Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 014

Tuesday, April 6 1999

• Re: Avodah V3 #8
• Yiddish/Hebrew and ben adam lekhavero
• Re: Women's Prayer Groups
• On Brisker Psak
• Orthodox and Reaction
• Autoposies
• Re: Post-mortems
• learning vs doing
• Re: learning vs doing
• Ruach HaKodesh
• Re: Ruach HaKodesh
• Re: Ruach HaKodesh
• Re: learning vs doing
• Re: Yiddish/Hebrew and ben adam lekhavero
• Re: Women's Prayer Groups
• Re: Talmud Torah

> 
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:48:00 -0600
> From: Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com>
> Subject: Re: Modern Orthodoxy
> 
> 
> 	I presume you are not suggesting, however, that becoming literate,
> Jewishly and halachicly, necessarily or even usually results in one becoming
> "right wing."    I suspect that a lot depends on the sources of education.
> It just so happens that the right wing has been far more agressive in
> reaching out to the uneducated than has the modern or even centrist orthodox
> crowd.

===> I do not think that the matter can be expressed so simply (that the
r.w. is simply "more aggressive").  There are other factors.
1.  A person who has followed a path of [more or less] Torato Um'nato and
shunned secular learning appears to be more likely to be better positioned
for a career in Chinuch.  After all, how many M.O. (this writer included)
have regarded chinuch as a "goal" once they have received a secular
education?
2.  The overt lapses in the secular educational environment seem to
mitigate against the secualr society as a positive influence when teaching
others.  For example, the insistence by Yale (I think) that students MUST
spend their time in a dormitory environment that others may consider
immoral (although if they PAY the fee, they can stay where ever they wish)
does not exactly induce one to cite modern secular education as a
"positive".  While there are flaws in Yeshivot, they are usually not so
overt at the institutional level...

--Zvi




> 
> 	Kol tuv,
> 	Avi
> 	Avram Sacks
> 	Chicago, IL
> 	sacksa@cch.com
> 	achdut@enteract.com
> 

Two points:

1.  Where is it written (as Eli Turkel attributed to R. Sonnenfeld) that "a Jew's mother tongue has to be Hebrew"?  Even if we say that Hebrew is richer in kedushah, Yiddish (as R. Soloveichik said) has the status of tashmishey kedushah if not kedushah gufe -- and then there's English, which most Jews actually speak.  

2.  Lefi aniyus dati the reason that no one suggests khumras in ben adam lekhaveyro is that ben-adam-le-makom are more suited to open display (hence the widespread problem of religious behaviorism); if you display your khumres in presonal relationships you're often considered a hypocrite, but if you don't display them you don't glean the sociological benefits that are a boon to the performance of mitsves. Davar akher: When someone today starts "making nice," the recipient of this niceness is often freaked out.  Indeed, I know some folks who avoid doing acts of kindness for strangers in Manhattan because it scares people.

Sholem Berger

One minor quibble, regarding the citations from RYH Henkin, and whether
they are sufficiently weighty to merit consideration.  IIRC, from the
articles and letters by Dr. Wolowelsky in JUDAISM and the RJJ Journal,
the lenient opinions on women's issues from RYH Henkin are brought by
him in his grandfather's name.  If we are to take pronouncements from 
R' Tendler in the name of his father-in-law as seriously as if they had
come from R' Moshe Feinstein, why should we not take RYHH's citations of
RYEH seriously?

I realize that this leans back towards the Rabbinic Authority thread:
who is an authoritative transmitter of an ancestor's traditions?

>>
> Dear R'YGB, I've heard this before and wonder were these personal
> shailot that R' Chaim would not answer for himself because he was nogea 
> or did he not answer because of other reasons? 
> 

Folklore has it that he was loathe to pasken in general, not because of 
any specific negi'os. But others here probably have better info.

YGB<<

The Mesorah I received was that R. Chaim (or was it the Beis haLevi) was able to
unod anybodies rationale for a psak, 
So
He insisted that R. Yitzchok Elchonon pasken w/o giving a reason.  (BTW, as I 
recall this was nogeio an aguno).

Several he'oros:
Remember that BD tears up a get lest there be ketotos later?  Similarly, R. 
Chaim wanted a clean psak that would not be subjet to endless revision...

