Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 084

Monday, December 21 1998

• Re: aydim zomemim
• Re: ais la'asos vs hora'as sha'ah
• RYE vs RYE
• Re: RYE vs RYE
• Re: Milah for Mitzrim
• Re: Menorah
• Hefker B"D: Yerushalmi Shekalim
• Re: The Controversy Between the RYEs
• Re: RYE/RYE
• Re: Avodah V2 #82
• Re: RYE/RYE
• Re: Avodah V2 #82
• Re:ruach ha-kodesh & lo bashamayim Hee
• Kollelim
• how to delist
• Re: ruach ha-kodesh & lo bashamayim Hee

Micha asks:

<<
Why are eidim zomemim paid "ka'asher zamam"? It can't be a variant of "ayin
tachas ayin" as that wouldn't explain why "... v'lo ka'asher asah", nor would
it explain why corporal punishment, and not monetary fines, are imposed.

I therefore want to argue that the eidim are punished for their own p'gamim.
"Kol haposeil b'mumo poseil". Therefore, we assume that if they accuse others
of some flaw, they must have that flaw themselves.
>>

What about situations where there is malkos as opposed to ka'asher zamam ( ben
g'rusha, etc. ), where it can based on a technicality ( lo, v'lo l'doros ) or
reality ( the aydim are not kohanim, and a declaration that they are b'nay
g'rshua makes no difference ).  What p'sul is there in a non-kohain that
matches ben g'rusha?

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Was Eliyahu b'har HaCarmel a situation of pure eis la'asos, or was it modified
by being a hora'as sha'a? I would argue the situation is entirely different,
having to do with hilchos nevu'ah, not p'sak halachah.
>>

I always understood the hora'ah in hora'as sha'ah as a p'sak, and not a
n'vuah.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

> I have heard arguments that the dispute essentially destroyed the authority of
> the rabbinate in the 1700's and thus prepared the ground for the chassidic
> revolution. I agree that a renewal of the debate is not likely to be of this

Better documentary case can be made that the controversy undermined
rabbinate in Western Europe. After all, this is where the confrontation
took place: in Hamburg and Denmark. This is where rabbinical power was
soon curtailed. (See, e.g. Jacob Katz's article in Zion ~1988-9,
respecting attacks on the authority of Rabbi Katznelboygen, who preceded
R. Yonatan in the "three town" position.)

I have been following the track of RYE vs RYE and feel that a little bit 
of clarification is in order.  I must admit that I have not read every 
single post in it's entirety and I apologize if I am repeating what has 
already been stated.

The accusation of R. Emden against R Eibeshutz was that the latter was a 
follower of the false Messiah, Shabsai Tzvi.  R. Emden determined this 
through the discovery of an amulet (Cameo, Kameah) written by RYE 
wherein it was written in some form, a veiled refference to Belief in 
Sh. Tzvi as the Mesiah. It seems that the GRA and The Noda Be Yehuda (R. 
Yecheskal Landau)  Maintained that RYE was innocent of such heresy and 
R. Emden and other Rabbonim of the Community of Altona felt that they 
had proof that RYE was a heretic.  The controversy was saw widespread 
that it came to the attention of Emporer Fredrick of Denmark who decided 
that R. Emden was right and that RYE was a dangerous heretic and had 
hjim removed from his post as Rabbi of Altona.

The great controversy between R.Jonathan Eibeshutz and R.Jacob Emden is 
dicussed in great length by infinately stupid Heinrich Graetz, 
historian, and apostate Student of R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. Anyone 
who has had the opportunity to read any portion of his masterwork, The 
History of the Jews, can easily see the great bias he had against both 
Rabbinic Judaism and Rabbinic scholars.  However, not withsanding this 
incredible bias, Graetz seems to quote the exact words of an amulet 
found wherein Shabsai Tzvi was clearly reffered to as the Messiah. 
(although Graetz himself states that some of the words were altered some 
letters were substituted in thinly veiled attempt to disguise the 
amulet's reference to Sh. Tzvi as the Messiah) This was long after Sh. 
Tzvi had himself converted to Islam.  

Apparently, Not withstanding Graetz asertion that RYE was indeed a 
heretical follower of Sh. Tzvi., it seemas there is a large body of 
evidence to the contrary and, with GRA leading the charge, RYE has been 
vindicated, yet in his own time and enjoys a place of honor amongst the 
great authors and rabbinic figures in history.

Does anyone know of any reliable sources about the controversy?

