Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 081

Wednesday, December 16 1998

• Re: Ais La'asos
• Re: Torah vs Secular Thought
• Re: Torah vs. Secular Thought
• Re: Heaven & Halacha
• Re: Avodah V2 #79
• Re: Heaven & Halacha
• Reuven
• avodah v. 80, Yosef as a moreid
• Re: R. Eybeschuetz
• Does this list ruin Parsha :)
• Re: Yoseif as a moreid
• The Controversy Between Ya'avetz and R. Y. Eyebeschuetz
• Re: Kollel - class system
• Re: The Controversy Between Ya'avetz and R. Y. Eyebeschuetz
• Re: The Controversy Between Ya'avetz and R. Y. Eyebeschuetz
• Consensus and Torah

On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> Is there an example where "eis la'asos" nullifies a real issur? For
> example, in the case of "d'varim sheba'al peh i ata risha'i", which of
> the 613 are being violated? To me it looks like the application is more
> oriented toward terminating minhagei Yisrael or possibly chumros, and
> not necessarily actual issurim. 

Shmuel 2:21 comes to mind again. Pasuk 10 or so.

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 12/15/98 7:01:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:


 The second issue of more relevance to this list is the Torah guidelines for
 dealing with this type of issue. The guidelines revolve around the issue of
what
 difference does it make. If in fact you have concluded that the accused was
 probably  guilty - what are the consequences? The answer is nothing. Since
his
 books are widely accepted - and contain no heretical material - no one is
going
 to throw them out or burn them. 

                                                     Daniel Eidensohn

It's my general impression that the Yeshiva world strongly believes that if
the author of a sefer is considered heretical that his chidushim, even if
bulletproof from a logical point of view and not containing kfira, are un-
chidushim and that his works may not be read. Am I off base?

chag urim sameach,
Joel Rich

I hesitate to post among such eminent scholars, but I would disagree with
Daniel Eidensohn when he writes, among other things: 

"In sum, from a halachic point of view - there is no justification for you
to
publicize your condemnations concerning the dispute between these two
gedolim.There is absolutely no benefit to anyone by  publicly deciding
between
them."

This is too general.  While I am not qualified to debate the finer points
of hilkhes loshn-hore and thereby cannot make a strong legal case, it seems
obvious that the Emden-Eybeshuts dispute is necessary to discuss, in the
same way that the Hillel-Shammai or Rambam-anti-Rambam disputes are
necessary.  A dissection of such events can teach us a great deal about how
and why people -- even gedoylim -- behave how they do in a given context. 
Even if both are considered "innocent" from a juridical perspective, this
begs a deeper historical question: what were the roots of the furor and how
can we understand what really happened (if indeed that's possible) in the
context of the extant ksavim?  Talking about their case does not mean we
"decide" between them -- no one can.  It just means we can help ourselves
to understand similar cases that might arise in the future.

A present-day example: a number of Jews hold that the Lubavitsher Rebbe
was/is Meshiekh.  Just as many or more heatedly disagree.  Inevitably, in
the discussion of this issue, there will be those that assess the character
of the Rebbe in ways others take to be criticism.  Are we to avoid saying
anything?  To classify the "secular" point of view as "I must be heard!"
and the halachic view as mandated silence (what about "loy eshkoyt"?) seems
to me to be a false dichotomy: certainly not everything that might
conceivably cast Torah scholars in an unfavorable light must be silenced?

