Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 011

Tuesday, March 30 1999

• RE: ignoring ecology
• Re: Ignoring ecology
• RE: Ignoring ecology
• Re: Hashkofo: Clarification
• Shoftim vs. Melech
• Shoftim and Melachim
• Re: Shoftim and Melachim
• Torat Moshe
• Re: more on the haughtiness of the academy
• Re: more on the haughtiness of the academy
• [none]

Eli Turkel wrote:
<<These include topics like Meimad mentions but also problems like ecology
(which in fact R. YGB has himself addressed). Thus, although individual
people (icluding myself) have written about ecology I would hardly call
it a burning issue in the religious community.>>

One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as ecology may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at least the ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read in the local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from being cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that the tree is protecting her...)

Let's not forget too, that there are only so many things that one can treat as a "burning issue". After work, family, chinuch habonim, communal issues and my own seder limud, how worked up can I get about the fact that the crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are dying?

Chag kosher v'sameach

Sender Baruch

Eli Turkel wrote:
<<These include topics like Meimad mentions but also problems like ecology
(which in fact R. YGB has himself addressed). Thus, although individual
people (icluding myself) have written about ecology I would hardly call
it a burning issue in the religious community.>>

One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as ecology may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at least the ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read in the local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from being cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that the tree is protecting her...)

Let's not forget too, that there are only so many things that one can treat as a "burning issue". After work, family, chinuch habonim, communal issues and my own seder limud, how worked up can I get about the fact that the crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are dying?

Chag kosher v'sameach

Sender Baruch

Eli Turkel wrote:
<<These include topics like Meimad mentions but also problems like ecology
(which in fact R. YGB has himself addressed). Thus, although individual
people (icluding myself) have written about ecology I would hardly call
it a burning issue in the religious community.>>

One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as ecology
may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at least the
ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read in the
local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from being
cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that the tree
is protecting her...)

Let's not forget too, that there are only so many things that one can treat
as a "burning issue". After work, family, chinuch habonim, communal issues
and my own seder limud, how worked up can I get about the fact that the
crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are dying?

Chag kosher v'sameach

Sender Baruch

Dear Listmembers,
Some of you had requested a copy of R' Aharon Lichtenstein's letter regarding
the Edah conference. I have a hardcopy that I'd be happy to send to anyone who
supplies a mailing address.

Chag Kasher V'sameach to those of all persuasions (no I don't mean to restart
elu v'elu:-)

Joel Rich

>>
Correction not withstanding, the fact is shoftim exist independent of melech as 
the din d'oraysa of shoftim v'shotrim titen lecha - appointing a B"D.  I do not 
know why you assume the beracha refers to anything more then that.  See Avnei 
Eliyahu in siddur HaGRA for a different approach than the one I'm suggesting  
that will also answer your kashe.

- -CB<<

Hoshivo shotein KEVORISHONO.

Question what does Rishono imply?

(I Hope not such early shoftim as Chofni/Pinchos, Avsholom etc.)

So being first, what does it mean?

Rich Wolpoe  

I think we're confusing two things:

1- The need to have shoftim (legislative judges);
2- The role those shoftim repeatedly played before we had a king.

#2 was certainly NOT the ideal. Both in Shoftim and in Rus, those times were
described as "ein melech biyisra'el, ish hayashar bei'nav ya'aseh". So, some
charismatic shoftim were able to step up occasionally to fill that vacuum.
Notice this only happened in time of need -- after k'lal yisrael went off
the derech, and onesh was immanent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Mar-99: Levi, 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 308:11-17
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 57a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 45-48

Micha says:

> 1- The need to have shoftim (legislative judges);
> 2- The role those shoftim repeatedly played before we had a king.
> 
> #2 was certainly NOT the ideal. Both in Shoftim and in Rus, those times were
> described as "ein melech biyisra'el, ish hayashar bei'nav ya'aseh". So, some
> charismatic shoftim were able to step up occasionally to fill that vacuum.
> Notice this only happened in time of need -- after k'lal yisrael went off
> the derech, and onesh was immanent.





