Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 047

Wednesday, November 11 1998

• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: S'char va'onesh
• Re: Ramban and Zohar
• Origin of the Zohar
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns
• Intellectual Honesty vs Kovod for the Avos
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns
• eilu ve'eilu regarding history
• Criticising ovoys
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns
• Re: Criticising ovoys
• Anonymous Messages
• Re: Criticising ovoys

Yitzchok (yzdk@aol.com) quotes me and writes:
:                                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.

Still b'olam hamachshavah. What about questions of historical fact: like the
age at which Rivkah married Yitzchak. Can you say there is truth to saying she
married at both 3 yr.s and 15 yr.s (and whatever other ages one can find in the
medrash)?

:>   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.

You omitted an important line in my post, the sentence before the one you quote:
: Within the parameters of non-apikursus, where halachah
: dictates the limits of hashkafah, of course. 

AFTER you determine what is meenus (as per the Rambam), you still have a wide
range of possible hashkafos. I was arguing that the rules of p'sak wouldn't
apply in choosing /within/ that range.

-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

In a message dated 11/10/98 5:05:49 PM EST, margol@ms.com writes:

> Clark, Eli wrote:
>  > 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.
>  
>  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.

See Gemoroh beginning of Hazoreik WRT Tzlafchad, that in either case one
should not say.

>  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.

The Rashbam clearly writes that Choroh Apoy and that is why he caused him
Tzar, and he bases it on a Medrosh (Yalkut Shmuel), and proof that NISOH has a
negative side.

Umsaymim Btov,
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

In a message dated 11/10/98 5:14:41 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
 
>  Still b'olam hamachshavah. What about questions of historical fact: like
the
>  age at which Rivkah married Yitzchak. Can you say there is truth to saying 
> she
>  married at both 3 yr.s and 15 yr.s (and whatever other ages one can find in
> the
>  medrash)?

Bichlal these issues are Inyonei Machshovoh and Hashkofoh and in that realm
both are DE"C.  As to reconciling historical fact "Shaarei Terutzim Lo
Ninalu", many seeming Machlokes in Metzios had been answered, would you
suggest that if one was going to learn only one of those opinions he shouldn't
make a Birchas Hatorah because Sofeik Brochos Lkuloh.  The same answer for
that answers why the approach to Divrei Chazal even in Aggadah and Medroshos
Chalukos has to be that Eilu Veilu DE"C.

>  AFTER you determine what is meenus (as per the Rambam), you still have a 
> wide
>  range of possible hashkafos. I was arguing that the rules of p'sak wouldn't
>  apply in choosing /within/ that range.

On what bases was the Halacha Nifsak  that it is Meenus? obviously the "Gdolim
Vetovim" didn't consider it as such, (not to suggest C"V that one may think
that way, as that too is 1 of the 13 Ikrei Emmunoh), so who is to say that
there can't be further ruling on issues of Hashkofoh.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

Yitzchok (Yzkd@aol.com) writes:
: WRT the giving of the Mitzvohs It is a Gemoroh Mfureshes in Chulin "Ltzareif
: Bohem Es Habriyos"

I suggest looking over some old issues of Avodah Digest. There are actually
two trends in hashkafah: (roughly) d'veikus (e.g. opening of Mesilas Yesharim)
and t'mimus (e.g. begining of HaKuzari). Your b'feirush a g'mara is not taken as
conclusive.

Either way, the formulation of the d'veikus idea in the chumash is
"his-haleich lifanai", in hitpa'el. This would suggest that even "tziruf"
is a change in the gavrah.

: WRT Schar Veonesh in general the reward and punishment mentioned in Torah are
: equal to all... 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. 

Apparantly I wasn't sufficiently clear.

I'm arguing that s'char va'onesh is not a system of legal justice, but one of
medicine. Someone who stays in good spiritual "health" gets s'char, since the
ability to enjoy that s'char is part of being healthy. And similarly in the
reverse.

So, aside from the fact that you are presuming one of two families of answers
where I would not, I'm causally connecting your two levels.

Yirmiyahu Hanavi writes (Eichah 3:38), "M'pi Elyon lo teitzei hara'os
vihatov." Rashi's interpretation of this pasuk is based on two quotes from
Nitzavim. He explains that Yirmiyahu does not imply that what happens to us
is by ch"v by chance. "Chai gever al chata'av." The onesh does not come from
Hashem as an imposed punishment, but because it is a natural consequence of the
aviera. R. Yochanan comments on the famous pasuk, "hachaim vihamaves nasati
lifanecha, hab'rachah vihak'lalah, uvacharta bichayim".  Choosing between good
and evil is not choosing how G-d will reciprocate. By choosing between good
and evil, one brings on oneself life or death.