a freylekhn khanike
Sholem Berger
bergez01@med.nyu.edu

I think we can understand the concept of divine inspiration regarding
learning and psak in a simpler way (although R. Eidensohn once again made a
series of excellent points.) Torah being holy and not just another
intellectual pursuit demands increased siata deshmiya to be understood
properly and truthfully. I believe that this is part of the beracha of
chonen hadaas--we're asking Hashem to help us in matters of Torah and
choosing between right and wrong, but we need Hashem's help-it is not just
crunching numbers and facts. It has been pointed out that although many
generations have a number of gedolim it seems that one or two have their
psak accepted--this is attributed to this extra element of siata deshmiya.
We can say that the mechaber was also working with that type of siata
deshmiya, as well as the help from the magid. I think this revolves
around
a long time Bais tefilla dispute where we wondered if Joe Shaygetz can
answer a Rambam if he seems correct. I'd be more wary of Joe Shaygetz's
answer because his answer might be missing the crucial element of siata
deshmiya-even if Joe Shaygetz is otherwise brilliant. I once heard this
yesod used to explain why women can't posken halacha like men can. It's
not that women are less intelligent, we know that's not true. However,
since women have no chiuv in T.T. they have less siata dishmaya then a
man who has a chiuv thus effecting the emes of their psak. I know this
point will be debated , and I preface my remarks by saying no I can't
prove it and I don't remember the source--although I could look for it. I
bring it up because I believe that its logical to assume that when dealing
with Torah--mere intelligence or analysis is not enough if not accompanied
with divine help, its the divine nature of Torah which makes this so. 
Thus although we have the idea of lo bashmayim he, it's clear that correct
psak needs divine inspiration.
E.G.

> Subject: Haamidu Talmidim Harbei
> 
> Dr. Allswang writes:
> >>The glosses of the Yaavetz(RYE, if you wish) on Avos Dr Noson makes a
point 
> that even Beis Shamai when he limited teaching to ashirim, was referring
to 
> baalei midos of high character, who were happy with their lot, not the
wealthy 
> elite.<<

 
> Does RYE disucss how it happened that his contepmorary Hillel was kept
out of 
> the BM and had to hear Torah via the skyight?  Was Hillel's poverty one
of lack 
> of Torah Ashirus?
> 
> Regards,
> Rich wolpoe

The point there was that Hillel was so poor he didn't even have money to
pay for his small share of the upkeep of the Beis Medrish. The thrust of
that Agadta is that whenever entrance criteria of any type exist, certain
individuals will invariably suffer from injustice . That is true in any
attempt to draw the line between people. The Gemora is clearly taking a
critical look at the B.Shamai/ R. Gamliel approach. However, the entrance 
fee was not a means of filtering out the non-elite; it was a beurocratic
requirement which happened to keep out the most suitable student, and
caused him suffering - but didn't hinder his learning due to his strong
will.  

In fact it seems that the main concern of R Gamliel and Shammai was whether
the student was "tocho cbaro" meaning that the student possesses qualities
that will ensure that it will be applied properly. Teaching Torah to
someone who may misuse it is such a legitimate concern that it justified,
in their opinion,  selective entrance criteria. B. Hillel maintained that
mass dissemination justifies the risk of potential misuse by certain
individuals.

Regards,

Avraham Allswang  
> ------------------------------

In a message dated 98-12-16 01:28:58 EST, you write:

<<  I believe that its logical to assume that when dealing
 with Torah--mere intelligence or analysis is not enough if not accompanied
 with divine help, its the divine nature of Torah which makes this so. 
 Thus although we have the idea of lo bashmayim he, it's clear that correct
 psak needs divine inspiration.
 E.G. >>
I guess the question is whether the siyata dshmaya , which I think we all
agree exists, manifests itself through derech hateva(eg insight to get to the
correct result) or michutz lateva(eg my psak is right but I have no idea why).
I've always understood it to be the former

Chag urim sameach
Joel Rich

Micha wrote:
>>Instead, I had understood him to mean "Had I known that my actions were
l'doros, and therefore knew in advance that they had value..."<<

Rav Frand's Parha shiru on Vayeshev gives a peshat to Reuvain, Aaron and Boaza 
as follows:

"I am in doubt if my psak is correct.  Had I known that the Torah would have 
ratified my psak, I would have done it with gusto..." 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

>>>I thought that despite being a machlokes in Talmudic times it is clear that
Torah is not just for the elite, but for everyone.<<<

True, but only in an ideal world.  Realistically, the constraints of
allocating limited communal funding willy nilly forces compromises.  

>>>In fact, to clever for me to feel it's realistic. It's one thing to say the
avos (and sh'vatim?) kept all of Torah, but they engaged in pilpul too?<<<

I don't know if the Avos engaged in pilpul, or if the Rambam engaged in
Brisker Torah either, but it doesn't stop us from doing so : - ). Seriously
though, many achronim (e.g. Parashas Derachim, Chasam Sofer, Maharil Diskin,
etc.) were not bothered by saying pilpul in chumash, but to each his/her own.

