Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 046

Tuesday, November 10 1998

• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: Ramban
• Re: Right of chidush by moderns
• Re: why we can't criticize the avos
• Re: why we can't criticize the avos
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Bentching
• Re: Avodah V2 #45
• Re: Avodah V2 #45
• Does lo titgodedu apply to minhag
• Re: Avodah V2 #45
• Separate burials.
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• [none]
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews

In a message dated 11/9/98 5:47:07 PM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> Rashbam writes that the Akedah is a
>  punishment  of sorts for Avraham's entering into a berit with Avimelekh.
>   Does this have a source in Hazal?  

If you will be Mayein he clearly backs up his words with a Medrosh Shmuel, and
proof to his Teitch of "NISOH"..

And plz see my other post on this issue.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

In a message dated 98-11-09 18:48:58 EST, you write:

<<  I'll close with a story which
 I know will upset members of the list-but that part of the fun, I had a
 rebbi, who after listening to the student attept to answer a question of
 Rabbi Akiva eiger, said-nice try, but someone who comes late to minyan
 can't answer up something which bothered Rabbi Akiva eiger. 
 Elie Ginsparg >>

Interesting story- but did anyone ever say to Rabbi Akiva Eiger,"If your
question hasn't been articulated to this point in history by all the great
gdolim who came before you, then why should it bother you?" or  automatically
reject the answer when a later authority tries to answer the tzarich iyun of a
much earlier one.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

>  YGB writes: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 only problem with this approach is that it is pure speculation.  The
> Ramban on Avraham descending to Mitzrayim does not bother to mention the
> Zohar (cited by Chavel) that YGB sees as the 'matir" for his comments,

The Zohar was still hidden.

> and instead refers to a Midrash in B"R which Ramban himself partially
> rejects (See Chavel's notes).  Even if one were to take YGB's approach,
> one is left to ponder why the Ramban would choose to interpret the text
> based on one Zohar passage which seems at first glance to contradict
> other Chazal's as well as other simpler approaches to the text - in
> other words, all things being equal, why learn 'gnei when you don't have

The Ramban often gives over - revealing a tefach and concealing two
tefachim - the secrets of Derech Ha'Emes.

> to?  Clearly there was some level of textual analysis, not just a blind

Huh? What analysis might that be?

> adherence to the dominant tradition, that led Ramban to adopt his
> approach.  In general, why speculate and create artificial criteria for
> acceptable pshat when the only criteria the Rishonim ever used was the
> ability to best parse the text??? 
> 

Because Chazal tell us how to relate to the Avos.

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 11/9/98 4:42:34 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:

> While there are many opinions which events make up the 10 tests, over the
>  Akeidoh there is no argument, as the Possuk says (22:1) V'hoE-lokim
"NISSOH"
>  Es Avrohom, this was a test that he passed with flying colors and got
>  specially rewarded for it, to this day Akeidas Yitzchok is one of our 
> greatest
>  merits as we end one of the blessings on Rosh Hashonoh "V'Akeidas Yitzchok
>  Lzaroy Hayom Brachmim Tizkor", to turn this into some kind of retribution
>  defies the simple reading of the Psukkim.

As E. Clark pointed out the Rashbam clearly says that HKB"H intended to be
M'tzaeir Avrohom OO"H, I therefore retract my previous wording that such a
Pirush "defies the simple reading of the Psukkim", and I beg forgiveness from
the Rashbam, however it still remains a Chidush to Teitch so and that's why
Licho'roh Rashi which is also based on Pshutoi Shel Mikroh doesn't hold that
way, In addition the Mishnoh in Ovos 5:3 seems to indicate this as a positive.

The point that the Rashbam argues about Avrohom's promise to Avimelech Rashi
already answered (Breishis 21:23) that it was only a promise for 3
generations, whereas in the Bris Bein Habsorim he was told V'dor Rvi'ee
Yoshuvu Heinoh (15:16) and see Rashi 13:7.

