Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 085

Tuesday, December 22 1998

• When the gedolim say "Ssshhh" (WARNING: a long post)
• Yet another post about kollel
• Re: R. Eybeschuetz
• Conspiracy Theory and Paranoia
• Re: RUACH ha'KODESH
• Bas Kol:Psak or Encouragement?
• universal language
• Re: RYE/RYE
• Re: Bas Kol:Psak or Encouragement?
• Re: Avodah V2 #84
• Re: Bas Kol:Psak or Encouragement?
• Re: RYE/RYE

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:
> I detect that what is
>really bothering you is not the possibility that the Gedolim - by their
silence
> - -  don't want public debate on this issue. What disturbs you is the
possibility
>that someone is telling you not to rely on the evidence of your own senses. 

Lest I be guilty of any kind of genevat da'at on this issue, I will
state publicly and clearly:  I have not thoroughly studied the R.
Yonatan Eyebeshcuetz/R. Ya'akov Emden controversy and, like RYGB, have
no personal opinion on this matter.  I have consulted some but by no
means all of the classic sources and do not consider myself qualified to
render an opinion -- public or private -- on the resolution of the
controversy.  My argument was and remains one of principle, and one
which I continue to defend (see below).  Moreover, I continue to believe
that the Torah community would benefit from a public resolution of this
issue, and I hope that the greatest living authority on the controversy
will one day publicly share his wisdom on the question.

>This is because it is obvious that there
>is a consensus amongst talmidei chochomim that that is not the way  that
*this*
>conflict should be handled. This is not hiding from reality, this is not mind
>control or brain washing. This is the reality. The silence of the gedolim
*and*
>their continued utilization of the seforim of both of these gedolim tells me
>that is the way this issue is to be dealt with.

Forgive me, but I think where you see ma'aseh rav, I see an old policy
of purposeful avoidance that has gradually evolved into a policy of
unthinking avoidance.  In other words, as I stated previously, I believe
that there were vitally important reasons for papering over this
controversy two hundred years ago and the gedolim of that period made a
conscious decision to do so.  I think that those reasons no longer
apply, and that the contemporary Torah world and its leadership have
simply continued to follow the old path.

>The utilization of the seforim indicates more than an ostritch-like approach.
As
>you have pointed out - if a sefer is written by a heretic - use is
problematic.

I agree and that is one of the reasons I think that, with the old
concerns no longer applicable, the policy of neglect is no longer
justified.

>If you look at the literature (e.g., Wilensky "Chassidim and Misnagdim") on
the
>debate, heresy *was* a significant issue. There is no problem discussing the
>fact that the Chassidm were originally viewed as heretics and that now they
are
>not.

I have looked at the literature -- primary and secondary -- and I would
be happy to more fully develop  this discussion in a separate thread.
For purposes of this issue, I will keep my response brief.  As you know,
the early hasidim aroused fierce opposition from an establishment that
perceived a threat to Halakhah, a threat to haskafa, and a threat to its
own authority.  All of these fears were justified.  At the time, the
hasidic movement was a revolution against the accepted order.  Hasidism
perceives the concept of ma'aseh mitzvot in a mystical vein, takes a
relaxed view to certain kinds of halakhot (e.g., zemanei tefillah), and
engineered a complete reordering of emphases in avodat Hashem.  The
rebbe did not merely take the place of the rosh yeshiva or rav, he
represented an entirely new kind of leadership and authority.  Today the
yeshiva and hasidic communities have not only learned to live with each
other, but have adopted many of the features of the other, bringing the
two worlds into much closer harmony.

>Not every dispute can be resolved in a nice neat way identifying the good guy
>and punishing the bad guy.

I agree with you.  Indeed, I wish that the entire Torah community shared
your ability to see nuances and shades of gray, rather then stark black
vs. white.   As you point out, one often cannot reduce a conflict
between two factions to a battle good vs. evil.  But the controversy
between RYE and RYE really has a yes or no answer.  As do many
historical questions, e.g., whether Rashbi wrote the Zohar.  I think
these issues are important.  For centuries we studied teshuvot
purportedly written by Ramban that we now ascribe to Rashba.  I also
think that the question of authorship is central to the teshuvah of R.
Moshe regarding the perush ascribed to R. Yehudah ha-Hasid.  (More on
that below.)