Why would that not be the ideal? I've frequently considered that pasuk to
adequately express my own political philosophy. Consider, if we live in a
society comprised entirely of yirei shomaim, what need have we of
governance? Only when something goes terribly wrong (your "time of need")
is it necessary for a charismatic shofet to step forward to do what must
be done. Otherwise, to turn your phrase, there is no need.


---sam

   I have a question about the daf yomi. The Gemara Yoma 86b states
that Moshe requested that his sin be listed in the Torah while David
attempted to hide his sin. Rashi and Maharsha indicate that Moshe's
sin was given in the Torah only because that was Moshe Rabbenu's
request.

Does that mean that Moshe had a veto over what appeared in the Torah?

With regard to king David his request was not granted because G-d said
that it already was written. I am not sure what that means since the
end of sefer shmuel was not finished until later. The question raised
above is a little less important since in Navi I would assume that the
author did choose what appeared and what did not.

Pesach Kasher vesameach,
Eli Turkel

Rabbi Bechhoffer worte:

<<<
I very much appreciate your evidence to my position from your sainted
ancestor!
>>>

Very clever.  I like that.

<<<
 We see that even a talmid chochom of such epic magnitude as the
DR - as you note in the praise that even Litvaks heaped upon him - no mean
thing indeed, considering Litvishe antipathies towards Hungarians! -
>>>

Flatter my ancestor.  Always a good move.  I'm putty in your hands.

<<<
expresses extreme humility and deference vis a vis even recent Acharonim
like the Divrei Chaim. Of course, the DR was a far greater Talmid Chochom
than we can ever imagine, yet aplogizes profusly for arguing with the DC!
>>>

More flattery.  Can't argue with that.

But, hey, wait a minute.  You almost had me there, you sly person, you.  The Dor Revi'i does not apologize for arguing with the Divrei Haim.  As a mark of respect, he begs the pardon of the honor of the Divrei Haim's Torah, b'mehilat k'vod Torahto.  There is a subtle, but important difference.  He in fact invokes the late precedent of the Divrei Haim, himself, as well as R. J. Emden and the Gra, not to mention the Rishonim and Chazal to show that one need not even perform such a ritualistic act of respect to one's bar p'lugta.  But that is just a quibble.

I think the more fundamental point is not whether we, subjectively (or even objectively) view ourselves as the inferiors of our predecessors.  None of us, I think, can honestly look at ourselves individually or as a generation, and not be staggered by the yirida from two generations ago to ourselves (I'm speaking on behalf of all the Baby Boomers now), even the greatest among us.  This particular yirida is so palpable as to be without precedent in Jewish history.  But I'm starting to ramble.  The point is that although much of what Chazal and the Rishonim and the Aharonim knew is not known to us, it is pure speculation to think that most of what they knew is not known to us.  On the other hand, we have the benefit of the cumulative contributions of generation upon generation of gedolim, yiraim u'shlamim, u't'horim.  To suggest that something essential was lost in the transmission from generation to generation, it seems to me, is to call into question the integrity of the Mesor!
!
!
ah itself.  And it is pure speculation, without foundation in any ikar emunah, to say despite all the scientific advances that have occurred over the last three or four centuries, that Chazal and the Rishonim had a better understanding of nature and the physical world than we do (or alternatively that nature has somehow unaccountably changed in some fundamental, but unspecified, way).  There is no haughtiness in recognizing that, unworthy though we may be, we are the undeserving beneficiaries of the cumulative contributions to knowledge of countless preceding generations and that the sum total of additions to knowledge has very likely exceeded the total of subtractions from knowledge.  That is the idea the Dor Revi'i was getting at when he said "this is the way of Torah:  one builds and another comes after and examines his words and removes the chaff from the wheat in order to find the truth, which is beloved above all."  And it is the idea conveyed by the dwarfs on the should!
!
!
ers of giants metaphor which so beautifully reconciles yiridat hadorot with the cumulative increase in knowledge.  As with any metaphor, it is dangerous to take it literally.  Thus, while we ought to view ourselves as being somehow and in some ways less able or less worthy than our holy ancestors, it is nonsensical to view yiridat hadorot as operating uniformly and perpetually with the ineluctable necessity of a law of nature.  In other words, the concept of yiridat hadorot is a subtle one that must be understood with a certain amount of, shall we say, seikhel.  If it is understood simple-mindedly, it leads to ridiculous conclusions, as Professor Turkel and Dr. Frankel have so ably explained.

