Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 055

Wednesday, November 18 1998

• Re: Halakha/Learning from the Avot
• Re: Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Receiving compensation for learning/teaching tora
• Re: Avodah V2 #54 Halocho
• Computers
• Re:DN alert
• Expansion of Chazal to justify Hirsch
• Re: Halakha/Learning from the Avot
• Re: shir hamaalos
• are bamoth really assur?
• Re: limits of parshanut
• Re: limits of parshanut
• Re: Expansion of Chazal to justify Hirsch
• Re: limits of parshanut
• Limits of Parshanut
• Re: Limits of Parshanut
• Re: Limits of Parshanut
• E-mail address

> It is always a pleasure to find that RYGB and I agree and I think on
> this point we do.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli
>

V'hinei tov me'od! 

YGB

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

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>> 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.

You may be pleased to know I wasn't actually worried about you.  My
concern is a more general one, which is an increasing tendency to
"unhook" the Tanach from wider halachic literature and then use Tanach
as a basis for justifying action.

>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. 

Agreed - but consciously or unconsciously, you have selected the precise
aspects of the Avos that are learnt throughout the literature - mesiras
nefesh, zrizus etc. I have absolutely no problem with that.

I guess my concern is, if I can put my finger on it more precisely -
that in the past, people commentating on Tanach invariably had a solid
basis in Talmud etc as well. So that, to whatever extent, the knowledge
went hand in hand - so even where an explanation was brought that was
contrary to chazal, it was not because of an ignorance of chazal.

What seems to me to be happening today - and your wife may have some
views on this, but I have wondered whether it is linked to the Beis
Ya'akov educational system.  Is that people are learning Tanach, albeit
with Rashi, Ramban etc, but absent anything approaching that basis.  And
increasingly these days, girls are spending, maybe three years post high
school, and then continuing to go back and teach and learn (and hence be
creative and darshan), - without, in some cases, ever having learnt a
mishna other than pirkei avos. 

And it seems to me to be creating a discourse in which the two are
increasingly not linked.  This also seems to be fueled by something
reported by many educators I have talked to - about how difficult it is,
in todays Yeshiva high schools, to get the boys interested in gemorra,
while the tanach teaching goes swimmingly - and then I seem to hear,
more and more often, people quoting bits of tanach as proofs for action
- because it is just so difficult to wade through rishonim and achronim
etc etc, while the Tanach is easily accessible. And while I was pretty
confident that that wasn't what *you* meant when you made the statement
about learning from the Avos - I seem to have heard equivalent
statements too often now from people whom I do think take that kind of
statement in the literal fashion I read yours.

I have more to say on the subject (I am typing this before work and must
rush off).  I just wanted to respond quickly to get the ball rolling on
this one, because it is something that worries me - and I am far less
worried about what is clearly as R' Carmy puts it "psycobabble"  - which
seems to me to be relatively harmless, although uninteresting, and the
more hard edged, action deriving interpretations divorced from the wider
tradition.

Kind Regards

Chana



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

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Does anyone know of any compilation of sources on this topic? I'm interested
in the historical flow which to my admittedly untutored eye appears to have
gone from being considered an act of the evil inclination to take compensation
to now being an act of the evil inclination not to take compensation.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Eli Writes:
Indeed (if I may climb upon my soapbox), I think many in the halakhic
community today suffer from an orientation (also criticized by my Rebbe)
which assumes that every answer in life can be found in the Shulhan
Arukh if only one knows how to find it.  Perhaps our listowner can
expand further upon this, as the very purpose of his organization -- and
avodah -- (as I understand it) is to address the integration of
spirituality with halakha<<

R. Moshe Heineman in a mussar shmuzz about 30 years ago said that the SA was the
absolute minimum to be a Jew, implying that not everything can be found in it...

Also there is a Maamor (I think the Malbim) re: Naase v'Nishma; that basic 
Halocho was NOT Nishma, rather it was a  prerequisite to Naaseh; l'moshol, just 
as a carftsmamn refers to a manual to know what to do and how to do it, so is 
halocho a basic guide to NAASEH, Nishma is the reflection, absorbtion, 
contemplation, Dovor mitoch Dovor aspect that goes above and beyond basic 
observance.  (Of course the SA does imply a LOT of mussar, hashkofo and kaballah
when one reads between the lines..)  This concept of Nishma is what separates 
the male chiyuv of Talmud Toarh from the general pracitcal chiyuv of knowing 
what's kosher, how to observe Shabbos etc.

