Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 016

Saturday, April 10 1999

• Re: Hebrew
• Women's Prayer Groups
• .... ben adam lekhavero
• Re: Post-mortems
• Sshofeit vs. Melech
• Yiddish and Rav Soloveitchik
• Re: Sshofeit vs. Melech
• Re: Yiddish and Rav Soloveitchik
• The Jews of Albania
• Women's Prayer Groups and Ancillary Issues
• Hebrew, Yiddish

In a message dated 4/8/99 4:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 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.
  >>

Dear R' Eli,
I believe the reason the Rav felt strongly about Yiddish was his devotion to 
passing on the tora he had received from his father and grandfather in the 
exact language he received it. Since the times changed he had to switch to 
English which required great effort to be sure that the nuances were properly 
preserved.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS I'm told  by an Israeli Yeshiva student that he was told that the reason 
that Israeli Charedim learn in Yiddish is because they feel it doesn't have 
kedusha and thus don't have to use modern hebrew which was lashon hakodesh 
but now isn't - I'm not sure how that answers for US or why Yiddish, which 
also has hebrew roots, is preferable

	I must admit that I find Rabbi YGB's line of argument troubling.  His
criticism does not focus on the arguments raised against Rav Schachter but
on their authorship. IMHO, his arguments would seem to suggest that only
Roshei Yeshivah and recognized gedolim have the right to be machria
le-halakha.  Nor can lesser poskim/talmidei hachamim challenge, criticize
or disagree with those greater than them.
	There is no doubt that one has to clarify, understand and analyze the view
of a gadol be-koved rosh before one challenges it.  And, yes, in our paper
on Women's Prayer Groups we tried our best to do just that. But the pasuk
of Lo taguru mipnei ish (and other considerations cited by the poskim
below), the need to search for truth and discover the retzon haBorei,
requires one to thoughtfully and respectfully disagree even with those
greater than oneself  - when one believes that an error has been made. An
opinion should be judged on its merits, not its authorship.  This position
finds wide expression in the poskim - rishonim and acharonim.  See, for
example:
	(1) Rabbenu Avraham ben haRambam, Introduction to Aggadeta, D"H "Da Ki Ata
Hayyav la-Da'at."
	(2) Rosh, Sanhedrin, Perek 4, siman 6 (on disagreeing with the Geonim);
Shu"t ha-Rosh, siman 55, ot 9.
	(3) Rav Menashe Klein's correspondence with Rav Moshe Feinstein on whether
the former could disagree with the latter: Mishneh Halakhot, II, 72-74 (re'
nylon rain cover to hats); VI, 136, 137, 139, 140 (Re' eruvin).
	(4) Rav Moshe Feinstein OH, I, 109 (same as the above cited Mishne
Halakhot, II, 73); YD, II, beginning of sec 45 (whether a rav [probably to
Rav Binyamin Zilber] could be cholek on the Chazon Ish).
	(5) Rav Ovadya Yosef, Yabia Omer, I, Divrei Peticha, no. 12 (discusses
being cholek on the Ben Ish Chai); II, OH, no. 16, sec. 5. Yechaveh Da'at
IV, 55, p. 278-279 in note. Yom Ha-Shishi, 3 Av 5749 (4/8/89) p. 27.
	(6) Rav Yitzchal Isaac Liebis, Resp. Beit Avi, IV, no. 193.
	(7) See also: Rav Yom Tov haLevi Schwartz,  Hakdama to the Ma'aneh
le-Igrot, which cites all the places where he believes Rav Moshe disagreed
with Rishonim and gedolei ha-Acharonim.
	(8) See also: Rav Menachem Elon's discussion of Pesika.

	In our paper on Women's Prayer Groups, my brother Dov and I analyzed the
positions of several Gedolei Hora'ah and Talmidei Chachamim.  The stringent
position of Rav Schachter and his distinguished colleagues comes under
scrutiny. Yes, we suggest that they may have indeed erred in their HALAKHIC
analysis, for a variety of reasons. We cite others (including Rav YH Henkin
and Rav Menachem Elon) who have preceded us in suggesting arguments or
criticism.  All our arguments and those of others are explained in full ( -
perhaps too full).  Those who wish to take us to task - be'ofen inyani -
are more than welcome to do so.  But the criticism should be to point, to
the issues, to the arguments made.  Measuring and comparing the gadlus of
the Talmidei Hakhamim involved or cited does not in any way further clarify
the validity of the point being argued, and - as the above cited poskim
explicitly underscore - is contrary to Darka shel Torah. On the contrary,
falling back on the relative stature of the various personalities cited,
would lead one to believe that rebuttal arguments of substance are lacking.
 
