Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 051

Friday, November 13 1998

• Re: Perfection of the Avos
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns-last
• SHIR-HAMAALOT-AND-TEHILAT
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: SHIR-HAMAALOT-AND-TEHILAT
• Re: your mail
• Re: Perfection of the Avos
• Re: Perfection of the Avos
• Avodah V2 #50 Learning from the Avos
• Re: Avodah V2 #50 Learning from the Avos
• Re: makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo
• Re: makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo
• Re: Response to R' Eli Turkel's Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo
• Avos
• Re: Avos

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> Opening my copies of the Moreh, I did not get the same impression. 
> 
> The Rambam talks about the high level of perfection that the Avos and
> Mosheh reached. He does not speak in absolutes, that they were perfect. 
> 
> This is a far cry from the claim that the Avos were perfection personified.
> 

I am sorry you have a poor translation, and upset at your accusation. Look
at the Ibn Tibbon:

"Omdim al tachlis zeh ha'shleimus etzel Hashem."

YOU translate this.

I am also disappointed that you ignore the context: Their constant
connection to Hashem and their utter absorption in "kil hishtadlusam haysa
l'farsem yichud Hashem ba'olam etc..."


YGB

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

Since you have decided to bow out. I leave you the last word but one:

Afilu na'niach that we have carte blanche theologically to critique the
Avos, humility should preclude us from doing so: I'lu yda'ativ hayisiv.

Mei'inyan l'inyan:

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:

> < R. Shimuel B. Nachmani in Shabbos 55-56- he didn't have distinctions
> > between people - nobody was choteh), then there's the claim that
> > acharonim couldn't dispute the pishatim of rishonim.  I've probably
> <You just added one. Never claimed that. Bal Tosif!>
> Oops. Sorry about that. But now that I did whaddaya think?
> 

There is no inherent barrier - other than common sense, akin to the
humility idea expressed above ("Im Rishonim k'malachim...") for an Acharon
to argue on a Rishon.

> Mech"y" Frankel			frankel@hq.dswa.mil		
> 

Oh, sorry about the "I". IT *is* a Chicago thing. Remember Rostenkowsk*i*?

> ------------------------------
> 
> 

YGB

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

Joel Margolies asks:

>Does anyone know the mekor for appending ...

Shir haMa'alot is a Zionistic psalm.  Has v'shalom
that we should celebrate this without something to
neutralize that flavor.  Hence anti-Zionistic elements
added the "neutral" verses of Tehilat haShem.

__Bob Werman
from Jerusalem, Zion

Subject: emulating the avot

>> Let me explain. How are we to ever know what deeds of the Avos to emulate?
>> I would have thought, sans R' Davide Glasner's pshat, that it is proper to
>> emulate Avrohom's casting Yishmael out: "Misan'echa Hashem esnah." But
>> now, I know not if I should emulate that.

You should defintely NOT emulate this! Without any discussion of whether
Abraham was right or not this was done by G-d's decree.
I would hate to see modern people throw out bad influences from their
home and say that they are emulating the avot.
Similarly, it is a preversion to say we can throw out the Arabs because
of how Joshua conquered the land.

Not everything that the avot or moshe or anyone else did is worth
emulating. There were special circumstances why G-d saw fit for a
certain action to be taken and it may be a once in a universe occasion.
We should learn lessons from it (if in the Torah it is for the all
generations) but not simply copy it.

Eli Turkel

Subject: disagreements

>> No one is looking for faults and those identified were few and far between,

In a different context Rav Soloveitchik would say that we are always
looking at the machloket between Abaye and Rava. In addition we
should spend time looking at the 99% of things that they agreed about

Eli Turkel

Please bring a mekor to this statement.  I find it extremely hard to
believe, especially since those pesukim are generally found only in
bentchers that are more appealing to the center or modern crowd.  The
"frummer" (please don't take more out of that word than I intended) -
the ones with poor print or that have all the classic zemiros (askinu
seudasas for all 3 meals) - generally do not have the Tehilas appendage.

Shir Hama'alos was written by Dvid HaMelech - I doubt that there are any
out there that don't believe in his version of Zionism.  We've been
saying shir hama'alos a long time before Herzl and Ben Gurion.

Take care,

Joel

RWERMAN@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> 
> Joel Margolies asks:
> 
> >Does anyone know the mekor for appending ...
> 
> Shir haMa'alot is a Zionistic psalm.  Has v'shalom
> that we should celebrate this without something to
> neutralize that flavor.  Hence anti-Zionistic elements
> added the "neutral" verses of Tehilat haShem.
> 
> __Bob Werman
> from Jerusalem, Zion

-- 

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

Well, well, there are several yeshivo that over the course of the years
threatened to expel me. Where were you when I needed you?!