R. Heinemman's mussar might have been understood that one should be more machmir
than the SA, that the SA was minimum implying the most kulo way of doing 
something, but practically speaking we are expected to do more.  

On another level, it might mean that the SA is basic Judaism.  But to be a fully
integrated Yid, hashkofo, mussar, machshovo, midos, chochmo, ruchniyus, 
menschlichkeit etc. is needed to round one out.  Beyond simple observance is 
Temimus (appropos to emulating Yaakov Ish Tam), etc.

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>I don't think anyone can disagree if with the potenial harm of the
computer.Therefore
>like everything else a costs-benefits analysis must be done. Different
community will
>legitimately have different weightings.  This issue is not new, nor are the
gedolim who
>are well aware of the harm that has occurred through the computer - naive,
primitives,
>or narrow minded reactionaries. The tone of the postings concerning this
issue have
>been inappropriate.

In my view, the Rabbanim in question should not be criticized for
issuing a warning about computers.  But I question the wisdom of the
person who hung their poster where R. Eli Turkel saw it.

I agree with R. Daniel that the signatories to the poster warning about
the dangers of the computer are neither naive nor primitive.  However, I
think they are narrow-minded.  But this is not always a perjorative
statement.  Narrow-mindedness can sometimes be a good thing, especially
when breadth of mind leads to the freewheeling, anything-goes mentality
typical of Western society today.

I think the Rabbanim are reactionary as well, but this too is no failing
if we take the word in its conventional sense of opposition to
liberalism.  Here, too, liberalism -- in both its intellectual and
cultural forms -- embodies much that is antithetical to Torah and Torah
values.

Indeed, I believe the Rabbanim who are critical of computers are
consistent.  They are likewise critical of the VCR, television, radio,
secular newspapers and the like.  The most apt description of their
position, I think, is not primitive, but paternalistic.  All of these
media contain much that is valuable, edifying and spiritually enriching.
 As Harry Maryles writes, a television, properly used, offers much for
the intellect and even the soul.  Misused, however, the computer, the
television, and other media can be a source of temptation and invitation
to sin.

Whether a blanket prohibition is the best approach is, I think, a matter
of public policy.  And the proper answer, as R. Daniel writes, may
differ from one community to the next.  In truth, I would have thought
that a blanket prohibition is not the best approach at a place like Tel
Aviv University (where the poster was hung on the bulletin board), but I
will defer to R. Eli Turkel on this point.  I also wonder if these
Rabbanim themselves think their position is community-specific or has
general application to all yirei Shamayim.

Are these rabbanim technophobic?  I suspect not, but there is a simple
way to determine the answer.  The logic underlying a blanket prohibition
against use of the internet or computer games should apply equally to
any secular library, which (though it cannot be brought into a home)
provides many of the same benefits and many of the same temptations as a
television or the internet, though in a less technologically advanced
format.  It seems to me that if these Rabbanim oppose the use of secular
libraries (and I suspect they do), then they cannot be accused of any
kind of technophobia.  Rather, they are consistent in prohibiting any
source of information which may lead one halakhically astray.

For the record, in my own life and in raising my children, I have not
adopted this policy, nor have my Rabbeim.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I am content to let others have last word on the akeida since I had more
than enough opportunity to state my position.  But in the spirit of our list
owner's recent posting, I would apologize for any excess sarcasm
contained in my previous postings.  No personal offense was intended;
certainly none taken on my part.  But let us also remember  that Chazal
were at times given to sharp expressions of disagreement with each
other when they were involved in arguments for the sake of heaven and
of truth.  See, e.g, Hullin 5b and the cross-reference in G. Hashas.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

>>>Found an expansion of  Chazal's criticism of the educational technique
of the Avos and further justification for Hirsch's comments. <<<

Your research is admirable, but fails to address the critical question of why
Hirsch did not feel the need to cite Chazals at length to justify his
criticism of the Avot but you do.  

-Chaim B.

