Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 053

Sunday, November 15 1998

• [none]
• Re:
• Administrivia: DN Alert!
• Re: Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: your mail
• Re: Avodah V2 #52
• computer usage
• criticizing Avot et al
• Re: criticizing Avot et al
• Role Models:Parental

Subject: Avot

    One problem that I have with R YGB'sposition is that I cannot
be sure whether some new theory is treating the avot with their 
proper respect which seems to be a prereqrisit. To make this clearer
let me state a "persuh partly from Rav Mottie Alon and from other sources.

His claim is that Avraham is unique among the avot in that Avraham
and sarah were a team. Together they converted gereim, etc.
The only time they disagreed was over Ishmael and G-d decided that
sarah was right. However, Isaac was more of a loner and accomplished
things by himself. This led to to the lack of communication of
the blessing of Isaac for Esau. Similarly we see lack of communication
between Yaakov and Rachel and Leah.

In a similar vein I heard a perush that discussed the children of
Ketura. The question is why is Ishmael treated fairly nicely in
the Torah and he reappears - almost a tzaddik - later after being
sent away. In general Abraham is generally considered to have had
two children. On the other hand the children by Ketura are briefly
mentioned, sent away never to be heard again and generally disregarded.
The answer I heard is that Abraham and Sarah were a team. Yishmael
spent his formative years in this house and so that formed his
personality. After sarah died the Torah discusses in depth her burial
After that Abraham basically disappears from the Torah except for
the minor fact that he remarried and had more children. Once Sarah
was no longer there these are biographical data without great 
importance.

My question is not whether this peshat is reasonable (I like it
others may not). The question is what this peshat displays towards
the avot. On one hand one could argue that this interpretation
denigrates Abraham because it makes a partner with Sarah
(or because it says the other avot were not as much partners).
On the other hand one can view this partnership as a beautiful
husband-wife spiritual meeting that should be emulated in
future generations. Depends on one's perspective.
I have seen perushim that extoll Sarah's level of spiritually
and others that denigrate women and claim G-d would never stoop to
speak with a woman and explain the few exceptions.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 98-11-14 16:49:59 EST, you write:

<< 
 His claim is that Avraham is unique among the avot in that Avraham
 and sarah were a team. Together they converted gereim, etc.
 The only time they disagreed was over Ishmael and G-d decided that
 sarah was right. However, Isaac was more of a loner and accomplished
 things by himself. This led to to the lack of communication of
 the blessing of Isaac for Esau. Similarly we see lack of communication
 between Yaakov and Rachel and Leah.
 
 In a similar vein I heard a perush that discussed the children of
 Ketura. The question is why is Ishmael treated fairly nicely in
 the Torah and he reappears - almost a tzaddik - later after being
 sent away. In general Abraham is generally considered to have had
 two children. On the other hand the children by Ketura are briefly
 mentioned, sent away never to be heard again and generally disregarded.
 The answer I heard is that Abraham and Sarah were a team. Yishmael
 spent his formative years in this house and so that formed his
 personality. After sarah died the Torah discusses in depth her burial
 After that Abraham basically disappears from the Torah except for
 the minor fact that he remarried and had more children. Once Sarah
 was no longer there these are biographical data without great 
 importance.
 
 My question is not whether this peshat is reasonable (I like it
 others may not). The question is what this peshat displays towards
 the avot. On one hand one could argue that this interpretation
 denigrates Abraham because it makes a partner with Sarah
 (or because it says the other avot were not as much partners).
 On the other hand one can view this partnership as a beautiful
 husband-wife spiritual meeting that should be emulated in
 future generations. Depends on one's perspective.
 I have seen perushim that extoll Sarah's level of spiritually
 and others that denigrate women and claim G-d would never stoop to
 speak with a woman and explain the few exceptions.
 
 Kol Tuv,
 Eli Turkel
  >>
I heard over from R' Rosensweig(any transmission errors are clearly mine) that
We see where avraham sends the bnai ketura away precisely that he learned from
sara that yitzchak solely was his destiny (as she sent away hagar etc) in the
past his mida of chesed had been so overpowering that he couldn't do this
until hashem confirmed sara's nvuah, now he did it on his own. In essence he
had assimilated sara's lesson!

shavua tov
Joel Rich

While things have moved on since the YU & TV discussion, the tone hasn't
really improved. Now, we're taking pot shots at each other for disagreeing as
to whether or not the avos are above criticism.