A final note on Yosef: I wanted to suggest that Yosef was judged as a moreid
b'malchus, similar to Ramban's comments (38:24) on Tamar's burning.  This
removes the issue of being judged by kerovim (which admittedly doesn't come up
if you learn he was a rodef), it allows for flexibility in determining his
punishment (acc. to Shut Rashba cited in B"Y end C"M 388, though Yitzchok Z.
pointed out Rambam in Hil. Melachim is cholek, see first line in Yeruslami
Perek Arba Misos), it explains why Yehudah and Reuvain are the central
characters, and is very meduyak in reading of "hamaloch timloch aleinu".  Just
a thought...

-Chaim Brown

Daniel Eidensohn writes"

<<<
In sum, if you posken like Rabbi Yehoshua it would seem that Heaven is not
relevant to the halachic process to either change the Torah or to decide
between
disputants. According to the Rabbonim (Eruvin, Yevmos, Pesachim, Chullin) it
would seem that Heaven will not change the Torah but it  can indicate a
binding
preference between disputants such as Shammai and Hillel. However in
regards to
Heaven giving inspiration there is no clear source that states that Heaven
can't
provide inspiration that enables a person to decide halacha in such a way
that it
is superior to others (Bava Basra 12a). This is the Raavad, and the Chasam
Sofer,
the Arizal as well as Rav Yonasan Eybeshutz and many others. The concept
of
Yisroel being bnai neviim (Pesachim 66a) also assumes that G-d provides
inspiration for Klall Yisroel to recognize the correct approach to follow in
halacha. [see R' Aryeh Kaplan Handbook I page 233 12:8]. Therefore the
acceptance
of the Shulchan Aruch as a basis of halacha can be legitimately understood
as
resulting from it being written with Ruach HaKodesh. This doesn't necessarily
mean that others can't disagree with it - but only that it has a special status
The consequences of this special status can also be a matter of dispute.
>>>

I don't think that we disagree significantly if at all.  If someone wants to
accept the Shulchan Aruch as being Divinely inspired and chooses never to
deviate from the p'sak recorded in the Shulchan Aruch even when other well
recognized authorities rule differently, tavo alav b'rachah.  I may therefore
have slighly overstated when I said that a claim of Divine inspiration on
behalf of a p'sak carries no halachic weight.  It carries weight to the extent
that it may induce other poskim to gravitate toward the Divinely inspired as
opposed to the Divinely noninspired opinion.  However, a claim of Divine
inspiration cannot be used to compel assent to any particular halachic
position in the manner that R. Eybeschuetz attempted to do on behalf of the
Shulchan Aruch.  

<<<
In sum, from a halachic point of view - there is no justification for you to
publicize your condemnations concerning the dispute between these two
gedolim.There is absolutely no benefit to anyone by  publicly deciding
between
them. What you want to believe in private is your own business. The gemora
Berachos 19a states some pretty harsh things about those who criticize
talmidei
chachomim after their death. The only relevant issue is whether to deal with
this
from the secular value system or from the Torah point of view.
>>>

I tried to make a point discretely concerning what seemed to me an
indefensible claim of infallibility that R. Eybeschuetz made on behalf of the 
Shulhan Aruch.  But perhaps I was not discrete enough.  If the
Emden/Eybeschuetz controversy is a subject about which we should not be
speaking publicly, perhaps it would have been better not to engage me in a
public conversation about it in the first place.  At any rate, I have little desire
to pursue this particular thread any further.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Micha, if we reject Chaim Brown's vort, which I thought was very creative,
then it appears to me that, inorder to be consistent, you must destroy most
of the halakhic-based pshatim/perushim on chumash  in Bais Halevi, Iturei
Torah, Mayana Shel Torah, Aderes Eliyahu, etc. etc. Are you willing to go
that far? Is it all "not Torah", i.e. "megaleh panim baTorah"?

NW

To clarify:

I have no problem with pilpul, even as a means of understanding the parashah.

