Anything about JUDAISM
Anything about JUDAISM
profile | register | search

This is an archived site, for new discussion please see
Forums | | Post Reply Send Topic To a Friend
Author Topic
Nesanel Posted - 27 February 2005 5:45
Why dont any mechanchim ever deal with the Ohr HaChaim's opinon that Human Free Will can "overcome" HaShem's ultimate plan--that Jack can kill Jane even if Jane was not supposed to die?
I understand that this may be a minority opinion (though there are others that agree with him) but still there is no "psak"? So how can they tell me how HaShem runs the world----when they just dont know?
(I find this very relevant almost every day because most things that happen to you have an element of "someone's" free will involved.)
(Thanks in advance Rabbi Mod. as this question has been bothering me for years.)
amolam Posted - 19 July 2005 22:05
Missing 2005 Posts:

MODERATOR Posted - 26 February 2005 23:50
I dont know why you say this may be a minoroty opinion. I dont see that at all. The Zohar is the first source for the idea, the Ohr Hachaim, B'er Mayim Chaim, and Metzudas Dovid follow suit. Many chasidishe seforim follow this opinion.

I dont know if this is a majority opinion, but I dont see how anyon can say its a minority.

Rav Elchonon Waaserman in Kovetz Maamarim brings it as a machlokes between the CHovos Halevovs and Tosfos. He does not make any psak either, although the Chofezt Chaim (Mishpatim) seems to hold not like the Ohr Hachaim.

It's a machlokes, simple as that. I dont see that there is any "final psak".

mo Posted - 29 December 2005 18:58
**The Zohar is the first source for the idea, the Ohr Hachaim, B'er Mayim Chaim, and Metzudas Dovid follow suit. **

Can you please post where is this Metzudas Dovid ?

**Rav Elchonon Waaserman in Kovetz Maamarim brings it as a machlokes between the CHovos Halevovs and Tosfos. **

The same for Kovetz Maamarim ?


MODERATOR Posted - 29 December 2005 19:21
Metzudas: Daniel 3:26
Kovetz Maamrim: p.54 (new, thick printing)
amolam Posted - 15 January 2006 22:02
how does the ohr hachaim / Zohar camp deal w/ the pasuk: "Hashem Li Lo Irah, Mah Yaaseh Li Odom" ?
MODERATOR Posted - 15 January 2006 22:24
That was the Brisker Rav's proof against teh Ohr HaChaim.

I would venture to say that the Ohr Hachaim would hold something like Rav Yisroel Salanter's idea of Bitachon (not like the Chazon Ish) - that Bitachon can enable someon to obtain somethign they otherwise would not have obtained. So if you have Bitachon that you will get a gld watch, you will.

Therefore, even according to the Ohr HaChaim and Zohar, that a Baal Bechirah can override the default plan Hashem had for you, they definitely agree that if Hashem wants he can intervene and save you form the Baal Bechirah - He can even turn your neck to stone if He will it. Its only that the level of intervention needed on the part of Hashem is difficult to merit - "zeiin inun dnitzli mibaalei bechirah". However, Bitachon can provide that merit needed ofr even proactive intervention by Hashem. So the posuk according ot them is not saying that becuase Hashem is protecting me therefore i have bitachon, but rather, since I have bitachon therefore Hashem is protecting me.

HZ Posted - 17 January 2006 1:05
It was pointed out to me that The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh doesn't say man can kill a person who isn't supposed to die, just someone who isn't chayiv misah. So, we can answer that maybe Reuvein held Yosef had put himself in a makom sakaanah, and he could be harmed even to the point of death by man, but not by animals.
MODERATOR Posted - 17 January 2006 1:43
I dont believe the Ohr HaCHaim means that. First, the Zohar on the spot is not distinguishing between chayav misah and time to die. Neither do any of the other seforim that either quote the Ohr HaChaim or echo what he said, such as the Metzudas of the Rishonim quoted by Reb Elchonon. No reaosn t create a third shitah here. It is not a diyuk in the Ohr Hachaim because in the ocntext he was talking the brothers wanted to see if Yosef was chayav misah or not, which is why the Ohr HaCham used that loshon there.