Kol Tuv
YItzchok

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, David Glasner wrote:

> I don't understand.  First, I'm sorry but I don't recognize TDBER.  What
> does that stand for?  Second, you seem to be making an inference based

Tanna d;Bei Eliyahu Rabba. Sorry.

> on a "diyuk" in the text?  What obligates me l'halacha to accept your
> diyuk?  Third, if this is halachah, can you provide any earlier sources

This is not "halacha." I am not accusing you of heresy, and will still
drink the wine you touch :-). I *am* saying your approach clearly stands
in opposition to that of Chazal and many Rishonim.

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 11/9/98 7:38:12 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> and will still
>  drink the wine you touch :-).

In today's age if one touches wine with his finger it would be Ossur as Baal
Tishaktzu :-)

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> >...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.
> 
> Although this citation entered the discussion post facto, it merits a
> response.  While the above citation is an impressive display of bekiut,
> introducing it as a normative statement is, in my view, sheer sophistry.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but Eli Clark's words will never
harm me!

>  It is simply a distortion to present this obscure ma'amar as some
> pseudo-halakha regarding parshanut.  Hazal make a lot of statements
> about the Avot, many of them laudatory, some of them critical.  They do
> not, however, formulate general principles regarding the limits of
> acceptable parshanut.  Nor do later generations cite this maamar in
> articulating their philosophy of parshanut.  So far as I am aware, no
> Rishon (nor any prominent Aharon ) seems concerned about this ma'amar. 
> In short, its very obscurity testifies that is not the decisive
> statement on the issue. 
> 

Oh, come on! Isolated? Not cited?

THe Medrash, somewhat abbreviated by Rashi in this week's Parasha: "Yafeh
sichasan shel Avdei Avos yoseir mi'torasan shel banim" (B"R 70) makes the
same point as does the Midrash (B"R 74) about how the anger of the Avos is
superior to the mercy of the Banim.

The Sfornu in his Hakdama to Bereishis says:

"U'me'rov shleymus Shlosha [Guess Who!] eileh hayu pe'uloseihem
ha'mesuparos ba'Torah maspikos l'horos l'doros..."

The Rambam in MN 3:51, in the He'ara, who writes at length about how the
Avos in all their activities: 

"...while their intellects were constantly in His presence, may He be
exalted. It also seems to me that the fact that these four [including
Moshe] were in a permanent state of extreme perfection..." 

The Netziv in his Hakdama to Bereishis:

"...Vezeh hayah shevach ha'Avo, she'milvad she'hayu Tzaddikim ve'Chasidim
ve'Ohavei Hashem ba'ofen ha'yoseir efshar, od hayu Yesharim. haynu
she'hisnahagu im Umos Ha'Olam ve'afilu Ovdei Elilim mechu'arim, mikol
makom hayu imahem b'ahava ve'chashu l'tovasom..."

These sources are from 5-10 minutes of research and memory.

Frankly, anyone who criticizes the Avos, in my opinion, had better also
think twice of the Chazal that "He'Avos hem hem ha'Merkava." (B"R 47, see
Ramban Bereishis 17:22). 

Try again!

YGB

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

Maybe we should reconsider the tune to the first brocho that we sue,
forwarded from the Jewish Librarian's List...

(I know, there are a lot of tunes that have outright non-Jewish origins,
but somehow Reconstructionist seems worse!)

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: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:15 EST
From: "joyce levine" <jlevine@hotmail.com>
To: hasafran@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Fwd: Hava Nagila
Message-ID: <01J3Z78X6ISG0000O3@aleph.lib.ohio-state.edu>

Dear Safranim, I forwarded a query from this listserve to my brother,
Daniel Green, who is a cantor in New Jersey. I thought his reply was so
interesting that I would like to share it. 

Joyce Levine, Hebrew Academy of Nassau County Uniondale, NY

Subject: Hava Nagila

To Isaac L. Kaplan

On October 30 you wrote to HaSafran:  Does anyone know the origin of Hava
Nagila?  Can anyone point me to a historical source? 