	We are gratified that by and large the discussion and debate generated by
our article has focussed on where we believe it should be - on the public
policy considerations.  Are women's prayer group good for the Jews or bad
for the Jews?  Are they the correct response to the expressed desire of
some women to be more ritually involved?  In particular there has been an
attempt to clarify what it was that motivated "the Rov" to come out against
these prayer groups. Nevertheless, it should be reiterated that the
testimony of tens of relatives, friends, colleagues and talmidim of the Rov
makes it clear that his objections were not Halakhic per se'.
	As to Rav Menachem Elon's credentials, not only did he receive smicha from
Hevron Yeshivah, they even offered him a position as a  Rosh Yeshivah.

Ashrei Hama'amin.

>
>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:54:36 -0400
>From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
>Subject: ... ben adam lekhavero
>
>Two points:
..
..

>
>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.
>
>------------------------------

..............................................................................

Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il

..............................................................................

>
>From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>Subject: Re: Post-mortems
>
>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.


I was not insinuating anything.  I was simply reporting, accurately, what
was reported on at least two different media outlets, including a recorded
interview with a mother of a fallen soldier.


>In any case this is now moot: they will now practice on lifelike manikin
>simulators from Nasco.
>
>Josh (who was a Ktzin Refuah in the army)
>

I am not a physician and neither was I privileged to serve in Tza"Hal (but
my oldest son will probably serve in a year or two).  However, as I heard
the subsequent news reports, the possibility of practicing on a mannequin
was considered in the past, but rejected since it was felt it could not
adequately simulate the "real thing".  In an interview just before the
Chag, Tza"Hal's Chief Medical Officer stated that they will re-examine the
question, but that he felt very strongly that by not allowing combat
physicians to practice on the bodies of the fallen soldiers will result in
more soldiers dying of their wounds on the battlefield, before they can be
moved to a hospital.

Ergo, the questions I posed, still stand and should be addressed.

Shabbat Shalom.

hg

..............................................................................

Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il

..............................................................................

>>
1) 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.

2) 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?

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

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

- -mi<<

Preface, hoshiva shofteinu seems to include more than simple dayonim.
EG v'yoatzeinu kvatchilo
Umloch olineu Ato Hashem LEVADCHO....

Implying roles of guies (yoatzim) and rules (umloch...)  


1 & 2)  the shoftim as described in Sefer shoftim,  as well as the hierarchy of 
Moshe atop the sorei alophim, seems to indicate more than a simple judicicial 
role for shoftim.

2) Therefore, a Dayan is a perhaps in the narrow role of a judge within the 
confines of a BD, while a shofeit is a quasi or full-fledged leader.  (EG Dvorah
gave orders to Borok...)

3) I think we are using 18th century concepts of separation of powers that did 
not exist in those days. (yes, I'm guilty, too!)  The fact is that  title "av 
beis din" carried more weight than sipmly judicial.

EG. Mordecai Manual Noah considered himself the leader of the Jews in the USA 
circa 1820.  He bestowed upon himself the title: Chief Justice of the Jewish 
People.  The idea of the head of the supreme court (sanhedrin?) as leader of the
Jews goes way back in our history and conveys much more than simple 
interpretative powers.

4)  Ok Micha, if you are not brilliant, at least what you said was brilliant!  
And if it did not come from your own brilliant mind, then you probably served as
a conduit for ruach hakodesh <smile>!

Rich Wolpoe  

------ =_NextPart_000_01BE827C.AF08D5E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Said Eli Turkel:
I doubt that Rav Soloveitchik said that Yiddish has kedusha.

May I assuage your doubts?

"I am not a Yiddishist who believes that an absolute worth inheres in =
the language itself.  But I am a Jew of the Gemara [gemore-yid], and I =
know that holiness and absoluteness are not always identical.  Halakhah =
formulated two ideas of holiness [kedushah]: 1) gufey kedushah; 2) =
tashmishey kedushah.  It judged that on Shabbat one should save from a =
fire not just the Sefer Torah, but also the wrapping in which it is =
enveloped; not just the Tefilin but also the bag in which they lie.  =
Therefore Yiddish, although it is not to be included in the category of =
gufey kedushah, certainly belongs to the class of tashmishey kedushah, =
which are also holy, and which one must protect with all his might."

Rav Soloveitchik continues with an enumeration of those great sages, =
from the Rema and the Maharal to the present day, whose Torah was and is =
in Yiddish.  He concludes:

"Such a 'tik' is certainly holy, though its holiness is not absolute but =
.... in the realm of tashmishey kedushah.  Preserving such a 'tik' is of =
great merit [a groyser zkhus]!"

