Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 182

Saturday, March 6 1999

• My Questions to RDG, in Response to RMF
• Hilchos aveilus
• re: science and history
• Re: Avodah V2 #180
• Overturning Minhoging
• Shittas haG'eonim- Long answer
• Women in tallis and tefillin at Edah conference
• Re: Avodah V2 #180
• Reconcilliation
• re: science and history
• Kabbalah, Talmud, and Mishnah Berura
• Re: Avodah V2 #180
• Re: literal aggada
• AE on Emuno
• Re: chazal and the calendar
• Re: chazal and the calendar
• Re: literal aggada
• Re: literal aggada
• Re: Kabbalah, Talmud, and Mishnah Berura

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 owner-avodah@aishdas.org wrote:

> whatever, indeed!).  Thus RYGB sets the stage by the rhetorical device
> which asked:  <<Seeing how prone they were to error - from your
> perspective - what is to say that there is any validity to Rabbinic
> stricture and decree in Halacha > .  I reread Dr Glasner's submission
> and nowhere find the inaccurate characterization you impute to him of
> "proneness" to error on the part of chazal.  Also the unwarranted
> conflation which would equate questioning the historicity of some
> statements (plenty of precedent for that amongst recognized gidolim -
> and while RYGB, in a methodological reprise of his rejection of "out of
> the mainstream" poroshonim during the late exegetical wars will probably
> simply reject these as well, demonization of those who disagree hardly
> seems appropriate - no telling what godol might get swept up in such a
> net.) with a questioning of the exercise of halochic authority simply
> seems to me a logical disconnect.  But no doubt David can rally to his
> own defense. 
> 

I do not agree, of course, except with your willingness to let the good
doctor respond forr himself :-). I think RM Koppel's response to my
queries and my parry to him pinpoints matters a little more accurately,
ayain sham.

A note about: "mainstream". We have hashed this over many times, but I
believe it is perfectly legitimate to reject, say, Azarya de Rossi, as a
valid source for Jewish thought. I do not know the litmus test, and I know
that in critiquing the Avos I rejected far more reputable sources - but,
in the case of chronologies, I think you will be hard pressed to find
someone like a Malbim or RSRH on the secular side of the divide!
 
> I should also like to comment RYGB's assertion (paraphrased) that he
> himself is no obstructionist and is willing to entertain deviations from
> chazalic historical statements if presented with solid proof, but absent
> such, he will simply continue to place more credibility in Chazal than
> Herodotus.  Set aside for the moment that the problem is much bigger
> than Herodotus, the problem I see here is that we will never, in

It really isn't :-).

> E.g. I could see positing a hava aminoh that they should be treated with
> even more caution, since surely iqar emunoh must ultimately rest on our
> conviction of the historicity of our tradition and starting to tamper
> with traditional understandings leads to an uncomfortable - im kain
> nosatoh divorechoh li'shiurin - position to defend. 
> 

Actually, I thought of making this argument earlier in our discussion, but
did not want to get back into the issue of the underpinnings of Emunah,
one of previous debates here. I believe that this argument is, in this
context, a good reason to resoundingly reject R' Schwab's position - if
Chazal tampered with history, what can we believe with definitiiveness?

> I am not advocating that these types of considerations be aired in every
> 9th grade hashkofoh class, but this is supposed to be a high level
> group.  Any comments? 
> 
> Mechy Frankel		michael.frankel@dtra.mil
>

Yes. I think they should be discussed in a 9th grade Hashkofo class! 

YGB

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

Gershon Dubin wrote (and I thank him):

"There is a similar segula which was more common in previous years of having
your own tachrichim prepared,  not to need them until 120."

I am reminded that I read in a sefer an intro written by the
survivors/children of the author, that he had fallen ill and, in the hopes
of triggering the "known" segula for arichus yamim, prepared a tzava-a
(will). Alas, they record that it appeared not to be efficacious in the
author's circumstance.