Also, in the svara of the Ohr Hachaim, if a Baal bechirah can kill someone who is not chayav misah but an animal cant, that means according to the straight rotzon hashem this person should not die this way, now (which is why the naimals cant kill him), but a baal bechirah can over ride that. If so, whats the difference if its his time to die or not -- since a baal bechirah can over ride the ratzon hashem that says this person should not be killed now?

depressedAngel Posted - 29 December 2006 13:31
my teacher taught us this concept without even presenting to us the fact that it was a machlokes or anything. the end result is that we were all MASSIVELY cofused and disturbed. when my pricipal found out she was really upset and she said that her husband's magid shuir sed that it is an "obscure daas yachid" and no gadol nowadays will ever tellu to go with that derech. anotehr one of my teachers who is like a HUGE talmid chacham sed the same thing


MODERATOR Posted - 29 December 2006 14:52
The magid shiur of the husband of your teacher was not correct. This opinion is neither obscure nor a Daas Yachid. Summarizing the above, following are a partial list of those who espouse this position:

1)The Zohar
3)The Ohr HaChaim
4)The Be'er Mayim Chaim
5)The Metzudas Dovid
6)The Divrei Yoel
7) Rav Elchonon Wasserman brings the issue as an even-handed Machlokes between the Rishonim (Tosfos vs. the Chovos Halevovos)
8) I am adding to the Rabeinu Chananel in Chagigah (5a) - on "yesh naspa belo mishpat". Comments Rabbeinu Chananel - "this refers to someone who was killed by another human being." Sounds to me like he means this shitah.

Clearly it is a machlokes, but I dont know of any side which is even majority; certainly neither is a Daas Yachid.

I have also seen this opinion attributed to the Chofetz Chaim. In the Mishna Brura (Biur Halachah 218 "kegon") he says that the miracle Eliyahu HaNavi experienced on Har HaKarmel was done also for the purpose of saving Eliyahu form Achav, since Achav was a Baal bechirah over the life of Eliyahu, so Eliyahu's life was in mortal danger.

The problem with this is that this would create a contradiction between this Chofetz Chaim and the Chofetz Chaim al HaTorah that I mentioned above. And I saw this quesiton about the Chofetz Chaim's 2 positions pointed out in a Sefer called Otzar Hayedios by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Stern, a rav in Ezras Torah. He does not suggest an answer.

Onov Posted - 05 February 2007 22:39
Rav Dessler z.l. (I haven't got it at hand but I believe it is in volume 4 of Michtav. I will post the correct link later) has an explanation which would resolve any contradiction between the Ohr HaChaim and the way we usually understand Bechiroh. In short (the way I understand it): nobody can harm anyone who isn't meant to be harmed. Only sometimes there is someone who really deserves to be harmed/killed but there are mitigating circumstances which could acquit him. There is another person,whose "nekudas Habechiroh", is whether to kill or not. HaShem will bring them together. If the murderer kills, the victim receives what he was really meant to receive. If the murderer this time overcomes his Yetser HoRa and doesn't kill, the potential victim has the merit that he was a (passive) tool in helping the other to overcome his Yetser HoRa, and that merit saves his life.

MODERATOR Posted - 02 December 2007 13:53
If there are mitigating circumstance that could acquit him then bottom line he doesnt deserve to be harmed. Why would Hashem need a Baal Bechirah to overcome "mitigating circumstances"? Unless these mitigating circumstances nullify the final desire of Hashem to have this person harmed. If so, then what you are quoting from Rav Dessler doesnt help.
MODERATOR Posted - 02 December 2007 14:04
add to the list of 8 above:

9) Yaaros Devash (I:3, I:15, II:2)

and I recently saw that
10) rabbi ovadiah yosef follows this opinion l'halachah in Yabia Omer vol 6 (CM 4:5) regarding the halachic status of a gorel (casting lots).

amolam Posted - 13 December 2007 23:31
I think you can add the Malbim to the list (quoted by the new "oz v'hadar" chumash rashi in miketz)

He says that the reason the brothers said
"aval ashaimin anachnu..." only AFTER Yosef told them that instead of holding all the brothers (except one) in prison (option A), he would only hold one & free the rest to go back to get Binyomin (Option B) - is because
under "Option A" the brothers figured that Yosef was just a cruel tyrant who wanted to afflict for no good reason & w/o any real basis for suspecting them as spies & THEREFORE they assumed what was happening to them was not min hashamyim but rather a baal bechira exercising his ability to harm people without it being from Hashem

However once Yosef changed his mind to "Option B" they saw that he really wanted to do what he could to be fair & free them & he was just making an honest mistake in truly believing they were spies. According this it was not a matter of a baal bechira exercising his free will to inflict harm but rather Hashem must have made him make the mistake to think they were spies, therefore they said "ashaiming anachnu" i.e. Hashem made this happen as a punishment for what we did to Yosef

Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.

Show All Forums | Post Reply