Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 140

Wednesday, January 27 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #139
• Just What IS apikorsus Anyway?
• Re: Just What IS apikorsus Anyway?
• edah and Orthodoxy
• Re: Good Wishes
• Re: Avodas Hashem from the Rav (fwd)
• Re: Avodas Hashem from the Rav (fwd)
• Re: Rosh Chodesh
• Rabbi Berman responds
• Rosh Chodesh
• RYGB
• [none]
• MO lite---doxy vs praxy
• Re: Avodah V2 #139
• Re: What MO means to me in a nutshell
• Open Letter to R' Saul Berman
• hitkasrut w/ tzaddikim
• RE: progressive revelation -- ?? what does this mean??
• Mazal Tov Update
• Ongoing revelation -- Sources
• Giving Discredit Where Discredit is Due

Like Rabbi Bechhoffer, I am very time pressed, but feel a need to respond on the issue of EDAH, if for no
other reason than I am one of the presenters at the EDAH conference.  A number of different points were made
either critiquing EDAH or its presenters.  I will try to respond to them.

1.    First and foremost, I would like to add my voice to those who distanced themselves from the harsh
words of Melech Press which were both harsh in tone and wrong in content.  I urge people to think before
they write.  "Write in haste, repent in leisure," although I am not sure that one can ever repent for public
untrue remarks of that type.

2.    Rabbi Bechhofer's comments about Rabbi Rackman deserve a serious response.  I, as a member of the Beth
Din of America, have "lead the charge" against Rabbi Rackman's beit din, which I think is in serious error
of halacha, and whose activities are void.  However, I do not think that Rabbi Rackman's work in this area
is heretical; IT IS WRONG AL PE DIN -- drastically so.  Indeed, I signed a letter to all RCA members stating
such.  I do not understand how an error of halacha, even a drastic one of this type makes one a heretic.
Let me suggest that our halachic vocabulary has lost the word "in error" from it.  Most errors are not
heresies; even most serious errors are not heresies, even when they have such drastic consequences.  Such
is, in my view, the case here, and this type of error can be found in the the works of other Orthodox rabbis
who have gone too far out on the limb searching for a solution to the agunah problem.
(More generally, Rabbi Rackman is not speaking at the conference as well, as even though his view here is
not heretical, it is still, in my view, clearly in error. vedook.)

3.    Point three is a more general one.  I am not a member of EDAH, although there are some aspects of it
that I like, and some that I do not.  I do not at all agree with the sentiments of those posters about where
one speaks and presents ideas.  If we wish our ideas to be heard, we go places where there are people WHO
HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS, and present them.

The policy of some in the Orthodox rabbinate of only speaking in places where one finds like minded
individuals, and refusing to enter the lion's den only convinces more and more people that we have nothing
intelligent to say -- and that WE CAN ONLY REALLY PREACH TO THE ALREADY CONVERTED.  Such is not my view;
this is even more so true when one deals with an organization that identifies as orthodox, but which might
be in error on a matter or two.  If we have truth -- and I think we do -- we should share it at every
opportunity.  Those who lack truth run to present it only to like minded individuals, who will never
challenge them.  I feel that the truth of Torah is so stroung that we should seek to present our Torah
values at every chance we have.

A well known rabbi once put it to nicely.  He sometimes used to speak in Conservative shuls when asked, such
as on a Sunday, or at a funeral.  I asked him "why."  He replied "because that is where the Jews are who we
want to touch are."  I think he is correct.  This is even more so true when one is speaking about an
organization  and a person that clearly identifies itself and themself as Orthodox.

Let me turn it around, now.  Why would you forsake the opportunity to present the truth as you see it to an
organization that identifies as Orthodox, merely because you do not like one or two facets of the
organization?  I think the answer is no.

