Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 039

Friday, April 30 1999

• Re: Kollel & Yissachar Zevulun
• Re: Kollel & Yissachar Zevulun
• My Gadol is bigger than your Gadol
• Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)
• Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)
• Comments about "Gedolim"
• Re: My Gadol is bigger than your Gadol
• Gadlus--definitions
• Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)
• Re: Kollel & Yissachar Zevulun
• Kollel Stipends
• Excorcism - Humor Alert
• Obejectivity vs. Advocacy
• Re: Gedolim--the Rav
• Gedolim, Synthesis

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> ===> At first glance, I would say that this is NOT a Y/Z
> arrangement since
> Y/Z implies a one-to-one correspondence.  HOWEVER, it seems that
> one COULD
> organize a Kollel where all the participants were Y/Z "members". 
> This
> would imply (to me) that each person would be paid individually by
> "his"
> Zevulon".  HOwever, I saw not long ago in the Responsa put out by
> the
> Skeverrer Kollel that support of a Kollel is *preferred* to support
> of an
> individual "Yissochor"(!).  I will try to locate the copy of "Zera
> Yaakov"
> (it is a recent one).
> 
If you think about it, a Kollel is merely a "corporate" form of Y/Z. 
Instead having each Yissachar (Y) seek out his own Zevulun (Z), a
Kollel is formed which represents all Ys and hires a person find a
group of Zs.  In a corporation, such a person may be chief of
operations (COO) or CEO; in a kollel such a person is either the Rosh
Kollel or his assistant.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> If you think about it, a Kollel is merely a "corporate" form of Y/Z. 
> Instead having each Yissachar (Y) seek out his own Zevulun (Z), a Kollel
> is formed which represents all Ys and hires a person find a group of Zs. 
> In a corporation, such a person may be chief of operations (COO) or CEO;
> in a kollel such a person is either the Rosh Kollel or his assistant. 
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
>

Sorry, but the Igros Moshe's exhaustive teshuva on the topic proves that a
one-on-one ratio is an essential component of the proposition. I do not
remember what the Tzitz Eliezer says in his responsum on the same issue
precisely, but I am pretty sure it is similar.

YGB

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

>In addition, what about the "gedolim" who become gedolim by virtue of
>their political abilities, e.g. Rav Schach.  I heard from a Centrist
>Orthodox "gadol"
	Gadol "A",  not named, of course

 that Rav Schach,
	Gadol "B"

 despite his lomdus abilities, is not a gadol.
 <snip>

 (I also heard in the name of another
>Centrist Orthodox gadol
	Gadol "C" not named, of course,  and in his name,  not even directly
from said anonymous Gadol C.

 with respect to the machlokes of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
	Gadol "D"

 and Rav Schach: "I don't know who's right, but the Lubavitcher Rebbe is
a much greater talmid chacham.")

	Pardon my French,  but can we stop this asinine discussion!?  I don't
understand a word about the RSG/RABM calendar issue, but I at least have
a chance at learning something.  This Gadol stuff is completely
unproductive lashon hara,  letzonus,  or, to be **very** charitable, 
devorim beteilim.

Gershon

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> I don't think I agree with RRL's statement below, but am forwarding it
> nonetheless.
> 
> An interesting diebar on this:
> 
> If the Gemara in RH 20b is discussing Molad Zakein, and if we then accept
> as possible the rationale that RRL proposed earlier, i.e., that RABM was
> approximating the latest Molad that would still allow for later Molodos in
> the year not occurring on the second day of the month, and that RABM held
> that this was the pshat in the sugya, then we have another Rishon who did
> not learn this Gemara as having any bearing on the International Dateline
> issue.
> 
With regards to the above statement, my only observation is that RBM 
chose a DMZ extension that brought him to within 50 seconds of the 
abolute maximum allowable. Otherwise, RBM would have had to start coping 
with moladot arriving on the 2nd day of some months.

With regards to the International Dateline, it would be interesting to 
determine when the idea first entered Jewish thinking. I did see some 
mention of it in the Solomon Gandz work *Studies in Hebrew Astronomy and 
Mathematics* but do not recall seeing any history to along with it.