HM

>The Meshech Chochma on P' VaYishlach writes that there is an issur for a
B"N
>to be chovel himself; the residents of Shchem failed to be mal l'shem
geirus
>and were therefore chayav misah. If so, what did Yosef hope to
accomplish by
>forcing the Mitzrim to be mal (Rashi 41:55) and potentially violate an
issur
>misah ?  Gur Arye cryptically writes "yesh bazeh davar nifla meod..." -
any
>ideas?

See Likutei Sichos by the Lubavicher Rebbe , volume 4, on parashas
Mikeitz.  He proposes an interesting idea.  In a nutshell:  When Paro
appopinted Yosef to be the ruler of Egypt, the Mitzrim gained the stutus
of "Anshei Beis Avraham" mentionned in the Rambam (Hilchos mlackim), who,
like slaves have to be circumcized.  See the sicha for more info.  

As to why the same didn't apply to Shechem, my best guess is that Anshei
Shechem were not interested in becoming subservient members of Yakov's
household.  They wanted to become one happy joint family.  Hence no
hetter of anshei beis Avraham.

Raffy   
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In a message dated 12/18/98 10:35:29 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> the Rambam could very well have been
>  wrong. His opinion about the shape of the arms of the menorah is a da'as
>  yachid, anyway. The rabim agree with the arcs shown on the arch of Titus
>  haRasha.
>  
In Likutei Sichos Vol. 21 pg. 168 and on, The Lubavitcher Rebbe Discusses this
at length and concludes to make Menorahs like the Rambam (as is also known his
objection to round Luchos), he brings Rashi Shmos 25:32, "B'alachson".

Happy Chanukah
Yitzchok Zirkind

For those who are daf-yomi learners, maybe you have some thoughts: there is a
machloket Rishonim (Rambam/Ra'avad Shmitah 9:16, also Tos. Gittin 36a d"h mi
ika midi) whether hefker B"D can uproot a din d'orayta, e.g. does Hillel's
takkanah of Pruzbul, which works through hefker B"D, override even the
d'orayta of shmitah or must we first assume that shmitah is d'rabbanan for it
to work.  Pashut pshat in the Yerushalmi (Sh. hal. 2) is that through hefker
B"D we uproot a chiyuv d'orayta of ma'asros, no?   

-Chaim    

(It is tempting to answer that the chachamim simply removed ba'alus and
m'meila the chiyuv d'orayta of ma'aser doesn't apply to hefker - not that they
actually overrode the chiyuv - but could one not also argue by shmitah that
once the loveh's ba'alus is removed m'meila there is no issur on the malveh to
collect the loan?)

>It is axiomatic by me (forgive yeshiveshe jargon, please!) that RYEb was a
>yerei shomayim, shomer torah u'mitzvos, m'dakdek b'kalla k'ba'chamura -
>and far beyond. It is clear to me, also, that RYEm knew this to be the
>case - but felt that there was a subtle sub-surface inclination towards
>Sabbateanism in RYEb's theology and or writings. Since RYEb, unlike SZ
>sr"y, was not a sinner and clearly had no drive to utilize Sabbateanism as
>license for issurim and pritzus - as the bulk of Sabbateans, and,
>subsequently Frankists, did - and still do, in the Donma sect - he, from
>RYEm perspective, was clearly smitten with some enticing theologocical
>and/or Kabbalistic doctrines that emanated from the Sabbatean schools that
>somehow could be mistaken to be compatible with proper, mainstream Avodas
>Hashem. I have never seen an exposition of what those doctrines might be.
>They are clearly not the major Sabbatean trends, succinctly cited by R'
>Moshe above. But what might they be?

I have never heard of anything specific. But remember, the Gra was also so
strong on the chassidim out of fear that they might have some relationship
with SZ. It is hard for us to judge on such things. I have many times argued
that one should judge the Gra positively (a strange thing for a chasid to do
:) ) because the historical time was such that it is hard to not see him as
being justified in having those fears, even though they were unfounded in this
particular case. I don't think we today understand how serious SZ was and the
fears that he placed in the hearts and minds of the Rabbinic leadership.

-- 
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

>Not to injure myself chas v'shalom by intruding on this discussion, but I
>understand from the above that if we could determine through clear,
>scientifically irrefutable proof that RYEibbushitz *was* a Sabbatean or
>believed in Sh.Zvi as moshiach, then we would be obligated to refrain from
>learning the Ahavas Yonasan, Urim V'Tumim, etc., etc. and possibly bury/burn
>his books? If so, can we geta source on this?  Thanks.

That would be the case. There is the well known sefer 'Chemdas Yomim' that the
Baal Shem Tov said was written by a follower of SZ, and for that reasons it
was not learned.