In general, my experiene with the Rav and others is that they were loathe to 
pasken because they knew they could see both sides of nearly any issue.  
Similarly, I am fairly convinced that the Rav hesiated to publish because he 
reserved the right to argue on his earlier lomdus on any sugyo.  IOW, his 1975 
peshat might argue on his 1955 Peshat.

This is why I consider Brisker Torah primarily a derech of HOW to learn... The 
fact that the Chazon Ish could upshlug R. Chaim's Torah does not surprise me,  I
suspect R. Chaim himself could have done it himself.

While Briskers have maintained the need to be make something muchrach, that does
not mean they always succeed in reaching that destination.  Rather, it means 
that the derech requires a certain proof process (a bit analogous to geometry). 
And so the derech goes, the effort is made to make it muchrach, regardless of 
whether or not it succeeds.

R. Yeruchim Gorelick avoided giving shiurim on Chulin, lest we use it for 
Halocho.  And remember that Briskers often learned Kodshim, largely devoid of 
Halocho lemaase.

Rich Wolpoe


  

Eli Turkel:>>It seems to me that a lot of the positions of orthodoxy are formed
by what other groups say or do rather than what is right.

Tanach is not stressed because nonJewish groups stress the bible.
Grammar is not important because the maskilim stressed dikduk.
Similarly for Jewish history.
Yiddish replaces Hebrew because Ben-Yehuda was not religious.
    I once read that on a British census form that R. Sonnenfeld listed
    his mother tongue as Hebrew and not Yiddish because a Jew's mother
    tongue has to be Hebrew. He bemoaned the fact that the religious
    had not initiated speaking Hebrew at least in learning.<<

I attribute this to a consious reactionary attitude against Reform.

In general, there is a certain "lehach'is" attitude towards chukos Akum, Reform 
etc. that has caused changes.

EG, the Gro opposed putting trees in shuls because of xmas trees.  (KAJ still 
decorates the shul with greenry lechovod Shavuos).

Some shuls opposed choirs as too Goyish or too Reform.  (KAJ still ahs a choir).

I think that this is a major difference between "MO" and black-hat, i.e. do we 
care what the "Goyim" (both Jewish and Gentile) do or not? 

Rich Wolpoe

HG:>>
1)  The classical basis for permitting autopsy is the Tshuva of the Nodah
B'Yehuda where he permitted autopsy where the information gleaned at
autopsy could directly benefit another patient in the same hospital
suffering from the same disease.  The unfortunate expectation is that there
will continue to be serious casualties among soldiers serving in Lebanon,
as long as Israel maintains its presence there.  Does this expectation of
**FUTURE** wounded meet the criteria of the Nodah B'Yehuda?<<

(BTW, This may or may not releate to the aforementioned case...)
Isn't there a specific heter or Teshuvo, that allows for autposies in the case 
of an epidemic (or suspected epidmeic)? 

Rich Wolpoe

Chas vechalila to insinuate that Army doctors in Israel do post-mortems
on soldiers who were killed in service. What they do is practice emergency
tracheostomy or cricothyrotomy. In any case this is now moot: they will now
practice on lifelike manikin simulators from Nasco.

The halachic question is interesting: the Mishpetei Uzziel Yoreh Deah 28-29
seems to permit post-mortems for the purpose of medical teaching. And a
cricothyrotomy is a simple incision in the throat with no removal of blood or
tissue. Tissue biospies are permitted (see the Iggrot Moshe YD Chelek Bet 151:
"aval nir'eh laaniyut daati d'im lo yachtechu ha'eyvarim velo yiftechu tzavaaro
ubitno, rak rotzim litchov needle ....."  and 3 lines below this about the
elctrocautery needle). It must be stated that in a regular autopsy, the neck
area is severed and skull opened. A cricothyrotomy incision does not in any way *sever* the neck; it's a third of an inch incision.

Josh (who was a Ktzin Refuah in the army)

> His response was that if there is someone else who could take care of 
> these things who isn't involved in learning, then those who are involved in 
> learning are exempt.  I understand the source for this but have to wonder if 
> this message, which seems consistent among many shades of Yeshivot, is 
> creating an egocentricity that will last well after Yeshiva is done( assuming 
> that at least some percentage of the students eventually leave )
> I also wonder if the fact that the conservative movement seems to have tikun 
> olam as a major message plays any part in the orthodox community's lack of 
> response.
> 
This viewpoint has been in Israeli yeshivot for ages. I was told eons ago
that one should not get involved in building a mikvah! That is the job
of the laity and rabbis should only learn and not get involved in
community activities.

