[Avodah] timtum halev

[Micha Berger]

Thanks to this discussion, I realized a blurriness in my earlier
position. Since I resolved my point of confusion (to my own satisfaction),
let me present my position from scratch now:

Kayadua, the Rambam was very heatedly against the treatment of a mezuzah
as an amulet, as an object that contains inherent power. Of course,
the Rambam's hashkafah isn't popular today, so I'm not sure how much
people would make of that point.

However, I think this attitude did carry through to general Litvisher
thought. I already posted the reference to NhC 1:6, which argues that the
physical can only impact the metaphysical through change to a human soul,
since it's only the human soul which unites all the forces across all
the worlds. In NhC 2:5 he relates this concept to the Rambam (MN 1:72,
definition of "shiur qomah") as well.

See also the Meshekh Chokhmah's discussion of Moshe's shattering the
luchos -- luchos without Kelal Yisrael serving HQBH are just a pair
of gems. (The following examples were taken from R' Elyakim Krumbein's
e-shiur at <http://vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm>.) Similarly,
in Shemos 19:13 he explains that the qedushas BHMQ was a consequence
of BY's avodah. And thus, what would normally kill an imperfect Kohein
Gadol did nothing to Titus and his prostitute when they defiled the
qodesh hadashim.

And according to the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:21), this notion of
powerful objects is the root of paganism!

So I started wondering when the notion of "a mezuzah protects" became
commonplace among my fellow Litvaks (and among Yekkes). I think it traces
back to the LR's Mezuzah Campaign in the weeks before and during the Six
Day War, but I'm not sure. It would seem to be mid- or late-20th cent CE,
either way.

AISI, the point of causality is to make bechirah chafshi meaningful:
1- Rules of cause-and-effect allow for hester panim.
2- They also allow us to plan our actions or even engineer new ways of
   accomplishing more, and explain then they go awry. Without the
   ability to plan and adjust plants, how could we know what our choice
   is likely to accomplish for us?

But otherwise, causality would get in the way of the point -- that HQBH
created us to have someone to be meitiv. In principle, there is one grand
unified metaphyiscal theory -- anything that happens to us is to get us
from where we are to being everything we could be. To maximize that
hatavah. It is "only" because that tov includes being self-defining
beings betzelem E-lokim that complications like physics were created.

How does metaphysical causality serve that Ultimate Purpose? It neither
hides Yad Hashem from those who would otherwise be reduced to being a
puppet by their awarness of it. Nor can you plan around it.

As for my point of confusion, this does NOT mean that the mezuzah's
protection, or timtum haleiv MUST be onesh. Rather, that they must
reflect changes to the self, which then calls for HQBH to chart a new
path from where we are to where we could be.

Sekhar va'onesh is just one major component of getting us on a new
course, but not the only one. Thus "sekhar mitzvos behai alma leika".

This answers the following.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:29:58AM +0200, R' Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
...
: From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feld... at gmail.com>
:> a) SA Y.D. 91:7: a Jewish baby technically is allowed to nurse from a
:> non-Jewess, but should not do so because of timtum ha'lev.

But if the people involved didn't know a Jew nursed form a nachriah,
this modified position would argue there is no timtum.

Similarly:
: b) Tzitz Eliezer 18:70 one is permitted to feed a sick person nonkosher
: food, but it is better to be mechalel Shabbos for him rather than to
: feed him nonkosher food because the latter is metamtem es halev.

However, the modified position isn't the only one. It could be that it
really is the issur, not being impact by awareness of "that upon which
the issur is usually chal".

And that appeard to be what RJRich reported on Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at
11:45am:
: R'HS spoke last night and mentioned 32 kashrut items we've discussed
: 1. No timtum halev if something is halachically kosher

The question about how to understand the SA on nursing babies is one for
RHS. I'm just using his statement as a datapoint about how non-chassidim
have generally viewed these things.

: Also, I think that this ties into the machlokes of whether rov causes
: issur to change into heter, or just is a hanhaga allowing us to eat
: the food. Nifka mina: if a piece of issur is mixed with two pieces of
: heter, is one person allowed to eat all three pieces? See discussion in
: Beis Yosef Y.D. 109 summarizing the views of Rosh (yes), Rashba (yes,
: but not together, just one after the other) and SeMaG--based on Tosfos
: (no, because then it is definite that he eat an issur). Ramo paskens
: that l'chatchila we are machmir.

The Rosh and Rashba clearly hold that it's issur cheilev, not cheilev
itself that would cause timtum. The Semag's statement doesn't prove he
disagrees; it proves he holds that bitul can be undone.

This is related to another one of my longer discussions... whether
halakhah applies to objective reality or the world as it can be and has
been perceived directly (without tools) by people.

The Maimonidean Qabbalah category [not an oxymoron, according to the
Leshem] on Aspaqlaria (my blog):
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qabbalah
The Perceivable, the Perceived, and Halakhah:
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/03/halakhah-phenomenology-1.shtml
    http://http//www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-phenomenology-2.shtml
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-and-phenomenology-3.shtml
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-and-phenomenology-4.shtml

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha at aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507