Michael Broyde

Dear List,
     Can't sombeody be WRONG about an issue of Halocho and Hashkof and not be 
labeled an Apiokorus?
     It seems to me if the Rambam wanted to he could have expanded his 13 Ikrim 
to include all kinds of things like believeing in historical Judasim etc.
     Apikorus is not only a mean-spirited epithet, it's being mis-used.  Why not
lump all people whose beliefs are not "polcitically correct" into one common 
bin?  The Rambam makes it a point to describe several categories in Hilchos 
Teshuvo (as I recall).  I don't even think he mentions, Tsedukkim, Karoim, 
Baisusim, etc.
     It's ok to say that a given Hashkofo is wrong, inaccurate, radical, etc. 
but unless they deny an Ikar, I say leave the labelling behind.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe      
        
     
    
          

In a message dated 1/26/99 12:42:11 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

>  I don't even think he mentions, Tsedukkim, Karoim, 
>  Baisusim, etc.

See Chapter 3 Halachos 8 & 10

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In response to some other posts, I think the issue isn't so much one of
how much elasticity Orthodoxy allows or even the relationship between Orthodoxy
 and modernity per se -- I think the issue is that there has been a
rightward shift and a lot of things which used to be construed as optional
are now default -- even in some very modern circles -- men wearing yarmulkes
all the time, married women covering their heads, cholov Isroel and Pas Yisroel
 unless one's rav gives a heter otherwise, etc.

In a message dated 1/26/99 2:01:35 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> Let me assure you that the order in which I wrote was a slip-up, caused,
>  no doubt, by my expectation that the bris would be delayed (probably to
>  Sun iy"H). Immediately after sending out the message I realized the error
>  - but in e-mail "me'uvat lo yuchal litkon!"
>  
>  On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>  
>  > >v'nizke l'gadlo l'Torah l'Chuppa u'l'Ma'asim Tovim, u'l'Hachniso 
>  > >l'Briso
>  > >shel A"A!

I don't think you expected the bris after he reaches Torah (minimum when he
begins to speak, even though that Betzem a child begins learning from birth)
and most certainly not after Chupoh <g>

I saw that we use the term "Nimol Lishmonoh" even when the bris is delayed, as
we wait full 7 days from when he is well.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

(I am reposting this because I didn't get any public response and I
believe discussing these ideas will be more productive then the curent
theme regarding the MO. I also believe that my issues were ignored because
everyone got caught up with the other stuff. If they were ignored because
no one cares then they'll be ignored again and I'll move on)

After reading this post I was left with a few question and I'll be
grateful if
those with a solid undersatnding of the Rav's shitos provide the answers.
I
saw the stress on Talmud torah and on Halacha made in different
paragraphs. IOW some paragraphs stressed Halacha ,while others stressed a
more genaric Talmud Torah. Is the Rav's focus really Halacha, which would
exclude classical lomdus as it isn't really essential to halacha, and
would also make the Rav a great supporter of the Baal shem tov who also
told his Talmidim to learn halach and not lomdus (such halacha based study
could also be termed talmud Torah). Or does the Rav really advocate in
depth
learning whteher or not it leads to Halacha, as long as it's not kabballa
or maybe aggadaic (I don't know the Rav shittos on learning aggadata in
depth), and the above is being excluded with the term HAlacha.
Furthermore, what else is being excluded with this approach--is Mussar
excluded (posters have said earliar that mussar isn't talmud Torah and it
doesn't seem to be halacha), maybe one doesn't need mussar because he's so
engrossed in Halacha/Talmud Torah. In addition, where does Madda fit in,
is
it Torah, Halacha or something else. If it's something else where exactly
does it fit in, and if it's Torah, do you get knowledge of Hashem the
same way out of Torah as out of Madda. My interest has been stimulated
by Mr. Wolpoe's post, please provide some of the answers.
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 1/26/99 1:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< 
 (I am reposting this because I didn't get any public response and I
 believe discussing these ideas will be more productive then the curent
 theme regarding the MO. I also believe that my issues were ignored because
 everyone got caught up with the other stuff. If they were ignored because
 no one cares then they'll be ignored again and I'll move on)
 