>My point, again is that there is no benefit publicly raising an
>issue that is ultimately not resolvable and has been dealt with by unanimous
>public silence on the part of all talmidei chachomim. Why don't you ask Rav
>Lichtenstein whether he agrees with you?

At the risk of ruffling some feathers, let me articulate what I believe
to be an invaluable benefit of addressing the issue forthrightly.  A
fringe of the Lubavitch movement has demonstrated some highly disturbing
tendencies since the petirah of the Lubavitcher rebbe.  The Torah world
has not developed a coherent response to this issue.  Partly I think the
reluctance issues from the perception that, fundamentally, even the
extreme messianists continue to put on tefillin every day, keep Shabbat,
etc.  In other words, the question is how to deal with a group of
individuals, in many cases talmidei hakhamim, who generally fit the
standard of yirei Shamayim and shomrei Torah u-mitzvot, yet take a
hashkafic position regarding the messianic status of a dead person that
seems to contradict ikkarei emunah.  Do you not see parallels to the
controversy at hand?  On the other hand, if we were to focus on R.
Emden's conduct, we have a clear blueprint of how to properly -- or
improperly -- bring one's suspicions to the public eye.  I think these
matter are very relevant and potentially very helpful.

>Your description of Rav Moshe's position is inaccurate and in fact
reinforces
>my assertion. There is no such thing as an absolute need to delve into every
>issue - *if*  the consequences lead to great harm.
<snip>
>Rav Moshe specifically said *before* the book was published that even with
the
>offending passages it should not be published. YD.III #114  on page 359
<snip>
>Rav Moshe did not posken on the historical reality - he poskened on the
derech
>that this issue should be handled. He was not concerned with history per se-
he
>was concerned with the consequences of publishing a sefer with offensive
>passages with the name of a well known tzadik. In the course of the tshuva he
>asserts that Rav Yehuda HaChasid could not have written these passages.

First, thank you for correcting my misrepresentation of the teshuvah.
My memory conflated the actual outcome with R. Moshe's ruling.  And it
seems we agree that there there is a difference between R. Moshe's
halakhic ruling -- that a book containing kefirah that purported to be
written by a famous Rishon should be destroyed -- and his statement
regarding the authorship of the controversial/heretical passages.
Personally, I think the pesak is uncontestable on its term; the danger
of heresy with a Rishon's name on it are clear.  What I think is
remarkable about the teshuvah is the degree to which it reflects how R.
Moshe came to the conclusion that the passages in question were not
written by R.Yehudah ha-Hasid.  On this issue, I encourage everyone to
consult the teshuvot for themselves.  But I was struck by the
methodology employed.  Certainly it differs from, say, R. Kasher's
famous discussion of the Zohar.

>The response was from the Noviminsker Rebbe.
Again thanks for the correction.

>Rabbi Shwab - to the best of my knowledge never advocated distorting history.
I do not recall using the word "distortion."  The terms I used were
"suppression" and "misrepresentation."  I believe that the latter almost
inevitably results from the former.

>He states that relating of information that contains
>lashon harah and serves the purpose only of degrading talmidei chachomim and
not
>of elevating and improving - is not permitted.

Well, I am certainly not advocating the public dissemination of facts
that have no purpose other than denigrating gedolei Torah.  Nor do I
oppose suppression of facts that may be deemed simply irrelevant (e.g.,
does it matter that a talmid of the Terumat ha-Deshen divorced his
wife?)  But when certain facts are suppressed,  I wonder whether the
underlying issue is always avoiding lashon ha-ra or relates sometimes to
preserving a (false) ideological image.  For example, it is lashon ha-ra
to publicize that a gadol regularly read a secular newspaper?  Does it
denigrate a talmid hakham to report his cordial relationships with
maskilim?  Is it slanderous to publish photographs of gedolim dressed in
a manner that differs from the uniform that is currently de rigeur in
Torah circles?

Consider R. Shimshon (b.) Refael Hirsch.  There are many facts about him
which reflect that he did not fit the (contemporary) image of a typical
gadol nor a typical communal rabbi.  Is that lashon ha-ra?  Is it
denigrating?  Or is it simply in conflict with a revisionist agenda that
recasts all gedolim, past and present, in a certain monochromatic mold?