What I am having problems with is trying to believe that Re'uvein engaged in
a deep analysis of whether or not he was a Ben Noach, and therefore was
speaking about whether "machshavah ra'ah mitzaref[es?] lima'asah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6007 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

R. D. Eidensohn takes David Glasner to task for siding with Ya'avetz
against R. Yonatan E.
I admit that that the ferocity of his remarks caught me by surprise.
However, I am not the arbiter of darkhei no'am principles for this list,
and I gratefully defer to our fearless listowner on that issue.

Regarding the substance of RDE's remarks, however, I feel comfortable
expressing a strong dissent.  There are, I think, several issues which
need to be separated.  One is the value or permissibility of taking a
side in this controversy.  Second is the viability of RDE's perspective
("they are both tzadikim").  Third is whether RDE's criticism of David
Glasner's conduct is justified.  I will address these issues in reverse
order.

In my view, there is no place for accusing David of slander or
criticizing his decision to follow R. Ya'akov Emden.  If one accepts
that Ya'avetz is a bar samkha, and RDE clearly does, then one should be
allowed to rely upon him.  Put another way, if what David wrote was
slander, then so is what R. Ya'akov Emden wrote.  I do not understand
how one can defend the latter and criticize the former.  I think it is
clear that R. Ya'akov Emden did more than voice suspicions; he drew
clear conclusions and publicized them.  One can argue that Ya'avetz
himself was a Gadol and therefore was qualified to write what he did,
whereas we cannot do so.  That makes sense, but only applies to
originating our own criticisms.  If one chooses to rely upon the
judgement of R. Ya'akov Emden, one should be insulated from criticism.
(On the other hand, if one assumes R. Ya'akov Emden was wrong, then he
should be judges accordingly.  More on this below.)

RDE points out that there have been other violent disagreements among
Gedolim.  While I think these may be distinguished from the controversy
at issue, I will accept the comparison for the sake of argument.  In
terms of those other disputes, how do we resolve them?  The answer is
that we view ourselves as permitted to follow either side of the
dispute.  Why then is someone being pilloried for accepting the
Ya'avetz's judgement in this case? 

I simply do not understand RDE's position of elu ve-elu.  RDE apparently
believes that the Torah requires us to abstain from making a public
statement on the issue.  He then points out that "Rav Yonasan is fully
accepted in religious circles as innocent."   This is in accord with Dr.
Leiman's assessment.  But this indicates that the yeshiva world has not
chosen to be silent; they have sided with R. Yonatan E. against the
Ya'avetz.  (Whether this conclusion is based on the evidence or other
factors, I do not know for certain.)  In principle, such a position
would lead to the conclusion that R. Ya'akov Emden made a terrible error
and in fact committed slander against a Gadol ha-Dor.  RDE suggests that
if the Ya'avetz had evidence to justify his attacks, then what he did
was valid, even if he was wrong.  I do not understand this at all.  In
the case of mere suspicions, R. Ya'akov Emden would surely have been dan
le-kaf zekhut.   Perhaps he could have approached R. Yonatan E.
privately with his suspicions.  Instead, he took his attacks public.
Moreover, we know that he did not merely express suspicions, but
organized a public campaign against R. Yonatan E.  Surely his attacks,
if false, were slanderous.  (Related issue: Does one need to have
kavannah to violate the issur of motzi shem ra?)   This raises the
question why the community that embraces R. Yonatan E. has not
reevaluated its opinion of the Ya'avetz.  I have my own theory on this,
but it is sociological and not essential to this thread.

Perhaps most surprising is RDE's view that the Torah point of view is to
say nothing.  Aside from the fact, noted above, that in this case the
yeshiva world has not done so, it is surprising coming from its source.
 This list once hosted a rancorous debate regarding absolute versus
relative truth.  In this case, however, an honest search for absolute
truth is being discouraged.  Now, one can say that we simply do not need
to know the absolute truth about many issues, such as the identity of
all of Thomas Jefferson's children.  Or the color of R. Akiva's beard.
But the resolution of this controversy is not a matter of academic
interest.  It relates to the actions of two major gedolim and, whether
people choose to recognize this or not, has clear implications for the
authority and acceptability of their Torah.  I cannot understand how one
can claim that whether a person was a closet Sabbatean or a public
slanderer of a Gadol ha-Dor has "no consequences" when reading a
teshuvah or a perush written by that person.

