those with ties to YU very seriously due to the havoc they are causing in klal yisroel and I challenged Eddie and James to defend these views. I challenged them specifically to answer 5 questions regarding their views on gittin but they refuse to answer. presumably because there are no answers to distortion of the torah and halocho.
R Rothkoff gives a shiur saying how R YBS was shunned by many of the Haredi world, precisely for the Torah UMadda basis of YU. R' Hutner, who in his youth spent much time in RYBS's house, and also learned with R Kook, sent the young r Dovid cohen to humiliate RYBS in public.
DeleteEddie I listened to Rabbbi Rothkoff shiur in which he plays a recording of an interview with Rabbi Dovid Cohen who explicitly says that Rav Hutner did not send him and that it was his own idea.
DeleteThe problem was not secular studies per se - but rather the mixture of Torah and secular studies. Rav S. R. Hirsch and his followers don't accept the approach of YU either - though they clearly accept secular studies.
Bottom line - you are simply mixing too many issues together as well as taking information out of context to create a revisionist understand. That there are disputes is true - but it is not what you are saying.
Rakefet himself was critical of R Hutner, and says that RDC was on the phone to R Hutner, reporting what took place. R Hutner himself allowed his students to study in University.
DeleteThere is a hierarchy of anti-secular studies, and the view of R Dessler/R Shach is at the top. R Shach famously called R YBS's views "pure kefira".
According to Rakefet-Rothkoff, the only outside Gedolim who would set foot in YU were R Henkin, (and perhaps R Feinstein?).
I would use the term "pecking order", but this might cause offense, so I will stick to Hierarchy. There is a hierarchy of criticism, thus for many, R Soloveitchik was a "heretic", although, B'H today this view is disappearing, and people are accepting his true Gadlus. So now, lower down are people such as R H Shachter, who face a recent bout of attack, although this is on halachic grounds. However, he is nevertheless recognised as a Gadol in many orthodox circles.
Eddie wrote: R' Hutner,sent the young r Dovid cohen to humiliate RYBS in public.
DeletePlease acknowledged that the above statement is not true
I will double check the shiur to see what he says. Then will make an accurate quote.
Delete
Deletehere is a link to the recording
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2011/09/rabbi-rakeffet-rav-hutner-rabbi-dovid.html
Thank you very much. The above statement is not accurate, and the exact role of R Hutner in this case is not clear. What Rakeffet says is that there was a rumour that DCohen went to a payphone and called RYH, and then came back and shouted at the Rav. What R Cohen admits to, is that later on, R Hutner called him and told him well done (Yasher Koach).
ReplyDeleteWhat Rakeffet does say was that the split took place between 1957 and 1960 when this event took place. He also confirms that it was assur to step foot in YU.
It is also Rakeffet who says that R Hutner was a regular in the Soloveitchik house, and gave barmitzvah lessons to R Aron Soloveitchik.
So maximum that I can say, is that Cohen publicly embarrassed RYBS (a grave sin), and RYH called him and said Yasher Koach.
And now Eddie still fails to answer why YU is not taken seriously - answer because they seriously violate halochoh. No answers to the 5 questions yet Eddie! haven't you had enough time to consult with the YU biryonim still?
ReplyDelete