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Eli Turkel wrote:

> You should defintely NOT emulate this! Without any discussion of whether
> Abraham was right or not this was done by G-d's decree.  I would hate to

True, but after Mattan Torah we have the Torah telling us when to expel
influences from our midst instead. We are to emulate Avrohom and doo so
unhesitatingly when the Torah tells us to do so.

"Kol Talmid Chochom she'eino nokein v'noteir k'nachash..."

> see modern people throw out bad influences from their home and say that

I guess you do not have Dr. Laura in Israel.

YGB

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

R' YGB writes:
> I am sorry you have a poor translation, and upset at your accusation. Look
> at the Ibn Tibbon:

1- I'm sorry if you read my words as an accusation. That was not the intent.
"This is a far cry from the claim that the Avos were perfection personified"
was intended to be about the facts, not the person.

2- As I wrote, "Opening my copIES of the Moreh" (emphasis added). I didn't
rely on Friedlander. I saw the Ibn Tibn, as well as a more modern Hebrew
translation from Mosad HaR' Kook as well.

> YOU translate this.

I intentionally did not post my own translation, as the point is too subtle
for me to rely on a translation of a translation. But since you call me to...

> "Omdim al tachlis zeh ha'shleimus etzel Hashem."

They stood by this goal, the wholeness toward G-d.

First, this was their "tachlis", not their "matzav".

I don't see why you're assuming "hashleimus" means perfection in the
absolute sense. With the hei hayedi'ah, I'd agree with Freidlander. The Rambam
is talking about a particular element of sh'leimus, in this case, the amount
of sh'leimus they obtained or could obtain.

If the Rambam believed absolute sh'leimus were possible, he'd have problems
with "lo alecha hamlachah ligmor".

> I am also disappointed that you ignore the context: Their constant
> connection to Hashem and their utter absorption in "kil hishtadlusam haysa
> l'farsem yichud Hashem ba'olam etc..."

I actually quote Friedlander's translation of a similar line. But, why is it
relevant? We were discussing whether or not they were perfect, not how the
Rambam defines perfection. (We touched on the latter point, as addressed in
the very same perek of the Moreh, over the summer.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5977 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 13-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> 1- I'm sorry if you read my words as an accusation. That was not the
> intent.  "This is a far cry from the claim that the Avos were perfection
> personified"  was intended to be about the facts, not the person. 
> 

Let us note:

If you are close to someone, you can whisper, and you will be heard.

If you are at a slight distance from someone, you can talk
conversationally and be heard.

If you are at a substantial distance from someone, you can talk loudly and
be heard.

If you are very distant from a person, you can shout and be heard.

If you ave very far from a person, you must first cry out to get their
attention, then move closer to be heard.

You said my translation was a "far cry."

> I intentionally did not post my own translation, as the point is too
> subtle for me to rely on a translation of a translation. But since you
> call me to... 
> 
> > "Omdim al tachlis zeh ha'shleimus etzel Hashem."
> 
> They stood by this goal, the wholeness toward G-d.
> 

I am dumbfounded how you translate "tachlis" here as goal. Here it means
"ultimate level." This is obvious from the verb "omdim" - not "miskadmim
el" - and from the context. The Rambam is describing a state of being not
an ambition. I cannot go on to prove this definitively without quoting
large blocks of text. I think perhaps you were misled by the use of
tachlis in its other meaning in the next sentences, but the truth of this
translation is self evident from the Rambam's "tachlis" - to explain what
it means that we say Elokei Avrohom etc. The Pines translation makes this
clear, by translating this tachlis as "extreme."

But you know what Micha, even if you insist that Pines and I are
mistranslating, and you utterly deny the context - this is a far cry?!

YGB

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

I hope this helps to understand how a peirush can "critizue" without necessarily
seeing the Avos as flawed or inadequate.

Let's discuss case 1 Avrohom goint o Mitzrayim where the Ramban calls it a 
"cheit" and RSRH's crriticims of Yiztchok's parenting skills WRT to Eisov.

I don't necessarily buy that Avrohom and Yitzchok were "less" becasue some of 
their actions wer called into question.  Rather I think the parshaonim were 
giving US mussar based upon "hindsight".  Remember the Avos had no Avos to 
emulate, we do.