There are a variety of possible translations to R. Zera's comment found 
in RH 20b. W. M. Feldman, on page 192 of his work *Rabbinical Mathematics 
and Astronomy* chose to translate it as follows:

	The time of a Conjunction is calculated: if it is found to be before 12 
	o'clock, then one can be certain that the crescent would be visible at
	about the time of sunset, but if it occurs after 12 o'clock, it is 
	equally certain that the new moon would not be visible at about sunset.

Feldman then went on to say 

	Notwithstanding, however, the complete parallelism between R. Zera's 
	rule and the *dechiyath yach*, it is practically certain that the 
	similarity between the two is apparent rather than real...
        
and based on his astronomical calculations noted that the 12 o'clock 
could not signify NOON but rather had to signify MIDNIGHT.

However, it appears that very few scholars indeed commenting on the 
Dehiyyah Molad Zakein ever bothered to do any kind of thorough 
arithmetical analysis of the Luach. If they had, they might have noticed 
the peculair phenomenon that of the 8,527,680 moladot that go into the 
making of the full Hebrew calendar cycle, not a single one ever posted a 
time that went beyond the first day of any month. They would also have 
noted that the maximum time for the molad would be 23h 422hl and that 
this time would first first occur for the molad of Shevat 128,459H 
(Sat 23 Jun 124,700g). 

And if they further investigated this phenomenon, they would also have 
noted the very real connection of this ARITHMETICAL phenomenon to 
the DMZ.

There is one more item of very real importance in this rather remarkable 
rule. Although it postpones the Rosh Hashannah for which it is 
calculated, its true effect in governing the value of the molad's time is 
on the months of either Kislev or Shevat of the *preceding* year. 

From this analysis, it is impossible to go along with any classical 
authority that claims the DMZ to be of Talmudic origin.

A technical analysis of the DMZ, and why it functions arithmetically as 
it does, is found in *The Overpost Problem* in the *Additional Notes* of 
the *Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths* web page at

http://www.geocities.com/athens/1584

The analysis of the DMZ can also be found in Remy Landau's article 
*Romancing the Old Moon* on page 6-19 of the scholarly journal *Mehqere Hag*
Volume 10, October 1998.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Remy Landau wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> > I don't think I agree with RRL's statement below, but am forwarding it
> > nonetheless.
> > 
> > An interesting sidebar on this:
> > 
> > If the Gemara in RH 20b is discussing Molad Zakein, and if we then accept
> > as possible the rationale that RRL proposed earlier, i.e., that RABM was
> > approximating the latest Molad that would still allow for later Molodos in
> > the year not occurring on the second day of the month, and that RABM held
> > that this was the pshat in the sugya, then we have another Rishon who did
> > not learn this Gemara as having any bearing on the International Dateline
> > issue.
> > 

> With regards to the above statement, my only observation is that RBM
> chose a DMZ extension that brought him to within 50 seconds of the
> abolute maximum allowable. Otherwise, RBM would have had to start coping
> with moladot arriving on the 2nd day of some months. 
> 
> With regards to the International Dateline, it would be interesting to
> determine when the idea first entered Jewish thinking. I did see some
> mention of it in the Solomon Gandz work *Studies in Hebrew Astronomy and
> Mathematics* but do not recall seeing any history to along with it. 
> 

We have dealt with it on Avodah in the past. The Ba'al HaMa'or on RH 20
and the Ritva and other Rishonim there, but more famously the Kuzari, all
learn that the Gemara is concerned with DMZ, and requires it for reasons
of visibility (at the outer eastern limit of the Eurasian landmass), which
lead directly to the conclusion that the IDL is approximately 90 degrees
east of Yerushalayim. 

> There are a variety of possible translations to R. Zera's comment found
> in RH 20b. W. M. Feldman, on page 192 of his work *Rabbinical
> Mathematics and Astronomy* chose to translate it as follows: 
> 
> 	The time of a Conjunction is calculated: if it is found to be before 12 
> 	o'clock, then one can be certain that the crescent would be visible at
> 	about the time of sunset, but if it occurs after 12 o'clock, it is 
> 	equally certain that the new moon would not be visible at about sunset.
> 
> Feldman then went on to say
> 
> 	Notwithstanding, however, the complete parallelism between R. Zera's 
> 	rule and the *dechiyath yach*, it is practically certain that the 
> 	similarity between the two is apparent rather than real...
>         
> and based on his astronomical calculations noted that the 12 o'clock
> could not signify NOON but rather had to signify MIDNIGHT. 
> 

This seems most unfortunate, as all of the aforementioned Rishonim accept
that the 12 o'clock referenced is noon.

