Mitzvot as Segulot (Column 392)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
Mitzvot as Segulot
A few days ago I received in the Q&A the following question regarding separating challah for the success of the questioner’s friends in finding a match. I especially enjoyed the question whether one fulfills the obligation with a separation overseen by an unlicensed but righteous rebbetzin, who in her sins did not merit to be affiliated with nationwide organizations specializing in challah separations (having received certification from the Gender Studies Faculty of Hogwarts University, in the Chair for Separations, Loaves, and Matchmaking). The next stage will be regulation by the Chief Rabbinate of challah separations, of the academic institutions that specialize in it and license the righteous rebbetzins engaged in this work. They will apparently be examined on the deep mutterings that must be muttered during the separation in order to ensure that the matches rise nicely; together with them they will memorize the fees charged for such a ceremony, while ensuring that no one dares check whether in any instance the match did not work out despite the considerable effort. Beware and guard your souls exceedingly, for our lives are at stake.
At first I thought it was a troll. Still, I had some suspicion that this was a question asked innocently, because I am familiar with this amusing phenomenon which has taken root even among more educated and intelligent populations whom I would not suspect of such nonsense. Today there are many groups of women who take part in these pagan ceremonies, and for some reason they feel there a deep religious elevation and a wonderful closeness to the Master of the Universe—just like at the Boombamela festival. How fortunate we are; how good is our portion. This phenomenon has been expanding in recent years exponentially. It is no longer inferior to the finest grave-worship rituals and the salvations promised to all who participate in them, which were the preferred pastime of those yearning for a match until a few years ago. This column is dedicated to an attempt (foolish and hopeless) to prick a hole in this pagan balloon and the like.
Two Planes of Discussion
As I replied to the questioner above, my claims against these ceremonies belong to two different planes: (1) the factual (does it work); (2) the halakhic (is it permitted). On the factual plane I argue that there is no indication known to me (and I presume to anyone else) that such a ceremony works. Therefore, first and foremost, it is foolishness. On the halakhic plane I argue that such a ceremony is in fact bound up with a non-trivial halakhic prohibition. Incidentally, we shall see below that according to Maimonides there is a connection between the planes, since the prohibition here is rooted in the foolishness of the matter. I will now proceed to discuss these two planes, one after the other.
The Factual Plane
As stated, I know of no study or factual information indicating in any way that such ceremonies help with matchmaking or with any other outcome (apart from the bank accounts of the nationwide organizations and a few placebo effects). What we have here is a folk superstition (or triviality) that such a ceremony is capable of all sorts of things. An authoritative source for such a claim could only be the words of a prophet or the Torah itself. To the best of my judgment, other people—decisors, commentators, or kabbalists, however wise they may be, from any era whatsoever—have no way to know that such a ceremony can help with anything under the sun.
However, here you can find an article by a rebbetzin (apparently licensed for challah separations by the above-mentioned faculty and perhaps even a member of a nationwide organization) that collects all the blessings and segulot from their sources (to her credit, she really did a fairly comprehensive job). Some are from Scripture or the Talmud, and others are “from the mouths of scribes and books.” Tried and tested. Not for nothing does she note: “This is no figure of speech. This is a fact!”
You will see that each such source is either dubious, or can be interpreted in different ways (such as a desire to encourage people to perform a mitzvah, rather than a factual claim about expected outcomes), or consists of declarations by people from whom I do not understand whence they derived this information. Beyond all that, similar statements can be found in the Talmuds and Midrashim and in post-Talmudic literature about almost every mitzvah in the Torah. To extract from this that separating challah is capable of securing a match or any other specific result (beyond a general blessing that perhaps can be learned from biblical sources) is an invention for which those nationwide organizations bear responsibility. I am not addressing here the claim that the merit of the mitzvah may assist and save them (regardless of my view on God’s involvement in the world). I will address that later.
Beyond the impressive compilation of sources, one thing I failed to find there even with a microscope: an experiment or practical data that would provide any indication that there is substance to these declarations. There are, of course, a few miracle stories, as is customary in the genre (the patient whose doctors had despaired, and he merely muttered Psalm 586 and was immediately healed). Because I trust this site’s readers, I see no need or point in repeating here the law of small numbers—that is, the meaninglessness of such tall tales (even under the optimistic and far-fetched assumption, not to say baseless, that they are true). I discussed this in column 38 and in many other places; see there and you will behold wonders. Here I will only say that the law of small numbers can confirm the claim that standing on one leg helps with terminal cancer, crawling on all fours helps with matchmaking (even more than a pagan ceremony at Amuka), and that eating a chicken drumstick helps against the evil eye or sprouts eagle’s wings. So is it really too much for it to “confirm” the success of ceremonial challah separation in hopeless matchmaking cases?! (Cases over which all the professors of conventional matchmaking had already despaired, and only the doctors certified in alternative matchmaking, holding an N.D. from Baba Yaga College, saved them.)
We have indeed grown accustomed that if such or such sources are brought, reality is not supposed to confuse us. This is true of several fascinating religious phenomena.[1] But here even the sources do not really say this, so we have a double deficiency.
What Is Challah Separation?
Well, I hope there is no need to explain that I am not opposing challah separation per se. There is a biblical commandment to separate challah from the dough (see a halakhic summary here). It is explicit in Scripture, taught in the Talmuds, and codified by all enumerators of the commandments and decisors without dispute. My claim here is merely that this is a mitzvah like any other, whose purpose is the rectification of tevel and a gift to the priests (like terumah; on the difference between them see my article here), and there are defined halakhic conditions as to when one is obligated to do it. One who (masculine form intended for both genders) makes a dough of a certain size must (masculine likewise) separate from it a piece of dough in the quantity determined by halakhah and give it to a priest (today it is burned). As with every other mitzvah, the Sages instituted a blessing that must be recited before it. That’s all.
It is an important mitzvah, exactly like all the other 613 mitzvot. There is indeed an obligation to perform it in the relevant circumstances. The reason for the mitzvah is of course open to various interpretations, as is customary in the genre of “reasons for the commandments” (which I do not much appreciate due to its speculative and fruitless nature), but one can certainly “play” with it as our finest sages have done through the generations. From here to the inventions of segulot, salvations, and consolations—especially concrete salvations—supposedly produced by this mitzvah, the distance is very great (though as we see, one can also “play” quite a bit with that).
One can still argue that there is nothing wrong with performing such a mitzvah, if only so that its merit will protect us and our matchmaking. Like a horseshoe: if it does no good, it will do no harm. Moreover, if hope for the expected results brings righteous women to perform this mitzvah, then there is nothing to lose in these beliefs even if there is nothing to them. One could even argue that this is precisely the reason some sources spoke about benefits expected from challah separation (simply to motivate people to do it). But as we shall now see, this is not at all simple. Here I come to the discussion of the prohibition involved.
The Halakhic Plane: “Do Not Practice Divination”
In column 387 I wrote the following:
People prefer to separate challah with devotion and to believe that this will bring healing to someone, rather than understand that challah is a mitzvah like any other that should be fulfilled because we were so commanded, and that doing it for such purposes borders on a biblical prohibition.
The next day, someone in the “Beit Midrash” WhatsApp group wondered what “biblical prohibition” I had in mind, and a discussion developed around my claim. During the discussion I was asked to devote a column presenting an orderly treatment of the matter. Here I will try to fulfill their request.
Maimonides, in Laws of Idolatry 11:12, deals with the prohibition of divination (nichush), and there he writes:
“One who whispers over a wound and recites a verse from the Torah, and likewise one who recites over a child so that he not be frightened, and one who places a Torah scroll or tefillin on a child so that he sleep—not only are they included among diviners and charmers, but they are included among those who deny the Torah, for they make words of Torah a medicine for the body, whereas they are only a medicine for the soul, as it is said, ‘and they shall be life to your soul.’ But a healthy person who recites verses or a psalm from Psalms so that the merit of their recitation protect him and he be saved from troubles and harms—this is permitted.”
Maimonides rules that one who uses nonsense for healing and salvation violates the biblical prohibition of diviner and charmer. Incidentally, the placement of this prohibition indicates that he views it as among the ancillary matters of idolatry (and according to several early authorities, it has the status of “be killed and do not transgress”).
Also in Laws of Tefillin and Torah Scroll, 5:4, he writes:
“It is a simple custom to write on the mezuzah, on the outside opposite the space between the two paragraphs, the word Shaddai, and there is no harm in this since it is on the outside. But those who write on the inside the names of angels or sacred names or a verse or seals—they are among those who have no share in the World to Come. For these fools not only have nullified the mitzvah, but they have made a great mitzvah—which is the unification of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His love and His service—like an amulet for their own benefit, as their foolish heart imagines, that this is something that benefits in the vanities of the world.”
Incidentally, in Laws of Idolatry 11:16 Maimonides writes:
“All these things are falsehood and lies, and it was with them that the early idolaters deceived the peoples of the lands so that they would follow after them. It is not fitting for Israel, who are wise and discerning, to be drawn after these vanities nor to imagine in their heart that there is any benefit in them, as it is said, ‘For there is no divination in Jacob and no soothsaying in Israel’ (Num. 23:23), and it is said, ‘For these nations which you are dispossessing listen to soothsayers and diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not given you [such things]’ (Deut. 18:14). Whoever believes in these things and the like, and thinks in his heart that they are true and wise matters but the Torah forbade them, is but among the fools and deficient in knowledge, and among the women and children whose minds are not complete. But those who are wise and of perfect knowledge know by clear proofs that all these things that the Torah forbade are not matters of wisdom, but chaos and emptiness that those deficient in knowledge followed, abandoning all ways of truth because of them. Therefore the Torah said, when it warned against all these vanities: ‘Be wholehearted with the Lord your God.’”
As I already noted, in his view there is a connection between the factual failure and the halakhic failure: the prohibition lies in the fact that it is nonsense. In his view there is a prohibition against being a fool.
In passing I will note that I am not using Maimonides as an authority to establish that all these things do not work factually. As is known, I have shown in several places that one cannot define authority regarding facts; moreover, I do not regard Maimonides as a professional expert in this matter. I cite these words only because I too, small as I am, agree with them (from observing the world around me and because of the lack of any basis for these beliefs, as detailed above). After we agree on the lack of factual basis, it is worth taking Maimonides’ ruling into account on the halakhic plane (he determines that there is a prohibition here).
Two Planes of Discussion
Note that in these two laws Maimonides builds the prohibition from two tiers: a general prohibition of divination—namely, using techniques that do not work merely because of superstitions. This is the prohibition against being foolish, which I mentioned. Upon that general prohibition there is an additional prohibition of doing this with words of Torah and mitzvot. The second tier is not only divination but also disparagement of words of Torah, an improper use of them (as a means to something external to them), which of course expresses a lack of understanding of their meaning.
What is the source for the second prohibition? Its foundation is in the Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot 15b, where we find:
“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to those who would recite verses and sleep [with them], how could he do so? But did not Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is forbidden to be healed by words of Torah?—To protect is different. And if so, when he said ‘forbidden,’ that is where there is a wound; and if there is a wound it is forbidden and nothing more? But we learned: One who whispers over a wound has no share in the World to Come. On this it was said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught it regarding [spitting], because one does not mention the Name of Heaven over spittle.”
Here there is a prohibition to be healed by words of Torah. One could understand that this is simply an example of the general prohibition of divination, but the formulation focuses on words of Torah. One could have understood that words of Torah here serve merely as an example to explain that they are not an exception (that is, that the prohibition of divination applies even to them). But Maimonides did not understand it this way. He understands that there is an additional prohibition here beyond divination. I will note that this prohibition is brought as law in two places in the Rif (see Berakhot 3a and Sanhedrin 20a). This appears to be Maimonides’ source, who, as noted, sees a special prohibition in divination that uses Torah and mitzvot: there is a prohibition to be healed by words of Torah.
And What About the Merit of the Mitzvah?
The claim raised in this context is that it is permitted if one intends that the merit of the mitzvot protect or help me. There is a difference between a conception that sees the mitzvah itself as protecting and one who understands that, by the merit of the mitzvah, God will protect me (thus writes the Torat Chayim on Shevuot there, and many other decisors). In Maimonides himself it does not read this way, for he says that the mitzvah should be done for the sake of the mitzvah and to discharge one’s obligation, not for protection. This is doing a mitzvah not for its own sake and a misunderstanding of the mitzvah. But this is not necessary, for it is possible that his intention is to say that the required intention is to discharge one’s obligation, but one may do so with the goal of being healed (below we will see a distinction like this regarding doing mitzvot for personal benefit).
We must discuss whether Maimonides’ words at the end of the law in Laws of Idolatry speak specifically of reciting Psalms or of any performance of a mitzvah. But even without Maimonides, there are certainly opinions among the decisors that permit this. One might perhaps understand it even in the Talmudic language in Shevuot: “To protect is different” (though this is not the simple meaning, for in both senses it is about protection; below we will see how Maimonides himself interpreted it). In any case, this distinction is irrelevant to our matter, for according to that conception one can simply increase one’s mitzvot and there is no reason to resort specifically to challah separation. Those who perform challah separation in particular and ascribe to it special segulot—beyond the lack of factual basis—demonstrate thereby that they conceive the challah itself as protective, and not the merit of the mitzvah. This is certainly true for many of the uneducated women who participate in these ceremonies (apart from the licensed rebbetzins, of course; after all, this is the first lesson at Hogwarts).