R' Chaim Vilozhiner (D"H 1:21) shows the same idea from Eiruvin 19a, which
asserts that people who violate the ratzon HKBH are in a valley, they deepen
gihennom for themselves. This implies that gehennom is a consquence, not a
legal punishment. R' Chaim explains the mechanism of that consequence in the
way I suggested: aveirah -> flaw in the neshamah -> tza'ar.

Similarly, Seifer HaIkkarim (4:33) identifies the fires of gehennom with those
of bushah.

The only makor I could find that implies otherwise is the assertion that
teshuvah is lima'alah min hateva. The flaw is that this concept explains
teshuvah too well. If one takes care to heal some p'gam in his neshamah, then
of course erasing that p'gam would erase the tza'ar caused by that p'gam.

Perhaps we could say that the LMhT aspect of teshuvah is in that fact that
such healing is possible to begin with.

: In addition many Rishonim explain Hashgocho Protis as depending on the
: closeness to Has-hem.

This has also been already discussed. However, hashgochah doesn't translate to
s'char. Onesh is also a form of hashgochah. For that matter, Hashem letting
someone fall into the "Law of Nature" (Lockian reference intentional) is also
a kind of hashgochoh -- paradoxically enough.

-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

two points about the zohar--One Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan shows in his book the
Real Messiah? that the zohar accurately predicted the scientific and
technological revolution --eiyen sham, Not a reason to believe in the
validity of the zohar but something to think about before disregarding it
Second, can you expalin where I can find this opinion of R.Emden, and why
you agree with it, I'm assuming you don't follow it because it fits your
preconcieved ideas about the Zohar, I imagine that there must be special
merit in R Emdens arguement--can you share them
Thanks
Elie Ginsparg

I recall theorizing a middle position that would satisfy R' Yaakov Emden's
complaints, yet give credance to the age of the Zohar. It's a while back, so
the details have blurred with time.

My basic problem is that at this point much of yahadus is based on the
Zohar. (For example, how did the Yaavetz wash neigl vasser or netilas
yadayim? Was he makpid to wash hands in the order we do -- which is based
on the Zohar? Was negel vasser necessarily within 4 amos of his bed, as per
the Zohar? vichulu...) The Zohar itself claims to be quotes of tannaim. So,
if we don't go with an old Zohar, we are left with a pious fraud, a very
poor contributor to halachah lima'aseh.

OTOH, the Zohar discusses inyanim that the gemara left to mashal -- in
deference to, writes the Maharshah, "d'varim sheba'al peh, i ata risha'i..."
Yet, RSBY, who predates Rebbe's "eis la'asos" not only wrote these ideas down,
he did so bifeirush?!

However, what if we assume that RSBY actually composed the core of the Zohar,
but, didn't actually write it down. If the text was transmitted orally for
nearly a millenium, many ammendations and glosses are bound to happen, even
without intent. However, as in the rest of Torah sheba'al peh, the content of
the masorah is intact. Only the text by which it was transmitted evolved.

-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

In response to an earlier post E. Ginsparg writes:
<<..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>>.  
< Really-- I found a gemara daf 91a in chulin which says "amar rav yitzchak,
from here we learn that a talmid chacham shouldn't go out alone at night." This
would imply that chazal think yaakov might have done something wrong by going
out alone at night, After glancing over the kli yakar I would think this could
serve as a chazal source. I'm not sure if ther are other sources or not ,  he
had a source. I would never suggest I knew all chazalic or risonim statements.>
ac"l.

Yes, really. I'm afraid that (imho) you've misread this gimoroh, and would urge
you to a second reading in the hope that you might agree with me that there is
not even the slightest shemetz of implication in this talmudic text that yaacov
committed some sin while out at night (indeed i am surprised to even hear the
suggestion from quarters so maqpid for the kovode ovos when the text itself
does not provide prima facie support for such negative interpretation).
aderaba, in the gimoroh chulin (91a) yaacov's concern for recovering of these
low value possessions and hence his night time foray of recovery is actually
presented in an actively positive light, as a toldoh of his tzidqus. to the
gimoroh,  yaacov, like all tzadiqim has such an internalized aversion to gezel
that attachment to his rightful momone is both natural and understandable.   To
suggest that the gimoroh's generic advice to talmidei chochomimin in general to
stay in after dark is related to sin (the more easily to avoid aknowledging the
innovation in kili yoqor's pishat) seems rather farfetched, unless you want to
further imagine that most talmidei chachomim have a positive prediliction for
sinning on night time strolls and the gimoroh was warning them of the dangers
of sinning in such circumstance, even as did yaacov. but that is an
extraordinary stretch of reading into the gimoroh what is simply not there.  if
you don't find the kili yoqor's pishat very persuasive, than you might just
consider rejecting it, as did RYGB.  