Dear Mr. Kaplan,

Your message was forwarded to me by my sister, Joyce Levine, who is a
librarian in Long Island, NY.  A brief history of Hava Nagila is as
follows: 

Sometime in the 1920's, a young boy named Moshe Nathanson was a student in
a yeshiva in Jerusalem.  His teacher sang a Hassidic nigun to the class,
challenging the children to compose real words to the melody.  Moshe won
the contest with the poem "Hava nagila" etc., whose words and melody are
now so famous that even non-Jewish singers perform it. 

Nathanson later emigrated to the United States.  He became a hazzan,
serving for over 45 years at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism in
New York--the Reconstructionist synagogue of Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan.
(Are you related?)  He retired from the S.A.J. in 1968, and I succeeded
him in his position a year later.  I believe that he died sometime in the
1980's.  Moshe Nathanson is also famous for composing the melody which
nearly everyone sings for the first paragraph of Birkat HaMazon. 

Sheldon Feinberg is a disciple of Hazzan Moshe Nathanson.  Some years ago
he published Nathanson's biography, entitled "Song Without Words."  The
book contains much valuable information on the Hava Nagila story, as well
as other aspects of Nathanson's life and work. 

If you need further information, perhaps I can direct you. 

Shalom,

Cantor Daniel Green Congregation B'nai Israel Toms River, New Jersey
 
==========================================================================
Submissions for Ha-Safran, send to:      Hasafran@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
SUBscribing, SIGNOFF commands send to:   Listproc@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Questions, problems, complaints, compliments ;-) send to:  galron.1@osu.edu
AJL HomePage                  http://aleph.lib.ohio-state.edu/www/ajl.html

> Similarly what is the origin of some communities not allowing women to attend
> a funeral?
> 
> Eli Turkel
> turkel@math.tau.ac.il

I once tracked this down and I believe it is a Zohar in Va-yakhel or
Pikudei.

	Aryeh

> 
> I am hard pressed to believe that there is such a thing as seperate "seating" in cemeteries.  Does anyone know 
> of the existence of such, and where, and why?
> 
> HM
> 
Where my father is buried in NJ in a Bobover cemetery there are separate
sections for men and women.

Also what is the origin of the custom not to let women attend a funeral?

Eli Turkel

Chana Luntz asks:

>Since we are supposed to be a high level Torah group, how about we bring
>so sources to bear on the subject.

In addition to the Sedei Hemed mentioned by Chana, those who are
interested may wish to check the sources cited by R. Ovadya Yosef in
Yehaveh Da'at vol 4, no. 36.  The specific issue addressed there is
whether Sefardim who are learning at Yeshivat Hevron (a predominantly
Ashkenazic yeshiva) are required to abstain from shaving and haircutting
during the three weeks in accordance with Ashkenazic minhag.  (Sefardim
follow Maran, who limits the nihugei avelut to shavu'a she-hal bo.)  R.
Ovadya concludes that lo titgodedu does not apply to minhag.

Those of an academic bent may also enjoy the discussion of this issue in
volume 3 of Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, pp. 108-112.  In addition
to the mahloket rishonim described by Chana, Dr. Sperber cites a wide
range of aharonim on the issue.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

 Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com> wrote:
 
> One other interesting side point - a new minhag was invented for the
> kallah circling thing!  She circled him 3 times, he circled her 3 times
> and they did one ring-around-the-rosie type circle together.  

I saw this at a friend's (Orthodox, if a bit odd - not enough men for 
a minyan) wedding in Portland, OR about 11 years ago.  She went around him
3 times, he went around her 3 times, they both went around the rabbi once.

At my wedding, my wife went around twice before she & her mother got
totally tangled up in the dress in the cramped chuppah area, so I 
went around her once just so there would be a three somewhere. (3 and
7 being the most common numbers of circuits).