Plus the Ramban was an advocate of finding meaning in everything in the Torah. 
This might have opened the door for himto find something siginificant in the 
story of Avrohom going down to Egypt, namely a lesson in emuno/bitachon.  In 
this sense, Avrohom is perhaps being used as a "straw-man" to convey to us a 
very imnportant point.

The fact that we can learn from the "mis-steps" of the Avos in now way makes 
ourselves; rather it gives a superior set of lessons to learn from, a richer 
Mesorah in how to behave than the Avos themselves had.

I realize the language of chait is used vis-a-vis Avrohom, so perhaps the Ramban
implied more than I infer.  Wth regards to the Yishmoel/Hogor incident, it does 
make sense to learn several middos from Avrohom's actions; one Mido might be to 
"punish" Yishmoel for his actions; another Mido might be to be as generous as 
one can when separating from someone.  

While you do not need my haskomo, and this is not precisly what you are
saying, I can accept a distinction between a mistake in "shikkul ha'da'as"
and a shortcoming in middos. 

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Plus the Ramban was an advocate of finding meaning in everything in the
> Torah. This might have opened the door for himto find something
> siginificant in the story of Avrohom going down to Egypt, namely a
> lesson in emuno/bitachon.  In this sense, Avrohom is perhaps being used
> as a "straw-man" to convey to us a very imnportant point.
> 
> I realize the language of chait is used vis-a-vis Avrohom, so perhaps
> the Ramban implied more than I infer.  Wth regards to the Yishmoel/Hogor
> incident, it does make sense to learn several middos from Avrohom's
> actions; one Mido might be to "punish" Yishmoel for his actions; another
> Mido might be to be as generous as one can when separating from someone. 
> 
> 

YGB

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

Joel Margolies wrote:
>>>
David Glasner wrote:
  Well, if you want me to be quiet, please answer my
> question, which is how do you justify the conduct of Abraham
explicitly
> described by the Torah?  

I really thought that this question has been answered several times, but
here it is again:

1)Sara requested the action and told Avrohom what to do.  Avrohom
was
vehemently against it until Hashem TOLD HIM to listen to Sara.  The
whole episode was al pi hadibur.  Isn't that pashut pshat enough?!  The
pesukim practically cry out that Hashem himself or through Sara
orchestarted the whole affair.
2)If one is not enogh to satisfy you - take a look at the sforno who
says that Avraham sent them out with a whole entourage and water
was the
only thing they ran out of - but they had a whole caravan and I would
say that there is no expectation on Avaraham's part to have to give more
water than is necessary to get to B"Sheva.

If these are not satisfying, please explain why.
>>>

Mr. Margolies, please meet Mr. Zirkind, Mr. Zirkind please meet Mr.
Margolies.

Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
<<<
when HKB"H told
AAO"H to follow everything Sara said she used the term "GOREISH" not
Shalach,
and HKB"H told him Al Yeira Beinecho Al Hanar, so PS"M seems to
indicate that
the sending here was Al Pi Hadibur, so the conclusion to the opposite
without
any support in Chazal is troubling.


>  But how does this justify Abraham's not providing Hagar
>  and Ishmael with an escort or guide to lead them safely to their
>  destination?  

HKB"H said "GOREISH" not escort.
>>>

Now obviously the Sforno was troubled by the p'shuto shel mikra. 
Otherwise he (or someone else) would not have invented the caravan
which, according to Mr. Zirkind would have been a flagarant violation of
the Divine Will.  Now, let me pose this question.  How am I to view the
S'forno, a lowly acharon?  Was he motzi la'az on Abraham the Patriarch
by suggesting that Abraham defied the explicit command of the Holy One
Blessed Be He to drive out the maidservant and her son from his house? 
The nerve of that man!

And by the way, do I detect from the statement <<<The
pesukim practically cry out that Hashem himself or through Sara
orchestarted the whole affair>>> an implication that there are events that
are not orchestrated by the RShO?  If we follow that logic out to its
conclusion, then no one can be held morally responsible for his actions,
because whatever happens is willed by the Almighty.  The question is
whether Abraham could (and should) have obeyed G-d's instructions in
a way that would not have placed the lives of Hagar and Ishmael in
jeopardy.  S'forno, maybe we should excise him from the Mikraot G'dolot,
seems to think that he could and did, even though the p'shuto shel mikra
(can we all agree on this?) implies the contrary.  Query to our beki'im in
ma'amarei Chazal:  Did S'forno base his hidush on a Chazal or did he just
make it up himself?