As for your notion that <... you made a pretty bold statement which isn't
completely true. Do you really think that you know all chazalic or rishonic
sources to say that they never suggested such...>   You are certainly right to
note that I carelessly formulated that sentence without including a weasel
worded caveat, so please correct my original sentence to now read:  chazalic
and rishonic sources "that I am aware of".  Of course, it is practically
impossible to prove a negative and i am unable to do so in any absolute sense. 
Once having said that, I am still unaware of any such source presaging the kili
yoqor's discovery of sin in yaacov's attachment to his possessions, admit to
being doubtful that any exist, and will be interested to learn if you, or
anyone else, might know of any.  Per above, your citation of Chulin seems, in
my understanding, irrelevant. And thus your conclusory leap that my "bold
statement which isn't completely true" would seem a non sequitor since, as far
as i know anyway, it still is completely true. And in any event, I would never
have thought it as "bold".

The hashqofic assumptions behind some of these arguments are probably worthy of
expanded discussion, (which i will not assay here) and by no means is the
"correct" view as self evident as a few of the posters seem to imply.  Thus
while many find the role model of the ovos reinforced by a perception of near
malachic behavior (even their apparant errors revealed to be either acts of
complete tzidqus or the result of being held to such a high standard that such
"error" by an ordinary person would be accounted as tzidqus) others take
inspiration from the fact that their heroes were human with occasional human
failings. One may aspire to be an heroic human. Aspiring to be a maloch is a
non-starter to many.   Both hashqofos have always been implicitly reflected in
jewish parshonus and getting upset at that reality or angry to the point of
denigrating individuals from the "other" camp is inappropriate.  yeish al mah
lismoch.

Mechy Frankel		frankel@hq.dswa.mil
 

Parshanut is not my area of expertise, as anyone who knows me will tell 
you, (to say the least). However, in light of the heated debate now 
taking place, I would like to assert that somewhere between the two 
opinions lies the truth.  There are two conflicting principles here 
which, if one examines carefully, should not conflict at all.  One is 
the principle of intellectual honesty which I am here defining to mean 
the ability to ask questions on the Avos' perplexing behavior, and the 
other principle is having proper Kovod for the Avos.  I don't think 
anyone can be faulted for asking whether Avraham Avinu's actions 
vis-a-vis Yishmael and Hagar were appropriate. Indeed a simple reading 
of the text would require you to ask the question of anyone who would 
behave in this manner.  By analogy, if someone has a child by a first 
marriage and the second wife said "I don't think we should keep your 
first son around here anymore - pay more attention to OUR son and send 
your first son away", If that father sent his son by his first wife away 
in the manner that Avraham sent Yishmael away, we would deem it 
outrageous if not criminal behavior. Yet we know that Avraham was not 
criticized for doing this by the rishonim.  If this is such an 
outrageous act why was he not criticized?  The answer is that we just 
don't know.  That doesn't mean we can't ask the question.  But what I 
think some on this list are objecting to is taking this question a step 
further and concluding on our own, that this was bad behavior by 
Avraham. We in the 20th Century simply do not have enough information to 
make such a judgement.  Chazal and the Rishonim did have such 
information or at least had the superior intellect to "judge" the 
behavior of the Avos. The problem with criticizing the Avos is that, 
because we don't know enough, we don't know when we are crossing a line 
into Sheker and being motzie laz on the Avos Rachmana Litzlan.  

The temptation to say that the Avos were Human, and were subject to 
human failings is a very comforting thought to us and perhaps gives us 
chizuk as I believe Eli Clark stated.  We just have to be careful about 
being mechadesh new failings on the part of the Avos BEYOND those that 
were already made known to us by Chazal etc.

 On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we should stifle legitimate 
query. That would be intellectually dishonest which could ultimately 
lead to apikorsus and denial Rachmana Litzlan. 