-- 
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

The recent discussion regarding a class system for kolel learning is a pointless one, based as it is on assumptions which are either demonstrably false or highly likely to be so.  One of the core assumptions is that we can predict who will be future gedolei yisroel.  Those who are aware of the literature in psychology, decision theory, etc. know that our ability to predict to outcomes that are much better defined amd well -structured than "gadol beyisroelness" is poor.  We are incapable of predicting who will be successful physicians or good psychologists; why assume that we can identify gedolei yisroel whose attainment of that status is much further removed from the point of measurement than the successful completion of medical school?
Second, the assumption that we need only gedolei yisroel to maintain a Torah society is dubious at best and surely an assertion without evidence to support it.  It is equivalent to asserting that a modern society needs no cadre of scholarly judges, learned professors and trained consumers and interpreters of knowledge for the masses as long as we have some geniuses and brilliant inventors and discoverers.  Perhaps this is so, but I would be loath to bet on it.
Third, the assumption that a relatively uneducated mass will appreciate gedolei yisroel remains to be proven. In fact, historical evidence would seem to suggest that the opposite is true - witness the intense criticism of gedolei yisroel which preceded the rise of Chassidus and the dramatic loss of a large part ofthe ignorant masses of East European Jewry in the years following World War I.
Fourth, the assumption that it is cost-effective to invest our resources in producing a few gedolim rather than many mid-level scholars is subject to the same criticism raised above - it is an assertion totally lacking empirical support.
Chazal clearly assume that one could not produce a great man without many students, as they noted in stating that one thousand enter study and one emerges as a master of Halakha.  It is also not clear what role higher yeshiva learning plays in shaping the life of the adult learner, ensuring loyalty to the leadership of Torah scholars, etc.

I do not disagree with the points raised about the need for those who leave learning at whatever point to be able to live in society, nor with the responsibility of roshei yeshiva and kolelim to prune those who are clearly unsuited to dedicate their lives to this process.  I merely note that I for one am tired of debates about this issue which repeat the same assertions without bringing the matter closer to any intelligent examination.  It is time that those who care about this matter encourage the gathering of data, the formulation of testable plans and the  rational examination of historical cultures in an effort to offer meaningful contributions to future discussions.

Melech Press


M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

I wrote:
> I have heard arguments that the dispute essentially destroyed the authority of
> the rabbinate in the 1700's and thus prepared the ground for the chassidic
> revolution.

In Aaron Marcus' sefer HaChassidus p 21-22, he asserts that authority of the
Council of the Four Lands - which supported Rav Yonason - was undermined as an act
of revenge by of one of Rav Yaakov Emden's supporters. He notes that this removed
one of the major barriers to the spread of  Chassidim "Rav Yaakov Emden helped,
unaware and without intent to the development of Chassidm in a large way since the
shofars of cherem of the communities of Vilna and Krakow against this new movement
remained  without decisive impact because formerly  the supreme authority of the
Council had had  the ability to destroy the young Chassidic movement."


Moshe Shulman wrote:

> . There is the well known sefer 'Chemdas Yomim' that the
> Baal Shem Tov said was written by a follower of SZ, and for that reasons it
> was not learned.

The picture is more complex - even within chassidic circles for the sefer which
was first published in 1731.. page 184 of Avi HaYeshivos - the biography of Rav
Chaim Voloshzner " the first who raised questions was the Yaavetz who insisted
that the sefer was Nathan of Gaza (Shabtsai Tzvi's  prophet) and therefore he
prohibited its use. some ascribe such assertions to the Besht and therefore there
are many groups of chassidim who avoid the sefer. In contrast there are many
gedolim both among the Sfardim e.g., Chida ... and amongst the Misnagdim e.g.,
Chaye Adom, Rav Chaim Volozhner...as well as Admurim e.g, Satmar who learned the
sefer"

R' Wurtheimer page 99 asserts that the vidoi of Rav Aaron HaGadol of Karlin was
taken from Chemdas HaYomim

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

great comment!

mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> The recent discussion regarding a class system for kolel learning is a pointless one, based as it is on assumptions which are either demonstrably false or highly likely to be so.  One of the core assumptions is that we can predict who will be future gedolei yisroel.  Those who are aware of the literature in psychology, decision theory, etc. know that our ability to predict to outcomes that are much better defined amd well -structured than "gadol beyisroelness" is poor.  We are incapable of predicting who will be successful physicians or good psychologists; why assume that we can identify gedolei yisroel whose attainment of that status is much further removed from the point of measurement than the successful completion of medical school?
> Second, the assumption that we need only gedolei yisroel to maintain a Torah society is dubious at best and surely an assertion without evidence to support it.  It is equivalent to asserting that a modern society needs no cadre of scholarly judges, learned professors and trained consumers and interpreters of knowledge for the masses as long as we have some geniuses and brilliant inventors and discoverers.  Perhaps this is so, but I would be loath to bet on it.
> Third, the assumption that a relatively uneducated mass will appreciate gedolei yisroel remains to be proven. In fact, historical evidence would seem to suggest that the opposite is true - witness the intense criticism of gedolei yisroel which preceded the rise of Chassidus and the dramatic loss of a large part ofthe ignorant masses of East European Jewry in the years following World War I.
> Fourth, the assumption that it is cost-effective to invest our resources in producing a few gedolim rather than many mid-level scholars is subject to the same criticism raised above - it is an assertion totally lacking empirical support.
> Chazal clearly assume that one could not produce a great man without many students, as they noted in stating that one thousand enter study and one emerges as a master of Halakha.  It is also not clear what role higher yeshiva learning plays in shaping the life of the adult learner, ensuring loyalty to the leadership of Torah scholars, etc.
>
> I do not disagree with the points raised about the need for those who leave learning at whatever point to be able to live in society, nor with the responsibility of roshei yeshiva and kolelim to prune those who are clearly unsuited to dedicate their lives to this process.  I merely note that I for one am tired of debates about this issue which repeat the same assertions without bringing the matter closer to any intelligent examination.  It is time that those who care about this matter encourage the gathering of data, the formulation of testable plans and the  rational examination of historical cultures in an effort to offer meaningful contributions to future discussions.
>
> Melech Press
>
> M. Press, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
> 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
> 718-252-7800, ext. 275

Daniel Eidenson gave a rather thorough ( and thoroughly enjoyable ) discussion
of the differing views of lo bashamyim hee.

His conclusion is:
<<
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.
>>

Ruach haKodesh was described as Divine inspiration, which was not limited to
the Mechaber.  The Rama, in his disagreeing with the SA, could have been
equally inspired to his chiddush.  That being the case, I do not know what
singles out the SA for special consideration, unless one says that ALL other
works of halacha were purely human intellect with no Divine inspiration, and
his was the only inspired work.  I find that hard to accept.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:


>The recent discussion regarding a class system for kolel learning is a 
>pointless one, based as it is on assumptions which are either 
>demonstrably false or highly likely to be so.  One of the core 
>assumptions is that we can predict who will be future gedolei yisroel. 
> Those who are aware of the literature in psychology, decision theory, 
>etc. know that our ability to predict to outcomes that are much better 
>defined amd well -structured than "gadol beyisroelness" is poor.  We 
>are incapable of predicting who will be successful physicians or good 
>psychologists; why assume that we can identify gedolei yisroel whose 
>attainment of that status is much further removed from the point of 
>measurement than the successful completion of medical school?

This is a poor analogy.  The relationships that talmidim have with their 
rebbeim and Roshei Yeshiva is a far more intrapersonal one than might be 
found in other areas of endeavor.  These relationships don't begin post 
high school or college but are ongoing in a tamid's career datijg back 
to his earliest moments in the religious educatioinal system and passed 
on from rebbe to rebbe.  Talmud Torah begins at the moment a child has 
the capacity to "understand" and continues throuoghout his 
learning"career".  So there is ample opportunity to moniter each 
individual and access his capabilities along the way.  This is not true 
in the world of Secular studies where there is no continuity or overview 
of an individual's progress and therefore no good way to evaluate or 
predict success in, say, Medical School.  Todays Tests and measurements 
are the only way to do such evaluations and the reliabilty and validity 
quotients leave a lot to be desired.


>Second, the assumption that we need only gedolei yisroel to maintain a 
>Torah society is dubious at best and surely an assertion without 
>evidence to support it.  It is equivalent to asserting that a modern 
>society needs no cadre of scholarly juudges, learned professors and 
>trained consumers and interpreters of knowledge for the masses as long 
>as we have some geniuses and brilliant inventors and discoverers.  
>Perhaps this is so, but I would be loath to bet on it."