 After reading this post I was left with a few question and I'll be
 grateful if
 those with a solid undersatnding of the Rav's shitos provide the answers.
 I
 saw the stress on Talmud torah and on Halacha made in different
 paragraphs. IOW some paragraphs stressed Halacha ,while others stressed a
 more genaric Talmud Torah. Is the Rav's focus really Halacha, which would
 exclude classical lomdus as it isn't really essential to halacha, and
 would also make the Rav a great supporter of the Baal shem tov who also
 told his Talmidim to learn halach and not lomdus (such halacha based study
 could also be termed talmud Torah). Or does the Rav really advocate in
 depth
 learning whteher or not it leads to Halacha, as long as it's not kabballa
 or maybe aggadaic (I don't know the Rav shittos on learning aggadata in
 depth), and the above is being excluded with the term HAlacha.
 Furthermore, what else is being excluded with this approach--is Mussar
 excluded (posters have said earliar that mussar isn't talmud Torah and it
 doesn't seem to be halacha), maybe one doesn't need mussar because he's so
 engrossed in Halacha/Talmud Torah. In addition, where does Madda fit in,
 is
 it Torah, Halacha or something else. If it's something else where exactly
 does it fit in, and if it's Torah, do you get knowledge of Hashem the
 same way out of Torah as out of Madda. My interest has been stimulated
 by Mr. Wolpoe's post, please provide some of the answers.
 Elie Ginsparg
 
 
  >>
Dear Elie,
I didn't respond because I'm not sure of the answers from my readings and
listenings. There are others on this list who may have a direct mesora but
I'll give one part of it a shot. I recall a lecture where the Rav
(Soloveichik) applied the rigorous Brisker method to analyzing two aggadic
passages so I assume he felt aggada should be learned in depth. He was also
taken(according to R" Schachter in Nefesh Harav) with the aggada with the
angel teaching us tora prior to birth etc. and the lessons to be learned from
that.

Again I hope someone with a more direct mesora will reply or I'll give you the
rest of my guesses off-line:-)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

<<
When I learned krias hatorah with the Rov, he remarked that he
 was amazed that no one seemed to follow it. But, even the geroh 
 has a problem. You are still rereading a piece. The question is only "how
 many violations. 
>>

What is the violation in repeating p'sukim?  In Israel, on Chol HaMoed Sukkos,
all four aliyos are identical.  The Gr"a avoids all problems by not starting
within 3 p'sukim of a parsha break

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:45:49 EST
From: SaulBerman@aol.com
To: dweiss@ymail.yu.edu, berman@ymail.yu.edu
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #137 (fwd)

Dear Dov,
Thank you for forwarding the trash.
I once knew someone named Melech Press. The author of the garbage you
forwarded to me could not be the same person. The Melech Press I knew was a
person of integrity. He would never have asserted facts without checking them
out first hand and confirming their accuracy. Secondly, the Melech Press I
knew was a shomer mitzmot and  certainly would not spread false information
about people and run the risk of violating some seventeen Issurei Deoraita. 
The Melech Press who wrote the trash you forwarded to me is obviously neither
a person of integrity, nor a shomer mitzvot. Firstly, his information
concerning the funding of Edah is incorrect, a fact which could have been
established with a single phone call. Secondly, Saul Berman is not a believer
in progressive revelation, a fact which could also have been established with
a single phone call. (Indeed, the Melech Press who I knew would  undoubtedly
have made that single phone call in which both of the allegations would have
been resolved.)
 I will not bother to relate to the multitude of incidental pieces of  loshon
hora and character assassination that run through his brief but odorous
garbage, since I am not sure that I could resist the temptation to respond in
kind.
I will mail a copy of this piece to the Melech Press who wrote it. I would
appreciate it if you could get this response posted to those people who would
have seen the original piece of trash, so that the false impressions can be
remedied.  
I have no doubt that were the author of that piece to have been the Melech
Press whom I once knew, were he to have made such an eggergious error, he
would himself beg mechilah and assume personal responsibility to reverse the
effects of the lashon Hora which he had so irresponsibly spread.
Best regards,
Saul J. Berman
Saulberman@aol.com

>the levi aliya repeat one verse, and the GR"A has shlishi repeat 
>several verses.  I'm familiar with the practice prescribed by the
M'haber, but I was wondering whether there are any communities that
follow the 
>practice prescribed by the GR"A.
	In Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin they read according to this way of
breaking up the aliyos.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

>BTW, did anyone see the recent USNEWS article re: a certain Shsoshan 
>Bechofer?
	You ain't been paying attention <g>. RYGB posted it here the week before
it came out.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

>Let me assure you that the order in which I wrote was a slip-up, 
>caused, no doubt, by my expectation that the bris would be delayed
(probably to Sun iy"H). Immediately after sending out the message I
realized the error
	My question was on the siddurim, not on you!!