I some how find it hard to picture that Avraham Avinu cares more about his own
kavod than those of his children.

So enough with comments that address the speaker and not the substance.
Sarcasm is rarely in order, and doesn't transmit very well electronically.

In general, since the Yomim Tovim we've lost something critical about the
list. A simple comparison of posts will show that the number of citations have
tapered off, the tone has fell, and the time lag between email and reply has
fallen. In short, people aren't spending enough time thinking before they
type.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5978 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 14-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I generally admire Chana's posts as among the most erudite and sensible on
the list. I am sure she realized, however, that I would take significant
exception to her position here, so without further ado...

On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In particular this is what worries me: 
> 
> In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes >> >> 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. 
> 
> What worries me is the idea that one can go out and learn from the Torah
> which of the deeds of the Avos to emulate, without recourse to the whole
> halachic literature.  To take two obvious examples: 
> 

Whoa! (I hope that's not too American - it means "Stop right there".) I
believe it is obvious that particular deeds of any sort that involve
Halachic issues can only be done with the sanction of a Posek or a Psak
Halacha.

As I have mentioned previously, and mention here as an example, I only
went to College (Johns Hopkins) because in my third year at Sha'alvim I
was sent to R' Sholomo Zalman Auerbach and he used the term "psak" twice
in decreeing that I must go. I believe that even in such areas, in which
one might readily turn to role models who went to College and say "kazeh
re'eh ve'kadesh", one cannot decide the issue without reference to a Posek
(unless one is one oneself). I will be happy to start a new thread on this
issue, if there is interest.

That having been said, however, while the concrete issue, to take my
example further, requires a psak - because attending College invollves
many "secondary" issues - I am entitled to learn the "meta-halachic"
concept of Torah im Derech Eretz from earlier Gedolim such as the Aruch
La'Ner and RSRH who made these studies a critical component of their
Avodas Hashem.

Thus, when we learn from the Avos, of course we are not learning specific
examples. Since much of their lives was al pi ha'Dibbur, that is not
possible. What we learn are the techunos ha'nefesh: attitudes, character,
and demeanor -that underlie all our actions. Thus, while we are, B"H, not
called al pi ha'Dibbur to an Akeida, we learn the meta-halachic value of
mesirus nefesh, etc. And, while we B"H have no concubines to expel
(hopefully neither al pi nor not al pi ha-Dibbur), we learn the
meta-halachic value of achzariyus al ha'achzarim. 

YGB

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

On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Eli Turkel wrote:

> Subject: Avot
> 
>     One problem that I have with R YGB'sposition is that I cannot be
> sure whether some new theory is treating the avot with their proper
> respect which seems to be a prereqrisit. To make this clearer let me
> state a "persuh partly from Rav Mottie Alon and from other sources. 

Right! Right! That is why one must be suspicious of all new peirushim that
entail retroactive assessment of the psychology, pedagogy, household
relations, etc. - OF ALL FIGURES IN HISTORY (forget about the Avos, I
think it at most a good exercise in mental gymnastics, at worst pure
drivel) to retroactively delve into anyone's psychology hundreds of years
later).


YGB

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

Subject:  bad influences

> > 
> > 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.
> What should we do with these bad influences---learn from them, what are
> you trying to say here because at face value it makes little sense

Our schools have to learn how to treat trouble makers - throwing out
teenagers who cause trouble just is not the right solution. I am sure
we all know people (including ourselves) who were troublemakers in
high school and ended up being proud members of the Jewish community.
Somehow too many principals expect teenagers to be perfect and overreact
to every incident.
One of sons learned in Shaalavim highschool. I am preety sure that
almost everyone from the class is today a good Jew. Nevrtheless,
the kids that were given trouble and expelled for minor infractions
is to my mind horrifying.