Noach Witty

Rabbi Bechhofer writes:

<<<
From yourr perspective, I would assume, you would see no reason to accept
the authority of Chazal on something, say, like that Galus Mitzrayim
lasted 210 years and not 400 or 430 years. So, what about their authority
on something like "ayin tachas ayin", a topic we have discussed here
before - is their assertion that it is monetary definitive or not? Or, for
another topic we have discussed, Hilchos Treifos, where we can keep many
more animals alive then they could - why should we not overturn these
halachos?
>>>
I will try to be brief.  I accept dogmatically the authority of the Written Law
and the derivative authority of "the judge that will be in those days" to
determine the halachah based on his understanding of the Written Law and
other relevant factors (which for reasons of brevity and incapacity I will leave
as an undefined term but would at least include his conception of the
relevant facts before him).  There is no Biblical or other source that I am
aware of for assuming that Chazal were especially priveleged in their
knowledge of science and other disciplines.  The "the judge that will be in
those days" is given (nearly) absolute authority to determine the halachah
even to the point of declaring left to be right or right to be left.  This implicitly
allows for the possiblity that "the judge that will be in your days" could be
factually wrong and still halachically authoritative.  So my answer is that I see
no connection between Chazal's authoritativeness in matters of halachah
and their authoritativeness in matters of fact.  To return to an earlier theme,
"the judge that will be in your days" could in fact change the halachah
decided upon by an earlier judge in light of new factual information or based
on an alternative interpretation of the applicable Biblical text.  See Rambam
Hilchot Mamrim 2:1.  The "judge that will be in your days" has decided that
"an eye for an eye" means monetary compensation.  Unless the
reconstituted Sanhedrin that should be quickly returned as it was originally
should decide to reinterpret the verse in a literal sense, the halachah will
remain that monetary compensation is paid.  Concerning the laws of treifot,
the Biblical commandment, as the Rambam makes clear, refers to an animal
that is at the point of death (nattah la-mut).  The possibility that such an
animal might be saved by some modern medical intervention is irrelevant,
since in the absence of such intervention it will die within a short period.  If
you are referring to the 18 treifot, those are not on the same level as nattah
la-mut and, unlike nattah la-mut, eating such an animal (if a proper shehita
were performed) would not entail the punishment of lashes.  The 18 treifot are
therefore a chumrah imposed by the halachah, but do not involve any
categorical assertion about the real world.  The machloket concerning treifa
chaya o eina chaya is a machloket about whether one can infer whether a
safek treifa was in fact a treifa from its having survived twelve months.  But
that machloket is not contingent on whether as a matter of fact one of the 18
treifot could have lived for 18 months.  On the understanding of treifa, see
Dor Revi'i, Petiha ikar 10.  Of course, in all this I am relying on the Dor Revi'i
and may it be the will of the Ribbono shel Olam that I have understood his
words correctly and  that in the olam ha-emet nothing said by his unworthy
descendant in his name should be a source of embarrassment to him.

With Rabbi Bechhofer's permission, I would just like to say to Eli Clark that I
think that he has read a bit more into what I wrote than I intended.  I did not
mean to say that assertions about reality based on certain types of scientific
knowledge are not more persuasive than arguments based on literary
analysis.  On the other hand there may be historical or literary arguments that
would rightly be considered more persuasive than last night's weather
forecast.  But in order to avoid annoying Daniel Eidensohn any further, I think
we should probably continue this conversation, if it need be continued,
offline.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

RYGB wrote:

"The 420 has very important calendrical ramifications - it is not elastic.
You are really aggadicizing an issue that is halachic to the core. When it
comes to determining molados, shemittos, etc. you cannot escape the issue
of every year - every month - counting."

I had candidly hoped not to join this discussion since everybody appears to
have been writing about what others have said yet I haven't seen (did I miss
something; if so, I'll take private e-mails) anyone suggest a reconciliation
line-by-line year-by-year so to speak.

WRT RYGB's coment above, would he kindly explain why molados and shmittos
are affected? After all, we have our count, we know it to be 5759, and I
think that the 420 years have no effect on our current calculations since we
have made our peace WRT choosing sides in the above disputes. The one or two
major calendar-changing makhlokot (1-Rambam v. Ra'avad; 2-Rambam v. Gaonim)
are therefore not immediately pertinent. Please advise.

Noach Witty

Micha writes:>>
For example, the Gro felt that the common nusach of "moshav yikaro" violated
hilchos Avodah Zarah. It's an anthropomorphication not found in Tanach. He
therefore changed it to the less common version of Aleinu which read "kisei
k'vodo", as Hashem is often pictured on a kisei.<<

I heard it was because Yekaro and Yehsu had the same gematriyo!

Furthermore, the Rov, the Gro, and others changed minhogim based upon what the 
goyim did.  I know we have a precednt in matzeivo, but I think it's a BAD policy
to change the way we do business becuase the goiym do it.  (EG no trees in shul 
on shavuos because of Xmas trees).  Extend that and Palm sunday would thow Arbo 
minim out, too!  Remember, about 90% of the time it's derbabbon anyway!

