Forum Replies Created
@laskern, the gemara is referring to the guf and the neshama. Olam Haba is referred to as the olam haneshamos, according to the Ramba there will be no guf then. Clearly the guf’s responsibility for decisions is minimal. Will there be seichel in olam haba?
@chabadshlucha, “And both are based on logic. Just depends which logic you feed to the nefesh hasichlis.” Well, aren’t you being fed by all 3? What makes the final decision?
shuv matzasi this exact question in shu”t radvaz chelek 5 siman 89. If anyone can explain his answer to me, I’ll be very grateful.
@laskern if the moach is combined of different factors which do the thinking, the neshama being only one component, then why is the sachar veonesh applied only to the neshama and not all parts of the moach?
@fm, Thanks for your time…thaat was one of the longest posts I’ve ever seen.
But I’m still confused. Your answer seems to be
1. Hashem originally wasn’t going to create the world with chesed, but then decided to.
2. The ramchal’s axiom is only applicable once it was created with chesed,
3. We don’t really know why Hashem created the world. And we’re not supposed to know.
4. There;s no conflict between yediah and bechirah.
“Square Root of 2, why do you say that the pint is not to be embarrassed? What about those being punished?”
I am quite honestly quite frustrated–angry, really–with everyone who comments without reading the posts. You apparently didn’t even read the title.
“As for my point of Bechira, you have to truly envision such a universe before tossing the explanation. If the fact is that there is no concept of a Cheit (whether preordained or selective universe) then there is no active Bechira. (Yes, I know your point of view, which is why I worded it that way.)”
So please explain your point of view on bechira and how that’s contradictory to a world where only tzaddikim live.
Thank you AviT . I don’t know if you’re following up on this, but if you are: There are many sources that reshaim will remain reshaim in olam haba as well. One example: Midrash in the beginning of shir hashirim that says leasid lavo at the seudas livyasan, the reshaim will serve the tzadikim.
@FakeMAven, thank you. I don’t quite understand. The ramchal said our purpose in the world is to earn reward. Are you implying differently?
Laskern, thank you for the mussar tidbits. Does it pertain to the discussion?
Haleivi, “If Hashem would not create those people whom He knows will turn out bad, then we would have a world in which there is no active Bechira.”
What are you talking about? A tzaddik’s bechira is not dependent on whether there are reshaim in the world or not.
“As for the Nahama Dikisufa, I don’t see any contradiction there. What you do get is deserved and well received and what you don’t get, for lack of accomplishment, is embarrassing.”
Excellent. Now if the point was to avoid embarrassment, it seems like a failure, no?
So, in a nutshell, reshaim were not created for their own good.
The rambam discusses why yediah and bechira are not contradictory.
As I said already, more than once, that is not my question.
I apologize for yelling.
LASKERN CAN YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING? AND DON’T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, EITHER. THANK YOU.
There seems to be a large miscommunication here. Being as how nobody understood me, it’s probably my fault ,so let me repeat the question very slowly.
1. Hashem created people in order to do good.
2. There are people who don’t do good, i.e. reshaim.
3. The fact that they do bad on their own volition is irrelevant.
4. Hashem knows, before he even creates them, that they will be reshaim.
5. reshaim don’t do good, and hence there is no reason for them to be created.
6. Why does Hashem create people he knows will be reshaim?
@chabad shlucha, I think you contradict yourself in the same post, but whatever, I calrified my question.
seems like either ,my question was misunderstood or people are taking the yediah/bechirah paradox to heart. Although a person has the freedom to be a rasha, and Hashem doesn’t create him as a rasha, nevertheless Hashem creates people he know will be reshaim. And hence my question. Why?
“yet the gemara says that tzaddikim in olam haba will be embarrassed of each other’s accomplishments ”
baba basra 75a
@laskern, what does that rashi by Kayin have anything to do with this?
@a pashute yid, please refer to my second post on this thread.
I fail to see how I took it out of context.
And please answer this rashi, instead of referring me to others, unless the others shed light on this one. Which it doesn’t.
Side point: the ram ban in Iyov says that it’s better to have all the yissurim in olam hazeh than to have any small amount of gehenom. Is that not discouraging? Does that sound like a benevolent world rather than a harsh world?
Laskern, rashi doesn’t bring that part of the gemara; it would seem he holds that for “pashut pshat” of the pasuk it’s not necessary. Additionally, the gemara itself seems to put the focus on gehenom and not teshuva: if the “hey” alluded to the fact that Hashem created the world with mercy and instilled teshuva, that would be understandable. But when the gemara puts the emphasis on gehenom, with a side point that it’s possible to do teshuva, it’s not so much more encouraging.