So, ask the question -  we must.  But we shouldn't jump to our own 
conclusion, as the information we have today is incomplete.

HM

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >  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.
> 
> The Rashbam clearly writes that Choroh Apoy and that is why he caused him
> Tzar, and he bases it on a Medrosh (Yalkut Shmuel), and proof that NISOH has a
> negative side.
> 

I apologise 100% with regard to the Rashbam.  I looked at it again and
realized that in myhaste, I had started the rashbam in the middle.  I
agree - the Rashbam definitely says that the akeidah came about because
Hashem was angry with Avrohom for making a bris with Avimelech (because
of the mitzvah of Lo Sichayeh kol neshama).  However I don't believe
that this invalidates any of the other points that were made.  Just
because the Rashbam makes a case that the akeidah is a punishment
doesn't mean that we can go about choosing other crimes  - I think
there  is a saying - 'Ein bakan kan elah ma sheyeish bo"  Take the
Rashbam's staement as it is.  Think about it if you want - but don't
think it gives us license to extrapolate his thory onto other situations
arbitrarily.

Take care,

Joel

I sense that even R' Mechi, who I have always read as cool,detached and
bemused in his e-writings, is getting somewhat hot under the collar. 
Sorry, then, to pursue the issue, but, pray tell, aside from the Kli
Yokor, and a Ramban that is questionable (because of the source in
Kabbala, whether the Ramban had the Zohar or not), what is the basis for a
school of thought that runs counter to almost all sources in Chazal,
Rishonim (and most Acharonim), to be dan the Avos l'kaf chova and find
their "flaws"? 

BTW:

1. I looked up several other sources on the Avos which I could quote, but
I think my cross-section suffices. More upon request.

2. I looked up a favorite of the "Modern Parshanut" School, ShaDaL, to see
what he says on Avrohom and Yishmael. Sorry guys, he justifies Avrohom
Avinu.

3. What is wrong with aspiring to be a Malach, nay, higher: "V'nosati
lecha mahalchim bein ha'omdim ha'eila"?

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:

> The hashqofic assumptions behind some of these arguments are probably
> worthy of expanded discussion, (which i will not assay here) and by no
> means is the "correct" view as self evident as a few of the posters seem
> to imply.  Thus while many find the role model of the ovos reinforced by
> a perception of near malachic behavior (even their apparant errors
> revealed to be either acts of complete tzidqus or the result of being
> held to such a high standard that such "error" by an ordinary person
> would be accounted as tzidqus) others take inspiration from the fact
> that their heroes were human with occasional human failings. One may
> aspire to be an heroic human. Aspiring to be a maloch is a non-starter
> to many.  Both hashqofos have always been implicitly reflected in jewish
> parshonus and getting upset at that reality or angry to the point of
> denigrating individuals from the "other" camp is inappropriate.  yeish
> al mah lismoch. 
> 
> Mechy Frankel		frankel@hq.dswa.mil
>  
> 
> 

YGB

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

 On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:
> 
> Yes, really. I'm afraid that (imho) you've misread this gimoroh, and would urge
> you to a second reading in the hope that you might agree with me that there is
> not even the slightest shemetz of implication in this talmudic text that yaacov
> committed some sin while out at night (indeed i am surprised to even hear the
> suggestion from quarters so maqpid for the kovode ovos when the text itself
> does not provide prima facie support for such negative interpretation).
> aderaba, in the gimoroh chulin (91a) yaacov's concern for recovering of these
> low value possessions and hence his night time foray of recovery is actually
> presented in an actively positive light, as a toldoh of his tzidqus. to the
> gimoroh,  yaacov, like all tzadiqim has such an internalized aversion to gezel> that attachment to his rightful momone is both natural and
understandable.   To
> suggest that the gimoroh's generic advice to talmidei chochomimin in general to
> stay in after dark is related to sin (the more easily to avoid aknowledging the
Can you tell me (iyho) how you know that the statement of R. Eliezer about
pachim katanim agrees with the statement of R. yitzchak about not going
out at night, maybe they argue--one saying the positive and one saying the
negative. And even if we say they agree, why can't one action of Yaakov be
viewed in two lights, on One hand he was meritorious because he went back
for pachim katanim but on the other hand he was wrong for going back
alone. Since the main point of the Kli Yakar is to make the point that it
was an action of yaakov which caused the saar shel eisav to come. He
definitly has R Yitzchak to be somech on because we kniow one who goes out
alone is subject to mazikim. As far as the kli yakar's statement that
yaakov was wrong for going back for his pachim ketanim We can say that the
kli yakar held that rav yiyzchak argued on r. Eliezer, and although he
learns the drasha of pachim ketanim, he doesn't learn it for praise but
according to rav yitzchak--lgenai. I don't think this is far fecthed at
all--and far more plausable then giving an open license for moderns to
darshen against chazal. As far as your statements calling r. yitzcaks law
mere advice, 

