tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post4334949753223326022..comments2024-03-25T09:43:27.402-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: Balak, Rus, and the merits of she'lo lishmaChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-79134491930644086522010-08-13T21:18:02.059-04:002010-08-13T21:18:02.059-04:00I would like to exchange links with your site divr...I would like to exchange links with your site divreichaim.blogspot.com<br />Is this possible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-23917399380344194312010-07-31T18:43:34.791-04:002010-07-31T18:43:34.791-04:00I would like to exchange links with your site www....I would like to exchange links with your site www.blogger.com<br />Is this possible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-86046736773216175362010-07-01T13:41:48.103-04:002010-07-01T13:41:48.103-04:00Chaim - sure, but is the act of learning Torah inh...Chaim - sure, but is the act of learning Torah inherently an act of recognition of the source of the words? I don't think so; the essence of learning Torah isn't "recognition of source" but "absorption of content/meaning."Akivanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-27846397295273915052010-07-01T09:50:22.439-04:002010-07-01T09:50:22.439-04:00>>>Also, I'd like to say that I don&#...>>>Also, I'd like to say that I don't know where the Tosafot, in Nazir 23b, get from Berakhot 17a the quote:<br />העוסק במצוה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא <br /><br />Obviously my post assumes that girsa. I would be hesitant to turn a machlokes in girsa into a machlokes in halacha.<br /><br />Akiva M. -- someone who recognizes Torah is G-d's word, but learns with the intention of picking fights with others I think would also fall under the gemara's censure.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-34133766131338708902010-07-01T06:39:12.036-04:002010-07-01T06:39:12.036-04:00Akiva M.: But the act of offering Korbanos to hash...<b>Akiva M.:</b> <i>But the act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak was subject to his will.</i><br /><br />Besides what <i>Balaq</i> offered on his own( <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0422.htm#40" rel="nofollow">Bamidbar 22:40</a>), which is not part of the 42, all the times he built altars and made sacrifices( Bamidbar <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0423.htm#1" rel="nofollow">23:1-2</a>, <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0423.htm#14" rel="nofollow">23:14</a> and <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0423.htm#29" rel="nofollow">23:29-30</a>) were at the behest of <i>Bil'am</i>. <i>Balaq</i> did what he did, including the <i>Qorbanot</i>, <i>leShem</i> the success of <i>Bil'am</i>'s mission. I doubt <i>Balaq</i> cared much whether it was <i>haShem</i> or, <i>leHavdil</i>, <i>Kemosh</i>(כמוש) who would grant the success.<br /><br />If anyone, it was <i>Bil'am</i> whose "act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak", and <i>Bil'am</i> himself, were "subject to his will"( see <a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9951/showrashi/true#v14101" rel="nofollow">Rashi on Bamidbar 23:4</a> on "<i>Et Shiv'at haMizbechot</i>"), and according to your line of argument, it is him who should have merited reward for it.Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110984901774311950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1967650683136641822010-07-01T02:32:39.708-04:002010-07-01T02:32:39.708-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110984901774311950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-47673219074806504312010-07-01T02:32:20.100-04:002010-07-01T02:32:20.100-04:00My problem with this answer is that the language o...<i>My problem with this answer is that the language of the gemara speaks of an “osek b’mitzvah" for the wrong reasons not deserving to be born, not just one who learns with destructive intentions.</i><br /><br />The <i>Gemarot</i> that speaks of <i>Oseq beMisvot</i> are those that "<i>tell us that even a mitzvah done she’lo lishma has merit</i>"(Nazir 23b, and also Pesachim 50b), but the one which uses "... <i>should never have been born</i>"(Berakhot 17a) doesn't talk about <i>Oseq beMisvot</i>.<br /><br />The <i>Gemara</i> in Berakhot 17a <a href="http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=1&daf=17&format=pdf" rel="nofollow">says</a>:<br /> מרגלא בפומיה דרבא תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים שלא יהא אדם <b>קורא ושונה</b> ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין <br />,in <a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_17.html" rel="nofollow">English</a>:<br />"A favourite saying of Raba was: The goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds, so that a man should not <b>study Torah and Mishnah</b> and then despise his father and mother and teacher and his superior in wisdom and rank",<br />meaning that only the <i>Talmud Torah</i> without proper intent( of "repentance and good deeds") is abominable, not other <i>Misvot</i>. So, even when Raba says "If one <b>does them</b> for other motives, it were better that he had not been created"( וכל <b>העושה</b> שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא), the <i>haOseh</i>( "does them") is referring to <i>Qore veShoneh</i>( "study Torah and Mishnah").<br /><br /><i>Also, if the Chavatzeles haSharon’s distinction is correct, Tosfos’ should have offered it to resolve the contradiction between gemaras</i> ...<br /><br />As I said above the <i>Gemara</i> in Berakhot 17a is only talking about <i>Oseq baTorah sheLo liShma</i>, so the <i>Tosafot</i>( for that <i>Gemara</i>) only asks about the conflict between them regarding the <i>Oseq baTorah sheLo liShma</i>.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to say that I don't know where the <i>Tosafot</i>, in Nazir 23b, get from Berakhot 17a the quote:<br /><b>העוסק במצוה</b> שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא <br />( maybe that's why they precede it with: <i>Amrinan <b>be'Alma</b></i>).Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110984901774311950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-35929683242342857462010-06-30T15:41:52.306-04:002010-06-30T15:41:52.306-04:00I'll propose an answer:
It may be that what B...I'll propose an answer:<br /><br />It may be that what Balak's ultimate goal was - cursing B'nei Yisrael - was obviously a destructive intention.<br /><br />But the act of offering Korbanos to hashem was in and of itself l'shma - that is, it was a recognition that God is in control, and that Balak was subject to his will.<br /><br />And with respect to that recognition, Balak's destructive hope for what God's will would be has no relevance at all.Akiva M.noreply@blogger.com