Now answer me as to how the Maharil blamed the early death of his child sipmly 
only because he changed the local tunes on Yomim Noraim?

Or re: R. Nosson Adler's exile from Frankfort?

To the best of my understanding, the Gro often changed his minhogim privattely 
see maase horav re: Boruch ahsehm at Maariv).  IMHO he never intened an en masse
change.

Rich Wolpoe 

Micha:

In v2n77, Richard Walpoe writes:
: My conclusions:
: 1) The minhog ispo facto ratified the shitos that argued with the Geonim,

Well, one could ask the same question on those Rishonim who overturned the
Geonim.<<

Ein hochi nami.  My earlier posts allude to just who can override whom!
When I attend Ner Yisroel, I was very bothered how the Rishonim were held to be 
virtually binding, while the Geonim were given quite short-shrift.  I was given 
vague answers that the Rishonim did not feel bound by the Geonim, even though 
the gaonim were in bovel, and prsumably a lot closer to Peshat in TB, etc.

An indirect answer relates to another previousy post.  That is is Dr. Irving  
Augus' shito that the Rishonim of Ashenaz had their own independent Mesorah from
TB!  Some Implicaitons:

1)  Their parallel  Mesora (undocumented, and probably oral) gave them the 
"right" to argue with the Geonim.  It also (IMHO) established a precedent for 
seeing mesorah as superceding textual proofs (how about kitniyos!)

2) Agus argued, that Tosfos had this "hidden agenda" when kvethcing a Gemoro.  
(See The Maharal's comment in Nesivos Olom wrt Tosfos and pilpul, etc).  
Essentially, Tosfos KNEW what the halocho should be, and they were occasionally 
"stuck" with the TB that argued. So they kvethed a reconcilliation (sort of like
the 420/585 business <big smile>). Why even botehr with TB?  Because as a 
document it was THE supreme text of Troah sheb'al peh.  But it was fallible in 
that it did NOT encompass Ashkenazic Minhog/mesorah!  (Sort of like th SA before
the Mappo!)  And so instead of tossing out the TB, or using TY - which had major
transmission problems (remember there was no Aamco those days <smile>) they  
stuck with the TB and  added pilpul to reoncile TB and their Mesorah.

3) R. Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel, - a talmid of Agus - bakced up SOME of his 
"rebbes" assertions in a recent converstaion.  But he said there was a flip 
side.  Tosfos had effectily  imported TB into Ashkenaz and now gave it halachic 
power that it did not enjoy before. (a LOT like the Remo made the SA more 
pallitable to Yehduei Cracow!)  S tosfos did 2 things, he reocnciled TB with 
theri minhogim, AND they gave TB binding power in Ashkenaz!

4) Sephardic Rishonim had similar differences with TB and might have developed 
their own ways of reconcilliation.

The single biggest problem of this theory is the lack of documentary evidence.  
There are some hints at it that R. Dr. Kanarfogel showed us "legabei" the 
Rabbeinu Gershom and other early pre-Tosfos Ashkenazim.

<smile>: Do I take this theory literall?  Naw, but it's a great start!
It explains:
1) What gives Rishonim the right to argue on Geonim.  
2) By corrolary, without a mesora, Acharonim cannot argue on Rishonim (apologies
to Gronicks)
3) What drove Tosfos to use "convoluted peshat" now and again.
4) How Minhogim (eg kitniyos) cna be "in your face" to open Gemoros (that is 
explained by the fact we are NOT heirs of Bavli minhogim)
5) The TB is more a text of learning tand transmission of mesora than it is a 
book of Halocho Pesuko.  (The Rif might hold otherwise.  And his talmid Ri 
migash too). And that our mesorah might even supercede certain "offene gemoros" 
from time to time.  Applogies to the devotees of written sources, but this 
imp[lies an oral transmission of mihnog that supercedes the written docuement. 
Imagine Torah she'bal peh transmitetd orally.  what a novel idea?! <smile>
6) The zohar Thread: Agus held that the kabbolo was a closely guarded 
undocumented secret among chasiddei ahskenaz. (eg R. Yehudo yehua hachosid).  
the Zohar is probably one of the first printed texts, but was by no means an 
original work of R. M. Delone. (the words MIGHT have been his. The concepts were
al pi a hidden mesora sort fo a kabal <pun>

I have reservations legabei the upheaval's of the 18th century wrt to minhgom 
that I will post privately to anyone interesed.