    From my own experience in New York, the custom of separate burial
sections is pretty common among the chasidim.  Interestingly, I have read
that the Syrian Jews have the same custom.  Also, I have a non-chasidic
cousin whose family buries separately in America, and has done so for the
last seventy or eighty years.  The Young Israel of Boro Park does the same.
I was told that Rabbi Schwab, A"H, disapproved strongly; in the KAJ cemetary
in New Jersey, married couples are buried together.

    From where the custom arises, I do not know.  However, in times when
adults died young and surviving spouses remarried, it made some sense.  That
way, you never had the question which spouse do we bury the deceased next
to, the first or the second?

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman

As already pointed out, eilu va'eilu doesn't work when the topic is history.
In R' Tzadok HaCohein's terminology, eilu va'eilu is a feature of machshavah, not
po'al.

I think the reason why "No mehabber has come along to codify the acceptable
alternatives in parshanut ha-mikra", as Eli Clark writes, is because haskafah
doesn't work that way. Within the parameters of non-apikursus, where halachah
dictates the limits of hashkafah, of course. We can't use the rules of p'sak
(such as azlinan basar ruba) to limit which hashkafos or d'rashos are valid.

***

> Regarding lashon ha-ra, I was under the impression that the issur
> applies whether the lashon ha-ra was true or not.  Hence, we must
> conclude that, since true reports about the errors of the Avot are not
> lashon ha-ra, unintentionally false ones should not be either.

False negative stories, i.e. slander, is motzi shem ra`, not lashon hara`. I
would not assume that two different issurim necessarily have parallel
halachos.

***

Related to the TDBER, the question arises which avos we are speaking of: the
historical figures, or the archetypes we are given in the Torah. I'm not ch"v
suggesting that the biographies in the Torah enhanced the history with legend.
Quite the reverse. By choosing particular events, and making them the ones we
study and try to emulate, we get only a partial portrayal of each av.

IOW, what we hear about Avraham is his mastery of chessed, of using olam
hazeh, of his interpersonal skills. The early events of his life, about how he
discovered the idea of a Borei, are glossed over. The Torah takes the person
and, by stressing certain elements, brings those elements and only those
elements into a sharp focus. Avraham the person becomes Avraham the
archetypical ba'al chessed.

With that in mind, why would the Torah include a story in which Avraham was
harsh on Yishma'el? To teach about times when the greater rachamim is not to
let ra` thrive?

IOW, I'd rule out the possibility that Avraham made a mistake in sending out
Yishma'el because that wouldn't be the facet of Avraham the Torah tries to stress
elsewhere.

***

Another interesting point about the story. Avraham presumably sends Yishma'el
away to save Yitzchak's ruchnius. Hashem then takes a more lenient stand
because He judges Yishma'el "ba'asher hu sham". While Avraham is trying
to avoid the /future/ effects of having a Yishmael in the house, Hashem
Yisbarach looks at how the boy was then and there.

***

BTW, "ba'asher hu sham" argues strongly in favor of an idea I suggested WRT
"gadol hametzuveh vi'oseh". What I said was that mitzvos were given as a means
to reach some goal. The closer someone is to that goal ("lo alecha hamlachah
ligmor") the more able the person is to recieve s'char. S'char va'onesh are
therefore consequences of personal state, which is a consequence of one's
ma'asim.

The terminology the pasuk uses is "ba'asher hu sham". Hashem did not judge him
for what he did, but for what he was.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5974 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

subject: pluralism

R. YGB writes

>> I would like to note, speaking of Briskers, that the Brisker Rav continued
>> to keep Yom Tov Sheni privatelly even while living in EY. While one has
>> the right to change a minhag - l'kulla - upon moving to a new locale -
>> even immediately, certainly after 30 days - one does not have to.
>> But, I don't understand what the Brisker Derech has to do with this.