From Maimonides’ words it would seem that reciting Psalms for healing is forbidden, which looks odd in light of common practice (though, as noted, common practice is not much of a proof in these domains). But this conclusion is not necessary. If the person ascribes the benefit to the merit of their recitation and not to the recitation itself, it is apparently permitted. Still, if that is his conception, I would expect him simply to study Torah or perform another mitzvah, rather than waste higher-quality Torah on reciting Psalms. If he chooses Psalms specifically, it appears his intention is that the recitation itself protects and saves (as they say: “Torah protects and rescues”). However, regarding Psalms one can raise another important distinction: reciting relevant chapters of Psalms (such as “A Song of Ascents: Out of the depths I have called You, O Lord”) can be considered a prayer to God, namely a plea that He save me. If I am merely using King David’s language to beseech, there should be no problem. This is no different from any other petitionary prayer. In this context, it is worth mentioning the ubiquitous Psalms booklets (for example, the blue one by the “Sea of Tears” at the Kotel), which state before each chapter what it is “effective” for. Here the publisher, the believer in this, and the user of it most certainly violate the biblical prohibition of “do not divine,” as well as the second tier of Maimonides’ prohibition (disparaging and misunderstanding words of Torah and their meaning).
In any event, from our discussion it follows that performing a mitzvah so that the merit of the mitzvah protect and help is permitted. In this context, note Maimonides’ language there:
“But a healthy person who recites verses and a psalm from Psalms so that the merit of their recitation protect him and he be saved from troubles and harms—this is permitted.”
Seemingly, this distinction is written explicitly in Maimonides. But if you pay attention you will see that he speaks specifically of a healthy person. That is, a sick person for whom Psalms are recited for his healing—even if the hope is that by the merit of the mitzvah God will heal him—this is entirely forbidden. The only permission according to Maimonides is for a healthy person who wishes to protect himself.
What is the basis of the distinction? It may be that for a sick person for whom Psalms are recited for healing, this reflects a conception that the mitzvah itself will save him, or at least there is a heavy concern that it stems from such a conception. In contrast, in reciting Psalms for a healthy person, it is about protecting from general, future harms (not specific ones). Therefore there is no conception that a particular chapter helps with a particular harm. This is apparently how Maimonides understood the Talmudic distinction: “To protect is different,” and as I noted above, this seems to me indeed the simple reading of the Talmud. The conclusion is that reciting Psalms or studying for the healing of someone already sick is forbidden—at least according to Maimonides.
As a marginal note, one could discuss a person who says Psalms or studies for the healing of someone already ill, if he drills into himself and internalizes well that his intention is only protection by the merit of the mitzvah and not using the mitzvah itself as a remedy. This might be permitted, though Maimonides does not distinguish and implies that for one already sick it is forbidden in any case. I think that since this is a severe prohibition (ancillary to idolatry), it is proper to set a fence and to act stringently even in such a case (and perhaps this is precisely why Maimonides does not distinguish). We are accustomed to distancing ourselves and being stringent regarding prohibitions far lighter than matters ancillary to idolatry. One can petition God in your own words, and that is certainly preferable. And if, despite all, you decide to perform mitzvot for the merit of some sick person, it is at any rate worth trying to perform mitzvot that are not commonly treated as segulot (not challah separation), in order to distance oneself from ugliness and from transgressing the prohibition. All the more so when it is done by a large group of women who are not necessarily versed in halakhah (and not necessarily committed to it), and some of whom certainly do not understand these halakhic nuances. There the failure is almost guaranteed, and distancing is called for.
In the above WhatsApp discussion, the claim was raised that even if one relies on the merit of the mitzvah to protect and help (and not on the mitzvah itself), there is still room to distinguish between mitzvot. There is room to argue that the merit of the mitzvah of challah helps for matchmaking, and the merit of the mitzvah of redeeming a firstborn donkey helps for health, and so on. Using a specific mitzvah does not prove that it is faith in the segulah power of the mitzvah itself; it could also express a desire to accumulate merits before God (which in any case is also doing a mitzvah not for its own sake). This seems to me a very forced argument, especially since this thesis (that mitzvah X helps for outcome Y) has no source and no empirical basis. The lack of basis strengthens the distinction that this is not really a salvation due to the merit of the mitzvah, but a segulah belief—which, as noted, amounts to divination. I am convinced that many of the women who participate in these ceremonies, when asked, will say that in their opinion the thing itself helps with salvation. Even the aforementioned licensed expert in challah separations, despite her license, does not bother in her survey to note this important halakhic condition so as to prevent the masses from stumbling.
A Difference Between Motivation and Outcome
We cannot ignore the fact that there are sources that explicitly state that certain mitzvot are segulot for something. For example, tithes are a segulah for wealth (“tithe so that you may become rich”). And in the Torah itself, sending away the mother bird and honoring parents are segulot for long life. In my opinion, in the rabbinic dictum the intention is not that you separate tithes in order to become rich, but a claim that wealth will come as a result of tithing (and one can even test God on this; see Ta’anit 9a—though I strongly do not recommend that for the faint of heart and those with intellectual integrity). I still contend that it is not proper to give tithes with the goal of becoming rich (though there, apparently, the prohibition would not be “being foolish,” but rather a mitzvah not for its own sake).
Maimonides writes a similar distinction in Laws of Repentance, ch. 10. He explains there that one should not do a mitzvah in order to merit reward, such as the World to Come, even though indeed the World to Come is promised to us as a reward for the mitzvah. The fact that the mitzvah brings us some benefit does not mean it is proper to do it for that benefit. Doing a mitzvah for the benefit is a mitzvah not for its own sake.[2] And if the “benefit” is a baseless invention, then there is also here divination and the second tier of Maimonides’ prohibition. The same applies to sending away the mother bird and honoring parents for the sake of lengthening one’s days. This is an explicit promise in the Torah. And still, even there it is not proper to do it in order to lengthen one’s days. One must do it because it is a mitzvah (to discharge one’s obligation, for mitzvot require intention according to all opinions, even if not all agree it is strictly indispensable).
Yet in Rosh Hashanah 4a we find an example that seemingly contradicts my words:
“One who does so—this is not praiseworthy? But it was taught: One who says, ‘This coin is for charity so that my sons may live and that I may merit the World to Come,’ behold, he is a completely righteous person.”
Regarding the World to Come there is no question at all, for factually mitzvot are supposed to bring us the World to Come. The only question is one of motivation in performing the mitzvah; there is no factual failure as in our case. Regarding the life of his son, the situation is more similar to our case (for who can know that charity truly prolongs life?!).
But even regarding health (note that here too it is not about curing one already ill, but about praying for the life of one who is healthy—as we saw in the Talmud and in Maimonides above), I think the Talmud does not mean that the giving of charity should be done with the motivation to obtain health and life from the charity itself, but that I give so that the merit of the mitzvah will bring health to my son, or that I merit the World to Come.
Moreover, the fundamental intention should be to discharge one’s obligation (if only by the rule that mitzvot require intention), but I may have the hope that if I performed the mitzvah, then the merit of the mitzvah will also help with my son’s life, and so forth. We must remember that doing the mitzvah of charity with this motivation—beyond the question of divination—is a mitzvah performed not for its own sake (by Maimonides’ definition in Laws of Repentance, ch. 10). It is therefore reasonable that the Talmud is not speaking here about the intention within the performance of the mitzvah, but at most about the motivation that brings me to do it in order to discharge my obligation. I do the mitzvah for the sake of the mitzvah and because of the command, but the motivation to engage in it is concern for my son’s health or for my World to Come. Maimonides himself, in his Introduction to Perek Chelek, brings this Talmudic passage and explains that it was said for the unlearned to spur them to perform mitzvot. Beyond all this, some commentators claimed that this is a special rule in the mitzvah of charity and not a general statement about all mitzvot. See at the beginning of this lesson on performing commandments not for their own sake, for a summary of the early authorities on the sugya. See also the fascinating article by Ariel Finkelstein on intention in interpersonal commandments (you can also view the file here).[3]
Summary
In conclusion, the various forms of challah separation done in order to gain some benefit are mitzvot performed not for their own sake. Beyond this, we saw that at least in certain cases (especially when there is no factual basis for hoping for benefit from the mitzvah) there is also an element of divination. And when this is done regarding a mitzvah, we saw that there is an additional element of improper use of and disparagement toward Torah and mitzvot. Accordingly, such challah separations are bound up with a serious concern of a biblical prohibition that is ancillary to idolatry. As we saw, one can perhaps distinguish—at least according to certain opinions—between different intentions in performing the mitzvah and in attaining the benefit, thereby perhaps finding some defense for those who nonetheless behave thus. But regarding a prohibition ancillary to idolatry, it is certainly proper to be stringent and to distance oneself from it, especially when this is done in a broad public that is not necessarily versed in the rules of halakhah.
In any case, after all the extenuations—and even were there no prohibition at all—we saw at the beginning of the column that there is no factual or other basis for the very claim that challah separation brings any benefit. If so, the righteous would do well to look for a different pasture in which to graze. And what should those who want a match do? Let them turn to a matchmaker. And if they have particular difficulties, perhaps it is worth going for counseling with a psychologist. And what of those who want to be healed? Let them go to a doctor. At most, all of them can pray to God to be saved (though even about this, in my view, there is room to discuss—and this is not the place), but it is not really recommended to participate in challah-separation ceremonies, however festive and elevating they may be. It does not help and is probably also bordering on prohibition.
We must remember that I write all this in my poverty, as a certified ignoramus, boor and not a man, without being a licensed Hogwarts expert in challah separations, and even without belonging to a nationwide organization specializing in it. Let the public be informed and beware.
To conclude, I will bring here an amusing illustration that arose in the above WhatsApp discussion. Ironically, it is taken from that lesson page, whose title, as you may recall, is “Is there a flaw in doing a mitzvah out of self-interest?” And here it is before you:
[1] See the sixth talk in my book Ein Adam Shalit Baruach, where I discussed several phenomena and beliefs that have no real source and certainly no basis in reason or reality, and yet have taken wide root in the religious public, as if there were here a solid fact or at least a principle of faith from a direct divine source. I surmise that challah separation is already on its way to becoming such a principle of faith.
[2] Similarly in the preface to the Eglei Tal: indeed it is proper and good to enjoy Torah study, but one should not study for the sake of enjoyment.
[3] In the Talmud’s conclusion there in Rosh Hashanah, they distinguish between a Jew—who may give charity in this way—and a gentile—who may not. The early authorities differ on how to explain this distinction. From several of them it emerges that for a Jew there is no concern that he will do the mitzvah not for its own sake even if he does it for the life of his son. We see that the benefit is not his fundamental goal in performing the mitzvah. Rashi there writes that for a Jew, even if the hoped-for result does not arrive, he will attribute the afflictions to his sins. Again we see that the performance is for the sake of the mitzvah, and the benefit is incidental.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did you write Hogwarts University on purpose, or did you mean Hogwarts University as a joke?
Or did I not understand the language refinement at all?
My mistake. Hogwarts cell. Will be corrected.
1. Sorry for asking to read a dirty book, but in your opinion, what is the idea of the Torah in promises to fulfill mitzvot, and in particular to send the nest, honor parents, etc.
2. According to the Rabbi, the concerns are really about the Jewish people, are the words of the Maimonides reasonable, who brings the Gemara with charity, and explains that it was spoken to the people of the lands in order to urge them to do mitzvot? Assuming that there is no uniqueness in the actual charity mitzvot, can't we learn from this a virtue about the ceremonies of the parashat challah. (Although the name ceremony is a bit jarring).
3. How does the Rabbi understand the requests after the blessing of the blessing?
I wonder how the Rabbi doesn't see the upgrade between the past and the present, once they went to the graves of the righteous for virtues, today virtues are through a mitzvot like the parashat challah, and we are already seeing the buds of Torah study as virtue. It seems that at this rate, requests will soon be made through actual prayers.
1. I have no idea. It is possible that longevity is for eternity, as Chazal has already written in several cases. It is possible that this is an incentive to do it right (we have longevity in the sense of ‘coming with all the days’) and so on. And it is possible that once when God was involved and sent down rains for us according to the mitzvot, he also gave longevity according to the mitzvot. But in recent generations when the policy has changed, this matter has also changed.
2. In tzedakah, he probably believed that there is a real benefit that comes from it, and therefore there is no guesswork here, but only a mitzvah for no reason. I explained this in a column. I am not at all sure that I agree with him on the factual assessment, but that was probably his opinion.
3. I do not understand, like the requests in the Amidah prayer.
Regarding the closing sentences, Nani Tova. 🙂
It's clear to me that the question was a troll.
But not just a troll, but a very successful one. Not only did it drag you into answering one of the most bizarre questions I've read, it also dragged follow-up questions. And not only that, it dragged a column that was entirely Don Quixote in a virtual edition.
People have all kinds of needs. They need to hold on to hope, they need social gatherings that provide emotional support and a comic respite, and for you they organize challah-making evenings (and of course all kinds of more masculine equivalents).
People need to release the energies stored in them, in an era where people make a living while sitting in an air-conditioned room, and that's why they play soccer.
People need to feel like they run the world, and that's why they consume media, and write passionate posts, which of course won't affect anyone.
There's no point in trying to change, certainly not worth getting upset about, phenomena that are all very, very human, only a small percentage of humans escape these bad phenomena.
But it is human nature that he does get angry, and tries to change human phenomena, which is why he writes a Don Quixote column, on a site whose readers are not suspected of participating in the evenings of the Passover, and still feels that it will fix the world.
That is human nature.
Just one small factual correction, which may even affect your firm diagnosis. This column was planned about a month ago (during the WhatsApp discussion, on 6.5). It was not written at all as a response to this question/troll, which was just a trigger.
This column, unlike my other columns, may not change the world, but in my opinion it may actually affect some people (as I wrote, you'd be surprised what types of men and women participate in this paganization). And besides, having fun is a legitimate need, so what's stopping you from having a little fun?!
1. I was adamant about only one thing – that the question was a troll. In everything else, I just wrote my thoughts, I didn't mean to argue anything strongly.
2. On the contrary, I meant to say that your writing this column is also human nature and therefore I'm not complaining about it. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that beyond venting, it won't affect anyone.