Good Shabbos - Rich Wolpoe

Having attended the conference, it is my impression from a question-answer
session at one of the seminars, that women wearing tefillin were an
insignificant minority of the attendees at the Edah conference.  The
photograph was in no way typical, and it is unfortunate that it is being
used on this list to characterize the conference.

Levi Reisman

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Noah Witty wrote:

> WRT RYGB's coment above, would he kindly explain why molados and
> shmittos are affected? After all, we have our count, we know it to be
> 5759, and I think that the 420 years have no effect on our current
> calculations since we have made our peace WRT choosing sides in the
> above disputes. The one or two major calendar-changing makhlokot
> (1-Rambam v. Ra'avad; 2-Rambam v. Gaonim)  are therefore not immediately
> pertinent. Please advise. 
>

Shemittos don't start from Beri'as Ha'Olam: They start from the entry into
EY and continue from there. 165 is not divisible by seven, so everythiing
would be askew.

(BTW, according to R' Schwab, if I understand correctly, it is now
actually 5759+165!) 

Molados are also based on a set addition of 29d 12h 793c each month. If we
are off by 165 years, there must be some compensation.

YGB

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

RDE- Yad Moshe:>>What we are dealing with is the nature of the Mesora. Do we 
compartmentalize and say - Halacha is absolute while all other aspects of human 
knowledge is totally open to personal discretion. Or do we say that the prime 
understanding is through the eyes of Chazal - there are things which are quite
understandable such as halacha and others things which *seem* to be contrary
to our understanding but which are not presumed to be totally wrong. These are
the two extremes.<<

I believe that "science" and our mesorah ARE reconcilable - and that we are in 
the proces of making primitive stabs at it. R. Aryeh Kaplan a "Gadol" at this 
"avoda".  When we refine our hypotheses by the list's ongoing shaklo v'trayo, we
hopefully will come up with some meaningul insights that make it all worthwhile.

Meanwhile, we might see these as Stiros.  Someday, bayom hahu, Yihye ... Echod. 

Rich Wolpoe

Thanks for your eloquent response. "But let me ask you like this", to use
a yeshivishism:

Judgments are one thing. But what about enactments: I.e., not an
appliication, but an innovation, say, Yom Tov Sheni, Chanukah, Netillas
Yadayim, Eruvin - on which we make "Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvasov" - does
the observance of these mitzvos d'rabbonon correspond to some source of
sanctity that was created by the Rabbis with their enactment, and does
there observance imply any theological or metaphysical benefit other than
the dogmatic observance of law?

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> I will try to be brief.  I accept dogmatically the authority of the
> Written Law and the derivative authority of "the judge that will be in
> those days" to determine the halachah based on his understanding of the
> Written Law and other relevant factors (which for reasons of brevity and
> incapacity I will leave as an undefined term but would at least include
> his conception of the relevant facts before him).  There is no Biblical
> or other source that I am aware of for assuming that Chazal were
> especially priveleged in their knowledge of science and other
> disciplines.  The "the judge that will be in those days" is given
> (nearly) absolute authority to determine the halachah even to the point
> of declaring left to be right or right to be left.  This implicitly
> allows for the possiblity that "the judge that will be in your days"
> could be factually wrong and still halachically authoritative.  So my
 

YGB

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

Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com> left Avodah (the list! not ch"v Avodas
Hashem itself! <grin>) about a month ago. He asked me, though, if I could
forward the following question to the list. Please CC: him on any replies.

: I recall seeing in Mishnah Berurah a discussion on the subject of what
: to do when Kabbalah and the Talmud disagree, and that he rules to follow
: Talmud. I need sources on that, but I can't recall whereit is except that
: I think it is in the first volume of Mishnah Berura.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Mar-99: Shishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 301:209-215
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 45a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

<<
Why should you - with the mindset you eloquently articulate - choose to
accept Chazal at all? Seeing how prone they were to error - from your
perspective - what is to say that there is any validity to Rabbinic
stricture and decree in Halacha? 
>>

Not really a fair question, but I'll answer it anyway.  Chazal reached their
halachic conclusions not by miracles, or by divining Divine conclusions.  As
the story of tanur shel Achnai shows, we reach our conclusions independent of
Divine decisions.  Chazal are right in their answers because their answers are
right, not because they match some predefined set of correct answers in
Heaven.  There are, of course, some wrong answers as well, if they do not fit
within the framework of already deicided halacha.