>- - but in e-mail "me'uvat lo yuchal litkon!"
	In the words of my yeshivishe friends,   what a "moiridikeh mussar
haskel".

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

it has been pointed out that there is a sociologic wing of MO----MO lite,
someone called it.  I don't know what % of people in various MO-type shuls
represent what wing  {. i.e. people day school educated but looking for the
hetter for mixed swimming vs the intelligensia wing who see classic MO as a
chumra--shulchan aruch plus ]   But my concern is that if you combine
practitioners  who are 'lite' on the 'praxy' part  with  clergy who are very
liberal on the 'doxy' part , would that not cast doubt on the benefit of
such an endeavor? from a sociological point of view, i can't imagine the
children in such an atmosphere remaining in such a shitah. Thus my original
concern for the outer limits of MO. I would think it's a slippery slope. 

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Michael Broyde wrote:

> 2.  Rabbi Bechhofer's comments about Rabbi Rackman deserve a serious
> response.  I, as a member of the Beth Din of America, have "lead the
> charge" against Rabbi Rackman's beit din, which I think is in serious
> error of halacha, and whose activities are void.  However, I do not
> think that Rabbi Rackman's work in this area is heretical; IT IS WRONG
> AL PE DIN -- drastically so.  Indeed, I signed a letter to all RCA

So far as I know, Rabbi Bechhofer did not accuse Rackman of heresy. Rabbi
Bechhofer accused Rackman of knowlingly proceeding to violate basic
halachic standards in the most sensitive area of Kedushas Yisroel
imaginable. Certainly, to call such a person "Rabbi" is a mockery of the
term - unless we equally apply it to other non-Halachic observant "Mat'ei
Hora'ah."

> members stating such.  I do not understand how an error of halacha, even
> a drastic one of this type makes one a heretic.  Let me suggest that our
> halachic vocabulary has lost the word "in error" from it.  Most errors

"In error" implies a legitimate mistake. When there is no basis AT ALL in
Halacha for a position, you are not in error - you are a chotei u'machti.

> are not heresies; even most serious errors are not heresies, even when
> they have such drastic consequences.  Such is, in my view, the case

Again, I do not accuse Rackman of heresy. But, I find "Edah"'s abetting
him on their letterhead inexcusable - a terrible misleading of the
Orthodox public at best, and at worst...

But, once we are on the topic, I am not so sure that arrogating the power
to be mafki'a kiddushin - a power reserved by Sanhedrin, certainly
Chazal (I know the literature on takkanos for hafko'as kiddushin via
HBDH - not relevant to nidon didan) - does not smack of "Where there is a
Rabbinic will there is a Halachic way" - which may constitue a significant
pegi'ah in our theological regard of the process of Torah sh'be'al Peh. I
leave that to others to debate. It was not my point.

> 3.  Point three is a more general one.  I am not a member of EDAH,
> although there are some aspects of it that I like, and some that I do
> not.  I do not at all agree with the sentiments of those posters about
> where one speaks and presents ideas.  If we wish our ideas to be heard,
> we go places where there are people WHO HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS, and
> present them. 
>

I was not addressing this point in my post, so I assume the response is
directed elsewhere. You certainly have the right to speak wherever you
want! 

