Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 044

Sunday, November 8 1998

• Why we cannot criticize the Avos where Chazal did not...
• Re: Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!) (fwd)
• Right of Chidush by Moderns
• Re: Minhagei Ashkenaz in E.Y.
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns/ Derush
• Re: Minhagei Ashkenaz in E.Y.
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns/ Derush
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns/ Derush
• Re: Minhagei Ashkenaz in E.Y.
• Re: nimrod/Hammurabi
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns (fwd)

....Because, if Chazal say (TDBER 25) that "Chayav Odom lomar Masai yagi'u
ma'asai l'ma'asei Avosai Avrohom Yitzchok v'Ya'akov," we must assume that
unless otherwise specified, all their ma'asim are behavior ro be modeled,
otherwise Chazal would have said "Except..."

That, IMHO, in a nutshell, is it.

YGB

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

In message , Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> writes
>After reading this well written defense of the WTG, I'd like to say what
>my problem is with this whole concept. But in keeping in line with the
>nature of the list I would like to present this as a general Torah point
>which
>can then relate to WTG. I believe that what makes avodas Hashem so special
>is that Hashem told us how to worship him. We don't decide what makes us
>spiritual, that has been told to us through the Torah and chazal. The
>short coming of all other religions is that they don't know how to worship
>their gods and therefore rely on the human brain and emotions to come up
>with forms of service. In Christianity--this includes celabacy in Hindu it
>includes worshiping cows or something but Jews have the unique advantage
>that our service is described for us by Hashem. Each shevet has a purpose,
>each gender has a purpose and each person has a purpose, and we need to
>look at the Torah to find what brings true spirituality, after all that is
>our uniqueness.

I totally agree with all of this.

Strangely enough, this discussion brings us back to what seems to be my
favorite topic on this list - because it is clear that davenning with a
WTG is a chumra in all senses of the word.  Admittedly, there are not
many chumros that have a source in the Torah (Shemos 38:8 - see Ramban,
Onkolos and the Ibn Ezra there), but clearly it falls within the
category.  It is a chumra in hilchos tephilla, which, as has been noted
a number of times on this board, is a mitzvah encumbant on women.

Now perhaps in classifying chumras, I should make it clear that this
chumra does not fall into the category of the chumras you and I have
discussed previously on this list, to which the gemorra in Eruvin may or
may not apply - namely chumras where one does the chumra to be choshesh
for a minority opinion that the halacha is actually like X.  It is in
relation to those kind of chumras that I was (and still am) baffled by
what seems to be a direct contradiction between the position of the
gemorra in Eruvin (especially when you take into account Tosphos's view
in Rosh HaShana) with the way halacha is practiced today.  However there
is a separate kind of chumra, that where a baal nefesh chooses to be
machmir - despite the fact that no opinion holds, l'halacha, that the
chumra in question is required.  This is clearly the kind of chumra into
which WTGs fall.

What you have articulated above, is the usual argument of what might be
called the "anti-chumraists" - that is, our job is to do what the Torah
tells us, no less and no more and no matter how good the chumra in
question might make you feel. Hence you shouldn't be doing it. 

Of course there is also the argument of what might be called the "pro-
chumraists" that such chumras are not only permissible but praiseworthy
eg we are on such a low level today that we need chumras that were not
needed in the past, or that go beyond the bounds of the halacha as laid
out by the Torah and Chazal.

The slightly ironic thing about WTGs, is that people who are usually
anti-chumraists tend to be pro-chumra in this case and vice versa.  But
the fact that people may flip flop from a pro to anti chumra position
and vice versa depending upon the particular chumra under discussion
does not alter the fact that, as you have articulated above, the issue
is a general torah principle which is under debate - and the underlying
questions are precisely the same.