In sum, I think there is a difference between the Gedolim saying sshhh
and the gedolim saying nothing.  I believe your interpretation of their
silence and continued use of the sefarim is not mukhra.  I think there
is a substantial to'elet to be derived from the resolution of this
controversy.  I also feel that the lashon ha-ra limitation as applied to
Gedolim is beyond question, but does not justify the rampant revisionism
that is going on today.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

The S'ridei Aish, uses the following model to explain Hirsch's TIDE:
        The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form,
        to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature in distinction
        to the substance from which it is embodied. Derekh Eretz is merely the
        matter on which Torah works. (Essay in "Shimshon Rephael Hirsch:
        Mishnaso Vishitaso")

This would seem to imply (as per Hirsch, so this is no big surprise), that the
kollelnik is actually in an inferior position than the "balebos" in terms of
his ability to perform true avodas Hashem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6012 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 21-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n80, David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV> writes:
:                                    It is precisely because nistar
: considerations cannot be criticized that they don't count halachically.

I'm curious to know why you assume halachah must stand up to scientific
criteria. In the scientific method, if something can't be falsifiable, then
there is no experiment to test it with. Therefore, there is no way one would
gain confidence in a hypothesis by seeing its predictions met -- since there
is no way it could be otherwise.

But why must this be true for halachah, which is generated by a different
process?

I'd also like to repeat my speculation that the SA appealed to strict rules of
majority precisely because his primary Rebbe was a maggid, and therefore most
of his own ideas were unduly influenced by things that are "bashamyim".

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
} The case of Beis Hillel involved a new legal issue, the question was whether
} a majority wins even against the superior scholarship of the minority. The
} Bas Kol was needed to answer this question for which they had no precedent
} and no way of resolving by normal judicial means.

I agree by all but the last phrase. As I understood Tosfos ad loc, the normal
judicial means would have you follow the rabim, i.e. Beis Hillel. However, as
this rule never needed application beyond the Lishkas haGazis before, people
lacked sufficient confidence to apply it. The Bas Kol didn't create halachah,
it merely gave people the surety required for them to apply the normal rules.

Eli Clark writes on a related matter:
>  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

With all do respect, my understanding of our debate was different. Not that
there was no absolute truth, but that determining halachah isn't necessarily a
question of determining truth. According to R' Tzadok, truth (i.e. the "divrei
Elokim Chaim" of Eiruvin) allows for more than one possible p'sak. Halachah is
a system of law, not truth.

Which is, perhaps, why "lo bashamayim hi", and why the majority is more
important than wisdom. All the proofs one might bring would only prove that a
given shitah is true, not that it is halachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6012 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 21-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Clark, Eli wrote:

> Lest I be guilty of any kind of genevat da'at on this issue, I will
> state publicly and clearly:  I have not thoroughly studied the R.
> Yonatan Eyebeshcuetz/R. Ya'akov Emden controversy and, like RYGB, have
> no personal opinion on this matter.  I have consulted some but by no
> means all of the classic sources and do not consider myself qualified to
> render an opinion -- public or private -- on the resolution of the
> controversy.  My argument was and remains one of principle, and one
> which I continue to defend (see below).  Moreover, I continue to believe
> that the Torah community would benefit from a public resolution of this
> issue, and I hope that the greatest living authority on the controversy
> will one day publicly share his wisdom on the question.

With your above confession  - the original issue of deciding between these two
gedolim has become largely irrelevant to the discussion. You acknowledge that you
don't have any solid evidence that has convinced you of any clear conclusions
concerning guilt or innocence. Therefore my overriding concern that  Rav Yonason
Eybeshitz was being slandered is not your  issue. What seems to be concerning you
is the suspicion that there was a deliberate cover-up - silencing of debate and
that there are still skeletons in the closet that need to be aired out. Your
belief has been reinforced by what you describe as a systematic cover-up of
historical data to create the illusion of homogeneity and continuity.

> Forgive me, but I think where you see ma'aseh rav, I see an old policy
> of purposeful avoidance that has gradually evolved into a policy of
> unthinking avoidance.  In other words, as I stated previously, I believe
> that there were vitally important reasons for papering over this
> controversy two hundred years ago and the gedolim of that period made a
> conscious decision to do so.  I think that those reasons no longer
> apply, and that the contemporary Torah world and its leadership have
> simply continued to follow the old path.