As far as I know the Brisker Rav kept the chumra of a second day of yom tov
based on the Rambam who writes that one day of yom tov applies on to places 
where the messengers came in the olden days. Since the Brisker Rav lived in the
"new" Jerusalem he felt it was not likely that messengers arrived to his locale.
It has nothing to do with keeping his old minhag from Brisk.
It also seems that he kept this shittah only le-chumrah but agreed
with the Ritva for wearing tefillin etc.

We see from the Mishna is pesachim that when one moves to a new location
he is required to keep the new customs both for leniency and stringency. If
he is machmir then then he can still violate the law because he causes a
controversy. It is also reported that Chazon Ish kept the chumrot of a second 
day of yom tov (no reason given). However, he instructed all his relatives
to keep this quiet so that no one would attempt to imitate him. It was only 
years after his death that the story came out.
In fact a published letter of Chazon Ish paskens like the Ritva against
Rambam that all places in Israel including transJordan should keep
one of Yom Tov.

To the best of my knowledge the only justification for not keeping the local
custom (for someone that has moved) is if one feels that the local custom is
incorrect. Thus, for example, the Rosh attempts to show in some cases that
minhag ashkenaz is more correct than that of Spain. He seems to imply that this
is not a blanket rule that one simply keeps one old customs le-hachmir.

I would suggest that contrary to YGB that Israel is a place with less pluralism
simply because there is such a thing as the local custom. Rav Moshe Feinstein
paskens (for sefirat haomer) that New York has no local minhag and it is just
a group of communities that merged. Israel on the conrary has many customs
that are agreed by all communities (or at least the entire ashenazi and/or 
sefardi communities). Many of these are based on minhag Gra and minhag Hassidim

Some examples are (mainly from the sefer of Rav Tuckashinsky):

one day yom tov
no tefillin on chol hamoed
birchat shechayanu at a brit
saying mizmor shir right after schachirit
saying hoshanot immediately after hallel
saying hallel on Pesach night in shul
birchat cohanim every day (in some places only when there is a mussaf)
not saying baruch hashem leolam in Maariv
using Romaine lettuce for Maror

Rav Tuckashinsky very strongly prohibts sitting in the succah on
Shemini Azeret (day or night) and discusses what to do if that is
the only place available.
He personally feels that all prayers of chutz laaretz should be said
in private only and not with a minyan. He also brings the psak of
Rav Salant that visitors should keep a second day only le-chumra
but all other activities should be to keep one day.

In all these cases I don't see any heter for an individual community
to say that they are keeping their customs from Europe against
the unaminous local custom.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 11/10/98 3:36:19 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> As already pointed out, eilu va'eilu doesn't work when the topic is history.
>  In R' Tzadok HaCohein's terminology, eilu va'eilu is a feature of
machshavah,
>  not
>  po'al.

WRT Halacha Eilu Veilu is a feature of Machshava, (and a feature that allows
in certain cases both sevoros to be Nogeia B'poel), vs. V'Has-hem Kemosoy that
is the actual Halacha, however WRT the feeling one is to have to Divrei Chazal
Eilu Veilu is in all issues of Torah, all of Pardes and Shivim Ponim Ltorah
Kulom Nitnu M'roeh Echod.

When one learns the works of any Mchabeir that was written with Yiras Shomayim
he must make a Birchas Hatorah (and as most Poskim hold that is Shitas
Horambam, Lafukee from a previous post that said otherwise), and it is not C"V
a Sofeik Brocho Lvatoloh.

>   We can't use the rules of p'sak
>  (such as azlinan basar ruba) to limit which hashkafos or d'rashos are
valid.

See Rambam and Ravad Hil. T'shuvoh 3:7.

>  With that in mind, why would the Torah include a story in which Avraham was
>  harsh on Yishma'el? To teach about times when the greater rachamim is not
to
>  let ra` thrive?