> I recently heard a a story where a new mother asked a
>sheila if she should hire a baby sitter and go to shul for the yomin
>noraim or stay at home with the child and daven there. She prefaced her
>question by telling the rov that she really felt spiritually uplifted by
>Rosh Hashana and yom kippur davening and she didn't think she'd feel good
>about davening at home while babysitting. The rov asked her if she thought
>that Hashem wanted her to come to shul so SHE'D feel spiritual while
>fulfilling at best a reshus (davening in a minyan) while passing up a
>whole day of mitzvos min hatorah of chesed to a child -while still
>davening at home. the gist of his answer was many times we think we know
>how to serve Hashem better then he does. We think that what make us feel
>good is right ,but if we're not careful we end up serving Hashem based on
>our own logic-like the other religions, and not based on the specific
>purpose that Hashem commanded us.

I must say though, while what this rabbi said is a nice little vort, and
it makes us feel all warm and gooey inside ("chessed to a child" - how
nice) I don't know that his answer stands in the harsh cold light of
halacha.

After all - kavannah is not a question of rishus (See Orech Chaim 98).
And although we hold, following Tosphos (Ram m'rotenburg accorging to
the Tur) that because our kavannah is not up to the level of chazal, we
do not abstain from davening for three days when we come from a journey
or from davening in the house in various circumstances (Eruvin 65a) and
there is much discussion about what kind of lack of kavanah is m'akev
(see eg in sh"t Be'er Moshe (vol 4 siman 9), that does not mean that
kavannah as a requirement has gone away. And while Rav Moshe (Iggeros
Moshe Orech Chaim 3 siman 7) does not permit a man whose kavannah is
better davening beyachid to do so, when there is a chiyuv to daven
b'zibbur, but this does not negate that optimising kavannah is not a
serious issue.

It is interesting that in Iggeros Moshe  (Orech Chaim 1 siman 31) Rav
Moshe has a detailed discussion about the importance of minyan - and
articulates it as a machlokus between the Rambam and Tosphos, with the
issue at stake being how each holdings like a different position in
Brachos 8a (and 6a) as to the source of the importance of davening with
a minyan.  While the Rambam holds that the source is that Hashem will
never find repulsive the tephillos of the rabbim (hence it is a chiyuv
to daven b'rabbim) while tosphos holds that the reason is that the
Shechina is among ten (wherever that ten may happen to be)- and that
therefore a place, such as a shul or a beis medrish, where the Shechina
can also be found, may be just as good a place to daven, even
b'yechidis.

However the Be'er Moshe brings a different reason in the name of the
Meiri.  He asks the question as to how can the gemorra say that prayers
are only accepted with a minyan - which would mean that anybody davening
b'yechidis is by definition doing something futile (he does bring one
explanation that actually your private prayers sit around and wait until
you next daven with a minyan, and then they get boosted up to heaven,
but is not really comfortable with this). \rather he brings the Meiri as
saying the reason why tephillos are only acceptable in a minyan is
because that is where kavanah is to be found, and after kavanah the
matter goes.

All three of these reasons lead one to suggest that there are strong
reasons for this woman to join the zibbur for the yomim noraim.
According to the Rambam, this way we can guarantee her tephillas will
not be repulsive (which cannot be guaranteed by davening privately -
especially as lack of kavannah can be m'akev).  According to Tosphos,
tephillas are accepted where the shechina is, and two places where it is
are with a minyan and in a beis haknesses.  And according to the Meiri
it is where the kavannah is to be found, which in the case of this
woman, is in shul.


All in all, it is not clear to me on what basis the Rav above, in a
particular circumstance where a woman made it clear that she would have
kavannah if she went to shul and would not if she stayed at home, merely
dismissed that as a halachic issue, to classify it as a "mere reshus".
Especially as we are talking about Yom HaDin, when people most need to
be in a circumstance where their tephillas are not rejected (and not
waiting around).

SO lets move over to the other side of the coin - the d'orisa of chesed
to the child.  I would be interested to know under precisely what
halachic heading (pasuk?) this fell.  Clearly, to leave a child alone is
not merely a problem of chesed, it is an issue of pikuach nefesh.  And
in the case of Yom Kippur, when women have to fast, even if they are
nursing, and there are issues of losing their milk if they do not stay
in bed, again this is something that will override going to shul,
kavannah or no kavannah. But here we do not appear to be talking about a
nursing mother, and to be talking about having a (presumably
trustworthy) baby sitter.  Does this Rav really hold that the mother can
never in her life have a baby sitter, and must be with her child always?
After all, if it is a matter of a mitzva d'orisa, one clearly could not
get a baby sitter even for the sake of another mitzvah, such as being
m'sameach chasan v'kala - because osek b'mitvah patur min hamitzvah.
Not to mention merely going out with her husband or for some other real
reshus.  