And as for the statement "water is the only thing that they ran out of"
what do you think would happen to the Director of NASA if he said after
the space shuttle came back from orbit with 6 dead astronauts if he said,
"well the only thing that they ran out of was water"?  Didn't you ever
hear of the concept of redundancy when one is exposed to life
threatening conditions.  We're not talking about taking a stroll across
Central Park (in the daytime) here.

To Elie Ginsparg et al.  I am sorry if I gave offense in criticizing your rebi
for his response to his student.  However, the one and only relevant fact
that you left out of your account was that he first gave a proper reply to
his student explaining why the student really had not answered R. Akiva
Eiger's question.  If the student had given a good answer, even if it might
not have been true, then the appropriate response would have been one
of encouragement rather than personal criticism.

I think that, as usual, Mechy has set an example well worth emulating,
and I will bow out of the discussion at this point, at least until next week
when we can start discussing Ya'acov and the obligation to tell the truth.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 11/13/98 11:09:38 AM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

In response to my post:
> >  But how does this justify Abraham's not providing Hagar
>  >  and Ishmael with an escort or guide to lead them safely to their
>  >  destination?  
>  
>  HKB"H said "GOREISH" not escort.
>  >>>
>  
Your rebuttal:

>  Now obviously the Sforno was troubled by the p'shuto shel mikra. 
>  Otherwise he (or someone else) would not have invented the caravan
>  which, according to Mr. Zirkind would have been a flagarant violation of
>  the Divine Will.  Now, let me pose this question.  How am I to view the
>  S'forno, a lowly acharon?  Was he motzi la'az on Abraham the Patriarch
>  by suggesting that Abraham defied the explicit command of the Holy One
>  Blessed Be He to drive out the maidservant and her son from his house? 
  
My point is according to those that don't hold like the Sforno, the question
has to be answered to which I suggested that the word Goreish excludes fanfare
(while obviously according to Rashi it does not exclude money, as the only
reason Rashi quotes for not giving any money was because he hated him not
because of Goreish). 

To clarify: the Teitch of Goreish will define what the Tzeevuy Has-hem was, if
we Teitch it literally then there is no need to answer anymore, how ever that
does not preclude a Parshon (based on a question in PS"M) from Teitching that
the word Goreish does not exclude a caravan, and thereby he did not go against
the will of HKB"H C"V. (however to conclude  that HKB"H did not stop him from
sending a caravan and that  Avrohom AO"H erred C"V by not sending a caravan,
without any support is a total different issue).

Just like the Rashbam as a result from his question how Avrohom made a promise
to Avimelech interperted the word "Nissoh" into a different Teitch then most
others do, likewise one can interpret the word Goreish in a way that doesn't
exclude fanfare.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Cut. Only the Avos and Imahos. Sarah is an interesting issue, that I have
> not explored. Care to expand im ra'ayos?
> 

The Ramban b'makom says that Sara chata and Avraham was an accomplice by
allowing it.  (He told her to do as she saw fit).  Even without this -
the lashon of the psukim does seem to portray Sara in a harsh light by
using the word Enui (or a form thereof) which tends to imply
persecution.

Take care,

Joel

-- 

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

David Glasner wrote:

> 
> Mr. Margolies, please meet Mr. Zirkind, Mr. Zirkind please meet Mr.
> Margolies.

I noticed, with pleasure, that his subsequent post was similar to mine.
> 
> Now obviously the Sforno was troubled by the p'shuto shel mikra.
> Otherwise he (or someone else) would not have invented the caravan
> which, according to Mr. Zirkind would have been a flagarant violation of
> the Divine Will.  Now, let me pose this question.  How am I to view the
> S'forno, a lowly acharon?  Was he motzi la'az on Abraham the Patriarch
> by suggesting that Abraham defied the explicit command of the Holy One
> Blessed Be He to drive out the maidservant and her son from his house?


I really wish that we would be realistic here.  Noone has ever said that
parshanim have to have the same pshat.  The pshuto shel mikra is that
Hashem told Avrohom to send them out.  R' Yitzchak wa willing to go a
step further and say that the word goreish necessarily means without an
entourage.  I respect his pshat and admit it may be true according to
that line of thinking.  However, obviously, that pshat is not the ONLY
pshat and the sforno clearly did not hold of that definition of
geirush.  (Or that that was part of the dibur)  I am sure that you could
have divined that yourself...


> And by the way, do I detect from the statement <<<The
> pesukim practically cry out that Hashem himself or through Sara
> orchestarted the whole affair>>> an implication that there are events that
> are not orchestrated by the RShO?  