Rav Soloveitchik, "Der tog", February 24, 1961 [my translation]
in Joshua Fishman, "Never Say Die!: A Thousand Years of Yiddish in =
Jewish Life and Letters," The Hague: Mouton, 1981.

Sholem Berger
------ =_NextPart_000_01BE827C.AF08D5E0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BE827C.AF08D5E0--

I don't know where shofet fits in but the Maharatz Chiyut has a very 
interesting piece on the power of melech versus a court.  If I understood him 
correctly, he seems to say that the melech got his power from the original 
consent of the people to be ruled by him for the national good - sounds like 
a polisci course! If I got this right(comments welcome on this, as well as 
other sources), it would be interesting to posit on what areas the melech 
could 'overrule'  sanhedrin (ie were all his decisions subject to judicial 
review?) 

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

In a message dated 4/9/99 11:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bergez01@med.nyu.edu writes:

<< Said Eli Turkel:
 I doubt that Rav Soloveitchik said that Yiddish has kedusha.
 
 May I assuage your doubts?
 
 "I am not a Yiddishist who believes that an absolute worth inheres in the 
language itself.  But I am a Jew of the Gemara [gemore-yid], and I know that 
holiness and absoluteness are not always identical.  Halakhah formulated two 
ideas of holiness [kedushah]: 1) gufey kedushah; 2) tashmishey kedushah.  It 
judged that on Shabbat one should save from a fire not just the Sefer Torah, 
but also the wrapping in which it is enveloped; not just the Tefilin but also 
the bag in which they lie.  Therefore Yiddish, although it is not to be 
included in the category of gufey kedushah, certainly belongs to the class of 
tashmishey kedushah, which are also holy, and which one must protect with all 
his might."
 
 Rav Soloveitchik continues with an enumeration of those great sages, from 
the Rema and the Maharal to the present day, whose Torah was and is in 
Yiddish.  He concludes:
 
 "Such a 'tik' is certainly holy, though its holiness is not absolute but ... 
in the realm of tashmishey kedushah.  Preserving such a 'tik' is of great 
merit [a groyser zkhus]!"
 
 Rav Soloveitchik, "Der tog", February 24, 1961 [my translation]
 in Joshua Fishman, "Never Say Die!: A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish 
Life and Letters," The Hague: Mouton, 1981.
 
 Sholem Berger
  >>
Dear Sholem,
Why didn't the original Yiddishists preserve the aramaic tik in their daily 
tora discourse?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

I'd like the chevra's opinion on something they're discussing over on
soc.culture.jewish. It's somewhat apt to our discussion of Orthodox priorities,
as aiding Albanian non-Jews would typically not be high on our list of tzedakos.

The first poster makes it sound like there's a chiyuv of hakaras hatov
involved. The second one raises the question of whether there's an issur
nekamah WRT non-Jews, where "lo tisna es *achicha*" doesn't apply. I'm
also interested to know from a historical perspective which actually
represented the feel of the Albanian masses at the time.

Also I should mention that less eloquent posters pointed out that aiding the
Albanians will probably lead to yet another pro-Palestinian Moslem country,
and from a pragmatic point of view may not be in Israel's best interest.

Another was bothered by the first line "only Albania".

I deleted the names, as I didn't ask permission to reprint (and edit down)
their words.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Apr-99: Shishi, Shmini
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 309:13-310:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 62b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

*****************************************************************************
From poster A, on Thu, 08 Apr 1999 01:39:04 GMT

Little is known worldwide about the fact that only Albania saved its own Jews
from Nazi occupiers of Albania during WWII while also offering refuge to
other Jews who had escaped into Albania from Serbia, Austria, and Greece. An
American, Harvey Samer, brought this to light in 1994 in his booklet, The
Jews of Albania -- the first publication in the English language describing
Albania's heroic rescue of Jews during the Holocaust. The names of the
courageous Muslim and Christian Albanians who saved the Jews are honored as
"Righteous Among the Nations" at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and are inscribed
on the Rescuers Wall at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington,
DC. where, during dedication ceremonies, its Director, Miles Lerman,
gratefully stated, "Albania was the only country in Europe which had a
larger Jewish population at the end of the war than before it! " Now, in a
recently-published book, Escape through the Balkans, the Autobiography of
Irene Grunbaum, translated and edited by Katherine Morris, Irene Grunbaum
describes, in the extensive section on Albania, her parting thoughts as a
Jew after being protected and sheltered by the Albanian Muslims and
Christians:

 "Farewell, Albania, I thought. You have given me so much hospitality,
refuge, friends and adventure. Farewell, Albania. One day I will tell the
world how brave, fearless, strong, and faithful your sons are; how death and
the devil can't frighten them. If necessary, I'll tell how they protected a
refugee and wouldn't allow her to be harmed even if it meant loosing their
lives. The gates of your small country remain open, Albania. Your authorities
closed their eyes, when necessary to give poor, persecuted people another
chance to survive the most horrible of all wars. Albania, we survived the
siege because of your humanity. We thank you".