I somehow doubt that there is anybody on this list who has, or has
raised a family, that lives up to this Rav's high standards of manditory
chessed to their children (remember, it not merely a case of going
lifnim meshuras hadin, as it is hard to see how he could allow going
lifnim meshuras hadin to override the kavannah considerations set out
above) and I doubt that the mother in question intended to run her life
that way.

So, assuming that she is not glued to the hip of the child in all
circumstances, you are left with the interesting scenario, that the
mother stays home with the children during the Yomim Noraim, but gets a
baby sitter and goes out at other times (maybe even to do fun things or
not strictly necessary things).  Presumably this child was too young to
understand, but what message is being conveyed here as the children grow
up?  Many other things are more important than staying with us, but
HaShem is not.  In other words, we (mother and child) come before
HaShem.

Now a little while ago in the Western World, there was a philosophy of
child raising that sounded a lot like this, it was called
permissiveness, and the idea was that to make the child feel secure and
raise their self esteem, parents were always to make sure they were
available, and that the child's needs and whims were always granted.
The idea was fundamentally one of showing pure chessed to the child. I
think however it has fallen somewhat out of favour, because it had a
tendency to create little monsters.

In contrast there is a halacha brought by the Rema in Orech Chayim 98:1
- that it is assur for a person to kiss his young children in a shul in
order to fix in their hearts that there is no love like the love of
HaShem. I suspect this rather grates on the Western outlook, which is
very much concerned with chesed for the child, and some might well
regard instilling such a message as a form of cruelty.  And I am not
convinced that, with a Western upbringing, I would find it very easy to
put such a halacha into practice. But as you say above, the Torah is not
about what feels good from a Western perspective, it has absolutes that
transcend what feels good, even when it sounds like a nice vort.


> I won't draw the parallel to WTG because
>I wanted to express a haskofa not my personal opinion on WTG. I'm sure
>that someone will be able to reconcile WTG with what I said, and I'm sure
>that others won't care to---If there is a future debate on this list I'd
>like to keep it to the haskofa ,becuase I believe that a lot more Torah can
>be understood if we look at the underlining causes not the specific
>issues.

I agree.  But one always needs to be careful when one suggests that
maybe something is influenced by some external idea X, because very
often, X is also contraversial in the outside world, and there are a lot
of people out there who hold the position anti-X, also based on non
Torah values. And if your natural inclination (without reference to
Torah) is towards anti-X, rather than X, you could just as easily be
influenced by the idea of anti-X and seek to impose *it* on a situation
where in fact maybe the Torah is in fact in closer agreement with X than
with anti-X. Or maybe sometimes with the conclusions of X and sometimes
with the conclusions of anti-X, given that it is not bound by the debate
outside, it does not need to be consistent with the outside premises
that make one thing consonent only with X and another consonent only
with anti-X (Am I suitably abstract for you here?)


>ELiE GiNSPARG
>

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Wow - where are the darichei noam police when you actually need them.
While I don't ordinarily like to get involved in such discussions, it seems
that yesterday's poster, who responded to the dor shivie's offer of a chumosh
pishat in a manner that was both gratuitously rude and jewishly uninformed,
raised, inter alia, a substantive methodological issue which is worthy of
comment in its own right. 