YGB

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

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> 
> In a simple outline:
> 1) A positive view towards secular learing and culture.
> 2) An open posture towards the world at large.
> 3) A willingness to deal with Non-Ortho groups as de facto communities and NOT
> out of recgonizing them as legitimate alternate hashkofos.
> 4) A conviction that Halcoho can be and should be decisive even lekulo (more on
> this in another post)
> 5) Using Torah wisdom themes to confront and interact with modernity as opposed
> to avoiding it.  (EG Feminism.)
> 6) A willingness to openly discuss/debate all topics, opinions, and hashkofos,
> even those we acknowledge as being incorrect.
> 7) Accepting that there is lav davka one single correct hashkofo
> 8) Receptive to the positive contributions of both EY and the medina, without
> necessarily subscribing to government' hashkfofo.
> 9) Respect for a wide range of sholars from all stripes, as opposed to the more
> narrow confines of a single yeshiva's hashkofo.
> 10) A requirement to think and reflect and analyze and contemplate Torah, and
> whenever possible to avoid acceptance on blind faith alone.
> 11) To confront the challenges of a modern technological society by being as
> well informed and educated as possible
> 
> The trade-off is perhaps less rigorous observance, with more rigorous halachic
> and machshovo analysis to back it up, as well as the boldness and courage to
> take stands and to be exposed to alien hashkofos.
> 
> In another sense it is more complex, and fraught with "danger", but ideally more
> challenging and rewarding.  Therefore MO Yid sees the Torah as superior and si
> not afraid to debate anyone because he feels convinced on every level of its
> correctness and is confient in victory in any given KulturKampf.
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Rich Wolpoe

The problem with trying to define MO is that there are too many factions 
within it and some of your points could apply to other forms of 
Orthodoxy (Such as points 10 and 11)  It is well known that Rav Heineman 
of Baltimore is a world clas Auto Mechanic,  and that R, Shlomo Zalmen 
Auerbach, ZTL was an expert in certain areas of physics. Neither of them 
could be classified as MO.

HM

Since R' Dov Weiss is forwarding some of our deliberations to R' Berman, I
would like to post the following open letter, with the request that he
forward it:

Dear Rabbi Berman, loy"t

While I disagree, repsectfully, with some of the Halachic positions
you have taken in the past, I have much positive regard for you.

It is, therefore, with a sense of concern that I ask that you please
consider, for the sake of the integrity of Halacha and the preservation of
Kedushas Machane Yisroel, dropping the name of Emanuel Rackman from the
letterhead of Edah. I think the reasons that underlie this request are
obvious. Let me reiterate, in brief, however, that "mi'ma nafshach" - Edah
cannot achieve acceptance with this individual on its letterhead. Were it
to achieve acceptance, with said individual on its letterhead, then the
ramifications of legimization of a tragically distortion of Halacha would
be even more catastrophic.

B'ha'aracha meruba, u'b'kavod Rav,

YGB

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

>>>"They merit olom habah not through their own koach but by connecting
("hiskashrom") to grater people" >>
E. Teitz wrote:>>>This doesn't sound Jewish to me (despite the source).<<< 

I missed the original comment being cited, but I am sure others can elaborate
on this doctrine of hishkashrus as developed in Chassidus.  I would just like
to note that I recently saw the idea in Orot of R' Rook, vol IV, p. 465.  (Of
course, it might be worth examining what new light R' Kook sheds on the idea
independent of Chassidus, as well as its role in R' Kook's general scheme of
tzaddikim and dveikus (Orot p. 440-465), but I leave that to the scholars : -
)

-Chaim

P.S. Don't ask me as a rationalist to explain this stuff... : - )

<<
subscribes to the notion of progressive revelation and asserts that
there is now a Toras Miriam, to be added to Toras Moshe
>>

I am not sure what is meant by this.  Is the concern that Nevuah other
than what Hashem gave to Moshe has the same status as Torah. Or, that
Mirriam had a Nevuah which should not be included in the canon; Just
like there were questions about Shir Hashirim and Ben Sirah.  There was
an interesting related debate on this topic when the Chidushim of Rav
Yehudah HaChasid on Chumash were published. I believe this is discussed
in Igros Moshe YD3  114 & 115.


