Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Lubavitch > Chassidus

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 12-31-2011, 08:36 PM   #1
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
Anyone learning Ayin Beis this year?

Is anyone learning Ayin Beis this year, and does anyone have any ho'oros to share?

Maybe let's start something...
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-31-2011, 09:13 PM   #2
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Not Shvuos yet, is it? Though I plead guilty to having learned it a bit in the not so distant past. Maybe an excuse to continue, and get back into it.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-03-2012, 03:46 PM   #3
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
1. On the bottom of the first page, the R"R quotes the Ramak in Pardes where he brings 3 pirushim on the idea of kesser. The first priush is where the Ramak says that kesser is m'loshon "hamtono".

As this is explained though (in Ohr Hatorah from the Magid in siman 114), it would seem that this is more relevant to malchus then it is to kesser. It seems that the t'chuna of hamtona is more shayich to the mekabel than it is to the mashpia. In this sense, it's "wait and I'll be mashpia to you". The Magid describes that the purpose of the hamtono is for the mekabel to be mitzamtzem his mind (and seperate all other thoughts) so he can give his attention to the mashpia.

How does this first peirush translate into terms that fit what we've learned elsewhere in Chassidus, and where do we see that this idea is specifically kesser, as apposed to malchus?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 01:18 PM   #4
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Siman 114? or 118?

Malchus Sheb'elyon Naasah Keser L'Tachton ad Roim Hamaalois..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 02:38 PM   #5
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
Siman 114? or 118?

Malchus Sheb'elyon Naasah Keser L'Tachton ad Roim Hamaalois..
It was typed quick and off hand. It's 118.

I'm not asking about the parallels between kesser and malchus.

Remember that the Ramak wrote this is Shaar Hakeenuyim under the erech "kesser". He's obviously telling us about the tchunois of kesser and not malchus. Yes, malchus sheb'elyon naseh kesser l'tachton vchulu... But that's not the point. Certainly not the poshuteh pshat.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 03:34 PM   #6
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
The Magid is also specifically talking about Keser... so why say he is talking about Malchus... and why is that not the point or not the poshuteh pshat.. you need to elaborate why that does not very specifically answer your question... ?!?!? What is your question?

And if I did understand your question.. la"d the statement that מלכות שבעליון נעשה כתר לתחתון is more than a comparative parallel... haynu hach... Moreover, the moshol of siluk used by the Magid applies to the mashpia just as much as the mekabel k'yodua... so.. what is your question??
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 05:16 PM   #7
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
I didn't say the Magid is talking about malchus.

I said that he's talking about tchunois that are seemingly more shayach to malchus then they are to kesser.

The question isn't from what I understood specifically in the Magid's Torah Ohr, but also on the Ramak and the R"R. There they bring a Rashi explaining the posuk in Iyov - "Wait for me a bit...".

Here the word "katar" goes on someone else (as a command, that he should wait a bit). This comes straight out of Rashi and the Targum on the posuk. The Magid explains this, where he says that there's this kind of idea of tzimtzum so that the mekabel should be able to receive. My question was - this relates specifically to the mekabel. How does this relate to kesser though?

In the other thread I said "your way of waving questions away" because you're doing it here too...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2012, 01:40 PM   #8
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
...and Keser has no relation to the Mekabel?
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2012, 02:23 PM   #9
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
In the transmission of hashpo'oh, keser - here - is the idea of "hamten ad sheyispashet". Of course keser has relation to the mekabel, that's also a tchuna of keser. But in essence, when we're talking about these inyonim, that's really shayach to malchus and not keser. Only, like you said, that keser and malchus are bound together. Here were talking about "the peirush of keser" though. Remember that the R"R is quoting from the Pardes' "Shaar Erchei Hakinuyim" - which is like an index to understand all the kinyim that are used throughout. Consider it an encyclopedic index.

What's interesting to note, is that the Ramak brings 3 ideas. This idea isn't stuck in at the end of the erech after he's already brought other peirushim for the meaning of keser. It's actually the first peirush he brings! In addition to that, the R"R is bringing that to tell what "keser is" (bichlolus)...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-06-2012, 07:22 AM   #10
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Also relevant to this discussion is 30 maamorim onward - at the maamor just before shavuos (exactly a year from when the drush began) - where the R"R explains the 3 pirushim of the Pardes in the oisiyos of Chasidus. The maamar's found on pg 234 and the hesber is at the very end of the maamar. See there how he explains the first peirush that we're discussing. V'hakoil oileh b'kono achas.

This idea of "katar li z'eir" (that's the posuk in Iyov 36:2 that the Pardes brings to explain the idea of keser being hamtono) which the R"R says is the inyin "hashitko" - is also the idea of kesser shebekeser - being the rotzoin hane'elam ("shtoik kach olo b'machshovo") which is above any form of giluy. These points are explained in great detail in the last ois of the maamor, and more about this idea m'bchinas hamashpiya, you can also find in maamorie admur hoemtzoee - hanochois pg 384.

What's interesting to note in all this is that in Ayin Beis the R"R takes it out of the oiysios of the Ramak, and instead of referring to this as hamtono like we did in the beginning of the maamor - here, he refers to it only as "shtiko" (like he made brief mention of in the hascholas hadrush). In this sense, the idea of shtiko isn't just something of the mekabel - like the Ohr HaTorah - rather it's more then that. It's like the R"R adds in parenthesis (in the beginning of the maamer) from Sefer Yetzira (in order to explain the Pardes) - that the idea of shtiko is because the loftiness of kesser, in a sense that it's lmaylo m'yidiyo v'hosogo (like "shtoik, kach oloh b'machshovo" - as explained elsewhere. In this mode of thinking, the shtiko is in kesser. Not just in the mekabel.