> However, it appears that very few scholars indeed commenting on the
> Dehiyyah Molad Zakein ever bothered to do any kind of thorough
> arithmetical analysis of the Luach. If they had, they might have noticed
> the peculair phenomenon that of the 8,527,680 moladot that go into the
> making of the full Hebrew calendar cycle, not a single one ever posted a
> time that went beyond the first day of any month. They would also have
> noted that the maximum time for the molad would be 23h 422hl and that
> this time would first first occur for the molad of Shevat 128,459H (Sat
> 23 Jun 124,700g).
> 
> And if they further investigated this phenomenon, they would also have
> noted the very real connection of this ARITHMETICAL phenomenon to the
> DMZ. 
> 
> There is one more item of very real importance in this rather remarkable
> rule. Although it postpones the Rosh Hashannah for which it is
> calculated, its true effect in governing the value of the molad's time
> is on the months of either Kislev or Shevat of the *preceding* year.
> 
> >From this analysis, it is impossible to go along with any classical
> authority that claims the DMZ to be of Talmudic origin. 
> 
> A technical analysis of the DMZ, and why it functions arithmetically as
> it does, is found in *The Overpost Problem* in the *Additional Notes* of
> the *Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths* web page at
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/1584
> 
> The analysis of the DMZ can also be found in Remy Landau's article
> *Romancing the Old Moon* on page 6-19 of the scholarly journal *Mehqere
> Hag* Volume 10, October 1998. 
> 
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> |\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
> |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\Regards From Remy Landau
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/| |\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario,
> Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
> |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> 

YGB

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

> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:22:00 -0400
> From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
> Subject: Objectivity and the Talmid Hakham
> 
> It is clear that Zvi Weiss believes I impugned R. Schwab z.t.l.  For
> this I am sorry.  Clearly, that was not my intention.   Nor do I think
> that is what I wrote.  But if someone who read my post received that
> impression, I would like to disavow it here and now.
> 
> To move away from the specific issue which gave rise to Zvi's rancor,
> however, it seems worthwhile to inquire further into the question of
> objectivity, as applied to talmidei hakhamim generally.
> 
> If I understand him correctly, Zvi is suggesting that it is halakhically
> prohibited to imply, let alone state, that any Gadol made any statement
> other than based "upon a crytal-clear attachment to Emes."  To suggest
> otherwise is to attribute a pesul in the Gadol in question.

===> I would like to be more precise.  If one cannot ascertain it (e.g.,
after Petirah), I would think that it is most disrespectful to impugn such
a concept to a Gadol.  There is a major distinction between *disagreeing*
with a Gadol and "disqualifying" the Gadol (based upon a pesul such as
Negius).  However, if it WAS possible to make such a determination (e.g.,
the Gadol admitted that there was a subjective component), then I do not
know that there would be any such disrespect.




> 
> Let us examine this question through a halakhic lens.  Generally, as we
> all know, a karov is disqualified from edut.  The reason, presumably, is
> negi'ut ba-davar.  Is anyone aware of any exception to this rule that
> applies to talmidei hakhamim or gedolei ha-dor?

===> Actually, the Gemara in Sanhedrin states that the Pesul of Karov is a
Gezarash Hakasuv (I think) and cites the example of Moshe and Aharon as
Eidim to show that the Pesul is NOT based [necessarily] upon a Negiah.  In
fact, the disqualification of Nogeiah BaDavar appears to be a DIFFERENT
pesul.  The gemara is Bava Basra discusses this pesul and the Shulchan
Aruch (I think) ALSO treats this as a distinct pesul.  If this is the
case, then the entire assertion here falls apart.