You feel there was and is a cover-up - because you see that there was
justification for a cover-up and that now there is no longer a need - lets take
out the skeletons. At this point, I feel we have switched threads and are talking
about ruach hakodesh - yours :-).  I am simply asserting that I don't see any
evidence of a cover-up but rather the need to avoid slandering an innocent man.

>  As you point out, one often cannot reduce a conflict
> between two factions to a battle good vs. evil.  But the controversy
> between RYE and RYE really has a yes or no answer.

There are two possibilities - 1) the issue has been clarified to the best of our
ability and to the satisfaction of legal and halachic standards  and they are both
tzadikim  Admittedly there can be aspects that we will never know - but in the
courtroom of justice the evidence is strong enough to bring in a verdict of
innocence. 2) there is and was a conspiracy to conceal the TRUTH. This reminds me
- who killed President Kennedy? Have they figured out who really killed Rabin? Was
Diana killed to keep a Muslim away from the throne. Was Clinton's impeachment a
Jewish plot?

I don't think the level of certainty and clarity you seek is available to mortal
beings. Halacha, beis din has a certain standard for evidence. I don't see the
evidence there is conspiracy of silence in this matter. You are not only
questioning the motives of the rabbonim involved in the original disputants - but
now you are asserting that all of our rabbinical leadership since that time is
covering up something?! And if we could only uncover this something it would be
the philosopher's stone to turn all our base disputes into beams of pure golden
truth?!

> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, let me articulate what I believe
> to be an invaluable benefit of addressing the issue forthrightly.  A
> fringe of the Lubavitch movement has demonstrated some highly disturbing
> tendencies since the petirah of the Lubavitcher rebbe.  The Torah world
> has not developed a coherent response to this issue.  Partly I think the
> reluctance issues from the perception that, fundamentally, even the
> extreme messianists continue to put on tefillin every day, keep Shabbat,
> etc.  In other words, the question is how to deal with a group of
> individuals, in many cases talmidei hakhamim, who generally fit the
> standard of yirei Shamayim and shomrei Torah u-mitzvot, yet take a
> hashkafic position regarding the messianic status of a dead person that
> seems to contradict ikkarei emunah.  Do you not see parallels to the
> controversy at hand?  On the other hand, if we were to focus on R.
> Emden's conduct, we have a clear blueprint of how to properly -- or
> improperly -- bring one's suspicions to the public eye.  I think these
> matter are very relevant and potentially very helpful.

BTW I asked both Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv a couple months ago - what to do
with certain Chassidic groups (wasn't Lubavtich) whose haskofa seems to border on
avoda zara. Both of them - independently said. A group which is shomer torah and
Mitzvos - but has krum hashkofa - is to be viewed as mistaken individuals. Rav
Sternbuch added that in contrast - the Conservative Movement which makes no
attempt to cling to Torah and Mitzvos - has lost the status of achicha.

Whether the Lubavitcher Rebbe is considered Moshiahc is not an issue of kefira
while Shabtzai Tzvi - was an apikorus. A number of talmidei chachomim have told me
that except for some really extreme cases - people worshiping the Rebbe - at most
we are dealing with is a case of error - not kefirah. Thus the cases are not
comparable according to the authorities I have talked with..

> Well, I am certainly not advocating the public dissemination of facts
> that have no purpose other than denigrating gedolei Torah.  Nor do I
> oppose suppression of facts that may be deemed simply irrelevant (e.g.,
> does it matter that a talmid of the Terumat ha-Deshen divorced his
> wife?)  But when certain facts are suppressed,  I wonder whether the
> underlying issue is always avoiding lashon ha-ra or relates sometimes to
> preserving a (false) ideological image.

Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you. Are you stating you really don't think
that we are concealing the horrify facts of possible kefira but your whole concern
all along is that the establishment is creating or preserving a false ideological
image? That your concern is that this is just another example of concealing the
fact that a number of major gedolim actually read newspapers? That Hirsch really
enjoyed secular knowledge?