On that note, let me add that it is brought in Seforim that the reason after
the Akeidoh HKB"H Atoh Yodati Ki Y'rei E-lokim Atoh, is since AAO"H was known
for his Midas Hachesed, HKB"H wanted to test him (for the saking of showing
the world see B"R) whether he would express Yiras Shomayim even when the
opposite Midoh is needed (Midas H'gvuroh), when he withstood the Akeidoh it
was proven that even the good he did because of HKB"H and not merely because
that was his nature, (BTW akin to the idea of following Mishpotim as Chukim).

>   While Avraham is trying
>  to avoid the /future/ effects of having a Yishmael in the house, Hashem
>  Yisbarach looks at how the boy was then and there.

It was Al Pi Hadibur that he sent him away, otherwise he would have kept him
and try to be Machzir him ltov, see Rashi Breishis 32:23.

>  BTW, "ba'asher hu sham" argues strongly in favor of an idea I suggested WRT
>  "gadol hametzuveh vi'oseh". What I said was that mitzvos were given as a 
> means
>  to reach some goal. The closer someone is to that goal ("lo alecha
hamlachah
>  ligmor") the more able the person is to recieve s'char. S'char va'onesh are
>  therefore consequences of personal state, which is a consequence of one's
>  ma'asim.

WRT the giving of the Mitzvohs It is a Gemoroh Mfureshes in Chulin "Ltzareif
Bohem Es Habriyos"

WRT Schar Veonesh in general the reward and punishment mentioned in Torah are
equal to all, it is one of the 13 Ikrim (this is no Stiroh to U'svivov Nisaroh
Meod), however on the level on Schar Mitzvoh Mitzvoh that the actual
connection to Has-hem is the true reward that depends on accomplishments of
the person. 

In addition many Rishonim explain Hashgocho Protis as depending on the
closeness to Has-hem.
  
>  The terminology the pasuk uses is "ba'asher hu sham". Hashem did not judge 
> him
>  for what he did, but for what he was.

Actually there the point was that he hadn't DONE anything wrong YET (see
Rashi).

There are many who ask that how can Rashi say that HKB"H said that at that
time he was a Tzadik, when he was sent away for 1 of the 3 Aveiros that
Yaharog Veal Yaavor, (Rashi 21:9, BTW we could learn that all 3 were there the
Machlokes is which was the Gorem to send him away, perhaps a different post if
there is interest), there are many answers on this (also perhaps for a
different post if there is interest), a very simple answer is that in the Kol
Hanar (21:17) was Teshuvoh (at least for then see Rashi 25:9).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

(Please forgive me if some of these points have already been made today 
- I wrote this last night but wasn't able to finish it til today...)

Comments interspersed:

Clark, Eli wrote:
 Moreover, speaking for myself, I get
> far more hizzuk from the knowledge that our heroes were not perfect than
> I would from the image of them as quasi-malakhim.
> 
> Regarding lashon ha-ra, I was under the impression that the issur
> applies whether the lashon ha-ra was true or not.  Hence, we must
> conclude that, since true reports about the errors of the Avot are not
> lashon ha-ra, unintentionally false ones should not be either.

Yes, the Torah does seem to point out in specific instances that the
Avos were human and had the ability to err.  However, the fact that the
Torah does show us this can also be used as a ra'ayah that the Torah was
not afraid to inroduce us to the failings of our avos and we can
possibly hypothesize then that if the Torah did not specifically show
us  (or even lead us easily to the conclusion) a particular failing - it
did not exist.  I think that it is very different to accept that the
Torah admits and publishes the few failings of our avos than to accept
that WE have the ability to find NEW - definitely NOT muchach pshatim
that bring out new failings in our avos.  Yes - the Torah's descriptions
are not lashon horah because everything written in the Torah is there to
help us learn to be better Yidden.  Al pi halachah - similar types of
information are mutar to misaper even if they would normally be
considered L"H.  However, when we accuse the avos of poor character, our
accusations do not have the pillars to stand on that the Torah does. 
And if we are wrong - we are definitely oveir motzi shem ra.  (If it
were vadai emes - which we won't know til ymos HaMoshiach - then perhaps
it would be mutar under the same pretenses that I mentioned before -
without the guaranty of emes, however, it looks like it's just asur
lashon horoh and motzi shem ra on top of it.)