An underlying difficulty I have is that if the mesillas yesharim is correct, then why is the world so prone to bad and not good? If the entire point is to get sechar, why is it that “noach lo leadam shelo nivra”–why did Hashem not make it that it would be easier to get gan eden than gehenom? Why is it that those who get saved from gehenom are one in many, and those that make it to gan eden are the minority?
laskern, the tiferes yisrael is not at all a contradiction to what R’ Moshe says. No one denies that Moshe Rabbeinu definitely worked on himself a tremendous amount. What R’ Moshe says is that his drive/ability to work on himself was stronger than Aharon’s.
Rashi in parshas va’eira says that Moshe and Aharon were equal in righteousness. R’ Moshe Feinstein explains that although Moshe Rabeinu undoubtedly reached higher heights than Aharon, it was because his neshama was naturally more prone to kedusha than was Aharon’s. This seems to be not like what you said.
I don’t know if I have a hechere neshama. I am mortal which by default is finite. My neshama is immortal and I guess infinite (?). 🙂
Thank you. Who is the sefer habris? Do you mean that everyone starts off with a regular neshama and when they use up its potential they’re given a hechere neshama?
“You can have 25 levels…similar to sefiras haomer.” I always wondered what it means “yesod shebigvura, etc,” and so too I don’t understand it here. Does “nefesh shebeneshama,” for example, mean that the ikar is the neshama but it has a nefesh characteristic as well?
what about a sheailas chalom? Anyone know how to do that?
Chiddush ha’olam was by no means introduced by the nefesh hachaim. As Laskern pointed out, we say it in the 1st bracha of krias shema both by shachris and maariv. See abudraham on the bracha of ma’ariv who points it out. It’s also mentioned in Midrash Tehillim 119 85, although maybe it can be understood differently.
The nefesh hachaim calls it a tenet of our faith.
As far as the gemara in shabbos, the rishonim explain it differently than the maharal. I don’t understand the Maharal. Why is saying hallel on teva worse than reciting a bracha on teva?
Ubiquitin and Gaon, besides for the fact that chiddush ha’olam is mentioned in the brachos instituted by the anshei knesses hagedolah, as I mentioned, I’m not sure there’s anything “backwards” in posing a question on an earlier source based on what a later source says. See, for just one example, baba basra 81b where the gemara questions a beraisah based on what r’ zeira says.
Thanks avrah, I’ll look that up.
Catch yourself, I don’t see how the theories of why Hashrm created the world with koach hateva answers why it is that we’re to look at the world with an attitude of “everything here is by default going to stay unless there’s a definite change.”
mameheleh, you mentioned 2 instances that we are supposed to. But maybe we should be cutting back on greenhouse gasses that we weren’t commanded in.
Arvah, thanks again for your reply. Admittedly I did get a bit lost in middle of the paragraph, but you seemed to be quoting the nefesh hachaim that the world, though dependent on Hashem, will stay unless its base–Hashem–“moves”. You didn’t provide the exact source, so it’s hard to look up, but that seems contradictory to everything I always heard about chiddush haolam–that Hashem is constantly creating the world, and it’s not at all steady-but-dependent; it is nothing save for the command of Hashem.
Daas yochid and catch yourself, I understand that Hashem commanded us to do mitzvos even though in reality our actions are futile and it’s Hashem that allows the action to happen (or more accurately, performs the action himself). My question is why Hashem specifically wants us to act as though all is to be taken for granted, that we should apply a logical–or logic-related–assumption that everything should be staying the same unless we see proof that it changed.
I’ll illustrate the point further. The gemara (gittin and other places) discusses chezkas chai–we can assume that he who was alive yesterday is alive today. Is that not antithetical to our core beliefs? Are we supposed to have such an attitude, “we’re here to stay by default, unless some change happens”? Don’t we make a bracha every day amplifying that point exactly that our life was given to us by Hashem and that if not for his kindness we wouldn’t be here?
To reiterate, I’m 100% aware that this is a Torah-ordained doctrine. The question is WHY it is so.
I meant what I said.
I did press the submit button. The reason you thought I did was because you’ve become used to the fact that Hashem gave people to make decisions and cause things to happen.
“I dont follwo, so what is the hashkafic view on smoking being bad. for that matter waht is the Torah view on the goal blood pressure various studies/guidlines disagree, So I guess we should let the Torah be machriah.”
That was going to be a follow-up question. Why does climate change seem to be less accepted than other scientific claims? As far as letting the torah be machria….yeah, that is what we Jews do. The question is what is the torah’s view?