The poster, while paying lip service to Dr Glasner's right to interpretive
innovation <..I'm not against chidush…but> immediately constrains such license
by his requirement that he first find some chazal or rishon who has previously
legitimated such interpretation. Or possibly this requirement is only asserted
for that class of chidushim <which point fingers at the avos and call events
punishments..>.  Setting aside for the moment the oxymoronic status of such a
"presaged chidush, the notion that pishat must not be offered if it is "kineged
chazal" (what does he think that unpleasant but ill defined phrase means
anyway, and what were the rishonim themselves doing by the way) would throw
away much traditional jewish learning and parashoh scholarship as offered by
gidolim - and even not such gidolim - from the end of the rishonic period right
up to the current day.  See for the example the Kili Yoqor's - a safely
post-rishonic parshan -treatment of ya'aqov's return to gather up the small
pachim, and his attribution of sin, or at least error, where no chazalic or
rishonic source ever suggested such.  Indeed, such parashanut innovation, in
the sense of  honestly grappling with the text and providing new insights
happily continues to this day.  In fact, the application of twentieth century
techniques of  literary analysis has proven particularly fertile and
meaningful, in new ways not presaged (at least to the degree currently
employed) by previous generations.  It would be a shame if the poster was going
to miss out on all that.   As well, his citation of R. Riskin by name also
suggests that some present day authorities are more equal to him than others. 
While this is of course true of all  of us, no doubt with different subsets for
each, the publicly implied belittlement or even contempt for a person who in
plain fact is quite learned, ought to give a cautious man, let alone your
ordinary yeshivoh graduate, considerable pause. 

Mechy Frankel               
frankel@hq.dswa.mil

In message , Yzkd@aol.com writes
>OTOH each Sehvet at it's own Chelek in E"Y only Yerusholayin Lo Nischaleik
>Lishvotim, hence many Tshuvohs how in one city can be different Minhogim
>without Lo Sisgodidu.

On this subject, does anybody know why we appear to posken like the
tanna kama of the braisa (Yerushalyim is not devided) and not Rabbi
Yehuda (Yerushalyim is mostly in Yehuda, but partially in Benyamin< and
hence is divided) in the machlokus about this in Yoma 12a (see also
Megilla 26a) - especially as the gemorra in Zvachim (53b and also see
118b) goes to great lengths to set out the precise details of how the
chelek of Benyamin and Yehuda are divided in the beis hamikdash?

I know that the Rambam appears to pasken like the tanna kama (see eh
hilchos tumas tzaras perek 14 halacha 11), but wasn't sure why?

>
>Kol Tuv
>
>Yitzchok
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:

> jewishly uninformed, raised, inter alia, a substantive methodological
> issue which is worthy of comment in its own right.
>

While I do not want to get involved in the DN issues, as BH, that is now
Micha's responsibility, not mine, I do wish to point out that R' Elie is
certainly not "jewishly uninformed," being an outstanding young talmid
chochom!
 
> chazal" (what does he think that unpleasant but ill defined phrase means
> anyway, and what were the rishonim themselves doing by the way) would

As I noted last evening based on the TDBER, even the Rishonim have no
license to criticize the Avos except where Chazal say so. Other Biblical
figures may be different. R' Daniel even found a Chazal (Zohar) for the
Ramban's critique of Avrohom Avinu's trip down to Egypt - which,
otherwise, of course would have presented a problem.

> throw away much traditional jewish learning and parashoh scholarship as
> offered by gidolim - and even not such gidolim - from the end of the
> rishonic period right up to the current day.  See for the example the
> Kili Yoqor's - a safely post-rishonic parshan -treatment of ya'aqov's
> return to gather up the small pachim, and his attribution of sin, or at
> least error, where no chazalic or rishonic source ever suggested such.

Yes, indeed, it must be thrown away. Tragic, perhaps, but the Kli Yokor
is out of line. If Chazal mean to say approvingly - and I have no reason
to doubt it, perhaps the KY did - "Tzaddikim mammonom chaviv aleihem yoser
me'nafsham" - based on this very incident, we must reject the KY.

The KY, however, as we often note, engages not just in "Parshanut" but in
"Derush", i.e., using the text as a springboard for an idea, as opposed to
saying pshat in the text. (RYB Soloveichik engaged in this practice very
often, and I think R' Shach did not understand that the Rav's Derush was
not meant to be construed as Pshat when he criticized the "Five
*Derashos*".)

> Indeed, such parashanut innovation, in the sense of honestly grappling 
> with the text and providing new insights happily continues to this day.
>

Parshanut, fine, but not cricizing the Avos!

YGB

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

I am absolutely too lazy to do this, but if you bug me maybe I will look.
I hope somebody else (hint: brother in law!) more interested might get
involved, but, if not directly on this issue, indirectly, the Brisker Rav
in the MAran Riz HaLevi on the Rambam has a piece on this issue.