Let's step back into line and reality.  I think, and I apologise if it
was not made clear, that what was meant was that HKB"H DIRECTLTY told
(orchestrated) avrohom or Sara what he wanted done - similar to R'
Yitchak's pshat in the word geirush.  (As opposed to being the backstage
orchestrator (is that a word?) of all events in the world)


> 
> And as for the statement "water is the only thing that they ran out of"
> what do you think would happen to the Director of NASA if he said after
> the space shuttle came back from orbit with 6 dead astronauts if he said,
> "well the only thing that they ran out of was water"?  Didn't you ever
> hear of the concept of redundancy when one is exposed to life
> threatening conditions.  We're not talking about taking a stroll across
> Central Park (in the daytime) here.

#1 for bedouins and people who live in the desert - it probably was a,
colloquially speaking,  walk in the park.

#2 If the Space Shuttle made 10 orbits of the earth instead of the
scheduled 5 and they run out of water or anything else for that matter -
who's to blame?  The guy who stocked the shuttle - I think not!! 
(Assume that nobody forced them to do it, etc. yada yada yada)

#3 I as trying to quote some directly from the sforno without having it
in front of me - please take a look yourself.


Take care,

Joel


-- 

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

After a personal converstaion and e-mail to by brother-in-law last night I
feel a need to clarify at the risk of redundency.  No offense to D. Glassner,
but in case it wasn't clear from my other posts, I think his pshat as chumash
pshat is wrong based on the the short treatment the likes of Ibn Ezra give to
the notion of criticising Avraham for the treatment of Hagar - clearly it was
not an avenue the meforshim were interested in pursuing.  I also don't like
the rereading of the Akeida as an onesh.  To call a pshat difficult I don't
need to accept (and I don't!) an entire framework limiting our right to be
mechadesh or claim that the Rishonim had license to criticize the Avot only
where Chazal preceded them in doing so - the difficulty with these artificial
(in my view) rules present convinces me that they are wrong.  The issue was
never, as Elie G. formulated it a few days ago, are we equal to the Rishonim,
or creating a "school of thought" criticising Rishonim.  The issue (for me)
was our ability to learn chumash using the usual rules of evaluating
chiddushim without the need to create new rules and limitations of parshanut
and chiddush.   As for  the "explicit" Rambam -  the choice to translate
'tachlis hashleimut' as "perfection" is yours (YGB's) not mine, and hence it
is your semantic battle to come up with a better term - perfect in my
dictionary means without mistakes, which you don't hold.  Perhaps more to the
point, there is something you obviously feel I missed in describing the avos
as "worthy of emulation" and "unbounded excellance" (private e-mail) -
terminology which I felt avoided the semantic problems the word 'perfect'
presented, yet showed the greatest praise for the avos - do you disagree with
me in substance, and if so, specifically how?  

-CB

In substance, I think we agree.

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> After a personal converstaion and e-mail to by brother-in-law last night
> I feel a need to clarify at the risk of redundency.  No offense to D.
> Glassner, but in case it wasn't clear from my other posts, I think his
> pshat as chumash pshat is wrong based on the the short treatment the
> likes of Ibn Ezra give to the notion of criticising Avraham for the
> treatment of Hagar - clearly it was not an avenue the meforshim were
> interested in pursuing.  I also don't like the rereading of the Akeida
> as an onesh.  To call a pshat difficult I don't need to accept (and I
> don't!) an entire framework limiting our right to be mechadesh or claim
> that the Rishonim had license to criticize the Avot only where Chazal
> preceded them in doing so - the difficulty with these artificial (in my
> view) rules present convinces me that they are wrong.  The issue was
> never, as Elie G. formulated it a few days ago, are we equal to the
> Rishonim, or creating a "school of thought" criticising Rishonim.  The
> issue (for me)  was our ability to learn chumash using the usual rules
> of evaluating chiddushim without the need to create new rules and
> limitations of parshanut and chiddush.  As for the "explicit" Rambam -
> the choice to translate 'tachlis hashleimut' as "perfection" is yours
> (YGB's) not mine, and hence it is your semantic battle to come up with a
> better term - perfect in my dictionary means without mistakes, which you
> don't hold.  Perhaps more to the point, there is something you obviously
> feel I missed in describing the avos as "worthy of emulation" and
> "unbounded excellance" (private e-mail) - terminology which I felt
> avoided the semantic problems the word 'perfect' presented, yet showed
> the greatest praise for the avos - do you disagree with me in substance,
> and if so, specifically how? 
> 
> -CB
> 

YGB

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

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


[ 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 ]