On the surface, it seems that writing the column comes from venting, but if you say that you enjoy it, then even better. Although it's a bit of a strange pleasure, but to each his own.
Waiting for more in-depth and useful columns.
And thank you, I really enjoy reading here.
As long as it is an uplifting social gathering, it is blessed. Like, for example, to make a bride happy a few days before the wedding, teach her to make dough and spread challah, blessings, Torah readings... A happy, exciting, fun, delicious gathering... Why not? (Of course, if it is on a level and free of demagogy, stories of miracles and delusional wonders or a speaker reciting mantras to women in kindergarten...)
The problem is that many times it becomes really rigid and coercive when some problem arises. Women are sure that they must organize challah distributions, if they don't do so, then they are held responsible, they are not right, they are not trying hard enough for the patient, it is not up to us not to know... This is a difficult problem, with all the problematic implications detailed in the things said here.
Yoav,
This column had a great impact on me. I will show it to my wife and other wise women who were influenced by this tradition from their parents' home and did not know these laws, and I estimate that there are some women in the world (though probably not many) in the same situation for whom the law is more important than participating in ceremonies such as these.
On the Sabbath, to arrange the beginning of your cradles, challah, raise a donation, and carry it
Breaking challah in a group of women is a good thing in today's reality, when women are busy ‘over their heads’, and most of them fail to observe the ancient custom that a woman would bake dough every Shabbat eve and break challah from it to correct the ‘sin of the Tree of Knowledge’.
In today's stressful reality, when Shabbat challah and even cakes are bought at the ’sofer’ – women hardly have the opportunity to break challah, and the gathering of women to commit themselves to the mitzvah, along with hearing Torah and strengthening and prayers – It is an excellent opportunity to gain a mitzvah and also an experience that uplifts the heart and lifts us from the dreary routine of life.
From the mitzvah of tzitzit, we learn that a person is required to put themselves in a state of commitment to the mitzvah. And so it turns out that a woman's volunteering to put herself in a position of obligation in the mitzvah of challah – reveals a mental attitude of fondness for the mitzvah, and there is an added merit here that can help ‘in the era of ritcha’.
The parshat of challah, which is a mitzvah from the Torah when it is done with ’bread of the land’ – also arouses a love for the good land, and it is not for nothing that the mitzvah of challah was given to us precisely after the sin of the spies, to teach us the love and exaltation of the Holy Land, an insight that even in our generation needs reinforcement.
You just need to check and find out that the host of the parshat challah ceremony is knowledgeable in the laws of challah, so that no halachic obstacles arise. It is good that the author of the post was able to raise the issue of the mitzvah of challah, exactly in the week when the Torah will be read about the mitzvah.
With blessings, Shatarna Tzirel Livson,
Midrashet Hogwarts, founded by the late Graha Dumbledore
Another wonderful virtue taught us by King David, may God have mercy on him, is: to hog words – ‘taking responsibility for the words’ that come out of the mouth, as it is written: ‘Who is the man who desires life, who loves to see good – Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit, turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it’
Even in this area, the custom has spread for men or women to set aside times during the day when they are especially careful about guarding their tongue, with the hope that the habit developed during those hours will have a positive effect on all hours of the day. The advantage of this custom is that it does not require a departure from the routine of life and can be performed at any time.
Specifically, the author of the post can be said to be part of a nationwide organization, since his trilogy was distributed through distribution points nationwide 🙂 First, his followers and followers will organize the “challah for her sake” without expecting salvation, and will come to Zion for a redeemer.
The cakes they bake will be sent to the residents of the mixed cities and settlements around Gaza, and this will be a wonderful combination of the commandment of challah with the commandment of kindness and encouragement for Jews under attack.
With the blessing of “Come, challah, come, challah,” a delicious challah for the people of Segula, to save us from every affliction and disease, and to build our home as it was in the beginning, which is the beginning of the end.
In the 22nd of Sivan, 1500
The prophet Ezekiel testifies to the blessing that follows the commandment of the challah: ‘And at the beginning of your cradles you shall let the priest place a blessing upon your house’ (Med, 11), and the poet has already established it: ‘We are for the prophet Ezekiel, we will follow him with a knapsack and a staff’ 🙂
The commandment of the challah section expresses our faith in Him, that all of reality is His, and the Maimonides has already taught us in the chapters of the Moreh that deal with divine providence (Moz’N 3:17-20), that the more a person clings to Him in his faith, the more G-d's providence over him increases. Bread is not only the material food of man. Bread symbolizes the splendor of man, the mind. The Parshat Challah symbolizes the material and spiritual food of man – internalizes in our consciousness that our entire being, material and spiritual, should be ‘sacred to God”, and it is this consciousness that elevates man and instills blessing in all his doings.
With blessings, Gaviha Psisovich’, Aliyat Beit Netza
Perhaps the understanding between ‘protect’ and ‘heal’ lies in the difference between the situations.
There is a situation in which a person is not under a divine decree. There is no ‘justice’ that demands that he be punished for his sins. Divine providence is required to guard and protect the person from ‘occasions’ in the way of nature. The right to perform the mitzvah helps with this concern, since every good deed raises the level of providence, so that it is more guarded and less ‘left to chance’ (as explained in Mo”n 3:17-20), and therefore the right to perform the mitzvah ‘protect’ is good.
On the other hand, when a person is afflicted with trouble or illness – The Maimonides taught us in the laws of fasting that a person should not blame his affliction on an “incident that happened,” but rather should feel that there is a decree from his Creator here that is intended to inspire him to mend his ways. When affliction comes, adding good deeds will not be enough. Here a person must “search our ways and investigate them,” in order to try and guess what the spiritual deficiency is that the afflictions warn about, and which must be mended by repentance that includes abandoning sin with confession and turning to God in asking for forgiveness for the sin and His help in completing the correction. Only when a deep process of repentance and prayer begins is the path to righteousness and good deeds paved as a completion of the path of correction.
And therefore it is understood that to ’heal’, to cancel the stigma of the virtue of justice that apparently led to trouble or illness – it is not enough to add rights and good deeds, but one must begin a sincere process of ‘repentance and prayer’ that will restore the person to being desirable to his Creator, that the addition of his good deeds will be willingly accepted.
With greetings,, Shaterna Zirel Libelson
From the plain meaning of Ezekiel's words: "And at the beginning of your cradles you shall give to the priest to place a blessing upon your house" (Med. 1:1), it seems that giving to the priest is what causes "the blessing upon your house".
Perhaps this should be interpreted in light of the words of Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah (Bris Pa'ah) that for mitzvot that benefit other people, a person is entitled not only to spiritual reward in the next world but also to "fruits" in this world in addition to the good he brought to others in the next world.
Since today there is no custom (except for some Sephardim, and Yemenites who practice the Rambam) to give a challah to a small priest, but rather set aside only one challah for burning, we do not have the right to fulfill the mitzvah of giving challah. However, it must be said that in setting aside challah in a group there is spiritual strengthening and a lift in the spirits of the members, and for social contribution, we are entitled to the fruits of the mitzvah for the salvation and healing of those in need.
And if the cakes or breads baked go to the needy, then there is a "giving" here, as it means, which has the power to place a blessing upon Your home.
Best regards, G. Dror-Psisowitz
And truly, this is not just about the right of the mitzvah that protects. The mitzvah – as well as the other mitzvahs that were reserved for women, the lighting of the candle and the baptism – were surrounded by personal requests and prayers, which transformed the mitzvah from a ‘dry’ technical act into a religious experience full of emotion.
Men were given expression to religious emotion in prayers and in the synagogue, and women were granted a religious awakening around the mitzvahs that were reserved for them – challah, niddah, and lighting the candle. Before the separation, they asked for the correction of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge and the decree of death that came because of it, and that ’ a blessing would be sent upon their flesh as mothers. After the separation, the women asked that the separation be considered their sacrifice, so that their sins would be atoned for, and as if they would be reborn as a pure and clean baby.
They increased the amount of work done on the ‘Dialogue’ site, and established ‘May it be your will’ for each of the stages of kneading and baking. Thus, when sifting the flour, the woman asks for the privilege of discerning good from evil, by adding sugar, for sweetness and softness in life. By adding salt – for the privilege of setting and accepting boundaries and balances in life. By adding yeast – the woman asks to be lively and happy. By adding water, which symbolizes the Torah – that the house may be a house of Torah. By adding oil – to ask for a blessing and clarity of mind. Kneading – to ask for softness and flexibility. And when covering the dough – to ask for a blessing in the dough and a good livelihood.
Thus, the process of preparing the pastry becomes a parable for the correction of the human soul, and at each stage of the process of preparing the pastry – The woman asks for the ‘parable’, for the parallel stage in the correction of the soul. Thus, the beginning of the parshah transforms from a dry technical existence, into a ’wake-up call’ for the correction of one's manners and actions.
With greetings, Simcha Fish”l Halevi Plankton
At this point it becomes burdensome. Not for everyone. Want to make dough in two minutes and not an hour.. And it also feels a little ridiculous, come on, yeast – lively and happy? Are we in the signs of Rosh Hashanah? You have to be careful of all these additions, cheapening and burdening and taking away the desire to do something. And the compulsion – women feel like they are wrong if it is not said.
This is perhaps what happened with the blessing of food and the extensions in the prayer.. So they do not bless and do not pray and forget the main thing.
So I decided to simply bless the separation of challah and that's it. All the beautiful prayers were put away in a drawer – for a time when the mind is free and the hands are free.
On the 23rd of Sivan, 5521
For joy, Shalom Rav,
A personal prayer can be very short, like Moses' prayer: ‘G-d, please heal me, ’. Adding a prayer formula that becomes routine – may turn into unintentional mumbling. On the other hand, a short personal statement can contribute to refreshment and renewal, as the sages advised to make the regular prayer a ’supplication’ by ‘renew something’.
In short: do not be enslaved to a fixed formula, but add a short personal request. Just as one adds flavorings to chewing gum – This is how good it is to spice up the routine of the mitzvot with delicious spices 🙂
With blessings, Nahorai Shraga Agami-Psisowitz’
You said it well,
We have enough institutions and institutions.. We will preserve what we have, what adds to what subtracts.
On the day of the Lord's Supper, may the land be very, very prosperous
I mentioned above the trend that has developed over the generations to highlight the value of the mitzvot that are reserved for women - challah, niddah, and lighting the candle - by surrounding them with prayers, and as mentioned, there is no obligation to adhere to fixed formulas; on the contrary, renewed personal prayer refreshes the routine.
It is possible for the mitzvot to enhance the breaking of the challah and the lighting of the candle by turning them into a family ceremony, in which family members gather around the mother, who breaks the challah and lights the candle, and thus internalizes and emphasizes her being a public mission of the entire family in performing the mitzvah.
Thus, one can pray Mincha on Friday at noon, and then at the time of lighting the candle, all the members of the household gather around the mother, hear her blessing for lighting the candle and sing together a “Zimmor Shir Yom HaShabbat”, thereby receiving together a “Tosefet Shabbat” before sunset, and then go together to the synagogue for the public “Keblat Shabbat”.
The creative “envelope” around the “halachic core” is what protects against falling into gray routine and breathes a fresh spirit of life into the work of the “Shabbat”.
With blessings, Nashaf
Perhaps the commandment of offering a loaf of bread after the sin of the spies was mentioned in our parasha, due to the privilege of women who loved the land and did not abhor it, and were entitled to observe the commandment of offering a loaf of bread at home as well.
Men were more entitled to the commandments of offering and tithes, since the commandment begins at the time of offering in the field, but women were singled out for the obligatory bread made at home –
However, from the Sephardic text in ’Bama Medalkin’, in the mishna ‘Three things a man must say at the dedication of his house: his tithe, his pledge – light the candle’, it seems that women were also entrusted with the setting aside of offerings and tithes and the making of the ’Iruv’.
.
Another way to spend the beginning of Shabbat with a family gathering is the custom of Moroccan Jews to taste Shabbat foods near the beginning of Shabbat.
Rabbi Michael Cohen, who cites the custom in his book ‘Torat Amech’ (which explains and establishes the unique customs of Moroccan Jews), suggests that the purpose of the custom is to observe ‘Toamiya Chaim Zak’, which was interpreted by the Sages to mean that Shabbat foods should be tasted. However, it should be noted that if this were the case, it would be better to taste them earlier, when there is more time to add spices to improve the taste of Shabbat foods.
For the sake of the reader, it seems more likely that the taste of the custom is to welcome Shabbat with pleasure and joy, as described by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in his piyote “On Your Love I Will Drink Cups”: “How pleasant it is for me to spend time between the evenings, to see the face of Shabbat, a new face, come with apples, many cups of wine, according to most commentators,” in order to welcome Shabbat with pleasure and joy.
In the time of Reuel, there was still no “welcoming Shabbat” by reciting Psalms (e.g., “Let us go and sing”) in the synagogue. The need to welcome Shabbat in a meaningful ceremony was fulfilled by savoring “good things” between the evenings. (The ’ashishita’, the wine cups, were probably also used as ’kiddush’ that allowed the tasting between the sundowners.
It became common, under the influence of the Safed Jews in the 16th century, to receive the Sabbath in the synagogue between the sundowners – among Moroccan Jews, the festive tasting was brought forward, before the beginning of the Sabbath and going to the synagogue, and since it was held before sunset – there was no need for kiddush again.
A family gathering for a festive tasting before leaving the synagogue – requires the completion of preparations early, and the reception of the Sabbath in a calm and festive manner. Do not enter the Sabbath in a hurry and under pressure.
With the blessing ‘Ruga Lecha’, we
Maimonides recommends in Chapter 3 of the Repentance that man should see himself and the entire world as being in a state of "half rights and half sins" at any given moment, and that any rightful act of a mitzvah performed at that moment will weigh the man, the state, and the entire world down to its own merits.