In a message dated 11/16/98 8:45:17 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> V'hinei tov me'od! 
>  
>  YGB
>  
Zeh Malach... :-)

Umsaymim Btov
Kol  Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/16/98 3:55:40 PM EST, azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov writes:

> Last week someone asked about the source of the 4 pesukim that some
>  append after shir hama'alos.
>  
>  Yitzchak Zirkind responded "See Tur OC 51 and Shulchan Aruch Harov
>  51:9".
>  
In my haste (ducking from micha <g>), I erred, that reference is as you said
for Psukei Dzimroh.  The source for the 4 psukim after shir Hama'alos (or Al
Naharos Bovel), is Kabbalistic, with the first Possuk having a Mokor in the
Zohar (balak), the others are also mentioned in Sha'ar Hamitzvohs (Arizal-
Parshas Eikev), the explanation (brought in Lkutei MaHaREaCH (Birchas
Hamozon), is since the Satan can argue that only when we are satisfied we
Bentch therefore we say, Avoricho...Bchol Eis.  (perhaps likewise in Possuk 2,
we say Ki Zeh KOL Ho'odom), likewise psukim 3 and 4, Veevoreich...L'olom
V'oed, N'voreich..Mayatoh Vad Olom.  I further noticed that these 4 Psukim are
included among many more to be said "Sheloy Yechesaar Lachmoy", in the Siddur
Chasam Sofer.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

While I in general agree with Chana Luntz's warnings about emulating
the Avoth, I am les certain than she that bamoth are assur nowadays.  I
will, alas, be out of town for two weeks and so won't be able to watch
the sparks fly, but the chance was too good to miss.
  One of the Rambam's principles is that halacha is unchanged since
Moshe.  I know of two types of counterexamples.  One type is exemplified
by the chazal kether malchuth haya munach ad shenatlah David v'zachthah
lo ul'vanav.  This is reflected in the Rambam's insistence that one of
the qualifications for a king is to be descended from David (through
Shlomo).  Other Rishonim disagree.  The point, of course, is that even
according to the Rambam no such condition existed at the time of Moshe. 
There are other examples of this type.
  The second type is exemplified by the chazal hi haythah nachalah.  The
Rambam understood this to be a predetermined choice which was only put
into force later (one can certainly understand the relevant sugyoth that
way).  The technical problem is that there are a bunch of braithoth
which the gemara explains by saying that they refer to zman hether
habamoth.  If we believe the Rosh's principle that the gemara is
uninterested in history of law (I'm afraid I can't recall the source) it
must be telling us this in the expectation that bamoth will become
muthar again.  The conceptual problem is that the mishna's description
of flipflopping permissability of bamoth doesn't fit comfortably into
the Rambam, even though it can be shoehorned in.
  Another possibility (which can be shoehorned into the gemaras, I
think, but which the Rishonim would uniformly reject) is that bamoth
were assur in Talmudic times because there was a unified halachic
authority.  Now that there is no longer such a thing bamoth ought to be
muthar, and all the braithoth referring to them should be halachically
viable.  We can all go down to Tennessee (barring technical problems)
and sacrifice nedavoth.
  Any comments?

David Riceman

Oh - I'm actually on the verge of getting a grasp of the synagogue
question I asked a while ago (DV).  I hope to summarize once I've
finished.  In the meantime I highly recommend the Aruch HaShulhan on
Y.D. 214 (it's in the new volume 9).

I've been away from the list for a bit and am just now catching up, but this
is a point I felt I had to address, and my apologies if this particular point
was already discussed.

A previous poster wrote:

<<
I can't say that eyin tachas eyin literally means an eye for an eye because it
fis the literal traslation of the Torah and expect that to be part of torah. 
>>

So far, I have enjoyed the back and forth on what the limitations of parshanut
are.  But here I see an error in p'shat.  The LITERAL meaning of the words
ayin tachas ayin is exactly AN EYE IN PLACE OF AN EYE.  This is not the
HALACHIC understanding of the pasuk, but the halachic understanding is D'RASH,
not p'shat.

If asked the LITERAL meaning of the words, I MUST say 'an eye for an eye'.  If
asked how we understand those words, I MUST say 'monetary compensation for
damages'.  But to insist that the words 'ayin tachas ayin' literally means
monetary compensation for damages is to totally misunderstand the words of the
Torah.