Mameleh, hashem never told us to increase greenhouse gasses.
avrah (the only one who answered the question):
Thanks for your answer, however, that is what I’m struggling with. If we’re to assume that there is no greater amount of change in plurality as opposed to a singular change, why would we be instructed (by the torah, as catch yourself so brilliantly pointed out;” a halachic principle”, to quote the pearls of DY) to, in essence, ignore that very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous?
ubiquitin, you’re right that there’s a scientific factor to all this, and that’s not necessarily related to any Torah view, however, I do think there seems to be a hashkafic side to whether or not scientists can be believed, as is evident from the subsequent posts.
Chiefshmerel, The mesilas yesharim understand that medrash to mean not to destory the world through aveiros. (I suppose you can say ain mikra yotzei midai pshuto, though.)
Little Froggie, thanks for your replies. I’m a little confused. Your first post indicated that although climate change may be real, the correct way to correct it is through hischazkus betorah vimitzvos. Your second post seemed to scoff at the very idea, and, as ubiquitin already said, would you say the same thing about smoking?
how did the gr”a come to live in the 18th century? Did Hashem send a neshama typical of earlier neshamos or it was possible for everyone in his generation to become the gr”a?
why did hashem even make our generation?
So basically it seems that yerushalmi, for one reason or the other, is less accepted in halacha than bavli is. IS that a fair summary?
Sam2, that’s very interesting (that there may be a third gemara). Does anyone have any proof one way or the other?
I find it hard to believe that the bavli is learned more because it’s more interesting.
So back the question up a little bit. Why has talmud bavli been learned for years, and not yerushalmi?
so how does that differ from emunah?
On a related note, sometimes people will point out a sick person who has it so hard, etc. and say “we have to be thankful to Hashem that our hands, feet, lungs…etc. function properly and we don’t have these problems.”
Am I wrong in assuming that’s incorrect? People with problems have them because that’s their nisayon, (or maybe a punishment, in some cases.) That’s not the way it’s supposed to be in all cases. I feel it’s like saying you have to thank someone because they didn’t punch you in the nose. Of course, if Hashem would inflict someone with a problem, it would be bidin, as opposed to a jerk who punches you, but if he doesn’t, it’s because we in our situation are not supposed to have that issue, so why must we thank him for that?
You’re right and I don’t think kefirah and arayos are insignificant, however, as I said in my original post, frum colleges really don’t have those issues.
So what’s your answer? That really there’s nothing wrong with college (aside from bitul torah) but people are still wary of it because colleges teach kfira and arayos?
Tell me, if the cash register has an instruction manual, would he read it? If so, he obviously does read secular material, and his not going to college is not because he considers it assur to read secular material.
Well, that was basically my point in my original post.
daas yochid, so the point of telling such stories is basically only to prove that missing the meeting was for his good, but it doesn’t directly answer his broken foot?
DaasYochid, then why do many yeshivish families who have a son not holding by learning, refuse to send him to college, and instead find him a job as a cashier or something?
Thanks, DaMoshe for highlighting the fact that modern orthodox learn a lot. I mentioned before I know someone who goes to a modern orthodox yeshiva. The bais medrash there (and in most modern orthodox yeshivos) is set up with a shelf in front of each seat, which is literally full of seforim. He personally has his own reference shas and rambam, plus a lot of rishonim and acharonim on what he’s learning, plus classical mussar seforim–nefesh chayim, sifrei maharal, and others. I thought at first that they don’t learn bi’iyun but he tells me over the shiur sometimes and it’s a regular lomdishe shiur. And he and many over there are big masmidim.
BarryLs1, you said that we should drop the labeling altogether, but in truth modern orthodoxy isn’t a “label” like “yeshivish” or “balabatish”. Modern orthodoxy was a movement, an intentional act to change something, and modern orthodoxy would label themselves as such as well. It’s like saying we shouldn’t label people who go to different yeshivos by saying, “He attends___” and “he goes to _____”, rather everyone goes to one yeshiva.
And zahavasdad, my username wasn’t a question, and your answer is inaccurate, anyway. The square root of 2 is irrational and doesn’t serve any apparent function besides provide material for mathematicians.
again, thanks everyone for your answers, especially yours, richashu. 🙂
I want to point out, something I forget in my OP, that there are a lot of modern orthodox who are extremely scrupulous in halacha–more so than some ‘chareidim’–(unless maybe certain areas, i.e. tznius, which as I said before, there is room to be lenient even al pi halacha), R Lichtenstien being a perfect example. I know someone from a modern orthodox yeshiva who puts me to shame in learning. It’s probably more the attitude with which they approach yiddishkeit that plays the main difference; in a sense I can feel it, too, and has the outcome richashu pointed out.
Hey, I meant to ask that as part of the question, but I realize I basically answered it–with all your help. Thanks!