With blessings, Padhatzur Fishel Peri-Gan
And it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land, that the land shall be fruitful.
The connection between the woman and the preparation of the bread is not only due to the fact that the woman who is in the house is the one who bakes the bread.
The bread is a metaphor for the woman, as it is written about Joseph's master: "And he knew nothing about him except the bread which he ate." The bread is a title for the woman. For just as bread nourishes the heart of man, so does the wife nourish the heart of her husband and strengthen his spirit.
The Sages describe the blessing that the wife brings to her husband: "A man brings wheat into the house, does he eat wheat?" Man asked his wife to process the raw material and create from it refined and processed bread, thereby ‘she is found to enlighten his eyes’.
The grain is the symbol of knowledge, the baby does not say ‘father’ and ’mother’ until it tastes the taste of grain. It is the woman who brought to humanity the thirst for knowledge, because of which the man and his wife transgressed the commandments of ’.
Even the correction for breaking boundaries out of the desire to know – is made in the grain, the symbol of knowledge. It is perfectly fine for the woman to exercise her talent to process the raw grain with ’good taste and knowledge’, but at the beginning of the nurturing investment – She must set aside a part for herself, in order to define her entire work as work for the sake of the one who is
With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel
Kneading is the merging of separate grains of flour into one being, flexible on the one hand but demanding separation on the other. The dry flour is connected by the water into one being, and in connection with the opposites of the water, with the heat of the fire, the flour, water, and fire join into a new being.
Even man is a wonderful union of a living spiritual soul with material matter, and when he connects to the woman – the opposites and opposites complement each other in balanced harmony.
The assembly and merging of opposites – can only succeed when the name of ’ is called, the creator of opposites and unifiers. Calling the name of ’ on the dough – it brings about the success of the merger.
With greetings, A”sh
Finally, we must thank the author of the post, who has allowed us to analyze in an attempt to analyze and understand in depth the custom that has been renewed in our generation – public challah –
A custom that strives to empower women's religious activity, not as a struggle against ‘male hegemony’ but as an attempt to develop women's aspirations for empowerment in a direction unique to them, since it is not in conflict with tradition but rather strives to develop within the framework of accepted halakhah from generation to generation.
The sin of the Tree of Knowledge comes from envy and rebellion against the will of God, and its correction comes through a creation that is committed without reservation to the ’word of God; – this is halakhah’, and places full trust in the guidance of the Torah and the ’copyists of its sound’
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
And perhaps the vessel in which the three are placed is called a ‘ariba’ because it is where the flour and water are mixed to form one lump. And in this way, we can say that the guarantee of one person to another stems from all being one entity.
With greetings, Aisha
In the 5th of Tammuz, 5th century
It should be noted that in the Rambam (and its origin in the Gemara) a prohibition was mentioned for healing by Torah readings, but it was permitted to recite verses so that the reward of the mitzvah of reciting them would protect the reciter from future calamities.
However, we did not find in the Rambam’s words a prohibition on performing a mitzvah so that its merit would lead to healing, and it would seem to imply that this is permitted, from the words of the G-d that he who gives a rock for righteousness so that it may live in us is a complete righteous man.
It is reasonable to say that the Rambam specifically forbade healing by the words of Torah, whether because it is a prediction as a whisper This is done by reciting a magical text, and if because of the prohibition of "enjoying the crown of Torah", which the Rambam made stricter.
But to do a mitzvah that is not Torah study, in order to add rights in the hope and prayer that the sick will be healed or the needy will find a match, is not similar to "spell", and it is not "using the crown of Torah", and there is no reason why it should be deducted from the giver of charity so that he may live in us", because in this it is clear that the giver adds rights as a request for mercy from his Creator and not as a magical act.
With blessings, Nehorai Shraga Agami-Psisowitz
Only if the prohibition is based on contempt or improper use of the Torah, is there perhaps room to distinguish between Torah and mitzvot. But according to the Rambam, these are prohibitions of divination and sorcery.
The matter is presented in his framework as "You shall not guess," along with whispering about the blow and other spells and sorceries. There is no reason to distinguish between Torah and mitzvot in this matter.
If you only want to have divine help to heal by virtue of the right, you have dealt with contempt in the Torah, but even if this is permitted, there is still no reason to distinguish between Torah and mitzvot here.
Therefore, it is important to check who is leading the challah sharing, is she aware of the halachic questions involved in the challah sharing? And does she emphasize the aspect of spiritual strengthening and asking for mercy rather than the ’virtue’.
It is advisable to consult with the rabbi of the community when organizing such events, who knows the spiritual taste of the ‘sheep of his flock’ and will be able to choose the appropriate host for this audience.
And the Hasidim of Slonim have already said: ‘Do not go to your friend, what does not bring you to connect with him’ – do not serve’ 🙂
With blessings, Nasha”ef
I didn't understand then, according to you, the meaning of the affliction that came from nature or some other “evil”.
And if so, what does the answer do?
Hello,
There are troubles that come from a low level of divine providence that leaves a person “abandoned to occasional events.” Their regulation is to “protect” them through rights and good deeds that lead to a higher level of providence, in the sense of “He will guard the feet of His followers.”
And there are troubles that are a sign of increased divine providence, a sign from God of the need to correct one’s actions. During the fasts, the Maimonides obliges one to sense in cases of trouble or illness that the trouble comes through providence and not by chance, and therefore to “raise the gauntlet” and increase in prayer and repentance.
At the same time, we must also cover the possibility that the trouble comes from disregarding the duty of natural endeavor, and work to improve caution in maintaining natural defenses - observing the laws of nature - and also to improve spiritual defenses - increasing good deeds.
With greetings, Ya'far
Is there no difference between the affliction of the public and the affliction of the individual? Maimonides mentions this regarding the affliction of the public.
That same distinction could be made here, ostensibly, that the affliction of the public began in nature, and as a result of their not repenting, it then degenerated into a bitter hatred. But ostensibly, it is written to the contrary, that from the beginning it is not from the custom of the world.
I come to say, where did you see the idea of increased providence for the worse towards a person. And in any case, one must raise the gauntlet.
In the 17th chapter of the Proverbs, the Maimonides supports the view that there is a personal providence over every person, and he bases this both on the scriptures that are full of this essence, for example the words of Jeremiah (30): “Your eyes are open to all the ways of men, to give to each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds,” and on the belief that this is contrary to justice, for the one who has a choice will not be rewarded for choosing what is good and beneficial. In the following chapters, the Maimonides speaks of the level of providence depending on the level of devotion to Him. The sinner is “abandoned to circumstances,” while the righteous is “guarded by the feet of His saints.”
Similarly, in the 3rd chapter of the Teshuvah, the Maimonides states that the individual, the state, and the entire world are judged according to the majority of their deeds. There, in Chapter 9, Maimonides explains that the main reward a person receives is by purifying his soul for the life of the world, but in the afterlife, a person receives incentives for his good choices that will make it easier for him to acquire the life of the world. In his commentary on the Pek Depa, Maimonides speaks of another reason for the “fruits” in the world, namely the benefit that his actions have brought to others.
With greetings, Yafa’r
Lowing,
How do you perceive the prohibition of using the mitzvot for salvation even in times of trouble, and even reciting Tehillim for the sick (not as part of a prayer as mentioned in the Rambam, etc.)?
Also, regarding the case of Vekari, it is simply a matter of fasting laws regarding public trouble, right?
In the Magh—A (O”H Relat Sk”Z) it means that the permission to read "Sitting in secret" as part of the K”ch on the table is only because it is "to protect" in contrast to someone who is already in distress, who is then forbidden to be healed, even though "Sitting in secret" is a chapter that has at least an element of prayer or blessing.
You forgot the ‘Amenim’ feasts, which are certainly part of the expanding phenomenon you described. And yet I would distinguish between the mass challah offerings and the simple act of challah making in her home by a woman who has studied and been educated on the Shabbat mishnah – about the three times that women die at the hour of their birth, about not being mindful of the niddah, the challah, and the lighting of the lamp. Niddah and the lighting of the lamp are regular and frequently observed mitzvot, challah is not a regular mitzvot, in a regular home on regular days the quantity that requires the naddah is not baked, so the act is more special. A pregnant woman who is about to give birth will make a special effort to fulfill the mitzvah and spread challah out of a desire to increase her mitzvah and accumulate rights in the spirit of this mishnah.
Even if such quantities are not baked today, I am not sure that in a normal home such quantities would not be baked less frequently than for dipping for niddah.
Attached is a table showing, among other things, flour consumption per person per year 2012-2014.
In countries from the Near East (Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Egypt) consumption is 100-200 kilos per person per year.
Home baking with more than a few children, assuming that consumption is not constant throughout the week and year – it is certainly reasonable to set aside challah at least every time Shabbat candles are lit…
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/agr_outlook-2015-table121-en.pdf?expires=1622731278&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=EE59062DDFB60EB321B6B5A2A4E100CF
On the Sabbath day, the Lord said to the people, “Let your food be from the bread of the land.”
To Eitan, peace be upon you.
In the days of Chazal, two meals a day were eaten: before noon and in the evening. The estimate of the average amount of bread that a person eats at a meal is controversial. Some estimate the food for one meal at 3 eggs (162 cm3) and some estimate the food for one meal at 4 eggs (216 cm3).
An adult would therefore eat a volume of 6-8 eggs per day. This means that a loaf of bread with the amount of challah produced at 43.2 eggs was enough for a large family for one day. They used to bake bread every day and spread challah every day.
In today's reality, there are several changes:
a. The amount of bread eaten at a meal has decreased greatly. In the time of the sages, bread was the main part of the meal, the other foods came to 'pick up the slack'. In contrast, today the main part of the meal is vegetables, salads and stews. We eat only a few slices of bread, if at all.
b. Usually, the bread and a significant part of the cakes are bought at the bakery, where those who supervise the spread the challah. Baking at home is done only for Shabbat or special occasions, when one wants to delight the household and their guests with delicious homemade pastries. Only on these occasions should a woman spread challah.
Therefore, nowadays, a special ceremony is sometimes necessary to summon a busy woman to the mitzvah of challah.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Wikipedia, entry “Superstition” :
An amusing reference to this is found in the story of Nobel Prize winner in physics, Niels Bohr, who supposedly had a horseshoe hanging in his office. “Do you believe in superstitions?” he was asked by an astonished visitor. “No, no”, Niels Bohr replied, “But I have heard that a horseshoe brings good luck, even if you don't believe in it”.
I didn't understand the distinction between "the mitzvah itself" and "the right of the mitzvah." I do the mitzvah itself and by virtue of it I hope to receive what I asked for?
Does the mitzvah itself protect or is it by virtue of the performance of the mitzvah that God protects? If it is a question of the merit of the mitzvah, it can be a merit of any mitzvah and not necessarily the making of challah. If it is the mitzvah itself, then challah itself has the power to protect or to mate.
The Rambam in Halachah 6:12 explicitly prohibits only attributing special qualities to Torah verses. Although from Halachah 16 it is possible to understand that in his opinion everything is unnecessary, the prohibition is precisely when the Torah is used for this purpose (or in the specific practices of Chober Hever, Ma’an, etc.).
Hence, it does not appear that he is prohibiting superstitions in a blanket manner, and this is logical, because it is unreasonable to require scientific validation of every practice in order to avoid a prohibition. It could be said from this that attributing special qualities to mitzvot is not prohibited, but only to biblical verses, but this is really a bit narrow.
Guessing deals with everything, not just Torah matters. The prohibition of being a fool is explained in many places in his words. For a comprehensive review, see the response of Rabbi Yaakov Hillel in the Sea of Repentance, who devoted a huge rejoinder to this.
Thanks for the post, I hope we win.
A famous legend tells of a world-renowned physicist, Nobel Prize winner, who was asked how it was possible that he, the rationalist, hung a “hamsa” on the door of his house to protect against the evil eye. “I really don't believe in this nonsense, it's superstition”, he replied, “but they say it helps even if you don't believe it.
https://z.ynet.co.il/short/content/2017/kivrey_tzadikim/articles/article.aspx?id=5032471
I'm sharing some notes I made when I studied the issue.
-It seems that from the commentary (Sanhedrin 11. 25 and Brok) that Rabbi Yochanan does not believe that there is a prohibition on healing from a diseased body as a rabbi, and that the law is the same as Rabbi Yochanan (hence all the permissions he cites in his rabbi's name necessarily contradict the prohibition on healing from a diseased body).
-1771 (Berachot 7 on the pages of the Rif) understood the prohibition on healing from a diseased body as a prohibition on showing that one is healed, in a kind of apparent way, that everything that appears to be healed from a diseased body is forbidden, and everything that does not appear to be healed from a diseased body is not a strict rule and there is no concern about the matter itself.
-Riya'z (which is cited in the signs of the heroes in Berachot 7 letter 4): distinguishes between a visible wound that is forbidden to be healed from a diseased body, and a wound that does not appear to be permitted.
-Toss (Shevuot 15: דה אסרון, and on Pesach 11. דה נתבעת), Ri'f (Berakhot 7 in its pages), and Rosh (Sanhedrin 11:4): In times of danger, everything is permitted.
If the matter saves, it is benign. If not, then there is a benefit so that his mind will not be consumed or his heart will be strengthened (placebo), as in the law of whispering on Shabbat about the bite of scorpions and snakes.
But from the Rambam (Ezra 11:11) it follows that the entire permissibility of medical whispering in times of danger (whether on a weekday or on Shabbat) is permitted precisely without verses, and so the Shulchan -The Ritva distinguishes between a case that may be harmed (such as giving birth) and a case that has already been harmed.
-The Meiri (Shabbat 67) wrote to some that the prohibition is stated only when it does not associate other elements with the verses, but if there are other things (a knife made entirely of iron, and a thorny bush…) it is permitted.