I think the Ramban poskens this lahalach--hilchos deos perek 9 halacha
five. Since I believe that the kli yakar has legs if not at least one leg
to stand on and the Ramban has the authentic Zohar to hold by, and the
Rashbam has a medrash shmuel, I'm wondering if there are any examples
where
legitimate miforshim contradict--or hav no basis in chazal when
critisizing tzaddikim.
Elie Ginsparg

Micha Berger writes:
>As already pointed out, eilu va'eilu doesn't work when the topic is history.

Not as simple as it may seem. See Pachad Yitzchok, Igros U'Ksovim, no. 30.

Yisrael Herczeg

The idea that to criticise the Ovoys is a clash with the idea of 'mosay
yagiu masay lmasay ovoysay' is disingenuous and harmful.

The notion that the heroes of the bible as well as tanoim and amoyroim
are beyond reproach is nowadays common currency and forms the foundation
of the equally harmful notion of das toyre where gedoylim can never be
criticised. This has more to do with the idea of papal infallibility
than the interpretation of the toyre that we find in the gemore and the
meforshim.

To err is human and whatever the greatness of the characters they were
all human. The greatness of David and Reuven is not that they did not
sin but that they atoned for their misdemeanours. Chazal do not say
'Reuven loy khoto' or 'Dovid loy khoto' but a more ambiguous term of
whoever says that they sinned is only but mistaken. This is not
unequivocal to say the least.

The mosay yagiu of Dovid Hamelekh is that after his deed he went on to
compose kapitl nun alef; of moyshe rabeynu, that despite his
punishment he fought midyon and did not try to procrastinate. It is how
they cope with their downfalls that teaches us.

If it is perfect beings that we need for role models then we can choose
angels; we do not need mere mortals for that. It is humans who despite
their inherent weaknesses manage to stay true to God that we seek to
emulate.

Chazal and indeed the toyre itself keep on reminding us of our
imperfections against God. Almost every single one of the characters in
Tanakh did not match what was expected of him or her at some point in
their life. To pretend otherwise is not merely to ignore the texts but
also to put our belief in them on a footing that was never intended and
which is then exploited by later generations in trying to elevate the
leaders of their day.

Of course this does not translate in a free for all criticism of the
ovoys as we do not kholile seek to belittle their greatness. But the
scrutiny that Chazal subjected the ovoys and others to should make us
limit our trust in our own leaders and should guide us away from blind
obedience.
 
David Herskovic

In a message dated 11/10/98 11:41:23 PM EST, margol@ms.com writes:

> Just
>  because the Rashbam makes a case that the akeidah is a punishment
>  doesn't mean that we can go about choosing other crimes  - I think
>  there  is a saying - 'Ein bakan kan elah ma sheyeish bo"  Take the
>  Rashbam's staement as it is.  Think about it if you want - but don't
>  think it gives us license to extrapolate his thory onto other situations
>  arbitrarily.

Just to make it clear I never suggested otherwise C"V .  Please read my
earlier posts.

BTW the Loshon Hamishnoh is Al Tistakeil B'kankan... the Mamar that would be
more appropriate IMHO is Ein Loch Boy Eloh Chidushoi.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

In a message dated 11/11/98 1:30:37 AM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> I'm wondering if there are any examples
>  where
>  legitimate miforshim contradict--or hav no basis in chazal when
>  critisizing tzaddikim.
 
R' Eli,

As I pointed out earlier the Gemoroh in Hazoreik where R"A said to he who
wanted attribute the Chet HaMa'apilim to Tzlafchad, "Bein Kach U'Bein Kach
Atoh Osid Litein Ess Hadin".

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

I am impressed that you, R' David, while not having us rely put the Avos
on a pedestal, have put yourself on a pedestal, as you quote not a single
source to back up your position, so, I assume, we are forced to accept
your "Da'as Torah." While those who know you personally may know you to be
a "Baki b'Shas, Rishonim v'Acharonim" and therefore accept your
pronouncements unilaterally, I certainly hope you understand, that I am
not overly impressed by assertions without backing in Chazal, or at least
Rishonim.