On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In message , Yzkd@aol.com writes
> >OTOH each Sehvet at it's own Chelek in E"Y only Yerusholayin Lo Nischaleik
> >Lishvotim, hence many Tshuvohs how in one city can be different Minhogim
> >without Lo Sisgodidu.
> 
> On this subject, does anybody know why we appear to posken like the
> tanna kama of the braisa (Yerushalyim is not devided) and not Rabbi
> Yehuda (Yerushalyim is mostly in Yehuda, but partially in Benyamin< and
> hence is divided) in the machlokus about this in Yoma 12a (see also
> Megilla 26a) - especially as the gemorra in Zvachim (53b and also see
> 118b) goes to great lengths to set out the precise details of how the
> chelek of Benyamin and Yehuda are divided in the beis hamikdash?
> 
> I know that the Rambam appears to pasken like the tanna kama (see eh
> hilchos tumas tzaras perek 14 halacha 11), but wasn't sure why?
> 
> >
> >Kol Tuv
> >
> >Yitzchok
> >
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana
> 
> -- 
> Chana/Heather Luntz
> 

YGB

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

In a message dated 98-11-08 11:22:52 EST, you write:

<< 
 As I noted last evening based on the TDBER, even the Rishonim have no
 license to criticize the Avos except where Chazal say so. 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
 >>

Is it your assumption that all the "chazal's" ( including what groups and time
periods?) that were critical of the avot were mesora and thus no new
criticisms are appropriate? If so, what about being critical of post
revelation figures(eg David hamelech). Or is the reason for no new criticisms
not based on revelation but on the superior 'insight' of chazal or that they
actually had a human mesora(non-revelation based) as to the reasons for
certain actions?  or perhaps another reason?

It would seem that our ability/right to be mchadesh would be very different
under these alternative scenarios.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

On Sun, 8 Nov 1998 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Is it your assumption that all the "chazal's" ( including what groups
> and time periods?) that were critical of the avot were mesora and thus
> no new criticisms are appropriate? If so, what about being critical of

Probably, but not necessarily. It is most likely that there was a mesorah
to that effect. It is possible, however, to countenance that there were
giants among Chazal who, with the proper appreciation for the Avos, could
discern some nuance of impropriety. This would be tantamount to their
saying: "Your default assumption should be to emulate the ma'asim of the
Avos. There is an exception to the rule, which is <fill in the blank>." To
say as much, again, would probably require mesorah. The compelling logic
to require mesorah is, of course, if the Torah noted Ma'asei Avos without
critique, that indicates approbation. To contradict such, would require
extraordinary "breite pleitzes" (broad shoulders).

The cut-off point for this, is unclear, as the mesorah in Agada seems more
extensive than the Mesorah of Halacha, i.e., the Talmud is not
codification of Agada in the sense of "Rav Ashi and Ravina sof hora'ah."
Thus, in fact, it is possible that Rishonim, who we assume, being closer
to Chazal, had more of an appreciation of them and more access to their
way of thinking, may well have had alternate texts that are lost to us.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but, for example, Rashi had the
compilation of R' Moshe HaDarshan, that, to the besst of my limited
knowledge, is no longer extant.

> post revelation figures(eg David hamelech). Or is the reason for no new
> criticisms not based on revelation but on the superior 'insight' of
> chazal or that they actually had a human mesora(non-revelation based) as
> to the reasons for certain actions?  or perhaps another reason? 
> 

That is an interesting question, and I am happy to comment, but distinct
from the attitude towards the Avos, as the TDBER refers only to them, not
to latter figures. See also the famous Netziv's Hakdama to Bereishis.

I would say that critiques of later figures must be proscribed by humility
and by statements like "Kol Ha'Omer David chata eino ela to'eh," but, as
NAch is to a much greater extent, an historical chronicle than the Torah
itself, that is a book of guidance, there is no a priori assumption that
behavior noted is laudable, allowing for greater lattitude, as the
Rishonim, indeed, allow themselves.