-The Meiri in Shavuot continued to distinguish in another way, that only by means of a spell is forbidden but by means of a prayer is permitted (for this method it turns out that one must specifically say verses that are appropriate to the matter for which one wants to ask, and pay attention to the content of the words).
-The Maimonides goes by his method of saying that a friend is anyone who uses spells in any field. And according to him, it is difficult to find a way to cure a disease in the law, and not by means of a spell is forbidden in every matter and not only for the cure of one's illness in the law, but also for the cure of a disease of vanity and vanity is forbidden, and not only for the cure of a disease is forbidden by a spell but also in every matter that benefits the body.
And therefore, a person who does so in the law (even not by means of a spell) is forbidden, and in his words, "it is not enough for them that they are generally soothsayers and conjurers, but they are generally disbelievers in the Torah", since he exploits and uses the words of the Torah for other than the purpose for which they were given by God, which is the correction and purification of the soul of man.
However, according to the Rishonim and the Shula, the prohibition of making a friend is only for someone who whispers in order to gather the animals of the field to him. It can be said that they said that one should not be healed by the words of the Torah, namely by whispering. And look at the section that was pressed against the B.I. Daf, according to the Maimonides, it is not prohibited except by whispering, but by virtue of the reading it is permitted even for the sick.
Apparently, the column lacks a discussion of the method of other jurists and perhaps the Rambam in a single opinion on the grounds that performing a mitzvah as a virtue is a prohibition and it seems that they did not practice it like that).
(And perhaps in this context, and in the opinion of a single person, one should also fear apostasy in the Torah? A subject for consideration in itself)
Of course, a mitzvah not for its own sake is not the ideal, but in general it seems that it is accepted that it is better to do it anyway (and it is less likely that the women who went to the event of the separation of challah for the sake of the virtue would have performed another mitzvah for the sake of Heaven at the same time and it seems to me likely that many of them, although they went for the sake of the virtue, also had the intention of the Shashem)
“Reciting relevant Psalms (such as “Shir HaMa’alot Me’emakim, I have called you, O Lord”) can be considered a prayer to God, that is, as a call to Him to save me. If I am only using the language of King David to ask, there should be no problem with that”
“Rambam– But the healthy person who recites verses and a psalm from the Psalms so that the merit of reciting them will protect him and save him from troubles and harm, then that” is permissible.
I did not understand what the Rambam”s opinion is on praying for the sick. That is, is the Rambam”s words here referring only to the merit of the mitzvah? Or also to prayer?
Is there no problem in his opinion with praying for the sick?
Why would it be a problem to pray for a sick person?
I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. According to Maimonides, if the intention in reciting Tehillim is prayer, there is no problem in reciting Tehillim for a sick person.
There seems to be no prohibition on using the language of King David in prayer.
It seems to me that the spontaneous intention of many reciters of Tehillim is to direct their path to prayer. (Incidentally, the introductions of the mullahs at the beginning of the chapters can help to choose the appropriate chapters, not necessarily as a virtue of the recitation itself).
Therefore, I did not really understand why the Rambam, as it were, seems to assume that this is for the sake of a mitzvah. What mitzvah? Is there such a mitzvah to recite Tehillim?
The commandment to study Torah (which is of course abrogation of Torah in quality). But it is enough that the masses think it is a commandment
I understand. You can study the chapter for the sake of study, and then pray it for healing. Two birds..
Shabbat Shalom!
Incidentally, the Meiri (and unlike the other Rishonim), interprets the Gemara on fasting as not meaning that it is permissible to tempt God, and that one will certainly become rich from it, but that if one fulfills a mitzvah, there is a good chance that God will reward him in this world as well.
There is no real problem with “providence”.
There is a problem with “ATM religious”.
When we believe that providence is obscured by things like “reincarnation”, “an individual who suffers due to the sins of the community”, “the prayer bag that fills up”, etc., then we understand that it is actually completely normal not to see private providence in the partial reality that we experience.
But Mikhi is not interested in that –
“If I don't see it, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist”, he argues.
The thing is that Mikhi draws himself a straw man in the form of an “ATM religious” And enjoys attacking him so often, while calling the straw man a “faith in private providence”.
By the way, Miki, instead of constantly attacking “ATM religious”, isn't it time to move on a little and deal with other things?
I'm convinced that you are very pleased with yourself after another “mature” and – “profound” column, with cynicism, childish sarcasm and ugliness for the most part. But I really think we've had enough.
We get it. Move on.
And I'll conclude with what an atheist blogger wrote about Miki. There is no sentence that better describes Miki, in my humble opinion:
“a digger, a troublemaker and full of himself, even when he says complete nonsense.”
https://ibb.co/VCX5CW0
Try and see the benefits
You notice that throughout the entire column, Smichy avoided mentioning the question of providence and only spoke about the problem of the virtues, and even when he recommended praying in your own language/a common prayer that suits the situation, he commented on the problem of providence in parentheses.
I would recommend the virtue that Sandomilov listed below, but I'm afraid it won't help anymore.
Hello U.M.
Even if he mentioned it in passing, I thought it appropriate to link it.
“That you have to mumble while you are giving the gift to make sure the pairings go well….”
If this is not considered “private care”, I don't know what is.
Please, in addition to responding to my words in a matter-of-fact manner, also make an effort to respond seriously enough.
Seriously indeed... a vague providence due to various strange things invented to solve the problem that the Holy One, blessed be He, certainly does not intervene in everyday reality.
I have a question for you – Are you a believer?
If so, do you believe in your Bible?
If so, are you aware that in your Bible there is (many times) the matter of “the individual who suffers for the sake of the whole” or vice versa – the whole that suffers because of the sins of the individual”.
If you are not familiar with it, I would be happy to give examples.
Now, if you are familiar with it, I have a question for you –
If the matter of providence regarding the whole and the individual is clearly written in your Bible (unlike reincarnation, which is not clearly mentioned), why don't we accept this as a reality in our day?
Why don't we accept that if one Jew eats white meat, then 100 Jews will have an unpleasant migraine tomorrow morning?
So true, I can't prove it on an individual level, but as an overall concept, what's the problem with that?
Ehud, I don't know and I would be happy for examples. On the contrary, the Bible is full of evidence to the contrary.
A. Where in the Bible are there two examples (out of the many times) of an individual suffering for the sake of the whole? And is there one example of a concrete person identified by name (see Rad”k Isaiah 55:4)?
B. Where is there a whole that suffers because of the sins of an individual? An individual who is a king like David is a different matter and that too must be discussed. A king like Manasseh made the whole nation sin. In Numbers 16:22 this is evidence to the contrary. See Ralbag Joshua 7.
Hi Sandomilov,
Before I explain the examples, a small clarification - for the sake of this matter, I read your Bible simply, and do not refer to the words of one interpretation or another, whether it justifies my position (for example, interpretations of the sin that led to the enslavement of Egypt) or your position (so forgive me for not having read what you wrote about Radak on Isaiah or Ralbag on Joshua - the story of Achan).
At your request, I will ignore the sins of kings here.
Examples of sins of the general or the general:
1. The first sin of Adam.
2. The descendants of Simeon and Levi are scattered among the people (Jacob's curse).
3. Achan ben Carmi.
4. The return of the Ark of the Covenant to the area of Beit Shemesh after the war with the Philistines.
5. Infants who did not sin and died as a result of the sins of the people that led to the destruction of the Temple. Peshitta.
A. Interpretation is intended to coordinate the Bible with what is written in it more than once, such as that the judge of all the earth will do justice and that a man will die for his iniquity. This parable will no longer be, "The fathers have eaten unripe fruit, and the children's teeth will be set on edge," except with those who hold the deeds of their fathers in their hands. It is also intended to coordinate it with the basic demand of justice that it is impossible for a sin to be forgiven and a marriage to be consummated. When you read without interpretation, you are actually reading with your own interpretation, which is not a good idea.
All the examples are not similar to what you said, that one sins with a pig and a hundred are punished by heaven with a migraine.
1. The sin of the first Adam is a very special and closed matter, and it is not really a punishment for others who exist, but rather he and the world changed in his days and therefore will be passed on to others.
2. Distribution is not necessarily a punishment. Except that in the tribes there is generally an assumption that the father's characteristic is inherited by his sons, and therefore it is necessary. Again, I am in the commentators.
3. In Achan, if you were to look there in Barlev, you would see that Israel's defeat at the beginning was not a punishment but a natural defeat and only God did not bother to help them with miracles. And the family of Achan did not die, as Rashi and Rallev stated in the verses at the end of the chapter. And even if they did die, it is a matter of trifles that is appended to the main point.
4. What is the connection with the return of the Ark? There it is written in the verse that they were punished "because they saw in the Ark of the Lord" and the commentators interpreted what they interpreted.
5. When the entire community sins and punishment comes at the hands of man, such as exile and war, then the righteous are not always saved. For this, see Ezekiel 21:11, "And I will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked," and look there carefully in Barlev. It is indeed a matter for debate and there is apparently a collective perception here as Rabbi Michi points out, but again this is completely different from the idea that one individual eats pork and God rains down a migraine from the sky on a hundred others. And according to you, why did Job's friends accuse him of apparently sinning and therefore being punished and not tell him that he might be banished from the neighborhood for not eating an animal organ? In the Sages, there are several places where those who did not abstain are caught in sin, and from this we learn that they too naturally understood that there must be a connection.
You are not interested in reading a commentary, but the Ramban, for example, systematically thwarts the idea that the righteous will die for the sins of the wicked. In the flood, he writes that Noah was the only righteous man. In Sodom, he wrote that the righteous will be saved over the others, but they will certainly be saved like Lot even without Abraham's request. In the act of Shechem, he writes that everyone was wicked. In Korah he writes that all Israel sinned because they pondered after Moses and did all his words. In the remote city he brings a dispute over the conditions whether the little ones perish and his opinion tends not to. On the number of David at the end of 2 Samuel he writes that all Israel sinned by not bringing shekels and by being negligent in building the Temple (and other commentators such as Radak Ralvega and Abarbanel offered other ideas).
B. What about examples of the invention that there is an individual who suffers for the sake of the whole. I understood that you meant that the individual bears the sin of the whole and thus the whole is freed from punishment. And for this I referred you to Radak in Isaiah 54:4 who rejected this strange idea, although there are also other interpretations. Ezekiel 4 the reader will see that it is not relevant to the matter and it is also recommended to consult Radak there.
By the way, you can also find examples of the sins of kings. I was only thinking of David and Manasseh. About David at the end of 2 Samuel I mentioned to you what the commentators wrote and it has a strong anchor in the verses as you will see there. The sins of Manasseh, which are written more than once as the reason for the exile, are the sins of the entire nation, as explained in the verses in 2 Kings and in the rebukes of the prophets. If you have more examples, please provide them.
Sandomilov,
Introduction to what you wrote about interpretation –
Some things are clear. Things that do not require any interpreter. For example, from reading the Bible, it is clear that the first man sinned. No interpreter is needed for this. There is no personal interpretation of mine here.
If you want to delve deeper, say, what exactly was the sin, etc., then interpretations are indeed required here.
It is important for me to emphasize that of course I am in favor of interpretation, etc., but regarding everything I wrote, I treated the scriptures in their most basic way. No interpreter is needed for this.
Regarding the examples:
1. It is possible that the first man's sin is very special, etc., but again, at the most basic level, it is clear that it is a sin committed by an individual (spiritual or not) that affected the whole.
2. Syrian. From reading the plain text, it is clear that this is a curse that came as a result of a negative act:
“. . .. Cursed be their nose, for it is strong, and their transgression is hard; I will divide them in Jacob, and I will scatter them in Israel”.
And I choose to believe that this is (also) a direct result of the act they did.
You have the right to think differently.
3. “God did not bother to help them with miracles” –
So even if they were not clearly punished, and only God's miracles (clear private providence) stopped, this is also evidence that Achan's sin had a negative effect!
We should note, of course, that amazing miracles were performed in the conquest of the land (the walls of Jericho, the sun in Gibeon).
The reaction of the people and Joshua also shows that they understood that something was wrong here. . .
4. Over 50,000 people died. This is much, much more than those who ”saw in the Ark”.
This can also be deduced from the scripture, when it separates the “people of Beit Shemesh” from the “people”.
In my opinion, it can be clearly concluded here that the entire people suffered from the sin of the people of Beit Shemesh.
5. The example of the righteous or infants who died in the destruction because of the sins of the people is an example of an individual suffering for the whole. That in the end we all pay the same bill. There is no need to mention Micah “who points to a collective perception here”. It is so clear and simple. You are invited to read 2 Kings, 17, 7 and onwards.
Of course, there is also another source in the Book of Kings about the Kingdom of Judah, where even after they made a great repentance, it is said that the Lord did not forgive them due to Solomon's sins.
You wrote:
“. . .From the idea that a single person eats pork and God rains down a migraine on a hundred others from the sky”
I am not claiming that God turns some knob in the sky the moment someone eats white meat.
I am claiming that all souls are connected in an infinite spiritual system. Everything is one great unity. And the moment someone sins in a certain place, it can harm another place, according to the laws of that spiritual system.
Just as in the physiological system, if a germ enters through a certain place in the body, it ultimately affects another place. Or if a soldier shoots a bullet in the middle of a covert operation, then the entire team is exposed, etc.
By the way, another example of a sin in a movie that leads to a negative result – God's prophecy is interrupted by Saul due to Jonathan's sin (1 Samuel 14, 37).
Enough is enough. Please take the trouble to look at all the verses and commentaries in the places you and I cited and in the verses I mentioned (the judge of the whole earth will not do justice. One man will sin. A man will die for his sin/iniquity. There will be no proverb that the children's teeth will be set on edge. In Ezekiel (for example, chapters 3, 14, 33) he who warns a wicked man saves his soul). And in particular in the Ramban in all the places I mentioned (once again: flood, Sodom, Shechem, curses at the end of my laws, Korah, the distant city, talk among the people about the number of David).