 Page 130, Escape through the Balkans -- The Autobiography of Irene Grunbaum
 University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln And London, 1996

*****************************************************************************
From poster B, on 8 Apr 99 08:15:41 GMT

> Little is known worldwide about the fact that only Albania saved its own Jews
> from Nazi occupiers of Albania during WWII while also offering refuge to

Tell that to the volunteer Albanian Muslim SS Skanderbeg Division. Not
Waffen SS, plain old murdering SS.

And now for the $64,000 Question: how many Jews did the Muslim Albanian SS
Skanderbeg Division massacre at Pristina in 1944?

> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:02:47 -0400 (EDT)  From: Micha Berger
> <micha@aishdas.org> Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Dei'ah vs. Yedi'ah
> 
> 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. 
> 

While not "precisely" the definition of DT I would choose - very close,
and highly pertinent to current discussions.

> 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.
> 

Agreed, and, as I have noted, I do not believe there is such a thing as
pure objective truth in Torah. In the laboratory of "Lomdus" perhaps, but
not in the actual field conditions of Halacha l'Ma'aseh.

> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:15:57 +0300 From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer
> <frimera@internet-zahav.net> Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org To:
> 
> 	I must admit that I find Rabbi YGB's line of argument troubling. 
> His criticism does not focus on the arguments raised against Rav Schachter
> but on their authorship. IMHO, his arguments would seem to suggest that
> only Roshei Yeshivah and recognized gedolim have the right to be machria
> le-halakha.  Nor can lesser poskim/talmidei hachamim challenge, criticize
> or disagree with those greater than them. 

They certainly can, and the court of public opinion can rthen be machri'a
the only logical way :-). Seriously, however, R' Aryeh, were you to have
clearly observed and duly noted the hierarchy of psak and Poskim and noted 
that you were playing off second-tier poskim off first-tier ones, I do not
believe I would have been troubled one whit. Better yet, were, you the
authors presenting yourselves as the barei plugta, that would have made me
much happier. Instead, you elevsted certain individuals - Ba'alei Hora'a,
but not the same level of recognized Gedolei Torah - in either right or
left wing of Orthodoxy - into such by implication. This I find
"troubling".

> 	There is no doubt that one has to clarify, understand and analyze
> the view of a gadol be-koved rosh before one challenges it.  And, yes, in
> our paper on Women's Prayer Groups we tried our best to do just that. But
> the pasuk of Lo taguru mipnei ish (and other considerations cited by the
> poskim below), the need to search for truth and discover the retzon
> haBorei, requires one to thoughtfully and respectfully disagree even with
> those greater than oneself - when one believes that an error has been
> made. An opinion should be judged on its merits, not its authorship.  This
> position finds wide expression in the poskim - rishonim and acharonim. 

Ah, but not here - as noted by R' Rich below, there are Avos Batei Din in
Am Yisroel whose status goes far beyond that of an Halachic Decisor - they
are the Einei Ha'Eida - and if they are *all* following a mahalach in
darchei tzibbur - the other mahalach is, ipso facto, wrong.

> See, for example: 
> 	(1) Rabbenu Avraham ben haRambam, Introduction to Aggadeta, D"H
> "Da Ki Ata Hayyav la-Da'at."
> 	(2) Rosh, Sanhedrin, Perek 4, siman 6 (on disagreeing with the
> Geonim);  Shu"t ha-Rosh, siman 55, ot 9. 
> 	(3) Rav Menashe Klein's correspondence with Rav Moshe Feinstein
> on whether the former could disagree with the latter: Mishneh Halakhot,
> II, 72-74 (re' nylon rain cover to hats); VI, 136, 137, 139, 140 (Re'
> eruvin).
> 	(4) Rav Moshe Feinstein OH, I, 109 (same as the above cited
> Mishne Halakhot, II, 73); YD, II, beginning of sec 45 (whether a rav
> [probably to Rav Binyamin Zilber] could be cholek on the Chazon Ish).
> 	(5) Rav Ovadya Yosef, Yabia Omer, I, Divrei Peticha, no. 12
> (discusses being cholek on the Ben Ish Chai); II, OH, no. 16, sec. 5. 
> Yechaveh Da'at IV, 55, p. 278-279 in note. Yom Ha-Shishi, 3 Av 5749
> (4/8/89) p. 27.
> 	(6) Rav Yitzchal Isaac Liebis, Resp. Beit Avi, IV, no. 193. 
> 	(7) See also: Rav Yom Tov haLevi Schwartz, Hakdama to the
> Ma'aneh le-Igrot, which cites all the places where he believes Rav Moshe
> disagreed with Rishonim and gedolei ha-Acharonim.
> 	(8) See also: Rav Menachem Elon's discussion of Pesika. 
> 