> 
> This rule, of course, is limited to the beit din.  What of other
> matters?  Regarding matters of public policy, for example, is there a
> clearly provable right and wrong answer?  If, for example, you and I are
> debating whether the best way to foster a Torah community is by
> isolating people from general culture or by allowing them to be exposed,
> is there a clear way to prove one is right?  One can try to draw
> empirical proof from past experience, but this opens one to the
> objection that the circumstances of the past no longer apply.  In short,
> I would contend that some topics do not readily lend themselves to
> factual resolution.  At that point, one's personal evaluation of the
> situation and one's subjective views and experiences are likely to bear
> far more weight on one's conclusions.
> 
> In short, with apologies to Moshe Feldman, I am not discussing whether a
> posek made a particular halakhic decision based on subjective, rather
> than objective considerations.  Rather, I am wondering if a public
> policy debate, where both options plainly fall within the halakhic
> spectrum, can be resolved purely on the basis of objective facts?  I
> would say not, but I am very much open to other views from this learned
> hevrah.

===> When R. Schwab published his material he was VERY careful to state
that the Derekh of R. Dessler was legitimate.  His main thrust was simply
to disprove R. Desseler's apparent "claim" that the Hirschian Derekh was
"defective" in its "failure" to produce Talmidei Chachamim...  This means
that R. Schwab was almost "going out of his way" to state "Eilu v'Eilu"...
From R. Schwab's perspective, it *appears* that this could not have been
resolved "objectively" -- hence R. Schwab's "conclusion" that BOTH are
legitimate Derakhim.... 


--Zvi

> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:37:54 -0400
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Respect for Gedolim
> 
> I think that RZW is equating (and confusing! <smile>)  Integrity with 
> Objectivity.
> 
> It may be politically correct to say a Gadol treats every situation
> without any 
> negio, but halocho tells us otherwise re: krovim.  EG Moshe is nogeia legabei 
> his son.  I.E.  there is a medrosh stating that he wanted his son to succeed 
> him.

===> It is true that Moshe was "nogeia" concerning his son -- but only
until Hashem told him that Yehoshua would be the successor...



> 
> I woudn't claim that RYEmden was DISHONEST legabei RYEibshutz, yet I would 
> defintiely not call him objective!

===> This is tricky because the entire issue of "Messianism" at the time
was so charged up...



> 
> Ki hashochad yeaveir einei chachomim.  Shochad can cloud the judgement
> of even 
> what the TORAH calls a Chochom!  AAKVK what we call a Talmid Chochom.
> 
> I would say R. Schwab himself would have been honest enough <smile> to admit 
> that he was not objective all the time.  

===> But, in this area, I think that we can "argue" that he *was* trying
to be objective...  (See how he wrote his response...).

--Zvi

> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
> ------------------------------

--- Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> 	Pardon my French,  but can we stop this asinine discussion!?  

Exactly my point.  If you read the previous poster, you'll realize
that the only way to stop the YU bashing (YU etc. can't produce
gedolim; only right-wing Orthodoxy can) is to take the discussion to
its obvious conclusion.

>This Gadol stuff is completely
>unproductive lashon hara,  letzonus,  or, to be **very** charitable,

>devorim beteilim.

Sorry, it's not.  This issue underlies a lot of what Jewish Observer
& Yated Neeman are about.  The black eye that YU/Centrist Orthodoxy
suffers is directly related to this.  This is a hashkafic issue of
great importance.  To sweep it under the rug is unfair because the
"assumption" of the discussion is that YU can't produce gedolim.

As to "my gadol is bigger than yours"--I don't think that that's the
point.  Rather, the entire system of gedolim, politics, etc. is the
issue.  No one denies that there are gedolim in right-wing circles. 
The question is how do you determine who is.  This is especially
important when some purported gedolim do things which create chilul
haShem, hatred of religious Jews, etc.  I can tell you that when Rav
Lichtenstein made the statement regarding Rav Shach, he made it
because he felt it important for his talmidim to understand certain
hashkafic principles.  He did not consider it lashon hara, letzonus, 
or devorim beteilim.

Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Could it be possible that R Eider could have developed to the same level in
the Kollel at YU?  Could it be possible that had he published his works
while at a position in YU the works might not have been popular?   Could it
be that ipso facto, if a Lamdan/posek produced within the YU community, he
would never be recognized as a gadol?