The cessation of the miraculous torture and assistance (Ai and Jehonathan) is still not like a punishment. Although I personally expect God to perform miracles to the best of his ability, as many as possible, all the time. Therefore, you are welcome to publish your theory of unified spirituality in your own name (as an indictment against the Almighty: It is in vain to serve God and what is the benefit that we have kept His watch) but there is no place to hang it in the beloved book called the Bible.
In addition, let the carpenter unpack the issue from Job, that all three evil men and Elihu ben Barachel and even the Almighty himself answered him for his claims that he was righteous and suffered, and no one ever thought of the idea that Job was spiritually connected to some scoundrel who sinned. (Although the Malbim in the words of Elihu accuses Job of not having removed criminals, that is, of not having done enough. But this is hidden from Job's testimony about himself breaking the chains of injustice and justice. I did not know how to investigate it. Incidentally, Rabbi Meir Mazuz says that the Malbim's interpretation is the best interpretation of Job. In my opinion, it is a false and disgusting interpretation. It reminds me of the words of the Grach that a cantor who had all the virtues listed in the Shulchan Arvad offered him, but his voice was not Arab, and he rejected it.) If you have a focused answer to this question, please reply.
On the 3rd of Sivan, 2021
To the man of Sandomiel, in the province of La Guardia (in northeastern Portugal) - Greetings,
In the Rambam's reply it is explained that just as there is a law for each and every individual, so there is a law for each and every country, and also for the entire world.
The logic in this is that the public has a destiny in the world, and in particular the people of Israel, which is destined to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation", influencing the world with the faith of the Torah and its values, and therefore the Creator must supervise not only that each and every person fulfills what is incumbent upon him, but also that the public must be a supervisor who examines to what extent he fulfills what is incumbent upon him.
Therefore, there is a situation in which the actions of the individual affect the entire public for the better. A guard (in Portuguese: la guarda) who is negligent in his guarding – endangers the entire city, and on the other hand, when the guard fulfills his role with faith – he protects the entire city.
And in the same way, the sin of an individual is also considered the sin of the entire community ‘the sin of Israel’, and to a great extent, the good deeds of an individual can also atone for the entire community.
Just as the priest atones for the sins of the nation – Thus it is explained in Isaiah 55, that the servant of God is the people of Israel who atones for the sins of the entire world, whether through their own suffering (as Rashi explains, and similar to the words of the Book of Revelation 33 that the suffering of the righteous atones for their generation), or as Targum Yonatan (and Rabbi Eliezer of Belgentsi) says, that the people of Israel bear the diseases of the world through their response and prayer.
And these things fit together well with the words of the Prophet, that the people of Israel in the world are a “dog in the limbs.” The heart is the one that suffers from all the diseases in the limbs of the body, and it is it that infuses life forces for the healing of the entire body.
With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel, Rabbi
Radak and R. Yosef Kaspi, are reluctant to interpret in the simple sense that the servant of God atoned for the entire world in his suffering, because the Christians developed this idea ‘ad absurdum’ by claiming that man cannot at all escape the cycle of sin by the power of his own choice, and only the suffering of the crucified frees him from sin, and they hung their interpretation on the words of Isaiah, and therefore Radek and R”y Kaspi fled from this direction to the end, and were forced to explain that these were the words of the Gentiles.
This direction is narrow, it seemed to the prophet that it was necessary to cite the error of the Gentiles, and without explicitly disclaiming this error. But the simple words of the prophet that the need for the servant of God to atone for the corruptions of the world – They are just a default, but the main demand is that everyone take responsibility for themselves and not rely on the righteous one to atone for them.
Regarding collective law, I agree and did not say otherwise. My personal opinion is that it is not right at all, but in the Bible and in the Sages it exists.
I mentioned Ezekiel 21:8-9 and I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, and Radek there, which Targum Yonatan brought, that the righteous will be saved by exile and the wicked will be cut off, and Radek brought that the righteous who is cut off is righteous to the Gentiles and wicked to heaven and his own knowledge, which is collective law.
But this is precisely when the punishment comes at the hands of man. But if the punishment is at the hands of heaven, then “God, the God of spirits, knows the thoughts, not your measure, the measure of flesh and blood, a king of flesh and blood who has a country against him does not know who the sinner is, therefore when he is angry, he is repaid by all. But you, before you, all thoughts are revealed and you know who the sinner is”. That is, this is when the rule is condemned to be positive and the punishment is by man, but if the rule is not condemned to be positive or if the punishment is by heaven, then the wicked is punished and the righteous are like a decapitated kai.
Therefore, the Ramban in the Flood takes the trouble to say that Noah was the only righteous man. And in Sodom, Lot was the only righteous man. (And in Shechem, everyone was wicked). And in the remote city, there are few survivors. And even in the curses at the end of my laws, they will stumble over their brothers, which Chazal interpreted, they will stumble over their brothers' sins, because the Ramban did not interpret it this way. Everything is consistent.
If we do not find in the Bible explicitly the idea that one person's suffering atones for others, then I prefer to avoid it in Isaiah 55 (and Ezekiel 4). But indeed, the interpretation of Radak is narrow, as you wrote. In the Sages this exists, but Ehud said that the Bible is full of it, assuming that he meant "an individual suffers for the whole" meaning he bears the punishment for them. Perhaps he meant an individual suffers together with the whole, and then that is another matter discussed above. I also agree with what you wrote on this.
In the sixth month of Tammuz,
To the Sanad, – Shalom Rav,
From the continuation of Chapter 55 of Isaiah, it seems that the sufferings of the righteous man lead him to take responsibility for himself. He judges himself to be a burden, ‘If you hold his soul guilty,’, while he judges the many, ‘In his mind, the righteous man will justify my servant for many, and he will bear their iniquities’.
From himself, he demands repentance and correction, while he justifies the many sinners in his mind, teaches them virtue, and prays for them, as it is written, ‘And he himself bore the sin of many, and for their transgressions he will be wounded’.
To this wonderful level, – To claim from himself and teach righteousness over others – can only come to someone who worships the ’ out of love, who out of the strength of his love for the Creator – loves his creatures ‘ and desires their righteousness’.
And hence the answer to your question why the wicked did not tell Job that his sufferings come to atone for the whole. Job worships the ’ out of fear. He understands that there should be justice in the world. The righteous should have good, and the wicked – evil, and because he is righteous he is amazed at his suffering.
Only a disciple of Abraham, who worships the ’ out of love, can teach righteousness over sinners and ask for their pardon. Only a disciple of Moses can ask his Creator to forgive sinners, and say: ‘And if not, please blot me out of your book which you have written’.
Indeed, Job approaches the level of Abraham in praying for his friends, and then he is truly redeemed from his torment.
With greetings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”r
Thank you very much for bringing the recommendation of the Rabbi Mazon on the Malbim”s commentary on Job.
As we saw in Isaiah 55, the sufferings of the ‘servant of God” atone for the world, because ’he makes his soul guilty’, it is his claim upon himself that atones for the world, and as explained in the Book of Isaiah 55:1, that during the years of Rabbi Elazar's suffering no one died and during the years of Rabbi's suffering the world did not need rain. When the righteous one suffers because of his claim upon himself – then he protects the world.
With blessings, Isaiah
And it is said that the sufferings of the righteous atone for the whole, because they arouse the whole to repentance, as they say: If the righteous demands repentance and correction from himself, how much more so are we demanded to correct it.
I saw in Rabbi Carlebach's "Spiritual Stories" (Volume 3, pp. 100-110) about the reception of Shabbat by Rabbi Elimelech of Liszt, that before the reception of Shabbat, he would go to the kitchen maids and ask for personal forgiveness from each of them, and they would carry a kabbalah themselves and ask them for forgiveness from their evil, because the reception of Shabbat was like the eve of Yom Kippur, a time of forgiveness and reconciliation.
With blessings, Aisha
Why don't you try the pomegranate parable? There are plenty of fine berries here.
Your style of speaking shows that you still have a lot to learn.
At what point do you think the separation of challah is considered not for its own sake, to the point where it is impossible to recite a blessing over it, because the mitzvot requires intention?
I didn't understand the question. Please elaborate.
If in the parshat of challah one thinks of salvation and not of fulfilling the mitzvah, then apparently one does not get a blessing and one cannot say a blessing over the parshat. And perhaps the dough also remains tevel. My question is whether the intention that the parshat of challah will save the one in need of salvation really contradicts the basic intention of fulfilling the mitzvah, which prevents the mitzvah from being called a need.
I still don't understand. They do the mitzvah for the sake of the mitzvah with all the intentions of fulfilling the obligation, but the whole ceremony is performed for one salvation or another. Giving charity for the sake of my son's life also does not contradict the intention of fulfilling the obligation.
In the separation of challah for the sake of the mitzvah, the right comes even before the mitzvah is fulfilled, by placing oneself under the obligation of the mitzvah.
With blessings, Yaffo”r
A mitzvah is what I have to do, not what I want to do. When a person thinks he is doing his Lord a favor and breaks a loaf of bread and uses it as a bribe to get something arranged for him, is he fulfilling a mitzvah? At any level of non-for-its-sake, does he not become a busybody towards the mitzvah? Is a slave who does it in order to receive a reward still a slave?
(Regarding charity, there is actually a House of Levi that claims that charity is the essence of which is that the poor eat. Kind of like I don't care about the reason that would make a child not run into the road. But even without that, my question is whether there is a limit at which non-for-its-sake nullifies the essence of a mitzvah and does it)
And I replied that there is a mixing of gender with non-gender here. It has no connection whatsoever to the question of intent.
Maybe the question is aimed at this? For example:
1. A situation in which I do not need the dough in the first place, and I am doing it only for the sake of salvation.
2. A situation in which I do need the dough and I intend that it will also be for the sake of salvation. (Like, I was planning to bake challah for Shabbat anyway)
In both situations, it is necessary to clarify whether I intended for the act to be savior or for the merit of the mitzvah (so that is actually four situations)
And the question is: In which of the situations did I fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah of separating challah? And in which of the situations is the intention invalid because of this? And does an invalid intention at all prevent the fulfillment of the obligation of the mitzvah.
There is no connection. Even if we don't need the dough, when bakers spread challah with a blessing. After all, with the tzitzit every day we wear a garment that we don't need just to earn the mitzvah and of course we bless the tzitzit.
Of course, any dough in the appropriate amount is obligated to be separated from challah. It seems to me that the question asks – if when you directed the blessing to the fact that it is a ”z, have you still fulfilled the necessary separation obligation? Apparently yes.
Maybe with tzitzit it is different, if you wore a tzitzit for the sake of a ”z –z you probably did not fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah.
Or not? Can you explain?
There is no connection. As I explained, it is about doing a mitzvah for the sake of a mitzvah. But the mitzvah is done in order to be saved through it or by virtue of it, and this may involve a prohibition. The prohibition, even if there is one, is not in doing the mitzvah but in the intention that accompanies it.
Hello Rabbi
Academics, I have not had the privilege of learning much from your teachings, but have only read a few posts sent to me by my friends
However, from reading the limited sample I have been exposed to, I have a certain impression of the Rabbi's teachings, and I would be happy to receive clarification if I understood correctly
It seems to me that your theory in its essence is that ”Judaism must contain only truth and everything that is not truth is simi’ when the truth must be clarified by the strict standards of the natural sciences and not by the standards that ’humanities’
Of course, this concept is a strong foundation for saving Judaism from the righteous apostasy that follows the denial of the many lies that have crept into it over the many generations
(Did I understand the Rabbi's concept correctly?)
I commented on the above concept (I hope I am really discussing with the Rabbi and not just with an imaginary spirit):
It is clear that if the Rabbi succeeds in founding Judaism on building blocks that have been proven to be true, it will be a very magnificent building, but in my opinion it will also have a serious flaw.
It seems to me that the 'stick', the soul, of the building will be missing.
I am concerned that Judaism in which any concept of faith in private providence is denied and every observance of a mitzvah that is supposed to make its participants feel 'transcendental' Or a belief in a specific success might be more scientifically sound and free from heretical reflections, but on the other hand, such a ‘Judaism’ cannot serve as a basis for a broad, public ‘religious’ perception. We may not be able to deny it, but we cannot believe in it either.
In my opinion, if we cleanse Judaism of any manifestation of metaphysical matter, we leave an empty space in which there is no longer any room for connection with the transcendent Godhead, and such a Judaism I no longer see what it has to do with the teachings of Aristotle et al.
You didn't describe it correctly. I do try to stick to the truth, but the truth is not only what emerges through scientific means. Absolutely not.
The other considerations don't interest me as much as a garlic peel. I don't believe in white lies. If the truth is X, even if it prevents people from sticking to it, I don't think it is necessary or permissible to lie to them in order to save them.
Apart from the description of the tools, was I right about the rest?
I understand that the rabbi is indeed opposed to anything that smells of a ‘holy atmosphere and experience’, ”holy lies’..
That's why I asked, do you think it's possible to establish a public Torah that doesn't include these elements?
In my personal opinion, without religious experience, there is no value to any religion
However,
In my opinion, your approach also seems to suggest that war is not sufficiently well-founded
A: Technically - you agree that the placebo effect always exists, and if only for this reason it would be true to claim that more harmful matters are beneficial and have already gone beyond the realm of forbidden nonsense
B: Fundamentally - this is what our teacher, the Rambam, taught me: Although in contrast to the Beisht and his method of providing for every leaf and worm, the Rambam does not have private provision at this level for every creature from the perspective of its creation, but everyone can reach the highest level of being provided for (and I added that in his method it is not binary, but it is possible that he will receive private provision for a private event even if most of his life passes without it, but for that moment his life takes on meaning)
That is, even for the Rambam, one of the first and greatest of the Rambamists, the heresy of providence is essentially nothing but In detail
And in any case, this is not a lie that should be fought against, but only to clarify the great gap between the error of providence independent of human leadership and the demand for transcendence to achieve it
It seems to me that it is absolutely possible, as long as we do not decide in advance to despair and feed the public with holy lies for its own benefit. But even if it is not possible, then no.