Are you saying that all Jews should study to become Gedolei Hador with 
all the full time emphasis that would take and let the cream rise to the 
top?  What about the vast majority of students who don't quite make it 
to the top?  Do we let them fall through the cracks.  At what age do we 
determine that someone should go do something besides learn FULL TIME?  
30?  40?  Never? (maybe he's a late bloomer)  Where are you going to get 
your Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Autombile Mechanics, and other 
professionals or craftsman that a Torah nation requires to survive?  
From the Leftovers of Kollel?  Do You want this type of Doctor to 
operate on you or a loved one, if, G-D forbid you needed a intricate 
life saving operation? Incidently, I notice a PH.D. after your name.  
Are you one of those people who didn't quite make it in learning and had 
to, Nebech, resort to something a little less noble.




>I do not disagree with the points raised about the need for those who 
>leave learning at whatever point to be able to live in society, nor 
>with the responsibility of roshei yeshiva and kolelim to prune those 
>who are clearly unsuited to dedicate their lives to this process.  

The above statement is the essence of my point.

>I merely note that I for one am tired of debates about this issue which 
>repeat the same assertions without bringing the matter closer to any 
>intelligent examination.  It is time that those who care about this 
>matter encourage the gathering of data, the formulation of testable 
>plans and the  rational examination of historical cultures in an effort 
>to offer meaningful contributions to future discussions.

I don't think such attempts would be all that succesful based on the 
years of trying to create and standardize such tests in the secular 
world to little accuracy or success as you pointed out in the beginning 
of your post.  I believe the Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel need to 
get together and implement some system whereby the pruning proccess 
would implemented on a broad scake accross the entire spectrum of 
Yeshivos and kollelim in the world.

Finally, I would just like to add that if we were to follow the 
approach you suggest to learning (i.e. everybody learn toward Gadlus 
until we get some gedolim) then lets theoretically do the same in the 
field of medicine.  This way (so your argument would suggest) we would 
get the best Doctors.  Everybody just go to medical school until we get 
the best doctors. Then the leftovers will go into some other field. 

Or, how about this idea:  Everybody just sit in Kollel untill we get 
gedolim.  Then the leftovers go to medical school until we get the best 
(of the rest) doctors.  Then those leftovers... Do you see the fallacy 
in your argument?

HM

Can't keep up the space... Despite the undeniable interest of the exchanges I
would like to be unlisted even if it means to return after a while ...
Can you telle me the procedure?

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> Ruach haKodesh was described as Divine inspiration, which was not limited to
> the Mechaber.  The Rama, in his disagreeing with the SA, could have been
> equally inspired to his chiddush.  That being the case, I do not know what
> singles out the SA for special consideration, unless one says that ALL other
> works of halacha were purely human intellect with no Divine inspiration, and
> his was the only inspired work.  I find that hard to accept.

Solid question. I am simply saying that there are two aspects of Ruach HaKodesh
1) its assistance in understanding and expressing Torah. We all have it in varying
degrees.[see the Gra 16:4] but some people and works have more than the rest.
2) A sefer which is widely accepted  (by a people endowed with a special sense of
what G-d wants i.e.,  bnai nevi'im) as being the standard - can be labeled as
being written with ruach hakodesh. This labeling is recognition of its perceived
special nature. The consequence of this labeling is to indicate it is not to be
dismissed lightly. Thus it does not mean infallibility but special.[see Chazon Ish
Choshen Mishpat likutim I] I would not have any problem with  labeling the Rema as
having been written with Ruach HaKodesh.

Part of the importance of labeling the Shulchan Aruch as being written with Ruach
Hakodesh - is because its methodology is a fairly mechanical process. - therefore
anybody can come along and assert that the Mechaber missed some sources and thus
would have poskened differently. [The Mishna Berura actually makes such a claim
see 518 *(38)] This is fully discussed in R' Moshe Bleich article Tradition vol 27
#2 1993. In particular he quotes Rav Sternbuch "for we have received a tradition
from the great Torah authorities of the [preceding] generations...that the rulings
of the Shulchan Aruch are not changed as a result of discovery of manuscripts,
even those authored by the great early-day scholars. Their reason may be explained
as follows:The Holy Spirit shined forth in the house of study of the author of the
Shulchan Aruch and the acknowledged decisors according to whose rulings all of the
house of Israel conducted themselves for many generations. Accordingly it is
incumbent upon us to continue in their path, even if we now find manuscripts of
some early-day authorities whose path is not the same..."
According to this view - the Rema and all accepted poskim are  also described as
having Ruach HaKodesh.

In sum, the halachic process is not solely the product of human intellect. Both in
the production and the perception of halachic works and gedolim an added element
is involved - ruach hakodesh. The labeling of a work as being written by ruach
hakodesh also serves the function of increasing the stability and continuity of
halacha. Some works are perceived as being more special than others and are more
likely to be labeled as being written with Ruach HaKodesh.

                                       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 ]