 

> Well, let us begin to test this theory.  In an explanation that closely
> resembles David Glasner's, Rashbam writes that the Akedah is a
> punishment  of sorts for Avraham's entering into a berit with Avimelekh.
>  Does this have a source in Hazal?  How about Ramban's comment in Lekh
> Lekha (also echoed by David) that Avraham (and Sarah) commited a sin in
> their treatment of Yishmael?

I quickly perused the rashbam in question and was unable to see this in
the words of the rtashbam.  Perhaps you could get me the exact pasuk
that you are referring to.  I did find that the Rashbam felt that the
degree of tza'ar felt by avrohom during the akeidah was Hashem's way of
saying don't be overly proud of your beris with me that is evidenced by
the existencew of Yitzchak.  I think this is very different than saying
that the Akeidah was a punishment, rather I believe the Rashbam to be
saying that this was in iteself part of the nisayon - the ultimate
contradiction - Hashem says that through Yitzchak - you will become a
great nation and now Hashem says to kill him.  I hate to make this
disclaimer - but I really only saw the Rashbam for several seconds and
apologise if I am totally off kilter with what I just said.  Also -
where is the Ramban that criticizes Avrohom and Sarah - wasn't the
geirush al pi HaDibur?  The shiluach of Yishamael is brought as a proof
in the Gemara that Sara had ruach HaKodesh.
> 


> 
> The point is that we don't measure parshanut against the scale of
> objective truth, not for Rishonim nor for Aharonim.  Certainly shivim
> panim applies.  Ke-patish yefotzetz sela . . .
> 

Yes, many interpertations of one incident can apply.  Firstly an
interpertation needs legs to stand on  - textual ra'ayos, etc.  Second -
there should be a proper motivation for the pshat.  Many people look at
text and make up their own interpertation to suit there own needs - for
example - and I don't want anyone to chas v'shalom think that I am
comparing this to R' Glassner's pshat  - I am giving an example that is
in the utmost extreme of wrong pshat - but a certain kneset member
several years ago (I don't even want to mention the member's name) gave
a public pshat about Dovid HaMelech and Yonason that was quite
disturbing to say the least  (I don't want to even say it - if you don't
know what I'm referrinmg to - mail me offlist).  Clearly this is not the
pshat even though limited, poor, textual analysis may support it.  The
motivation was way off.  Yes, we can introduce new pshatim, but I feel
that there are certain boundaries that exist.  What do we gain by saying
that the Akeidah - the symbol of the penultimate level of deveykus
laHashem was a punishment?  Clearly I think that R' Glassners
motivations are to reveal more of Toras Emes (unlike the aforementioned
pshat), but if that is so, wouldn't it be better to think some more and
find a better reason - one that teaches us how to become davuk, that
there are similarities between the two episodes?  Possibly, we can look
at both as nisyonos and marvel at the difference between the way
Yitzchak faced his nisayon and Yishmael faced his.  Or perhaps, we are
supposed to see the difference between klal Yisroel and the goyim - the
goyim can only merit salvation - ba-asher hu sham, whereas Klal Yisroel
is an ongoing link, from dor to dor we persevere and attempt to serve
hashem with all our might.  Our past and present (Avrohom) and our
future (Yitzchak) hold the reasons that we merit salvcation -even if (at
some times in history) by the Ba'asher hu sham ruler - we DON'T merit
salvation.  These are two possibilities that I am show the gedulah of
the avos through this textual connection.  Can we say that if we have
positive alternatives, we are forced into degrading the avos?  If we
have no choice - I might agree - but then again - I doubt that we would
have been the first to notice it.  We have so much negativity and
machlokes in our generation - each Yid trying to find what's wrong with
the other - I doubt that Hashem has kept a pshat hidden in the Torah
that reinforces our krum practices.

Take care,

Joel   

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

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


[ 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 ]