The question of providence in the Rambam is complicated and has no place here. But I see no point or value in discussing it here or at all.
My Mishnah is detailed in detail here and in the second book of the trilogy.
There is a disagreement between us in reality
I don't understand how someone who knows the whole nation can claim that Judaism without the mystical dimension can speak to, and hold as 'Jews' more than a few percent of it, in my opinion it is simply unrealistic
You did not address the fact that empirically there is a benefit in mystical belief on the part of the placebo even if we assume that this benefit does not also have a real providence component (and that perhaps cannot be isolated at all, so it is impossible to claim that it is a real lie)
The claim 'if it is not possible that Judaism should be erased' seems to me completely unjustified
And because in your view it must be a well-defined X then 'let everything burn' if the human being is not willing to accept this X but only its own 'fun'?
And especially as I mentioned, the mystical aspect is not completely ruled out, and reason requires that a 'religion' that is concerned with fulfilling the 'will' of God requires a perception that God does indeed want something from His creatures, and this requires acceptance of some level of providence (of course, I have not yet read his second book). If so, either one accepts the issue of religious experience with some limitations or one truly renounces the entire principle of the Divine Torah, but I don't think you really intended to get there?
On the 5th of Tammuz, 5621
To Meir, Shalom Rav,
The Maimonides bases (in Moshe HaMashiach 83, Chapter 17) the private providence on its frequent mention in the Holy Scriptures and on the justification that it is not right for a person who chooses not to have a reward for his choice. The removal of providence, according to the Maimonides, is a punishment for the wicked, as it is written: “He will guard the feet of His faithful ones, and the wicked will sleep in darkness.”
The essence of the reward, according to the Maimonides in Pet. 5:17 Yeshuah is the purification of the soul for eternal life in the world to come, the reward in this world is an incentive for the doer of good that makes it easier for him to acquire perfection (and vice versa). In the commentary on the Mishnah (Reish Paha), the Rambam explains that in addition to the eternal perfection of the soul, a person in this world is entitled to the fruits of the good he has done for other people through his actions. And regarding fasting, the Rambam says that a person who is afflicted with a misfortune should not blame it on chance, but should examine his actions in order to return to the right path.
Regarding the religious experience, According to the Rambam, it is the fulfillment of the commandment to love and fear God, and it is acquired by man's contemplation of the greatness and wisdom of his Creator. A contemplation that brings man to love and the desire to know God and to cling to Him, and at the same time to fear for being a mere creature standing with a small mind before the Lord of all.
With greetings, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Many thanks, Rabbi Yaron
Although I did not intend to open a discussion here on the Mishnah of Maimonides
I only brought it up against Rabbi Michi's claim that it is complete nonsense and that it is forbidden to believe in something that stems from the faith of providence
In my opinion, it is enough to bring a source acceptable to the Rabbi for the *feasibility* of the matter to remove from his explanation that it is complete nonsense that must be fought against even at the cost of erasing Judaism
First, you did not provide a source that I accept for feasibility. I determine my position on facts through thinking and observation and not through studying the Rambam, with all due respect to him. And in general, if you want to prove divine involvement in the world, you do not need the Rambam. There are verses in the Torah about that.
Second, I do not deal with feasibility. The question is what is right in my opinion and that is what I stand for. I am not interested in telling people what is possible and what is not and what the positions of such and such a person or unknown person are.
Third, I did not fight anyone. I presented my position. Those who accept it accept it and those who do not accept it do not. Each and their own considerations. As I wrote, I do not support telling holy lies for the needs of the public. Those who want to lie to themselves should lie and be healthy. Are you demanding that I lie because of your needs? If you want, do not accept my position and that is it.
Fourth, believing in false beliefs is not the salvation of Judaism but the salvation of another religion. I believe in Judaism and in truth. As someone who quotes Maimonides, I certainly don't need to give you his parable of the elephant.
Fifth, Maimonides himself really doesn't shy away from groundbreaking innovations in halacha and thought, and doesn't refrain from stating them despite the possible consequences. Although in the introduction to the teacher he talks about various obscurities, in fact there are innovations in his writings that are no less than mine. Incidentally, the same is true of Chazal.
I think we've exhausted the discussion.
Paragraph 2, line 5-6
… To rephrase.
Apparently I was wrong in bringing Maimonides into the discussion
Although I still haven't received an answer regarding the placebo effect, whose benefit is proven beyond all doubt
The effect of the 'meaning of life [M.L.]', which according to Prof. Frankl has a tested and proven 'virtue' for longevity
From the above, I don't understand why the rabbi turns the accepted religious life and its experience into a 'lie' Necessarily
This is simply not logically correct, even based on the aforementioned thinking and observations
And this is only from the technical side
In addition, I did not receive an answer to the fundamental question, what does it mean to keep Judaism and all its many and complicated commandments of life (even at the level of their Dao’ only, without the addition of rabbis and custom) after removing the dimension of providence and the connection of the commandments with the G-d?
I would understand the renunciation of everything if it were proven that this connection is necessarily false, but it seems to me that the severity of the conclusions cannot be satisfied with the assumption that it is false and accepted as a given, but rather, since its falsehood has not been proven completely, we must give G-d a place to serve in our lives, even if at first glance it seems that things are not so.
What is the answer to the placebo effect? It is clear that it exists. To the extent that you can tell people to stand on one leg, which is a proven segula for mating, and that will work too. What does that have to do with Judaism? As I wrote about the parshat challah, it even touches on a Torah prohibition. Lying is also a prohibition, of course.
Anyone who wants to strengthen the belief of others in a Torah prohibition has no part with him. The Gerizim have already written to prove from the Gemara that if there is a specific prohibition in practice from the tenth, the Messiah will not come on Shabbat. The salvation of the Jewish people will not come through a rabbinical prohibition.
The meaning for all of Judaism is doing the will of God. Whoever works for another purpose, beyond the questions of prohibition, does not work for its own sake. See Rambam Rafi Mehalim Teshuva (and this is Rambam halakhic, and not facts or views). Therefore, I do not understand what the question is here at all. Although from shi'l-shi'm comes shi'l-shi'm, and therefore a person is allowed to work for the sake of the reward so that in the end he will end up working for the sake of it, but certainly this is not about working for goals that will not be achieved (except with a placebo), and lies. This is not the work shi'l-shi'm that is being discussed.
The things are as simple as pie, and I do not understand what the insistence is here. To fool people through lies in order to create a false reverence for a foreign heaven (like the parable of the elephant). This is the ideal for which you are fighting. I probably believe in a different religion than you.
In fact,
It seems that in the Rabbi's war against the heresy and falsehood that entered Judaism, he turned all the commandments into foreign and unimportant matters in our day and all of them are no less doomed than the custom of atonement in the past.
It seemed to me that I had a halal for the sake of a marriage, which is a lie, and what about me that I had a halal for the sake of "fulfilling the will of the Creator" who does not want anything from me, then this is also a lie to the same extent
Rabbi Lapid, I don't understand you. If I ask you what the halachic sources are for challah for mating, can you show me? I, the door of the people, don't want inventions invented for me either.
I have no such source
And I did not claim to have one
What I said on the face of it is that there is an error in Rabbi Michi's basic assumptions, and when there is an error in the basic assumptions, one reaches an incorrect conclusion
(I will start with an anecdote - it is clear to me that there is an error by the very fact that the Rabbi's conclusion leads to heresy in all observance of the mitzvot as I noted above, I have learned from my experience that if one reaches an illogical conclusion, there is an error either in the path or in the basic assumptions)
I pointed out to the Rabbi that we know from many studies about the power of a person's imagination to change the reality around and within him, therefore it is clear to me that from this side only, from a purely scientific point of view there is a **benefit** in holding an evening prayer for marriage as well
As mentioned, this is not based on any Torah source but rather on many studies regarding the placebo effect and the tremendous significance that a person's level of (self-)confidence has in achieving what they want, it is clear to me that 1000 women who pass the evening prayer etc. There will be at least a certain percentage who will come out of it with a sense of ‘providence’ that will increase her level of self-confidence on the next date and this will lead to the success of the pairing, otherwise the evening would have failed like all its predecessors.
I mean, I don't understand the enthusiasm to claim that this is necessarily a lie when it is clear that these are things that have a clear benefit (and then it is agreed (almost?) by everyone that there is no prohibition in the action and certainly not a ”g)
In addition, I don't understand the rabbi's holy war on the subjective perception of large parts of the people of their religious experience, which is what spurs them to fulfill the multiple and complicated commandments.
I will ask you, an evening of shared religious experience that also manages to awaken something within you, makes you feel a little ‘soul’ within you, would it really be conceivable to fight against this? Can this really be called nonsense and a lie that all those who err must be taught that only false imaginations have predicted and that there is really no chance of achieving true spiritual elevation in this world? What kind of Judaism will we get? What kind of sad world will this be?
Again, if it were necessarily proven true, I would accept the verdict, but as mentioned, it is simply not factually correct.
Rabbi Meir, I have attended several Challah Parshat evenings, and most of them made me laugh, if not nauseous. It is a pity that I did not write in real time the things that were said there. I am in favor of elation, but of words of truth, not of patronizing lies. Keep in mind that for every few women who might feel elation from stories of miracles and wonders about the power of challah, there will also be some who will get upset about it.
I do feel elation from reading Rambam, for example. And I also consider very highly the joy and experience in keeping the mitzvot.
I really don't understand why you went to even one of these and I certainly don't understand why you went to several...
As I explained, the benefit is guaranteed to women who come with a mindset different from the one you came with..
Finally, can you truly rejoice in keeping the commandments if you completely accept the notion that the Creator has no personal connection with the world today and certainly doesn't know you and your keeping of the commandments at all? That none of this matters to him/her?
What is the connection between what is written in this post about the separation of challah and the notion that the Creator has no personal connection with the world?
I do not accept the notion that there is no providence because I still do not understand how Rabbi Michi came to this conclusion. In this regard, I agree with what you wrote in the name of Maimonides regarding the dependence of providence on human leadership and the requirement to transcend in order to achieve it, and I also connect prayer to this.
This has nothing to do with the mess that exists today in the separation of challah ceremonies, and the confusion that exists between truth and fiction, and the damage that this may cause.
The connection is that in my opinion, with Rabbi Michi (and when I asked him, he did not deny it if I understood him correctly) everything stems from the same fundamental point
He is willing to accept into Judaism only things that are completely verified and to the same extent that he threw out the evening of the challah from Judaism (for the reasons you saw for yourself), he also threw out the providence from it (and in any case must also throw out) everything derived from it
My discussion was with him and less with you
Among other things, because I was not familiar with your Mishnah
If you go all the way with accepting his words regarding the evening of the challah and the pagan atmosphere in which, in my opinion, according to Rabbi Michi, you will also have to give up your ‘elevation of your holy spirit’ In keeping the other commandments, the fact that you decided that studying Rambam is okay to feel does not make it more 'real'; it is your subjective experience, but it is no more justified than the experience of the women who were next to you on those evenings when you were in it.
I didn't understand all your gibberish. I do insist that only what I have told you is true. For some reason, this tautology is a great novelty in your eyes. And you, on the other hand, propose to adopt lies (and placebos) just because they bring benefits. Nothing here has to do with verified things or certainty or scientificity and the like. Not verified and not guaranteed. What is logical is logical and what is not logical is not. And inventions are inventions. That's all. I don't see what else you saw in my words.
This is the correct presentation of our debate, if there is one.
I don't know how I can be clearer, but I'll at least try to be brief
I completely accept the tautology, it's obvious, it's a tautology itself
But I asked if ‘true’ == ‘verified’
According to you, things are exactly the same to the point that it seems you didn't understand my question at all
I suggest dividing things
What you matched == truth, what you matched as false == lie
But things that in a certain respect contain a lie but on the other hand are true, what is their ruling?
Who decreed that a religious experience, and all the true benefits that come from it, are necessarily false just because the source of the experience or its influence on providence is not suitable?
Why put ourselves in that corner that sterilizes the soul of religious life? What forces this in science or logic?
It's easy to be clear. Just read what I wrote and refer to it instead of repeating the same errors. And certainly don't use vague terminology like things that in one sense contain a lie and in another sense contain truth. I assume you yourself don't understand what you're saying.
Maybe I'm a little closed-minded and therefore miss the rabbi's answer
I'll try to simplify as much as possible my question, which I have not yet received an answer to, to the extent that I have achieved it:
Is a religious experience that causes the experiencer to benefit from increased joy, self-confidence, and self-completeness with his religious existence, a lie just because it does not suit us that the experience originates or results from some private providence? Is it necessarily a negative thing because of that lack of verification?
We have strayed far from your opening questions. At your request, I will now summarize my arguments in relation to experiences:
1. A religious experience is not at all invalid. My argument is that it has no importance in itself. If it contributes something to someone – to health. This is in contrast to perceptions that see the experience as an end in itself or a necessary expression of faith. As Rabbi Voloziner says in Chapter 4.
2. There is no point in talking about experiences in terms of truth or falsehood. It is some kind of mental process, and if someone enjoys it or gains something from it – to health. There are experiences from consuming art, a beautiful landscape, meeting certain people, or from the parshat challah. Each one and what these things do to them.