I can understand a person who has not examined the evidence and has no
opinion on the matter simply professing ignorance.  I can understand
someone who feels that the controversy can never be resolved and
therefore leaves the whole subject with a tzarikh iyyun.  I can
understand a person who chooses to side with the historians or the
yeshiva world.  I can understand someone who has an opinion but chooses
not to share it with anyone, as Dr. Leiman presumably does.  But I
cannot understand a person who holds that both are tzadikim.  This, to
my mind, is irrational.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

 

mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:

>      Now assuming  that Kollel nowadays is permitted - how can we start to
> exclude people based on our perception. ( See Gemarah Bava Basra 10a ("olam
> haphuch") - our assumption can be wrong.)  As long as a person is coming
> and learning Torah shouldn't he paid regardless of what the world thinks
> his potential is?


This thread has been discussed before in various different incarnations. 
Resolution of the above mentioned issue seems like such a simple concept 
to me.  One does not learn for forty years in a kollel only to suddenly 
become the gadol hador one afternoon.  The truth is that any Rosh Kollel 
worth his salt will know which of his students to guide into a lifetime 
of learning Torah full time.  The idea of mediocrity holding reign in 
kollelim is anathema to me.  The only people who should be learning in 
Kolel full time are those individuals who truely have the potential to 
be Gedolei Hador.  For the most of rest of us, the process should go 
something like this:  Post high school - 1 or 2 years of uniterupted 
learning. Then, learning in conjuction with an eye towards contributing 
in some other way to klal Israel, whether it be in pursuit of a career 
in chinuch, or some other profession.  (Ala Y.U., H.T.C., or Ner Israel)

R. Aaron Soloveichik has stated many times both in print and in word 
that the concept of "Vehogiso Bo Yomim VaLaila" which applies to all of 
us, applies differently to those who are potnetial Gedolei HaDor. The 
"Yechidei SeGulah" are the ones who should devote full uninterrupted 
time to Torah study.  The rest of us can fulfil that mitzvah with as 
little as recitation of the pasuk of Krias Shema - once in the morning 
and once in the evening..  Of course there is a wide spectrum between 
those two extremes and one should learn as much as possible.  But to say 
that people who are not on the level to become Gedolei HaDor should 
nevertheless spend their full time learning for more than a couple of 
years at the expense of learning a parnassa or the like is both wrong 
and is a problem of tragic proportions.  

Now, of course, no one should be denied the opportunity to learn full 
time for as long as he wants.  This will enable the "late Bloomers" to 
blossom late. The problem is THERE IS NO GUIDANCE! If someone goes into 
learning full time and thinks he just may be a late bloomer then HE 
SHOULD DO IT INFORMED, AND WITH HIS EYES WIDE OPEN! As I have stated an 
almost infinite number of times, it seems that Roshei Kollel do NOT 
encourage the majority of their talmidim who will NEVER BE Gedolim to 
look for other ways in which their talents can be utilized to better 
purpose. Instead, they allow the Status Quo to exist wherein there are 
many Yungeleit who are encouraged to spend the best years of their lives 
learning "relatively well" and then "all of a sudden" they have a large 
family with absolutlely no training in any form for parnasah and a poor 
attitude about the work ethic. (e.g. "Of course I will only work a half 
day on Friday because I have to prepare for Shabbos"!!!)

The solution is simple but it's implementation is near impossible.  
Unfrotunately decades of indoctrination about the importance of learning 
to geneartions of talmidim, along with much folklore about how the 
previous generations strove to learn under the most difficult of 
circumstances producing great Gedolei Hador, has created a situation 
that is at once self perpetuating and counterproductive to the work 
ethic.  And, nothing is being done to change hearts and minds. Instead 
the present system is perpetuated so that existing fifedoms will 
continue to flourish.

I think it is wrong.

