Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 018

Sunday, October 11 1998

• Re: revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: Mesorah & Minhag (v2n17)
• Re: Totally different sheva brochas question
• Re: panim hadashot (enough already)
• Morality
• Psak:conceptual consistency
• Re: Psak:conceptual consistency
• Re: Psak:conceptual consistency
• Inclusiveness or Elitism, The Future of Judaism hangs in the Balance

David Glasner wrote:

> Thank you.  I was responding to your suggestion that I might be saying
> that what made the Mishnah authoritative was that it was physically
> being written down, and until that moment when ink hit paper it was not
> authoritative. ...  So one needs a broader notion of what made the Mishnah
> authoritative  than the mere physical act of putting ink to paper.

The Dor Revi'i states:"This that the courts of each generation had to right to
determine the proper explanation of the Torah without being bound by that of the
previous generation was dependent on the fact that the Oral Torah had not been
written down and was not made permanent with an iron pen."

On the other issues, I think that much more clarification is needed as the
nature of the Oral Law prior to the Mishna. 1) The Gemora Berachos 5a - states
that the Mishna and Gemora as well as Tanach were given on Sinai 2) Doros
HaRishonim states that the basic Mishna was composed by the Anshei Knesses
HaGedola 3) Rabbi Akiva seems to be the source of the Mishna - what did he do
differently than Rebbe 4) Was the Mishna a code of law or a summary of concepts
5) How does the Mishna differ in purpose and origin from medrashei halachos? 5)
Was the Mishna's authority that of Sanhedrin? 6) Why isn't the halacha always
like Rebbe? 7) Perhaps more critical is the nature of Divrei Sofrim and Halacha
L'Moshe which the Rambam talks about and which are very difficult to understand
8) Finally are the discussions in the gemora the generation of the Halacha or
only a search of asmachtos for that which was known (Malbim vs Doros Rishonim).

Without a full discussion of these issues - I don't think we are sharing a
common language to produce a productive dialogue. I don't think this forum is
the appropriate one for a full discussion. I do appreciate that you have forced
me to clarfiy issues that I hadn't thought about before as well as realize how
fuzzy much of our knowledge is about the Oral Law.

In sum, my original point is the more limited issue of the Dor Revi'i. He states
the static nature of a written document is what gave the Mishna its authority.
You have extended it to the processes of transforming the Oral Law into a
Written Law. I assert that he would not accept your extension and base myself on
the above quotation.

                                                  Daniel Eidensohn

A couple of points on mesorah and minhag and other halachic variants
occur to me:

R' Wolpoe wrote: 
>      Reflecting back to the original premise, Halocho has a cold legalistic 
>      aspect; we can empathize with Agogo or not, but if he is chayaz misso 
>      that's that.  The analogy to the surgeon makes a lot of sense; what 
>      must be done must be done, good or bad bedside manner notwithstanding.

However, as someone else pointed out, one need not cling to the "cold
legalistic aspect"; there is a Torah-supported right to apply our
own morality as long as it doesn't prevent us from following the 
halacha: lifnim mishurat hadin.  Of course, this cuts both ways.
Just as one can behave in a superior moral fashion w.r.t. halacha,
one can behave in an inferior moral fashion w.r.t. halacha: as a
naval birshut hatorah, an epithet applied to the alleged kidushei
katanah case a few years back.  So there is a serious hashkafah 
issue concerning the relationship of our own human (whether communal
or individual) morality and the legal requirements of halacha - to
what extent can our emotional needs determine our derech in Torah
and mitzvot?  Is it a big problem to leave certain pesukim out of
the davening if they cause moral or intellectual difficulties for
an individual (in private davening, of course, public davening must
be standard).  For example, "naar hayiti vegam zakanti velo ra'iti
tzadik ne`ezav vezar`o mevakesh lachem" in benching, or "lo yihyeh
bachem `akar v`akara uvivhemtecha" in Viyten Lechah.  Lubavitch, and
many other individuals I know, leave the former out.

R' Wolpoe wrote: 
>      overturn it.  I was talking with a fellow of this list: what if we 
>      could tehcnologically posit the thesi that the internet is the 
>      equivalent of Masiin Msoso and therefore sfeiko deyoma is a thing of 
>      the past - EVEN without relying on a fixed calendar - becasue we all 
>      ahve INSTANTANEOUS access to yerusholyim?  That fact itsel, is not 
>      enough, Yom Tov shein NOW has a life of its own.  I think that a valid 
>      Sanhedrin might repeal it or institue it for different reasons than 
>      sfeiko deyomo.  Meanwhile we're kind of stuck.