So while we have every reason to feel humble and unworthy in comparison with our ancestors, and while we should always be conscious of our own fallibility and the limitations of even our own current knowledge, why should we therefore adopt an attitude that says that everything said by Chazal and Rishonim, even when contradicted by persuasive if not overwhelming evidence, is nevertheless correct and true?  That attitude, which I doubt was characteristic of the Rambam or many if not most other Rishonim and the greatest of the Aharonim, would only magnify the yirida that has already taken place.  What is to be gained by making ourselves even stupider than we are?  On this bedrock principle, I am confident that I am at one with the Dor Revi'i, and not only my sainted ancestor (to use your elegant formulation) but many other Gedolai Yisrael.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                               

On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> But, hey, wait a minute.  You almost had me there, you sly person, you. 
> The Dor Revi'i does not apologize for arguing with the Divrei Haim.  As
> a mark of respect, he begs the pardon of the honor of the Divrei Haim's
> Torah, b'mehilat k'vod Torahto.  There is a subtle, but important
> difference.  He in fact invokes the late precedent of the Divrei Haim,
> himself, as well as R. J. Emden and the Gra, not to mention the Rishonim
> and Chazal to show that one need not even perform such a ritualistic act
> of respect to one's bar p'lugta.  But that is just a quibble. 
>

I certainly can agree with you that that is a quibble!
 
> I think the more fundamental point is not whether we, subjectively (or
> even objectively) view ourselves as the inferiors of our predecessors.

True, very true.
 
> And it is pure speculation, without foundation in any ikar emunah, to
> say despite all the scientific advances that have occurred over the last
> three or four centuries, that Chazal and the Rishonim had a better
> understanding of nature and the physical world than we do (or
> alternatively that nature has somehow unaccountably changed in some
> fundamental, but unspecified, way).  There is no haughtiness in

That may well be as well - if you recall, I never asserted Chazal and the
Rishonim's supremacy in natural sciences etc. We were discussing yeridas
ha'doros vis-a-vis halachic areas - at least I was. And, again, the DR
evinces the proper attitude that a brilliant talmid chochom of one
generation should have vis-a-vis a brilliant talmid chochom of a recently
past generation in areas of halacha (BTW, was this an issue of bor al
gabei bor?), but not applicable to katlei kanya b'agma and azuvei kir
vis-a-vis elu asher ketanam ava mi'masneinu. Not that we cannot argue
even on them - but only after sifting with thirteen sieves etc.

YGB

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

Subject: Xtian seder

     Just an interesting story from the Jerusalem Post on xtians celebrating 
a seder. 

One is story originally from David Berger. Several catholics had vowed not to 
drink during Lent. Thet wanted to know if they could drink the 4 cups of
wine at the seder. The professor asked them whether they intended this
prohibition to apply on St Patricks day (petach).  When they responded that
they drand then she "paskened" that the Seder was as good.

He tops this with a story from Twersky who cured a priest from alcholism.
The priest asked what to do about mass and Twersky answered to use 
grape juice. The priest asked the basis for this and Twersky said it was
a teshuva of Rav Moshe. He was later told that the question was forwarded
to the vatican who said they agreed with Rav Moshe!

Chag Kasher Vesameach,
Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]