Even granting that the "Modern' institutions haven't produced gadlus like
the Yeshiva world, how do i, the semiignorant layman, know that that is true
as opposed to a built-in bias against the "Modern" derech?   If 'Modern'
balebatim call someone in there midst a gadol, does that make him one?

I guess I'm not sure of the entry criteria of Gadlus.   Unless it's lik e
that Supreme Court adage ' i know it when i see it"

Still do not agree, but it does sound impressive!

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 07:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)

The fundamnetal point of the DMZ is that it controls the arithmetic of 
the molad's timing for the *previous* year. In order to properly 
establish the layout for any Hebrew year H, it is first necessary to 
determine 1 Tishrei H and then 1 Tishrei H+1. The DMZ when applied to 
year H+1 causes one or two extra days to be added to year H. It is the 
addition of these two days that overcomes the possibility of an overpost 
problem in either the months of Kislev or Shevat.

Further, the raison d'etre for the DMZ is the fact that the leap month of 
Adar is inserted into the Hebrew year immediately after the month of Shevat.
If it had been inserted prior to Heshvan, the overpost problem would not 
have occurred, and it would not have been required to insert the 
arithmetical rule of DMZ into the calendar computation.
 
The role of the DMZ to the calendar calculations was mentioned in passing by 
W.A. Shocken in his *The Calculated Confusion of Calendars*. Unfortunately, 
he did not say why that was true. 

The analyticval answer to this question is anything but obvious. It is 
romantic to think of the rule as perhaps ensuring the moon's visibility on 
Rosh Hashannah. However, its arithmetic *works* on the previous year. And 
the genius of its formulators, lay not only in the elegant simplicity they 
constructed for that rule, but also in the fact that practically everyone 
missed out on its true arithmetic effect over the previous year.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

R' YGB:

> Sorry, but the Igros Moshe's exhaustive teshuva on the topic proves that a
> one-on-one ratio is an essential component of the proposition. I do not
> remember what the Tzitz Eliezer says in his responsum on the same issue
> precisely, but I am pretty sure it is similar.


Does this imply that the populations of Y and Z were always exactly equal?


---sam

If Y/Z arragnements were made in medieival communities
A: In effect people were montarily supporting Torah learning and therefore:
B: In effect it is akin to a very private kollel
C: It could have been employed equally by Ashkenzic and Sefaridc communities.

Are any historians out there aware of what was actually done, i.e. how frequntly
these techniques were employed?

Rich Wolpoe

When an exorcist can remove a virus that is "davuk" to my computer, THEN I'll be
a believer <smile>!

Rich Wolpoe 

R. Eli Clakre:>>
If I understand him correctly, Zvi is suggesting that it is halakhically
prohibited to imply, let alone state, that any Gadol made any statement
other than based "upon a crytal-clear attachment to Emes."  To suggest
otherwise is to attribute a pesul in the Gadol in question.<<

One of my rebbes at YU said that the Rav had a sepcial affinity or concern for 
the studnets from the Boston area.  Assuming this to be true
A) If this is true was the Rav being nogeia to those from his community
B) Was this rebbe guilty of loshon horo

If not true:
Is this rebbe motzi laaz on the Rav for lack of objectivity?

I don't think the Rav nor the rebbe in question considered favoritism to those 
from his own kehillo as a character flaw. True, some gedolim might transcend  
favoritism, it seems abit absurd to assume that every Gadol played zero 
favorites.  And saying that Yaakov Ovinu favoreded Yoseif or Binyomin over their
other borthers  makes one an Avos Basher? <smile> I don't think so!

IMHO A gadol SHOULD defend his own kehillo.  Wouldn't you want your Rav/Rebee to
be meilitz for you?

Rich Wolpoe

Someone wrote me offline:

> In
> fact,  I said over a beautiful piece of [the Rav's] at my son's bar
mitzvah
> recently (about klaf and duchsustus) but did not want to risk the
> lack of
> kovod to the Rav of attributing it to him in public (I did so for
> those
> who asked.)  