This is not a new phenomenon.  In fact it was decried centuries ago by the
Rashbam.  As I have written previously here, Nechama Lebovitz a"h ( if the
term a"h is good enough in the rishonim for Moshe Rabbenu and David HaMelech,
I do not see it as a p'chisas kavod to use it for anyone else ) made great
contributions towards our returning back to viewing the text of the Torah from
a p'shat orientation.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center, Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 11/17/98 4:02:29 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> ( if the
>  term a"h is good enough in the rishonim for Moshe Rabbenu and David
HaMelech,
> 
>  I do not see it as a p'chisas kavod to use it for anyone else ) 

OTOH one wouldn't call Shmuel Rabi and Rabi Akiva Hago'on one wouldn't find
the term ADMU"R in Shaas, etc., as the value appropriated to these words were
changed.  Our use of Lshonos Shel Kovod is based on todays use of the terms.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> >>>Found an expansion of  Chazal's criticism of the educational technique
> of the Avos and further justification for Hirsch's comments. <<<
>
> Your research is admirable, but fails to address the critical question of why
> Hirsch did not feel the need to cite Chazals at length to justify his
> criticism of the Avot but you do.

That is rather obvious. Hirsch was *expressing*  Jewish ideas  - as an Adom Gadol
- without the academic style of footnoting and justifying everything he said. My
focus  is *documenting*  that Hirsch was not expressing ideas outside of the
understanding of Chazal.
It is not unusual for a Gadol to state an idea - with little support or perhaps
even citing inadequate  justification. But since he is a Gadol - it can be
assumed that there is a legitimate source. [There is a Maharsha someplace which
states this idea] I have a major problem with glibly assuming that anyone who has
been accepted as part of our mesora would express an idea which is not Toradik. I
don't deny that it could happen - but I would not be the one to make such a
judgment.

This presumption of  correctness of the statement of a gadol is true not only for
machshova but also for halacha. I have heard a number of times, that gedolim were
at times  not overwhelmed by Rav Moshe Feinstein's justification for his psak -
but accepted it anyway due to their knowledge that Rav Moshe Feinstein was Torah
personified.

In sum, my attitude to recognized gedolim parallels that of my attitude to the
Avos, Chazal,  Rishonim  and Achronim.
                                              Daniel Eidensohn

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> A previous poster wrote:
> <<
> I can't say that eyin tachas eyin literally means an eye for an eye because it
> fis the literal traslation of the Torah and expect that to be part of torah.
> >>
>
> So far, I have enjoyed the back and forth on what the limitations of parshanut
> are.  But here I see an error in p'shat.  The LITERAL meaning of the words
> ayin tachas ayin is exactly AN EYE IN PLACE OF AN EYE.  This is not the
> HALACHIC understanding of the pasuk, but the halachic understanding is D'RASH,
> not p'shat.
>
> If asked the LITERAL meaning of the words, I MUST say 'an eye for an eye'.  If
> asked how we understand those words, I MUST say 'monetary compensation for
> damages'.  But to insist that the words 'ayin tachas ayin' literally means
> monetary compensation for damages is to totally misunderstand the words of the
> Torah.

The defining of pshat as that which is the simple meaning or translation was
rejected by the Chavas Yair. He states in Mar Kashisha page 29. "The explanation
of a verse not being removed from its psaht - does not mean that pshat is that
which a school child or an am haAretz would understand the verse to mean. Pshat is
the meaning of the verse by the scholar. Therefore if the simple translation makes
no sense and we have to explain it in a way that makes sense - that explanation is
called Pshat and not the simple translation." He cites aiyen tachas aiyen as one
of  a number of  examples.

                                               Daniel Eidensohn

I'm not as sure the literal meaning is "an eye in place of an eye". That
would be "bimkom". I couldn't find a single case where "tachas" means "in
place of". However, "tachas" is used elsewhere to mean "payment". So it then
becomes "an eye's payment for an eye".

In this case, the halachic understanding fits the word usage better.

That's not to say I disagree with the point, just the example. Of course,
it unfortunately also puts me at odds with the Chavos Ya'ir. I can't see
how he uses this as an example of a "complex p'shat", as (to me at least)
it's the straight translation of the words -- once you're careful to note
the exact wording.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5980 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 17-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 11/17/98 4:59:47 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

>  I couldn't find a single case where "tachas" means "in
>  place of".

See Breishis 45:33.

Kol  Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/17/98 5:16:29 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:

> See Breishis 45:33.

Should read 44:33

YZ

Since there have been no MJ announcment digests that I have seen till now,
I take the liberty of asking here if anyone knows Rabbi Rakkefet's e-mail
address.

Thanks.

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 ]