<<
 if one accepts R. Kook's idea that human
history itself reflects a part of Divine revelation, then the feminist
revolution in Western society is also part of that revelation.  This is
a radical idea, given that feminism is at odds with the traditional role
of women in Judaism.  ......
She writes that, far from supporting radical feminism, she is trying to 
show that everything that develops in society, even that which seems
contrary
to Torah, should be seen as an expression of Hashgahah and having
positive
religious value.  
>>

I am confused as to what all of this means.  Is history not 
from from Hashem; can anything happen out side of Hashem's will.  If so 
exactly where do we put the limits on revelation.  Is it revelation only
when there is a verbale message?  Are there other signs that HKB"H means
for us to interpert.  Then too, are there not negative aspects of
history 
that we are meant to learn from.  Such as the Hurban Habayis.  Is this 
issue what Mordechai and Esther were talking about in the question of 
Kisvuni Ledoros.  I have no sources on this I am just trying to figure
out
what the words mean.  What are we to learn from the development of
Christianity,
the downfall of communism.  At what point do we stop history and decide
to 
take a reading as to what it is all meant to tell us.  On the other
hand, 
just as it seems to me that Nevuah should be consider part of
revelation; 
I personally have always understood Ruach Hakodesh and some explanations
of Daas Torah as extensions of revlation.

To all who wrote Mazal Tov wishes, thank you very much!

B"H everyone is home now and recovering nicely.

B'ezras Hashem Yisborach the bris will take place this coming Sunday
morning at Cong. Bnei Ruven here in Chicago, davening at 8:00 am and the
bris thereafter (you are also welcome to join us in the Daf Yomi preceding
at 6:30 am!).

May we all share smachos!
YGB

I had written:

>> elu va-elu).  But it is the mekubbalim who developed the concept of
>> ongoing, progressive revelation.  This is evident in many works of
>> kabbalists, including early works, such as the perush of Rabbenu Azriel
>> and Sefer Rimmon, and later works, such as the Shelah (citations on
>> request).  More recently, Rav Kook put forward the suggestion that
>> history itself is part of the Divine revelation.  Thus far traditional
>> sources.

RYGB (to whom I extend a personal mazal tov with the appropriate
berakhot) asks:

>Sources please?

>Ongoing Sinaitic type revelation? Surely not?

Well yes, as it happens (and don't call me 'Shirley' :)).

In a classic article on revelation, G. Scholem translated a long passage
from Meir ibn Gabbai's Avodat ha-Kodesh 3:23 (written in 1531).  An
excerpt follows:

.... We learn this from the prayer which designates God as the One Who
"gives the Torah' [present tense].  For that great voice with which He
gave it has not ceased.  After He gave us His holy words and caused us
to hear them as the very essence of the whole Torah, He did not cease to
let us hear its details through His prophet, the trusted one of his
house [i.e. Moses].  This is what Onkelos meant when he interpreted the
Hebrew text of Deut. 5:19 on the voice of God at the revelation as "a
great voice that did not cease speaking."  The great voice sounds forth
without interruption; it calls with that eternal duration that is its
nature; whatever the prophets and scholars of all generations have
taught, proclaimed and produced. they have received precisely out of
that voice which never ceases . . . .  In all generations these men
stand in the same relationship to that voice as the trumpet to the mouth
of a man who blows into it and brings forth a sound.  In that process,
there is no production from their own sense and understanding . . . .

See also Shenei Luhot ha-Berit, 25b-26a.

Now I claim to know very little about matters kabbalistic.  It is not my
derekh.  But my general impression is that the concept of progressive
revelation is very much a part of Lurianic kabbalah, and tied up with
the image of the sephirah of Hokhmah (I think) as a constant, ongoing
flow -- the kol Hashem that never stops.  These sources exist and remain
very much a part of the Torah canon.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

While we are still on the topic of "Edah" and (Rabbi) Rackman, it behooves
us to note that there is a figure on the other end of the spectrum who
should be publicly excoriated: (Rabbi) Menashe Klein, who aptly signs
himself as "HaKatan", author of She'eilos u'Teshuvos Mishne Halachos,
known in some circles as the "Meshane Halachos". Klein allegedly was the
resource for the "Kiddushei Ketana" Chillul Shem Shomayim of several years
ago and serves now as the resource to allow "Heter Me'ah Rabbanim"'s to be
issued without allowing the wife access to her get. Individuals would be
well advised not to rely l'halacha on anything such a person writes in
his seforim. As R' Broyde noted yesterday, not every distortion of Halacha
makes one a heretic, but there are several other choice categories in
which to place such people...

YGB

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]