In sum. I am not sure if we have been talking about the same issue. I thought we
were talking about Rav Yaakov Emden's accusation of kefira and the fact that  the
consensus of the gedolim was that the issue had been resolved in favor of Rav
Yonason Eybeshuetz. Your present posting emphasizes your intuitions that there has
been a conspiracy of covering up of information possibly as horrifying as that
found in My Uncle the Netziv. If it is the latter, I don't know why your silent
expert hasn't had the guts to spill the beans?

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

Check the Kuntrus ha'Sfekot in the Ktzot haChoshen Klal 5 Oht Gimmel where
he quotes the ROSH who indicates that only a leading posek has ruach ha'kodesh.

Josh

Micha Berger wrote:

> IDaniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
> } The case of Beis Hillel involved a new legal issue, the question was whether
> } a majority wins even against the superior scholarship of the minority. The
> } Bas Kol was needed to answer this question for which they had no precedent
> } and no way of resolving by normal judicial means.
>
> I agree by all but the last phrase. As I understood Tosfos ad loc, the normal
> judicial means would have you follow the rabim, i.e. Beis Hillel. However, as
> this rule never needed application beyond the Lishkas haGazis before, people
> lacked sufficient confidence to apply it. The Bas Kol didn't create halachah,
> it merely gave people the surety required for them to apply the normal rules.

They didn't know that  the rule of majority applied even when the minority was
sharper - until told by the Bas Kol. Your explanation of "sufficient confidence"
is interesting - that means that the Bas Kol didn't posken but provided
psychotherapy? :) Are you asserting Prof Shalom Albeck's theory that really all
judicial authority is an extension of   the right of the individual to posken.?
The court exists because the individual typically is not knowledgeable or
confident to decide.

                                                 Daniel Eidensohn

I was under the impression that when the torah describes the fact that the
whole world spoke a "sefah achas" by the Tower of bavel that it meant
(based on rashi) that the whole world spoke hebrew only, ie there were no
other languages. However after looking at the sifsei chachamim on the
pasuk it seems that it can be learned that everyone spoke hebrew but it is
quite possible that other languages existed, just that the only universal
language was hebrew. Does any one have any other sources to indicate one
way or the other. Also my 2 cents on the kollel issue is that everyone
should learn as much as possible and each individual has to make a chesbon
what the words "As much as possible" mean to them based on their
particular situation. I know it's a simplification of a difficult and
touchy subject but I think it's true.
Elie Ginsparg

>Chaye Adom, Rav Chaim Volozhner...as well as Admurim e.g, Satmar who learned the

I willhave to look it up, but I recall that in v'Yoel Moshe he comes out
against Chemdas Yomim. (He mentions the custom that is mentioned there of
duchanen for the kohanim everyday as a forbidden custom.)

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

In a message dated 98-12-21 17:55:46 EST, you write:

>
>They didn't know that  the rule of majority applied even when the minority
>was
>sharper - until told by the Bas Kol. 

    Daniel Eidensohn

Wouldn't the logical extension of the position that a sharp minority could
rule be that we should only ask the opinion of the sharpest indivdual in the
Sanhedrin and go with that. Further, is sharpness an objective or subjective
measure?

Kol tuv
Joel Rich

On 12/21/98 11:24:56 H. Maryles wrote:
>
>

>
>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.
>
 This is a rather amazing statement.  First, it assumes the point that I am not willing to grant- that we can predict who
will be a gadol beyisroel , apparently based solely on intellect.  This is absurd - history is replete with great minds who
did not become gedolim and gedolim who were clearly not the greatest minds of their generation.  Secondly, it is simply
false - it has repeatedly been shown that even with significant and long-standing personal contacts prediction is poor. Mr.
Maryles once again asserts without evidence that Torah is different.  He confounds academic competence, which of course can be
assessed, and future gadlus,a far more difficult and complex state.  Third, the secular world has invested literally millions of dollars
in efforts to enhance prediction of much grosser outcomes than gadlus without success - merely to repetitively assert that
we can do better is simply to repeat dubious arguments.