It's a shame that people have to be choshesh that mentioning the
Rav's name would be a lack of kavod to the Rav.  I went to a recent
bar mitzvah where a (originally) Ner Yisroel guy said over a
beautiful idea in the name of the Rav.  I went over to congratulate
him both on his presentation and on the fact that he had the guts to
say a dvar Torah from the Rav and attribute it to him in public. 
IMHO, the more people that publicly attribute divei torah to the Rav,
the sooner the Rav will be posthumously accepted as a gadol.  (BTW,
the Rav's family is very upset whenever the Rav's divrei Torah are
deliberately not attributed to him.  For example, Rav Yitzchak
Lichtenstein recently published a Haggadah with Torah from his
grandfather, the Rav.  In his preface, he noted that the [Brisker
Haggada (I'm not sure he named the source, but I know that that's
what he meant)] quoted Torah in the name of "Talmidei HaGrach" which
is a euphemism for the Rav.  Since the Divrei Torah were
misattributed, RYL said that he would republish those Divrei Torah in
his sefer.)

Interestingly, this process is now happening with the Sridei Aish
(SA).  SA is famous for his tshuvah permitting boys & girls to sing
together in France.  He was persona non grata in the French charedi
world.  This Pesach, Yated Ne'eman in Israel had a feature magazine
called "Olam HaYeshivot" in which an article re SA figured
prominently.  My (originally) French cousin living in Israel (married
to a charedi Rosh Kollel and the daughter of a well-known Rav) went
ballistic.  

In addition, the Rosh Kollel's son told me that now, some charedi
Yeshivas allow Rabbi Reichman's sefer on Succah (based on the Rav's
shiurim) into the Yeshiva, but not his philosophy works.  Maybe the
Rav will be another Rambam--his philosophy will be ignored but his
Torah will be learned.

Shabbat Shalom.
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

R. Eider, R. Gifter, and others migrated from YU to the Yeshivishe world.  I 
think it is no co-incidence that they became Gedolim after making the change.  
The question of cause and effect is what I find intriguing.

One aspect in particular that is fascinating is the synthizing of 2 separate and
distinct derochim.  I detect a pattern common to those Torah giants who have 
split their education amongst at least 2 schools. 

(Disclaimer, I went from Ner Yisroel to YU.  In order to have "integrity: I 
should add that I conside myself a hybrid, too <smile>!)


1) Hillel haZokein.  Migrated from Bovel to EY, and despite being an outsider, 
eventually became Nossi.  He also was apparently very creative in that he began 
articulating if not formualting the middos,etc.

2) R. Meir.  His rebbes included Acheir AND R. Akivo (and I think one more).  No
doubt he was the most brilliant within dor, despite that many of his shitos were
rejected lehalocho

3)  Rovo. A talmid of Mechoza (R. Nachman) AND of Rabba.  Again, his insights 
tend to be very original and creative (despite quoting a lot).

( Note:  There are other emororim who migrated from Bovel to EY and said that 
they had to forget Toras Bovel in order to "get" Toras EY.  IOW, each "yeshiva" 
had it's own derech.)

4) Rosh/Tur - Both escaped Ashkenza in the wake of R. Meir of Rothenburg's 
captivity and migrated to Spain. Despite being "outsiders" they soon dominated 
their dor in Spain and syntehzied Ashkenzic and Sefardic thinking.

there are many othes that I am not aware of.  Let me fast forward a bit:

5) R Yeruchim Gorelick.  He was a talmid both of R. Elchonon Wasserman and the 
Griz.  (also my rebbe <smile>)

This might also explain the success of various sons-in-law.  Often they are 
"recuited" from one community/yeshiva, and thenn link up with a family from 
another school. 

And perhaps this explains why yeshiva x does not always have a groomed and ready
Rosh Yeshiva heir apparent coming out of its own daled amos.  Perhaps masters of
one system lack the breadth of those who have crossed over into multiple 
systems.

IOW ze v'zeh goreim.  From what I understand, RYGB has experience in Telshe, Ner
Yisroel, Chabad, Hirschian, etc.  Ok, RYGB, do you see your own brand of 
synthisis as responsible for your creativity, orginality etc.?  Are others out 
there, like myself, hybrids of several schools?

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]