The first footnote in the Lulav section of the latest (vol 9) volume
of Schreiber's transcripts of R' YB Soloveitchik's lectures suggests
that "minhag avoteichem beyadeichem" was part and parcel of the 
gezerah of the fixed calendar promulgated by Hillel II.  Meshech 
Chochmah (Bo, 12:2) suggests that sfeika deyoma would still apply
if the Sanhedrin is reconstituted before the Beit haMikdash is 
rebuilt (as per Rambam, PhM Sanh. 1), but I didn't quite get why.

So by that understanding, the sfeika deyoma did not just take on 
a life of its own, but was lechatchilah part of the fixed calendar:
one day in E"Y, two days in galut.

Even by the reasoning that "a decree with an attached reason can be
overturned when the reason no longer applies", the reason here is
minhag and mesorah, not technological (unreliability of signal fires),
which isn't about to go away.

More idle speculation:

Oh, and on another point, that of mesorah and techeilet, I was 
looking through the book "Techelet, the renaissance of a mitzvah",
and noticed that R' Lamm recommends that Ashkenazim tie like Tosafot,
rather than Rambam/Raavad, because we cling to the Tosafot qua 
Ashkenazic rishonim.  Personally, I don't see how that makes any
more sense than just trying to understand the Gemara, since all
of the Rishonim could only treat techelet-tying as a theoretical
matter; the techelet factories were destroyed in 638 CE.  I suppose
that as a way of just picking one out of a dozen opinions, it's
as good as any, but it's not logical, it's just arbitrary.

I wonder, were there as many ways of tying techelet tzitzit as there
are of tying all-white tzitzit?  In which case, does it really matter
which method one picks?  Techelet was still used for 600 years after
the unifying force of the Sanhedrin ceased. 

In R' David Pahmer's transcription of R' Herschell Schachter's shiurim on
the IDL he deals with Shiv'a Neki'im for those who cross the IDL. If I
remember correctly - although my own bias may be creeping in here - he
says we follow in such areas absolute counts of seven vs. dates. 
Logically, Sheva Berachos should follow the same parameters. 

YGB

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> 
> Does anybody know what happens with sheva brochas if the chossen-kala
> cross the international date line?
> 
> But these are general chiyuvim.  What about sheva brochas?  Does that go
> according to the count of the chossen-kala?  How about a bris?  What if
> the baby was born on Friday in LA, but flew to Australia on Sunday, so
> that what is Friday according to the count of the baby is actually
> Shabbas where he is now? Has anybody seen anything written (or spoken)
> on this?
> 
> Moed tov
> 
> Chana
> 
> -- 
> Chana/Heather Luntz
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> 
> tzibbur to decide between your interpretation and mine.
> 
> Shabbat shalom and mo'ed tov,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
I have to admit that I havent't been following this thread so closely so i
CAN'T  give a honest opinion however I do have a dfferent issue to bring
up. It is clear that Rabbi Clark's opinion is based on a Chasam sofer-does
this mean that rabbi Clark holds like the Chasam sofer in other areas
aswell. what I'm getting at is that we know that you must hve one posek
(lchumra vlekulla) how do we apply this regarding basing shittas off
gedolim. This is not meant to be directed at Rabbi Clark or his position
in
this case. I'm merely using this as an example to make my point. Let's say
the Chasam Sofer has a Machmir shitta on Shetels (I don't know if he does
or
doesn't--this is just theory) do we say that  a women panim chadshos needs
to conform to this chumra or do we pick one shitta of the chasom sofer and
not another, do we have guidelines on how to posken from the sefarim of
our gedolim?
Elie Ginsparg

Although my copy of the GRA on Mishlei is missing for several years, let
me note that in a discussion of Shilu'ach Ha'Ken, he cites, if I recall
correctly, the Zohar, that the mitzva is specifically to be cruel, as the
mother bird goes off and commits suicide, and the Torah intended with
Shilu'ach HaKen to harness and utilize all areas of human emotion,
including those regarded generally as negative, l'shem shomayim.

As to Shiva Ammamim and Amalek, R' Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan in B'Ikvos
Ha'Yir'ah notes that Parashas Amalek is read b'davka on Shabbos, when its
fulfillment is forbidden. Judaism, he writes (I'm paraphrasing and
summarizing poorly), is the most compassionate of religions, and has
produced many more pious and refined compassionate tzaddikim than any
other religion or culture. We certainly are not happy to have to resort to
the sword, and Chazal intenionally instituted Parashas Amalek on Shabbos,
to remind us why a cherev is muktzeh and why we therefore do not take up
an avenging sword ASAP.