>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.
>
This paragraph is even more irrelevant to the discussion.  Did I assert that all Jews should be in Kolel?  Does anybody?
Is Mr. Maryles so ignorant of reality that he does not know that in all the Kolelim in America there are fewer than one thousand long term learners?  Has he any idea of how many people over 30, much less over 40, are engaged in full-time learning? Are only students who "make it to the top" of value? This was the point I made which he either misunderstands or ignores - we need strong learners of many kinds for our society and the vast majority who don't become gedolim can still make huge contributions.  Let us be blunt - 
those who are unwilling to have a scholar in Torah prepare himself till he is 30 are saying that they either place no value on Torah study or that they are incapable of grasping the demands of its mastery;  Mr. Maryles nowhere comments that it is unacceptable that we permit people to spend 13 years after college studying to be neurosurgeons.  

A Torah nation does not need lawyers to survive - most students of our political structure in the US feel that society would do much better with many fewer lawyers.  More seriously, in the US this is certainly a red herring - there is no shortage of people who can be accountants.  Even in a Torah state there is little question that most individuals will not make Torah their full-time occupation; such will go on to become the professionals and craftsmen.  Of course I want the brightest people to become gedolei Torah - the requirements of being a great surgeon are far less than that of a great mind in most scholarly areas, much less in Torah.  I spent
27 years on the faculty of a medical school and I can assure Mr. Maryles that many fine physicians are persons of average 
or moderately above-average intellect.

As to my having a Ph.D. I hardly see that this is relevant to the discussion.  I did indeed intend in my youth to be a magid shiur
but found several difficulties in my way, including a sense of myself as likely to find difficulty with the financial sacrifices that
such a choice entailed and a strong belief that the ideal life was one in which one was at least able to earn a living if one had to.  I therefore chose to enter a profession that was of considerable importance to the Torah community while at the same time continuing learning at the yeshiva.  If you ask do I sometimes regret my choice, the answer is that I do but that is still immaterial to our discussion.  Certainly in the US there is no lack of accountants or businessmen but a serious lack of klei kodesh.  And yes, I do believe it is more noble to be a talmid chochom than a psychologist; it has been my consistent observation that those who ask such questions have great difficulty appreciating the nobility of talmidei chachomim and Hashem's preference for them over the rest of us. That, however, is a psychological rather than a theological issue.

>

>
>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?
>
Another of your repeated straw men.  No one suggests that everyone should learn toward gadlus.  In the US
serious learning does not begin for most people until the age of 17 or 18 and it is obviously not possible for
anyone who cares about learning to get a sense of his intellectual and characterological status in learning until
he does it for at least a few years.  At that point the majority of men in our community decide to learn for a few
years after marriage and then enter the outside world; a relatively small proportion decide to continue.  Yes, I do believe 
that we should encourage them to continue, whether or not they will become gedolim. (You seem to be unable to let go
of that theme - when do you plan to propose the closing of all graduate schools since they don't produce Nobel winners?).

Melech Press
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:17:08 EST
>From: DBensaid@aol.com
>Subject: how to delist
>
>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?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:54:53 +0200
>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
>Subject: Re: ruach ha-kodesh & lo bashamayim Hee
>
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Avodah V2 #84
>********************
>
>
>[ 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 ]
>
>



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

Daniel Edensohn writes:
: They didn't know that  the rule of majority applied even when the minority
: was sharper - until told by the Bas Kol. Your explanation of "sufficient
: confidence" is interesting - that means that the Bas Kol didn't posken but
: provided psychotherapy? 

As I said, the explanation isn't mine, it's Tosfos'. Although, I didn't mean
confidence in themselves, but confidence in the idea that rov is followed even
outside the Sanhedrin.

As for your opening statement, it is k'neged Tosfos. They clearly state that
the bas kol was merely confirming what would be concluded by halachic process,
and wasn't mechadeish anyuthing.


However, I recommend looking up "bas kol" in the Encyclopedia Talmudit. There
are a variety of opinions, many of which ascribe power to create halachah to
bas kol.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6013 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Moshe Shulman wrote:

> >Chaye Adom, Rav Chaim Volozhner...as well as Admurim e.g, Satmar who learned the
>
> I willhave to look it up, but I recall that in v'Yoel Moshe he comes out
> against Chemdas Yomim. (He mentions the custom that is mentioned there of
> duchanen for the kohanim everyday as a forbidden custom.)

My error it was the Yetav Lev - Sighet not Satmar.

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


[ 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 ]