(Ho'oro b'almo - in the kitzur on the hemshech that's written at the end of the 3rd volume (by the mo"l - of course), the hemshech is broken into several "chativois", this maamer being the completion of the first "chativo".)

Anyway... have a look at that maamer in the hemshech hadvorim. It adds a lot to this discussion.

[All this is written only in roshei prokim because it's erev pesach. But if any of the m'aynim need further elucidation, please let me know.]

Last edited by Rabbi_M; 04-06-2012 at 08:54 AM.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-06-2012, 10:48 AM   #11
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
This still begs the question though: isn't the peirush of the Ramak ("hamtono") and the what the R"R adds ("shtiko") really all part of one idea?

While b'hashkofo rishoino it might appear that there are more than 3 pirushim of keser being mentioned here, in actuality, there are only 3. See for instance in the kitzur (later) written by the R"R and later on in the hemshech where I mentioned in my last post. There, the R"R is mefaret that there are "3 pirushim".

Having said that, this idea of "shtiko" is really all part of the "hamtono" peirush of the Ramak. In this regard, this idea that the R"R brings later in the hemshech, does it apply also in regard to the concept of hamtono?

If so, we're required to look deeper than the simple "malchus sh'b'elyon naseh keser l'tachtoin" as I mentioned in my above posts... This is all just about poshuteh pshat...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-08-2012, 11:01 PM   #12
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Perhaps the answer to this can be found in the hemshech ha'inyonim of the Ramak's Shaar Hakinuyim (erech keser) and in Koheles Yakov (also in erech keser).

The Ramak says that keser is of feminine loshon, and that it hints to the side of the recipient (in the oir choizer sense). He brings this idea from Raya M'himno (Pinchos 256b) that "keser is called by the side of imoh i'lo'oh", which he explains, that keser is called by the feminine aspects of binoh. He also brings this idea from Zohar Chodosh - Yisro 49 - (in regard to the word Anochi), that whenever keser is called keser, it refers specifically to the tzad hamekabel within it (which is called a mekabel relative to the tzad hamashpia within it, as it is known that keser is part mashpia and part mekabel). It's also brought in Tikunim that malchus is called keser - which this is the idea of "eishes chayol ateres baloh" (where the mekebel is the atara (- the keser).

The Koheles Yakov brings the loshon haramak and adds that the ikkar sheim of keser is from the feminine side - that it is the mekabel, and in support of this he also brings from the Raya M'himno and the Tikunim mentioned in the Pardes above. This is the idea of eishes chayol ateres baloh, that in the oir choizer, the mekabel becomes the keser (and the mashpia). The main idea of keser is the oir choizer of keser.

This concept of eishes chayol ateres baaloh is discussed at length in the chassuneh maamor, and that can shed a lot of light to the inyonim as discussed here.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-08-2012, 11:09 PM   #13
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
As I see it thus far, this should resolve all parts of the question, including the reason why "hamtono" is brought as the first peirush (being the ikkar pirush of keser), and it seems also to work with the explanation of the R"R that this pirush refers to keser shebekeser. This also resolves that issue that the idea of hamtono and the idea of shtiko are 2 different things and that they'd seemingly require 2 different explanations. Instead, they're simply talking about 2 different aspects in keser. The idea of hamtono is the idea of oir choizer of keser, and the idea of shtiko is the oir yoshor of keser. If anyone has any questions, ask. Understandably, because of the shortage of time, much of this is written in short hand (without the whole explanation in front of us).
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-09-2012, 12:42 PM   #14
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...6&postcount=13
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-09-2012, 03:42 PM   #15
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
2. in the second ois, in regard to the idea of hislabshus hasechel in a person's koichos (like ksiva, tziur, vchulu...), the R"R brings from the Rambam's Shmoineh Prokim in a way that would seemingly conflict what he says elsewhere - in tof reish samech beis pg. 319 and in tof reish ayin ches pg. 191 - also in the name of the Rambam's Shmoineh Prokim. Do any of the m'aynim have any thoughts in resolving this seeming conflict?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-08-2012, 11:39 PM   #16
Paper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
As this is explained though (in Ohr Hatorah from the Magid in siman 114), it would seem that this is more relevant to malchus then it is to kesser. It seems that the t'chuna of hamtona is more shayich to the mekabel than it is to the mashpia. In this sense, it's "wait and I'll be mashpia to you". The Magid describes that the purpose of the hamtono is for the mekabel to be mitzamtzem his mind (and seperate all other thoughts) so he can give his attention to the mashpia.
Doesn't a mashpia also have to be mitzamtzem?
Paper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2012, 02:33 PM   #17
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
The post was putting focus on the ikkar inyon of kesser. Look back and read what I wrote about that.

Indeed, this is not a stiro to the point that you're addressing.

I'll post the text from the Pardes and from the Koheles Yakov as soon as I have the chance. That should add more clarity to this thread.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2012, 11:41 PM   #18
Paper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
As I see it thus far, this should resolve all parts of the question, including the reason why "hamtono" is brought as the first peirush (being the ikkar pirush of keser), and it seems also to work with the explanation of the R"R that this pirush refers to keser shebekeser.
I would think that keser shebikeser is reffering to a higher part of keser. Isn't the tzad hamekabel from the lower part?

Quote:
Indeed, this is not a stiro to the point that you're addressing.
What is not a stira?
Paper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hemshech Ayin-Beis Chabad Friend The World of Lubavitch 55 03-25-2012 03:59 PM
Maris Ayin Meshulam Halachah & Minhagim 8 01-16-2008 03:29 PM
ayin horah calmsoul General 5 05-31-2006 08:48 PM
Mazel Ayin ? magdiel Torah 62 04-02-2006 11:27 PM
Ayin Bais questions Yankel Nosson Chassidus 9 03-31-2005 12:28 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com