With all due repsect to fellow embers of our esteemed "High Level" list, I
have yet to see a source in Chazal or the Rishonim for the "School of
Thought" that champions finding flaws in the Avos (an approach I find more
disstasteful every time I address it!).

I would like to note, that according to the Radak, I can add one source
FROM TANACH ITSELF! Yeshaya says (51:2): "Look to Avrohom your forefather
and to Soroh who bore you..." The Radak there says we are to emulate the
Avos. A nice source for that "obscure Chazal" (double sic) in TDBER.

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, David Herskovic wrote:

> The idea that to criticise the Ovoys is a clash with the idea of 'mosay
> yagiu masay lmasay ovoysay' is disingenuous and harmful.
> 
> The notion that the heroes of the bible as well as tanoim and amoyroim
> are beyond reproach is nowadays common currency and forms the foundation
> of the equally harmful notion of das toyre where gedoylim can never be
> criticised. This has more to do with the idea of papal infallibility
> than the interpretation of the toyre that we find in the gemore and the
> meforshim.
> 
> To err is human and whatever the greatness of the characters they were
> all human. The greatness of David and Reuven is not that they did not
> sin but that they atoned for their misdemeanours. Chazal do not say
> 'Reuven loy khoto' or 'Dovid loy khoto' but a more ambiguous term of
> whoever says that they sinned is only but mistaken. This is not
> unequivocal to say the least.
> 
> The mosay yagiu of Dovid Hamelekh is that after his deed he went on to
> compose kapitl nun alef; of moyshe rabeynu, that despite his
> punishment he fought midyon and did not try to procrastinate. It is how
> they cope with their downfalls that teaches us.
> 
> If it is perfect beings that we need for role models then we can choose
> angels; we do not need mere mortals for that. It is humans who despite
> their inherent weaknesses manage to stay true to God that we seek to
> emulate.
> 
> Chazal and indeed the toyre itself keep on reminding us of our
> imperfections against God. Almost every single one of the characters in
> Tanakh did not match what was expected of him or her at some point in
> their life. To pretend otherwise is not merely to ignore the texts but
> also to put our belief in them on a footing that was never intended and
> which is then exploited by later generations in trying to elevate the
> leaders of their day.
> 
> Of course this does not translate in a free for all criticism of the
> ovoys as we do not kholile seek to belittle their greatness. But the
> scrutiny that Chazal subjected the ovoys and others to should make us
> limit our trust in our own leaders and should guide us away from blind
> obedience.
>  
> David Herskovic
> 

YGB

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

A message I sent earlier seems not to have gone through, so I am
repeating, and I apologize for any redundancy:

As a matter of principle, I generally do not respond to messages that are
sent to Avodah anonymously. I prefer that messages include first and last
names somewhere in the address or text, and am not happy that several
posters do not include their last names. But one with neither last nor
first names, I certainly ignore.

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 11/11/98 9:07:00 AM EST, david@arctic1.demon.co.uk writes:

>  This has more to do with the idea of papal infallibility
>  than the interpretation of the toyre that we find in the gemore and the
>  meforshim.

OTOH there are those that forget about Vayameenu... UVMOSHE Avdoy, and in the
whole concept of Emunas Chachomim, and forgetting that even if we are like a
Chamor they were KMALOCHIM, they rather would like to be compared to the
enlightened  Dor of Shfot Hashoftim, who they too only judge their judges not
those of previous generations.

>  
>  all human. The greatness of David and Reuven is not that they did not
>  sin but that they atoned for their misdemeanours. Chazal do not say
>  'Reuven loy khoto' or 'Dovid loy khoto' but a more ambiguous term of
>  whoever says that they sinned is only but mistaken. This is not
>  unequivocal to say the least.

 Rashi certainly disagrees see Breishis 35:32 "V'raboseinu Dorshu...Sheloi
Choto Reuvain".

>  If it is perfect beings that we need for role models then we can choose
>  angels; we do not need mere mortals for that. 

What we have are humans that reached perfection!  The Rambam writes that Moshe
is Bchir Hanivro'im he reached a Shleimus that no other did.

>  scrutiny that Chazal subjected the ovoys and others to should make us
>  limit our trust in our own leaders and should guide us away from blind
>  obedience.

I'll conclude with the Chazal "Im Horav Domeh Lmalach Has-hem Tzvokos Tvakeish
Torah M'piv".

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

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


[ 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 ]