For the two reasons I noted above all the citations - useful in other
contexts - are not relevant here. It is very important, at this time, to
note the utter impropriety of quoting the Ma'aneh la'Igros as a valid
source without a disclaimer. Wherever R' Ovadia quotes him he quickly adds
that the author was guilty of a grave avla, and I hope you note that in
the future whenever quoting him.

> 	In our paper on Women's Prayer Groups, my brother Dov and I
> analyzed the positions of several Gedolei Hora'ah and Talmidei
> Chachamim. The stringent position of Rav Schachter and his distinguished
> colleagues comes under scrutiny. Yes, we suggest that they may have
> indeed erred in their HALAKHIC analysis, for a variety of reasons. We
> cite others (including Rav YH Henkin and Rav Menachem Elon) who have
> preceded us in suggesting arguments or criticism.  All our arguments and
> those of others are explained in full ( - perhaps too full).  Those who
> wish to take us to task - be'ofen inyani - are more than welcome to do
> so.  But the criticism should be to point, to the issues, to the
> arguments made.  Measuring and comparing the gadlus of the Talmidei
> Hakhamim involved or cited does not in any way further clarify the
> validity of the point being argued, and - as the above cited poskim
> explicitly underscore - is contrary to Darka shel Torah. On the
> contrary, falling back on the relative stature of the various
> personalities cited, would lead one to believe that rebuttal arguments
> of substance are lacking.
> 

No, indeed. If first level Poskim cannot be found to defend the practice,
there are reasons for it. I personally believe that Rabbis Schachter et al
"erred" in issuing Halachic rationales - they should have just issued a
ban, v'zehu!
 
> 	We are gratified that by and large the discussion and debate
> generated by our article has focussed on where we believe it should be -
> on the public policy considerations.  Are women's prayer group good for
> the Jews or bad for the Jews?  Are they the correct response to the
> expressed desire of some women to be more ritually involved?  In
> particular there has been an attempt to clarify what it was that
> motivated "the Rov" to come out against these prayer groups.
> Nevertheless, it should be reiterated that the testimony of tens of
> relatives, friends, colleagues and talmidim of the Rov makes it clear
> that his objections were not Halakhic per se'. 

Which, I think you are mistaken in identifying as a lower level of
objection - aderaba, an objection on the grounds that this is not a
legitimate expression of Avodas Hashem in the context of Am Yisroel's
quest for kedusha and his'alus is a far graver objection than a "simple"
halachic one!

> 	As to Rav Menachem Elon's credentials, not only did he receive
> smicha from Hevron Yeshivah, they even offered him a position as a Rosh
> Yeshivah. 
> 

Credentials?

> Date:  i, 9 Apr 1999 12:08:05 -0400 From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com ply-To: 
> avodah@aishdas.org To: avodah@aishdas.org Subject: Sshofeit vs.  Melech
> 
> Implying roles of guies (yoatzim) and rules (umloch...) 
> 
> 
> 1 & 2)  the shoftim as described in Sefer shoftim, as well as the
> hierarchy of Moshe atop the sorei alophim, seems to indicate more than a
> simple judicicial role for shoftim. 
> 
> 2) Therefore, a Dayan is a perhaps in the narrow role of a judge within
> the confines of a BD, while a shofeit is a quasi or full-fledged leader. 
> (EG Dvorah gave orders to Borok...) 
> 
> 3) I think we are using 18th century concepts of separation of powers that
> did not exist in those days. (yes, I'm guilty, too!)  The fact is that
> title "av beis din" carried more weight than sipmly judicial. 
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
>

A status that the SA in Hil TT confers on the Gedolei Torah of the
generation! Kana"l. 

YGB

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

Eli Turkel wrote:

> 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.

IF I remember correctly, quite some years ago Rabbi Riskin mentioned in a
lecture that Rav Soloveitchik had said something to the effect that just
as one didn't toss out a worn Torah mantle, because it had once protected
something holy, so Yiddish was to be regarded with respect.

> 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.

A wild guess here, that even if he had learned it....!

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

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


[ 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         ]