YGB

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

In a message dated 11/8/98 8:15:58 AM EST, Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk
writes:

> On this subject, does anybody know why we appear to posken like the
>  tanna kama of the braisa (Yerushalyim is not devided) and not Rabbi
>  Yehuda (Yerushalyim is mostly in Yehuda, but partially in Benyamin< and
>  hence is divided) in the machlokus about this in Yoma 12a (see also
>  Megilla 26a) - especially as the gemorra in Zvachim (53b and also see
>  118b) goes to great lengths to set out the precise details of how the
>  chelek of Benyamin and Yehuda are divided in the beis hamikdash?

See Tosfos Yom tov Ngo'im 12:14.
  
>  I know that the Rambam appears to pasken like the tanna kama (see eh
>  hilchos tumas tzaras perek 14 halacha 11), but wasn't sure why?

The Rambam Paskens like this not only here but in all things that are
mentioned in the Sugia in Bovoh Kamoh 82b, and they are-
Hil. Avodoh Zoroh 4:4
Hil. Beis Habchiroh 7:14
Hil. Tumas Tzoras (as you mentioned)
Hil. Shmitoh V'yoveil 12:12
Hil. Rotzeach 9:4
and from the Ravad's comment in Hil. A"Z seems that he concurs WRT
Yerusholayim.

It seems the Staam Mishnohs of Ngoi'im (ibid) Eirchin 32b and Soteh 45b, are
the source in addition the fact that Gemroh'os in Yumoh 23a Eirchin (ibid)
Sanhedrin 112b ask based on the Gemoroh from B"K 82b (which is also in Avos
DR"N 35 and Toseftoh Ngoi'im 6) is a Rayoh that the Gemoroh accepted that as
the Halacha (and see Tiferes Yisroel on the Mishnoh in Soteh), that would also
answer Tosfos's question (D"H V'yerusholayim Yumoh 23a) why the Gemoroh
doesn't say that this according to R"Y as it wants to Zetz Ein Aliboh
D'hichsoh, in addition that is also the Shitas Hasifri.

And see Rashi Breishis 45:14, Dvorim 33:12.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok
  

In a message dated 11/6/98 0:15:14 AM EST, kuzmack@cpcug.org writes:

> According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hammurabi died in 1750 BCE.

And when was he born?

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

R' Elie asked me for my opinion before sending this to the list. I think
it is perfectly acceptable. 

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:06:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns

Let me restate my problem. I believe that there is a "truth" to what
happened to Avraham. Either he was punished for throwing out yismael or
not. All Rishonim say he wasn't , Mr. Glassner says he was. Mr. Glassner's
proofs are all based on issues that the above mentioned Rishonim dealt
with. Since the Rishonim have far greater knowledge and perpective than
Mr. Glassner - or any of us - we must conclude that their approach to the
same pesukim is correct. Therefore, Mr. Glassner is objectively wrong in
his interpretation of the Torah. This isn't highschool or college
literature--this is toras emes. Again, I'm not singling out Mr. Glassner,
this would apply for all modern people, all those not as great as our
sages who have come before us. There is much chidush for us to discover in
halacha and aggadata, it must be undertaken with intellectual honesty and
yiras shamayim.. Since our generation has less than the previos
generations in both, we must be very careful with our chidushim. As I
posted before, thats why yiras Hashem tells us not to criticize Avraham
when the rishonim say he wasn't at fault. As far a when achronim
contradict medrash, I leave it as a tzarich iyun since they had much
greater levels of knowledge and y's, their words deserve to be left as
tzarich iyun---meaning I'm either missing something or they know something
I don't. The same can't be said of people of this generation.  For ex. (to
beat a dead horse) The famous or hachayim which says man's bechira could
kill someone without a gzar din min hashamayim is in direct contrast with
the medrash which rashi quotes on the same pasuk.  I don't undersatnd why
the or hachayim argued (rygb can tell us) but I leave that as the or
hachayims problem, because I know he was a great authority whom I can't
completely understand. However, when others , whose level of yiras
shamayim and knowledge cannot be compared to the Or HaChayim apparently
are in dispute with Chazal -- I just dismiss them as wrong.  Elie Ginsparg

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


[ 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 ]