Though I personally am not fond of this derech nevertheless it seems to
be widely pushed at least in some circles.

Chag Kasher Vesameach.
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 4/5/99 3:20:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 > His response was that if there is someone else who could take care of 
 > these things who isn't involved in learning, then those who are involved 
in 
 > learning are exempt.  I understand the source for this but have to wonder 
if 
 > this message, which seems consistent among many shades of Yeshivot, is 
 > creating an egocentricity that will last well after Yeshiva is done( 
assuming 
 > that at least some percentage of the students eventually leave )
 > I also wonder if the fact that the conservative movement seems to have 
tikun 
 > olam as a major message plays any part in the orthodox community's lack of 
 > response.
 > 
 This viewpoint has been in Israeli yeshivot for ages. I was told eons ago
 that one should not get involved in building a mikvah! That is the job
 of the laity and rabbis should only learn and not get involved in
 community activities.
 
 Though I personally am not fond of this derech nevertheless it seems to
 be widely pushed at least in some circles.
 
 Chag Kasher Vesameach.
 Eli Turkel >>

Out of curiosity - if one thinks the lay leader might listen, is there a 
responsibility to tell him that he should spend more time learning and less 
on community responsibilities? Also is this limited to those  Rabbis who are 
full time involved in learning, or Rabbis in general? Does their compensation 
status play any role?
I would guess their are no hard and fast rules but am really trying to better 
understand this approach.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Joel Rich beshime Mahritz Chayos:>>...dachar 
chatimat hatora lo diber hashem lnavi o lchacham, hein derech nvuah vruach 
hakodesh <<

Lich'ora we can still say the following:
1) There is no direct WORD from Hashem as to what the halacha is...
BUT
2) Ruah hakodesh might influence an informed Talmid chochom to make the correct 
choice or to gain the proper insight, rather than say the halocho outright.

Rich Wolpoe

Rich Wolpoe writes:
> 1) There is no direct WORD from Hashem as to what the halacha is...
> BUT
> 2) Ruah hakodesh might influence an informed Talmid chochom to make the
> correct 
> choice or to gain the proper insight, rather than say the halocho outright.

Just to be clear: R' YGB confirmed to me that he didn't consider the source
of halachic authority to be that the particular information arrived via
RhK. Rather, the ability to recieve RhK says something about the Rav making
the statement.

That's how we got to the question between the relationship between da'as Torah
and RhK, and how that relationship is connected to da'as tachton vs. Da'as
Elyon. And, for that matter, just what is da'as Torah?

In my lexicon, da'as Torah means your #2.

Your #1 may or may not be true. More relevent to us, though is that even if
Hashem did give such a word, the tanur shel achnai story seems to indicate that
it doesn't give any authority to the concept.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Apr-99: Levi, Shmini
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 308:60-66
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 60b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 61-64

In a message dated 4/5/99 5:03:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

<< Rich Wolpoe writes:
 > 1) There is no direct WORD from Hashem as to what the halacha is...
 > BUT
 > 2) Ruah hakodesh might influence an informed Talmid chochom to make the
 > correct 
 > choice or to gain the proper insight, rather than say the halocho outright.
 
 Just to be clear: R' YGB confirmed to me that he didn't consider the source
 of halachic authority to be that the particular information arrived via
 RhK. Rather, the ability to recieve RhK says something about the Rav making
 the statement.
 
 That's how we got to the question between the relationship between da'as 
Torah
 and RhK, and how that relationship is connected to da'as tachton vs. Da'as
 Elyon. And, for that matter, just what is da'as Torah?
 
 In my lexicon, da'as Torah means your #2. >>

I remember learning at some point that the reason the halacha did not follow 
one of the tannaim( R' Eliezer?) was that he was so brilliant that the others 
could not really tell if his arguments were correct or not. I would have no 
problem with the Rhk definition that allowed for greater insight into the 
issue that could then be translated into part of the halachik process but 
some problem with saying that even if the position doesn't seem compelling 
compared to other articulations, that it should be accepted because of who 
said it. In the best of all worlds(sanhedrin?) this would  lead to further 
discussions that would yield the 'best' answer.