History, however, are events that occured here on earth.  In those matters,
there is a definite right and wrong, either the events happened when Chazal
said so, or not.  Chazal recording incorrect dates, whether intentional or
accidental, has nothing to do with their power to decide halacha. 

In fact, your example of halacha l'Moshe miSinai is applicable, but not as was
intended.  History is like halacha l'Moshe miSinai, specific decisions, or
events that occured.  There can not be any eylu v'eylu on HLM, nor on history.
If Chazal made a mistake concerning HLM their decision would be wrong.  Same
thing if they got a date wrong in history.

In fact, Rambam uses this very argument when he discusses the origins of Torah
sheb'al Pe, that it could not have been Chazal rediscovering prior decisions
from Moshe's time, or else eylu v'eylu makes no sense, there can be only one
correct answer, and who is to say that Chazal figured correctly each and every
time.  Rambam therefore posits that this is not the case, and Chazal decide
each case as they see, and that by definition that answer is correct.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
I am certainly not a literalist in Aggada - such as the RBBC gemoros in BB
- - but I distinguish between accounts related as factual and those that are
not.
>>

Please tell me where the sefer is that has the listing of literal as opposed
to non-literal aggada.  I do not remember any disclaimer in BB that the
following 2 pages are to be taken as highly amusing, but not literal stories,
from which many interesting points can be gleaned.

EDT

>>From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Albert Einstein

I finally gave up looking for my copy of "Ideas and Opinions" a collection
of essays and transcriptions of speeches by AE (primarily NOT physics).

IIRC, the man thought of himself as an atheist. When asked about "G-d does not
play dice with the universe" Einstein explained that he meant it poetically --
that he didn't mean a real G-d any more than he meant real dice.<<

Could be.  I heard him quoted as saying he believed in the "G-d of Spinoza".  I 
undrestand this as a Deist model, where Hashem is the God of Creation but not 
the God of History.  IOW he believed in form of Bereishis Boro but not in Anochi
Hashem Elokecha...

Rich Wolpoe

<<
The 420 has very important calendrical ramifications - it is not elastic.
You are really aggadicizing an issue that is halachic to the core. When it
comes to determining molados, shemittos, etc. you cannot escape the issue
of every year - every month - counting.
>>

And if Chazal were intentionally hiding years, for whatever reason, don't you
think they would have rigged the calendar backwards too.  The dates and times
for the initial molad of creation is not halacha l'Moshe miSinai.  It could
very well have been calculated backwards from whatever point in time Chazal
wanted.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> And if Chazal were intentionally hiding years, for whatever reason, don't you
> think they would have rigged the calendar backwards too.  The dates and times
> for the initial molad of creation is not halacha l'Moshe miSinai.  It could
> very well have been calculated backwards from whatever point in time Chazal
> wanted.
> 
> Eliyahu Teitz
> Jewish Educational Center
> Elizabeth, NJ
> 
And Chazal were really Martians who invaded Earth and .... 

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> 
> Please tell me where the sefer is that has the listing of literal as opposed
> to non-literal aggada.  I do not remember any disclaimer in BB that the
> following 2 pages are to be taken as highly amusing, but not literal stories,
> from which many interesting points can be gleaned.
> 
> EDT
> 
The sefer is called common sense, so you can say svara he, lama li sefer:)
P.S. which story was a comedy? (you said they were amusing)
Elie Ginsparg

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> Please tell me where the sefer is that has the listing of literal as opposed
> to non-literal aggada.  I do not remember any disclaimer in BB that the
> following 2 pages are to be taken as highly amusing, but not literal stories,
> from which many interesting points can be gleaned.
> 
> EDT
> 

REDT! I am surprised at you - see the Maharsha, Maharal, Rashba and Ritva
there who all make the point that these Agaddatas are not literal!

YGB

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>

>  : I recall seeing in Mishnah Berurah a discussion on the subject of what
> : to do when Kabbalah and the Talmud disagree, and that he rules to follow
> : Talmud. I need sources on that, but I can't recall whereit is except that
> : I think it is in the first volume of Mishnah Berura.

The Mishna Berura 25 (42) cites the Knesses HaGedolah. Other references are Baer
Halacha 34:2, 161:4 and 95:2. See also Shaarei Tshuva 25:11

These references are found in my index to Mishna Berura - Yad Yisroel under the
Headings of Halacha page 149 and Kabbala page 186

                                             Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]