Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 015

Thursday, April 8 1999

• Dei'ah vs. Yedi'ah
• Re: Shofet vs. Melech
• non-obligatory mitzvos
• Hebrew

To my mind, there is a difference in connotation between "da'as Torah" and
"yedi'as haTorah".

The latter is "merely" knowledge of Torah. The "midgets atop giants" have
more yedias haTorah (YhT) than the giants themselves. More objective,
book knowledge.

Da'as Torah (DT) is more subjective; not just knowing the Torah, but knowing
it from the inside -- as the Torah sees itself. This requires learning how
to think and intuit in a particular way, not just know external facts.

The giants were giants because they were greater in mesiras nefesh. And why
was that? Because the process by which they chose how to act was closer to
that of the Torah; i.e. they posessed more DT. And just as that lead to
superior decisions in the realm of action, the same is true of the piskei
halachah they chose.

So, yes, academia, who are seeking objective knowledge, is more impressed
by the distance the midget sees. The yeshiva, OTOH, who are trying to
become a person of Torah, they are trying for a subjective goal, are more
impressed by the person's individual height.

Similarly, Hirsch lauded including a yedi'ah of derech eretz in one's
avodah Hashem. What he accused the Rambam of was using Aristotilian
thought (the DE of the Rambam's day) as a means of analyzing Torah. In
my terms, the Rambam wasn't just borrowing A's yedi'os, but also his dei'os.
(Interestingly, people place the line between dei'ah and yedi'ah in different
places. R SR Hirsch himself was accused of doing the same with 19th cent
German philosophy. See Dayan Grunfeld's intro to Choreib, as Rich Wolpoe
already pointed us.)

-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

I didn't intend to say that a shofeit was a kind of leader. What I was
trying to say was that a shofeit wasn't supposed to lead, but in the
absence of a king, a charismatic shofeit would often find himself in a
leadership position.

BTW, what's the difference between a shofeit and a dayan? Does one
connote more of a legislative judge and the other more the person who
renders decisions?

If so, it would explain why the shofeit was a logical person for them to
turn to. Legislation is already a governmental role.

(Thanks Rich for accusing me of brilliance, but it was misplaced.)

-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

R' Dovid taught of three kinds of mitzvos: chiyuvim/issurim, mitzvos reshus
(there is no obligation, but one gets s'char for doing them), and mitzvos
machshiros (if you choose to do X, you must first do y; e.g. you must shecht
if you want to eat meat, you must put tzitzis on the garment if you want to
wear something with four corners). I don't remember much details of the
shtikl Torah, though.

However, I had thought that Ashkenazi (barring Sanz) women make b'rachos on
mitzvos asei shehazman g'rama because we hold that mitzvos reshus exist.
Therefore, it can be a mitzvah for the woman even though she isn't a "metzuvah
v'oseh".

(The following is paraphrased from Leibei Sternberg's "Prozdor", v9n47,
http://www.vutrak.com/prozdor)

Enter the Tosfos (Sotah 3a) who ask why three the gemara's position that three
particular mitzvos are voluntary (warning one's wife against seclusion with
another man; a kohein becoming tomei for a karov; and the lav about freeing
an eved k'naani) doesn't reduce the total count to 610. The Chasam Sofer
(Gittin 38a) quote R' Avraham Brody who points out that this g'mara is
according to the same R' Yishmael who counts the four corners of tztzis as
four mitzvos. This restores the number to 613.

Notice that this Torah assumes that a voluntary act isn't a mitzvah, at
least l'inyan counting Taryag.

I'm not sure, then, how to fit this with the concept of mitzvas r'shus (which
I believe is fromR' Chaim Brisker) or with the Ashkenazi position WRT b'rachos
hamitzvah.

-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

> 
> 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.  
From memory it is in the Artscroll biography of Rav Sonnefeld.
Also as I previously indicated the Shelah stresses the value of hebrew.

I doubt that Rav Soloveitchik said that Yiddish has kedusha.
As is well known he gave his shiurim in YU in English. When asked why he
switched from Yiddish to English he said that the students were not
fluent in yiddish and his purpose was to teach gemara and not yiddish.

Yiddish is what the Jews in eastern Europe spoke for hundreds of years.
Rashi did not speak yiddish and certainly not the sefardim.
There is the story from years ago that Rav Ovadiah Yosef was not made
part of the moetzei gedolei haTorah because he doesn't know yiddish.

I have not done any survey in Israel but my gut feeling is that in
most litvishe yeshivot (certainly Hevron today most probably in
Ponovezh and Brisk - anyone with more current information would be
welcome) the lingua franca is Hebrew. On the other hand the chassidic
yeshivot stress yiddish. At the last siyum hashas the speeches pretty\much 
divided between Hebrew and yiddish depending on litvak/Hassidic.


kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

p.s.
My understanding is that Rav Chaim asked questions of Rav Yitzchok Elachanan
only in unusual cases. Normally he turned to the dayan of Brisk for more
"standard" questions.

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


[ 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         ]