But, it is necessary to know that the sword must be taken up in the battle
against evil, and that cruelty against the wicked is an essential
component of Avodas Hashem.

There is far more to say, and he says it much better than I do, but this
is the beginning of the approach that we must take to a Torah that is
Toras Emes in its *totality*.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Cheryl Maryles wrote:

>  It is clear that Rabbi Clark's opinion is based on a Chasam sofer-does
> this mean that rabbi Clark holds like the Chasam sofer in other areas
> aswell. what I'm getting at is that we know that you must hve one posek
> (lchumra vlekulla) how do we apply this regarding basing shittas off
> gedolim.

There is no such rule. The only technical limitation of picking and choosing
among poskim is that if there is a underling issue that unites several
halachos - one is supposed to be consistent. On unrelated halachos - unless
you specifically accept a particular posek or sefer as your rebbe in all areas
- you are free to pick and choose [within the limitations of minhag hamakom
and your particular mesora]. It is interesting to note that the Mishna Berura
is not necessarily consistent. Rabbi Heineman of Baltimore told me that it was
the result of the Mishna Berura's technique of following rov poskim for each
isolated simon. Consequently across the entire Mishna Berura there will be
inconsistencies. [The Chofetz Chaim's son of course had a much different
explanation for the inconsistencies]. The Yam Shel Shlomo also disapproved of
the derech of psak of the Shulchan Aruch because  - following it also produced
conceptual inconsistencies across the Shulchan Aruch.

                                                  Chag Someach
                                                  Daniel Eidensohn

I believe That R' Daniel is correct I used the word "MUST" incorrectly. I
didn't mean that you are required to pick a single posek, what I meant was
that it was preferable to pick a single posek (lkulla vlchumra) because
otherwise you run the dangerous course of "picking" poskim who are mekal
for
each particular question.  So when I used "must" it
wasn't in the required
sense rather my percieved sense of the proper derech. I thank R' Daniel
for pointing it out. 
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 98-10-11 05:24:05 EDT, you write:

<<  Rabbi Heineman of Baltimore told me that it was
 the result of the Mishna Berura's technique of following rov poskim for each
 isolated simon. Consequently across the entire Mishna Berura there will be
 inconsistencies. [The Chofetz Chaim's son of course had a much different
 explanation for the inconsistencies]. The Yam Shel Shlomo also disapproved of
 the derech of psak of the Shulchan Aruch because  - following it also
produced
 conceptual inconsistencies across the Shulchan Aruch.
 
                                                   Chag Someach
                                                   Daniel Eidensohn
 
  >>
This issue always bothered me since it's near impossible to believe that  R' Y
Karo was unaware of this result yet went with the "majority of the important
poskim" approach anyway rather than a "this posek's approach makes sense to
me" approach. Why was this approach preferred?

Chag Sameach
Joel Rich

Inclusiveness or Elitism, The Future of Judaism hangs in the Balance

I've been away from the list for awhile due to the intense nature of my 
business during these Yomim Tovim, but I have finally been able to catch 
up with all of the posts that were of interest to me.  

Of particular interest to me was the post by Chana Luntz about the child 
who was denied entry to a religious day school because her parents 
weren't "frum" enough!  I was of course, outraged as I am sure many on 
this list were.  Unfortunately, I was not surprised.  I believe that the 
attitude expressed by that particular day school is at the heart of 
what, to me, has become the most significant negative development in 
Judaism today: Elitism.  It has become dogma in the hearts and minds of 
many "educators" in the Charedi ( or Right Wing) world to create an 
Insular environment for their children.  To that extent, they have 
created school systems that are designed to eliminate an undesirable 
element ( Read: Modern Orthodox, Centrists,  Mizrachists,  Young Israel 
etc.)  from their midst.  They want to create a pure and pristine 
climate of Torah and Yiras Shomayim for their children and eleimnate any 
and all non Torah  (Read: western culture)  influences on their 
children's lives.  The problem is that, for those of us who don't reject 
all of western culture as "evil" but are equally committed to Torah 
Judaism, we are automatically, by charedi definition, eliminated as 
potential parents in any of those schools.  Why? Because the RW does not 
want their children to associate with our children who bring the 
negative influences of western culture with them to school and may "Chas 
VeSholem" (!) discuss values with the Charedi Children.  How Sad!...  
How True!  