HM

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
  But I
> cannot understand a person who holds that both are tzadikim.  This, to
> my mind, is irrational.
> 
B> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark

I'm not sure if the following will answer your question but I'll try.
There is a difference between a dispute lsam shamayim and one that isn't.
In another words beis shammi vs beis hillel, gra vs hasidism, netziv vs
soloveichiks, Rambam vs Anti rambam people, where even though the
disputents held radically different views we know everyone is lsham
shamayim and its hard (if not assur) for us to say the gra was a tzaddik
but the baal
shem tov wasn't. The fact that the disputents refered to each other in a
certain way doesn't license us to do the same. we must understand the
opinions of the two tzadikim. However a dispute shlo lshem shamayim ie
maskilim vs frum , sadduces vs pharisses we can conclude one is right (a
tzadik) whereas one is wrong. 
E.G.

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

>  This list once hosted a rancorous debate regarding absolute versus
> relative truth.  In this case, however, an honest search for absolute
> truth is being discouraged.  Now, one can say that we simply do not need
> 

My unsolicited $0.02:

I agree with REC that Avodah is a legitimate forum for the discussion of
the controversy between the RYEs, and feel that David Glasner is perfectly
within his rights to bring it up. If this was MJ, I would say otherwise -
but it is not. I personallly would be grateful for as much clarification
as to the objectionability of Sabbatean Kabbala as possible.

One quibble: My impression of Dr. Leiman's understanding of the Yeshiva
world's position, based on his analysis of the Noda b'Yehuda's response,
is that there is a certain doubt as to RYEb's possition, but for purposes
of preventing Chillul Hashem, we should cover up and paper over as much as
possible.

YGB

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

Before getting started I want to note three things. 1) My comments
concerning the condemnations of Rav Yonansan were not an attack on David
Glassner - who I admire as a intelligent and sincere Yid as well as a valued
contributor to this list. My point was and is - that given the consensus
status of  Rav Eybeshutz  in the Torah world as a tzadik - a public
condemnation of him constitutes slander. 2) Rabbi Clark has written an
articulate critique of my posting  which indicates that certain points did
not get communicated. I will respond  point by point.

Clark, Eli wrote:

> In my view, there is no place for accusing David of slander or
> criticizing his decision to follow R. Ya'akov Emden.  If one accepts
> that Ya'avetz is a bar samkha, and RDE clearly does, then one should be
> allowed to rely upon him.  Put another way, if what David wrote was
> slander, then so is what R. Ya'akov Emden wrote.  I do not understand
> how one can defend the latter and criticize the former. ....  If one
> chooses to rely upon the
> judgement of R. Ya'akov Emden, one should be insulated from criticism.

I would agree with the above  - *only* if we were living in  the time of the
original dispute. As was pointed out by Sholem Berger there is value in
understanding the nature of disputes - even between gedolim. Thus I would
agree that it is important to understand and take sides with the present
dispute concerning the messianic status of the Lubavtischer Rebbe. In 1998 -
there is benefit from voicing an opinion about the Rebbe's status  because
there is no consensus in the Torah World and through discussion it is
possible to bring about needed change. The dispute with Rav Emden is
different, however, because a consensus has been established amongst our
rabbinic leaders - as Dr. Leiman has pointed out. Prior to the forming of
that consensus it is appropriate to publicly choose sides.  This is no
different than the other thread - concerning the Shulchan Aruch - one has no
right today to publicly voice the condemnations that were appropriate before
the Shulchan Aruch was accepted as a foundation work. Therefore we can no
longer voice the opinion of the Yaavetz as a viable position. There is no
faction of our rabbis who views it  as a valid option. No one is campaigning
to burn the writings of either Rav Yonason or Rav Yaakov  This is no
different than the fact that we can no longer have the option of siding with
Beis Shammai - but at one time it was permitted. In sum - today one can not
hide behind the Yaavetz - because of the universal rejection of his
accusations.

> RDE points out that there have been other violent disagreements among
> Gedolim.  While I think these may be distinguished from the controversy
> at issue, I will accept the comparison for the sake of argument.  In
> terms of those other disputes, how do we resolve them?  The answer is
> that we view ourselves as permitted to follow either side of the
> dispute.  Why then is someone being pilloried for accepting the
> Ya'avetz's judgement in this case?