OTOH perhaps the answer is that we are so insignificant that we shouldn't try 
to understand but just accept.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

In a message dated 4/5/99 3:20:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 > His response was that if there is someone else who could take care of 
 > these things who isn't involved in learning, then those who are involved 
in 
 > learning are exempt.  I understand the source for this but have to wonder 
if 
 > this message, which seems consistent among many shades of Yeshivot, is 
 > creating an egocentricity that will last well after Yeshiva is done( 
assuming 
 > that at least some percentage of the students eventually leave )
 > I also wonder if the fact that the conservative movement seems to have 
tikun 
 > olam as a major message plays any part in the orthodox community's lack of 
 > response.
 > 
 This viewpoint has been in Israeli yeshivot for ages. I was told eons ago
 that one should not get involved in building a mikvah! That is the job
 of the laity and rabbis should only learn and not get involved in
 community activities.
 
 Though I personally am not fond of this derech nevertheless it seems to
 be widely pushed at least in some circles.
 
 Chag Kasher Vesameach.
 Eli Turkel >>

Out of curiosity - if one thinks the lay leader might listen, is there a 
responsibility to tell him that he should spend more time learning and less 
on community responsibilities? Also is this limited to those  Rabbis who are 
full time involved in learning, or Rabbis in general? Does their compensation 
status play any role?
I would guess their are no hard and fast rules but am really trying to better 
understand this approach.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Sholem Berger wrote:

> 1.  Where is it written (as Eli Turkel attributed to R. Sonnenfeld) that
> "a Jew's mother tongue has to be Hebrew"?  Even if we say that Hebrew is

Yerushalmi shekalimend of sevent perek.

YGB

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

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> the lenient opinions on women's issues from RYH Henkin are brought by
> him in his grandfather's name.  If we are to take pronouncements from 
> R' Tendler in the name of his father-in-law as seriously as if they had
> come from R' Moshe Feinstein, why should we not take RYHH's citations of
> RYEH seriously?
> 

One of several statements by RYHH over the years that left me questioning
the reliability of quotations is one he made that his grandfather had told
him (and him alone) that the Chazon Ish had told his grandfather (and him
alone) on his (the CI's) deathbed that he (the CI) recanted his psak on
the International Dateline (Note: REHH - the grandfather - was of the
opinion that the IDL is 180 degres away from EY).

As to R' Tendler's mesoros in the name of RMF, it is commonly axiomatic in
the "velt" that teshuvos composed or edited by R' Tendler are less
authoritative than those issued by RMF directly. I think that is natural
and logical.

YGB

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

Back in v3n6 two people, Rich Wolpoe and Jordan Hirsch, asked about my
statement that:
: I think that's because to the Rambam it's part of another mitzvah. See Yesodei
: HaTorah 2:1-2 -- studying machshavah (and teva -- but then in those days,
: physics and philosophy weren't as sharply separated) is the pe'ulah the Rambam
: gives to the mitzvos of Ahavas Hashem and Yir'as Hashem. "... shemitoch kach
: ata makir es mi she- 'amar vihayah ha'olam'".

First, I'd like to note that R YGB made a similar comment in v2n68, although
he was taking the idea in a different direction.

Second, to answer RRW's question, I ment to clearly state that he didn't think
learning Hilchos Yisodei HaTorah was a kiyum of Talmud Torah. Rather, it's
a kiyum of Ahavas Hashem. (Interestingly, the Rambam assumes the chiyuv
involves a verb, and not that we're obligated to be in a state of love.)

The halachah I quoted is the lead-in to all those speculative "halachos"
(paragraphs) that delve into Aristotilian physics and philosophy that I
believe RRW was referring to.

So, to answer RJH, I think hilchos dei'os are included as the means to
implement that chiyuv, not as halachos of the chiyuv. Much as the siddur
is included because you need a copy in order to implement the chiyuv of
tephillah, and not necessarily as the halachah (although, since you have to
say at least the fixed text, that line is a bit blurry).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  6-Apr-99: Shelishi, Shmini
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 308:67-73
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 61a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 65-68

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


[ 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         ]