I don't deny the right of anyone to believe that isolation is the answer 
to their concerns that their children not have non Torah influences in 
their lives.  Certainly, we all want to limit negative influences as 
much as possible to our children. But the problem is twofold: 1) how to 
define what is negative, what is positive, and what is neutral.  It is 
easy for the Right Wing to DEFINE all of western culture as negative and 
then just eliminate it in its entirety. Or at least try.  2) the virtual 
impossibility of eliminating all western culture when it is so pervasive 
in our society.  

There are in reality only two approaches to dealing with the negative 
values foisted upon us by western society.  1) insulating to the extreme 
as the RW constantly urges, and 2)  By teaching the proper approaches to 
situations  .  IMHO,  Isolation is a poor choice.  It is a virtual 
impossibility to totally isolate our children from western culture (as 
the RW would have all of Klal Israel in the West do). 

The best approach, I believe, (and I hope all on this list would agree) 
is to limit the amount of anti Torah values that come into our 
children's lives,  to teach our children the proper approach to those 
negative values when they  inevitably will come into contact with them, 
and even expose them to some of those negative values in the light of 
the Torah  so that they will know how to deal with them properly on 
their own.  The positive elements of western culture are to be 
encouraged so that our children can drink from the fonts of worldly 
wisdom and enjoy the benefits bestowed upon mankind through the ages by 
dint of technological and sociological advancement and, indeed, 
participate in advancing the process on their own,  should they so 
desire.  As long as everything is done within the framework of Halacha.

The RW approach is the "Chas VeSholom" approach.  Chas VeSholem that our 
Children be exposed to any of Western Society, as anything western is 
characterized as inherently evil.   Bombard them with Torah values, and 
keep them as isolated as possible.

But, even assuming their position on Western Culture is correct, how can 
we totally eliminate external influences?   You can't turn on a radio or 
open up a newspaper without being exposed to the all encompassing 
western culture.  (I've already seen articles and ads in "The Jewish 
Observer" and the "Yated Ne-eman" excoriating the use of radio, any of 
the secular newspapers, and the Internet.)  In the summer, walk down any 
street in Chicago or Tel-Aviv or even Jerusalem and it is impossible not 
to notice the immodesty of dress on the part of the secular world ( a 
standard of modesty created in and perpetuated by Hollywood - i.e. 
Western Culture.)  The point is it cannot be avoided.  There are many 
other such examples of the overwhelming presence of Western Culture.  
Isn't it better to acknowledge it's existence and to teach our children 
how to deal with it rather than just totally isolate, and let "chance" 
dictate when and how our children will be exposed to it?

This brings me back to my original point, the growing trend towards 
elitism in education.  A few years ago my daughters attended Hanna Sacks 
Girls High School here in Chicago.  This school had as it's Vaad 
HaChinuch Roshei Yeshiva from Telshe, Beis Hamedrash LaTorah, Yeshivas 
Brisk, and The Lakewood Community Kollel, representing the entire 
spectrum of Orthodox Judaism in Chicago.  The faculty and student body 
consisted of the same spectrum.  It was a beautiful scenario.  There was 
interaction between differing segments of orthodox society, each 
learning about the hashkafos of the other.  It enabled reflective 
thought and deeper understanding of Yahdus.   But the more heterogenous 
the school became, the more the RW portion of the parent body wanted 
out.  Ultimately, after asking R. Elia Svei a Shailo, a new school was 
created for the expressed purpose of dissociating with the likes of 
those of us who do not reject all of western culture.  In other words 
they created a school that would effectively eliminate as much of 
western culture and it's adherents as possible.  A school that would 
only take like minded parents who would reinforce those ideals at home. 
  This created an unbelievable machlokes in Chicago at the time.  
Instead of cross fertilization of the minds of our children, there was a 
complete separation.  I think in the end both schools lost out in the 
sense that each is missing a piece of yahdus that is reflective of 
certain hashkafos no longer available to all students.  And since the RW 
school sets itself up as the mainstream school, Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov 
(the name was changed in an effort to compete for some of their 
students) is thus marginalized as "Crum".  Meanwhile you can't get into 
their school unless you are "frum" enough, a conundrum for them that 
they can't possibly justify.  

(As an aside I would just like to state for the record that Hanna Sacks 
Bais Yaakov is a superior educational institution in both limudei Kodesh 
and Limudei Chol under the leadership of Mrs. Shoshana Bechoffer, the 
talented wife of Rabbi YGB.)

Elitism is in, inclusiveness is out.  What a loss for Klal Israel.

HM

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]