There are differences between these  disputes. We can analyze the
disagreements of Shammai and Hillel - knowing full well that Shammai is not
viable for halacha l'maaseh. I know this to be true because the gemora does
it, the rishonim and achronim do it. Our rabbinic leadership sets the
standard for acceptability. Similarly the disputes concerning the Rambam
still contain valuable lessons whether I agree or disagree with the role of
philosophy etc. Hirsch's critiques demonstrate that the issues are still
viable and relevant . There is a to'eles in taking sides. This is not true
with the dispute whether Rav Yonason was a heretic. Due to the consensus
that he was not - there is nothing gained by publicly voicing a contrary
opinion. But there is a degradation of Kavod HaTorah by publicly indicating
disagreement with consensus view i.e., slander

> I simply do not understand RDE's position of elu ve-elu.  RDE apparently
> believes that the Torah requires us to abstain from making a public
> statement on the issue.  He then points out that "Rav Yonasan is fully
> accepted in religious circles as innocent."   This is in accord with Dr.
> Leiman's assessment.  But this indicates that the yeshiva world has not
> chosen to be silent; they have sided with R. Yonatan E. against the
> Ya'avetz....

> ...
> But the resolution of this controversy is not a matter of academic
> interest.  It relates to the actions of two major gedolim and, whether
> people choose to recognize this or not, has clear implications for the
> authority and acceptability of their Torah.  I cannot understand how one
> can claim that whether a person was a closet Sabbatean or a public
> slanderer of a Gadol ha-Dor has "no consequences" when reading a
> teshuvah or a perush written by that person.

Again  - if one was living in the 1700's and he found major talmidei
chachomim exchanging horrifying accusation - it would be necessary to take
sides. Today there is only a single position  - whether one learns in the
Mirrer Yeshiva or Y.U. Rav Yonason & Rav Yaakov are amongst our heroes. If
Rav Soleveitchik and Rav Moshe Feinstein - knowing full well the implication
of your well articulated problem - did not see fit to takes sides between
Rav Yonason and Rav Yaakov - who are we? In the last one hundred years has
any gadol said -" I can't rest until I have determined if one of them was  a
shagetz?" c.v. The Torah world has done exactly as I have said. It has
recognized both men as gedolei Torah. Your repeated assertions that that is
impossible - is not the view of our gedolim.

> I can understand a person who has not examined the evidence and has no
> opinion on the matter simply professing ignorance.  I can understand
> someone who feels that the controversy can never be resolved and
> therefore leaves the whole subject with a tzarikh iyyun.  I can
> understand a person who chooses to side with the historians or the
> yeshiva world.  I can understand someone who has an opinion but chooses
> not to share it with anyone, as Dr. Leiman presumably does.  But I
> cannot understand a person who holds that both are tzadikim.  This, to
> my mind, is irrational.

This is actually the sticking point. I don't view the acceptance of both as
tzadikim as irrational. As a psychologist and student of history - there
were other fights where both sides exchanged horrifying accusations and yet
both were tzadikim e.g. Chassidus versus Litvaks.

However - lets assume you are right that one of these men was a heretic
c.v.. The fact that there is a consensus of gedolim on this issue - that
both are to be viewed as tzadikim - precludes the viability of any ben Torah
from taking a public stand against it.

In sum, stating negative judgments of individuals when there is no benefit
constitutes slander. As long as there is a consensus of rabbinic authorities
that both men are viewed as tzadikim - it is slander to publicly state
otherwise. The perceived rationality or irrationality of this acceptance of
the judgment of our teachers - does not change this fact. As you agree with
me to the facts of that consensus - this precludes the only possible
refutation of what I have presented. Is there even one major gadol in the
last one hundred years  who disagrees with what I have said?.

As regarding the issue of darkei noam - my comments were directed entirely
at the inappropriateness of publicly condemning a person whom the consensus
of modern rabbinic opinion views as a  tzadik. There was no intent to
contradict the consensus of this list  that David Glasner is  a genuine
yirei shamayim and talmid chachom - as well as valued poster. If anyone
understood my statements as a personal attack - I fully apologize to Reb
Dovid and I reiterate I have very high regard for him and his postings..


                                               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 ]