3. Anyone who draws any factual conclusions from the experience, in my opinion, has no basis for this. For example, a religious experience does not indicate any providence or connection with the Almighty in an objective sense. Perhaps it expresses a subjective psychological connection of the person himself. This, as mentioned, can also come through art, standing on one leg, or watching an NBA game (and shouting ‘There is a God’ while jumping into the pool at the City Hall Square in Tel Aviv).
4. When the experience comes in place of valuable things, that is, chasing experiences, this is indeed wrong in my opinion. When people leave meaningful study and chase after legends and the Bible and experiences, this is a search for experiences and an easy life in the workplace, as is required and appropriate. This is indeed wrong in my opinion. Of course, it is all a matter of dosage. It is certainly permissible to enjoy life.
5. And finally, if the experience involves a prohibition (like the prohibitions in the parsing of challah that I discussed in the column) – then it is something negative.
6. And hence to summarize and conclude:
I do not fight any experience. I express my position on the claims described so far, about truth telling the truth, about lies – lies and about prohibitions – forbidden. Everyone will draw their own conclusions, and those who do not agree with them – how much Yosef Icha was in shock. My intention is to say that such a person has enough rabbis to enjoy their Torah and the experiences they will give him. He can leave me in peace.
And let the listener be happy.
And now I would like to receive clarification on how things align with what you wrote in the article above “As I answered the above questioner, my claims regarding these rituals belong to two different levels: 1. The factual (does it work). 2. The halakhic (is it permissible). On the factual level, I claim that there is no indication that I know of (and I assume that no one else **[What about the placebo? M.L.]**) that such a ritual works. Therefore, it is first and foremost stupidity. And on the halakhic level, I claim that such a ritual actually involves a not-so-simple halakhic prohibition. Incidentally, below it will be seen that according to Maimonides there is a connection between the levels, because the prohibition in this is based on the stupidity of the matter. Now I will discuss these two levels, one after the other.”
If it is agreed with you that the experience that at least some of the women go through on those evenings is beneficial to their health and success, even in matters of mating (even if it is due to the placebo), then 1 should have answered - there is a factual benefit (for a certain percentage of women)
And in any case, the answer to 2 would be - it is clear that it is permissible and even beneficial for women who come with simple faith
(Because of Simcha's testimony, it is clear that the above permission should be qualified and women like her should be recommended not to participate in such an evening because, in their opinion, the evening will only cause harm and no benefit)
But it seems to me that the rabbi will not agree to move from what he wrote above, and I do not understand this. What is the fundamental factor that makes you fight so hard against a phenomenon that could have been simply dismissed as a "religious paracetamol" based on the placebo effect?
What is the factor that requires, in your opinion, at least to give up the spiritual dimension?
I ask because until yesterday when I saw what you wrote, it was clear to me that the matter was positive overall.
Since I respect your opinion, it is important for me to find out why you think it is only negative.
I do not guarantee that I will accept your opinion or the opinion of Rabbi Yosef of Shuka, but before I choose, I would be happy to understand the things about the Burim.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a2%d7%9d-%d7%a1%d7%92%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%94-2
Well, this has really gone on forever. Things are self-evident. So my final message:
It has a benefit like any superstition. A benefit like standing on one leg or homeopathy. It's not called a benefit. A person can always work on themselves in any matter and it will be to their benefit a placebo. Do you recommend fattening people up with nonsense so that they benefit from placebo?
Even pagan medicines are beneficial from placebo. Don't you accept someone who says that this is nonsense that doesn't work? In your opinion, there is nothing in the world that doesn't work, so what's the point of saying that something works or doesn't. Everything works from placebo.
I'm not fighting placebos. My words came out against the nonsense of the matter, against following nonsense and experiences and against the prohibition of the matter.
That's it. I'm done.
Meir (Rabbi Meir?) and Miki stand on opposite sides of the fence and both insist on claiming full ownership of the truth regarding Judaism and its goals. Both are wrong in my opinion.
Meir is right that there is no room at all for talking about religion without assuming the existence of a metaphysical and spiritual meaning that serves as a platform for all other layers (in the case of Judaism, this refers to the platform that initially enables the law, the religious experience, folklore, history, etc.).
What he does not see is that this anti-metaphysical position is at the center of the efforts of the Torah, meaning that there is a principle there that guides the believer not to believe at all (but only to obey the norms - "do and be heard").
Miki, in contrast, actually understands that this is indeed the main trend of the Torah, but he is completely blind to the fact that it is a futile attempt. It is not possible to rely on a body of knowledge - certainly “religious” knowledge - that does not have behind it the same platform in question. In this respect, Michi continues the sterile formalism that Leibowitz established.
The obvious solution is, of course, to first turn to the truth: to confront the Torah with itself, that is, to expose the fact that it undermines itself from the start. But neither of them is willing to do that.
Meir..
Doron, I didn't understand where I claimed ownership of any truth
All I did was present what happens if you follow Rabbi Michi's method to the end and why there is no necessity to reach this conclusion from a purely scientific/psychological point of view
You claim based on what we have done and heard that the entire purpose of the Torah is to make us not believe?!?
I have seen some who have tried to claim ownership of the purposes of the Torah, this is the most pathetic attempt..
Are you really erasing from the Torah all the verses that speak of knowing God and loving Him? The covenant of reward for keeping His commandments? His conversation with His creatures?
And then after you erased most of the Torah and left only one verse in it, you come to the conclusion that this verse, according to how you understood it, creates an internal contradiction?
And then by this trick you demand that I acknowledge your truth that the Torah contradicts itself?!?
I don't know how to proceed, you have put me in a deadlock
Meir
Read again what you said about the results of (Michi's) attempt to cleanse Judaism of any manifestation of metaphysical matter. Isn't this a statement about the truth about Judaism?
Regarding "do and hear," I did not literally mean these two specific words, but rather what I call an epistemic norm that the Torah places before us. This is the norm, which, as mentioned, Michi correctly identified, and it guides us to prioritize values or norms over facts.
I am not erasing anything from the Torah, but rather trying to create order and identify the hierarchies found in the plain text itself. In my opinion, the basic model of the Torah is precisely the (unresolvable) conflict between the second floor, where there are contents and meanings that can be argued about (for example, knowledge and love of God), and
the first floor, which requires us to accept the format itself, that is, to accept the Torah itself as the main mediation mechanism between man and God.
The fact that someone discusses the level of plausibility of another person's opinion does not force him to have an exclusive opinion
Perhaps you mean my next sentences “In my personal opinion, without religious experience, there is no value to any religion” and “Either one accepts the matter of religious experience with some limitations or one really gives up the entire principle of the divine Torah”
So yes, I have a personal opinion about the threshold requirement for any religion
This of course says nothing about what I think about ‘Judaism’
And of course this is a futile discussion, especially with a person who without any trace declares that everyone but him is wrong, including the Torah itself.
The fact that you present the relationship between the two floors as an unresolved conflict proves only one thing, that you have no children.
If you had any children, you would certainly know from your own experience that you really don't need to and that everything can be explained to a child, and there will be things that you will leave as a formal obligation only.
To Meir, God forbid, I did not disrespect any woman. You just have to understand that there are enough women who recognize the placebo. There are lies in this and it is dangerous.
To Doron, I did not see Rabbi Michi cleansing Judaism of any revelation of a “metaphysical” matter. He accepts the status of Mount Sinai.
I didn't write that you're in it for women, but for those evenings when your friends get feelings similar to what you feel in deep and interesting learning.
Whoever recognizes the placebo loses the medicine, is it permissible for her to destroy the medicine for friends who haven't yet recognized the ’scam’ and for whom the medicine can still help?
Dear Meir, I don't usually ruin parties. This site is perhaps the only place I've allowed myself to express an opinion on the matter. What would have been worthwhile would have been to manipulate these Arabs according to Halacha without damaging the joy and exaltation. Not such a story..
Meir,
It seems to me that you don't even understand the simple simplicity of your own claims. The claims in which you quoted yourself swallow your position (“your truth”) regarding Judaism. Read yourself again (hint: what you said about the necessary, or at least very plausible, dependence between the divine Torah and religious experience).
Where did I claim that everyone, including the Torah, is wrong and only I am right? I claimed that there is a logical fallacy (I didn't formulate it in those words, though) in the story of the framework that the Torah offers us and that in light of this story there is a problem accepting its specific contents. What is so “pretentious” about this claim, as long as it is reasoned?
Regarding the foolish claim (with apologies to him) that there is relevance to a person's family situation in terms of his views, well… what is there to say? It is important to emphasize that even if you were right in my description (which is not the case) your words would be equally foolish.
Interestingly, a few months ago someone else on this site “revealed” my family situation to me (he was also wrong). And maybe you two are relatives yourself???
Simcha,
Indeed, Miki accepts the status of Mount Sinai and reason would lead us to think that this status is a “metaphysical event”. Much to our embarrassment, the “gift” (body of knowledge, text) that we received from God at Sinai does not allow us to think so. This is the conflict in which the Torah finds itself and to which I have referred
I have explained this at length many times on this site over several years and from different directions. If it interests you, I will explain it again.
What conflict?
(Please no Latin)
The thesis that appears in the Torah: There is meaning in talking about a divine metaphysical reality (in fact, there is even certain information, for example, His revelations, that can be provided).
The anti-thesis; there is no meaning in talking about such a reality.
This is the conflict.
The explanation for the thesis is obvious: the Torah informs us that this talk is relevant.
The explanation for the anti-thesis is trickier but logically stems from the Torah model from heaven: assuming that familiarity with a metaphysical reality and the very talk about it are based first and foremost on the assumption of the existence of an intuitive faculty (that the mind observes), we would expect the Torah to tell us this or at least not to prevent it logically. But the Torah does not do this. It does not position itself as the main mechanism of mediation between man and God, but at the same time it also serves, in my opinion, as a body of knowledge (text) that actually performs the work of mediation.
I could expand on the explanation.
In any case, the simplest thing to do is to go to the historical critique group - Christianity and its scriptures and see how it dealt with this conflict. Its solution is much more rational (although not necessarily true).
I understood the thesis
I didn't understand the antithesis
When you send someone to learn about the vague concept you defined here from sources of knowledge that are probably foreign to them and contain an entire Torah that obviously isn't enough to just glance at Wiki to deplete the individual you're sending them to learn, it's an unfair act and it's like the practice of fraudsters who distance themselves from their testimony. It's like claiming that 'I'm right and anyone who wants to be convinced of this should simply look at modern quantum physics' (which, by the way, I could really claim that regarding the discussion I opened here)
I don't understand what you're getting into. Let's say:
A. The entire Torah was dictated from Moses (this is of course a historical error, but whatever)
B. There are commandments in the Torah (without going into the serious contradictions between the commandments and the biblical context and everything) that God wants us to keep
C. God is the source whose will we must fulfill
Conclusion: We must keep the commandments in the Torah, and since, due to the contradictions, it is not clear which of the files should be ruled according to; the more logical method would be to try to unite the files of laws and rule according to the unity as the sages did.
Yes, I have a certain perception about Judaism and religion in general. Am I sure that perception is 100% correct? Does it have any relevance to the discussion here?
As I said in advance, I did not follow this Beit Midrash and I hardly had the chance to read it.
Therefore, your method, which may be very well-reasoned, is unfamiliar to me.
To the body of the matter as you presented it here, I responded as I did out of this ignorance, and perhaps I would have responded differently after referring to more convincing arguments than you presented here.
If you think that there is no connection between a person's experiential world and his thoughts, you are further from the truth than I am. Recognizing the various biases that are created in our minds due to the habits and beliefs in which we live is a basic step on the path to achieving the truth.
I have no intention of trying to convince you that I do not have a sister or that I am not related to her.
Meir, are you seriously asking if your perception is “100% correct” Who talked about 100%? I'm talking about a reasonable and rational argument, in my opinion at least.
Then you ask “Is it relevant?” Miki presented a certain perception, you presented one, and finally I, the little one, dared to flatten my waist. Why wouldn't it be relevant? This is a discussion, right?
Then you refer to the trivial connection “between a person's experiential world and his thoughts”… Who denied this connection? Certainly not me.
In your criticism of Miki, there were many points of view. However, there was a thorn in your side and it is, in my opinion, the failed common denominator that both of you still hold. I tried to clarify what it is.
That's the whole story.
The irrelevance I was referring to was the question of ‘do I have the whole truth’ with which you opened your first response
I still don't understand why you think that and I still don't understand what it has to do with the subject of Didan
Of course, anyone can present their opinion, both you and I, without having to deal with implicit accusations of mental illness and the perception of ‘having the whole truth’
I tried to find out Rabbi Michi's opinion here because from reading some of his words I felt that he was a profound person whose words contained a great need to clarify the truth of the Torah, but unfortunately I did not receive a clear response from him regarding his method and opinion on my proposal.
Regarding your words -
You presented your opinion in a very implicit and unreasoned manner, perhaps you relied on the fact that you had already clarified it here in the past. To me personally, the things seemed rather unreasoned, which is why I responded as I did.
If you would like to present your thesis in an organized and understandable manner (without Latin and unclear references) or at least refer to a place where you have already done so in the past, I would be happy to address things accordingly. Right now, your contention with sending those trying to understand you to study Christianity does not convince me to start doing so at all.
Regardless
Is there a way to respond here without having to register every time for each message? I tried through my Gmail but it returns an error, only Twitter worked, try changing browsers or something like that?
Your Excellency. R’ Chaim's wife has done a lot of challah making. Apparently it's not that much of a problem. He probably knows a little bit as much as you do.
Anything that strengthens Judaism is a good thing.
And doing a mitzvah in public, what's wrong with that? And if you do it to benefit someone and together with the Kiddush of the Lord?
You don't always have to be fancy.
I've always loved ad hominem arguments. The question is whether this is a reinforcement of Judaism or something else (perhaps a bit similar to it).
Minai, His Beautifying Highness.