Using Yishmael as an example of how to treat troublemakers I find
abborhent. Again this is not meant as a criticism of Abraham or Sarah.
Just that one cannot extrapolate from events in chumash to modern
day society.

Eli Turkel

For those interested  someone posted an article on our bulletin board
(Tel Aviv University) with a piece from Yated Neeman that gives a psak that
one is prohibited to use any computer or CD rom whether for personal or for
business use no matter what the application and that it is in the same category
as television.
The psak is signed by 7 rabbis (for the few I knew associated with Eida haCharedit)
including Rav Fischer and Rav Moshe Sternbuch.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

R M. Frenkel is correct in noting a difference in emphasis between my
position and that stated by R Bechoffer. I had stressed two points: 1)  
that when one thinks of a new idea, it is often worthwhile to consider why
others haven't said it first. Sometimes this consideration might lead you
to abandon the novel idea; often it will lead to a deeper understanding.
2) The importance of internalizing the way of thinking of those who ought
to be our role models. I mean being "meshammesh" the rishonim and
aharonim, thinking along with them, rather than repeating what they have
said word for word. At the risk of simplifying the contrast, I am more
concerned with models and imitation, while RYGB seems to be referring to
a search for precedent and copying.

I did not point out this difference earlier because what we hold in
common, at a practical level, is greater than the difference in emphasis,
and an oversimplified formulation of the contrast might misrepresent
rather than clarify.

Once the issue has been raised, let me point out a couple of borderline
problems that may otherwise escape notice.

A) What actually makes an idea new? Breshit Rabba makes critical comments
about Sarah's words to Abraham (16:5). Ramban criticizes her treatment of
Hagar. Are these two distinct criticisms or do they fall under the same
rubric-- that there was something flawed about her behavior in the entire
episode?

We often think of R. Aharon Kotler as the great enemy of criticizing the
Avot. Yet R. Aharon does speak of flaws, blemishes etc. When someone makes
the leap from quoting R. Aharon on a blemish to ascribing a sin, when
someone takes the Netziv's analysis of a psychological gap between Yitzhak
and Rivka and starts talking about "dysfunctional families," they may
claim to be doing nothing but quoting the source in slightly different
language. In my opinion, however, the novelty requires careful attention.

B) By the same token, I can readily imagine someone combing through
Midrashim and mefarshim and Musar sefarim, collecting all the "juicier
tidbits" about the Avot. Such an individual could claim to be following
precedent down the line. From my perspective it is clear that this kind of
gerrymander is a gross distortion.

In a word, I am probably less convinced than R Bechoffer that hiddush
requires precedent in the narrow sense of the word. In that sense I may be
more "liberal." I believe that he would agree with me that precedent in
the narrow sense is not a sufficient guarantee of faithfulness.

I have been rebuked repeatedly by our Moderator for quoting too much, so I
have stripped R' Shalom's post to the bare point that I wish to address:
Let me note:

1. I agree that there is a nuance of difference between our positions.

2. That the difference is relatively small.

That having been said, I would like to quibble!

I am not against Chiddush. I have written and published a sefer on Bava
Basra, Halacha and Agada, which consists of "mein eigener chiddushim", in
which I take great pride. I have a ms. of a sefer on Navi Shoftim that
consists to a significant extent of chiddushim in the understanding of
Navi al pi machashava. I am very much for chiddush! Independent thought
and analysis, Rah Rah! Nevertheless, there must be guidelines shaped by
precedent. What they are, may be ambiguous, and, are here, obviously a
subject of contention... 

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> said word for word. At the risk of simplifying the contrast, I am more
> concerned with models and imitation, while RYGB seems to be referring to
> a search for precedent and copying. 
> 

YGB

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

Just going over the gemora in Sanhedrin  71a describing the parameters
for a Rebellious Son. If it is the result of a failure in parental
chinuch than he is not killed. Simple question. Who among our ancestors
is praised as a role model for parenting? I am not asking who had good
offspring or who was the rebbe of gedolim. Rav Hutner once noted that
the yeshiva system was started to compensate for the failure of parents
to educate properly. Who do Chazal describe as having achieved
perfection as a parent?

                                                 Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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 ]