Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 042

Monday, May 3 1999

• Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim--the Rav
• RE: Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
• Sefiro History Questions
• Re: YT Sheini / Maariv as Minhag
• Re: Sefiro History Questions
• Kollel Stipends
• Kollel Stipends
• Date of the current calendar algorithm
• Re: Date of Pesach
• Re: Pesach dates
• Re: Kollel Stipends
• Re: Kollel Stipends
• Lag Bo'Omer - Humor Alert
• Negi'ah and P'sak
• Yissachar and Zevulun
• Re: YT Sheini as Minhog
• Re: Negi'ah and P'sak
• Re: Y"T sheni
• Re: Gedolim--the Rav
• Re: Date of the current calendar algorithm (fwd)
• Re: Gedolim--the Rav
• Re: Gedolim--the Rav

Dear Chevra, consider this an appeal.

Shabbos afternoon I was dicussing the concept that Talmidei R. Avki died during 
Sefiro because lo kibdu ze es ze...

One holocaust survivor got realy indignant.  Some of his points were:

1)  What will they say about US (IE survivors) 500 years from now, to blame us 
for that tragedy?
2)  Hashem does not mete out massive punishments without major provocations.  
How does shello kibdu qualify as criteria for captial punishemnt for 24,000 
people? IOW, it does not meet the threshold of evil.  (Compare this with Sodom 
that perhpas did meet this hypothetical threshold.
3)  It only makes Hashem look bad (read that Chilllul Hashem) to point out how 
petty, vindictive, etc. He can be. IOW, if Hashem is a Rachum, how could he 
simply execute 24,000 Talmidei Chachomim simply over lo kibdu...

Does anyone out there have some reasonable responses?

Rich Wolpoe

--- Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> Maybe the
> > Rav will be another Rambam--his philosophy will be ignored but
> his
> > Torah will be learned.
> 
> This is already being done.  The sefer of his shiurim written by
> one of 
> his talmidim on various Mesechtos of Shas (I forget the name of the
> 
> sefer offhand) are being gobbled up by many charedei tamidim in  
> Yeshivos (such as Mir, and Brisk) in Israel.

I was told by my charedi cousin in Zichron Yaakov that this is being
done specifically in connection to Reshimot Sheurim on Masechet
Succah by Rabbi Heshy Reichman.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com [mailto:richard_wolpoe@ibi.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 11:34 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
> 
> 
> Dear Chevra, consider this an appeal.
> 
> Shabbos afternoon I was dicussing the concept that Talmidei 
> R. Avki died during 
> Sefiro because lo kibdu ze es ze...
> 
> One holocaust survivor got realy indignant.  Some of his points were:
> 
> 1)  What will they say about US (IE survivors) 500 years from 
> now, to blame us 
> for that tragedy?
> 2)  Hashem does not mete out massive punishments without 
> major provocations.  
> How does shello kibdu qualify as criteria for captial 
> punishemnt for 24,000 
> people? IOW, it does not meet the threshold of evil.  
> (Compare this with Sodom 
> that perhpas did meet this hypothetical threshold.
> 3)  It only makes Hashem look bad (read that Chilllul Hashem) 
> to point out how 
> petty, vindictive, etc. He can be. IOW, if Hashem is a 
> Rachum, how could he 
> simply execute 24,000 Talmidei Chachomim simply over lo kibdu...
> 
> Does anyone out there have some reasonable responses?
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 

Talmidei chachamim are held to a higher standard (HKB"H medakdeik im svivov
k'chut hasaara).

btw, your choice of verb, "execute" implies that they all dropped dead
abruptly. I don't think that was the case. Wasn't there some sort of plague
which killed them over a range of time (giving at least some of them the
chance to do tshuva, which they apparently didn't take advantage of)?

Avi Pechman

Questions re: Sefiro and Lag Ba'omer. I have the answerss to some but not All of
these questions.

1) What is the earliest source mentioning Aveilus during Sefiro
2) What caused aveilus to be observed during Sefiro
3) What prohibitions are observed because of Sefiro?  How did they evolve?
4) There was a minhog to refrain from melocho during Sefiro.  What are the 
reasons given?  
5) What is the earliest source for Lag Bo'mer?
6) There are 2 prevalent minhiogim wrt to observing aveilus. How did they 
evolve?  (Hint: this relates to question 2)

Rich Wolpoe   

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> YT Shieini is binding in way similar to Tefillas Maariv.  
> 
> Some quick parallels:
> 1) When we accpeted to daven Maariv, we did not accpet upon
> ourselves the chiyuv
> of Chazoras haShatz.
> 2) When we accept YT Sheini, we exempted halvoyos hameis due to
> kovod hameis.
> 
> As noted before, even in the case of sepcfic Takkonos, Their
> "chalos" was oft 
> depedent upon Nishpashet/Minhog. And HOW YT Sheini is implemented
> proably was a 
> function of HOW it became accepted (like maariv is accpet w/o CH).

Is it so clear that what happened was that the people determined the
parameters of the minhag of Yom Tov Sheni?  I haven't learned the
gemarot recently, but my recollection is that "hi'zahuru b'maaseh
avotechem b'yedchem" is essentially a rabbinically legislated minhag
and that the parameters (e.g. k'vurat ha'met) are also rabbinically
legislated--the gemarot, to my recollection, talk about k'vurat
ha'met as a din gamoor and not as something that was a compromise or
simply not accepted by rov yisrael.

Similarly, with regard to Maariv, I don't think that there was ever a
desire that there be chazarat haShatz for Maariv (possibly because of
its origin as a Tefillat Reshut).

Question: anybody ever hear about a position that it is not that
important to daven Maariv with a minyan because ultimately it is a
tefilat reshut.  I heard from someone that this was the position of
Rav Henkin, but have never been able to verify this.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> 1) What is the earliest source mentioning Aveilus during Sefiro
> 2) What caused aveilus to be observed during Sefiro
> 3) What prohibitions are observed because of Sefiro?  How did they
> evolve?

I have heard that some non-traditional sources suggest that Sefirah
is related to non-Jewish mourning practices in Northern Europe during
the Middle Ages and that that is why Sefardim were historically more
mekil than Ashkenazim.

Does anyone have more information on this?

I should also note that Rav Soloveitchik believed that the avelut of
Sefirah is no greater than the the avelut of yud bet chodesh, and
that the din of "ad she'y'ga'aru bo chaverov" applies, thus allowing
one to shave (almost) every day during sefirah (see N'fash HaRav by
Rav Schachter for greater detail).  The Rav also believed that music
is permitted provided that it's not at a party (seu'dat m'rai'ut).  

It's interesting that the "velt" has become so machmir regarding
sefirah.  Can anyone guess why?  

Also, is there any point at which even talmidim of the Rav would have
to accept upon them not shave because that is "minhag America?"

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

How does the "one-to-one" school deal with the slight population discrepancies  
between Shevet Yissochor and Shevet Zeuvlun found in Sefer Bamidbor?

Rich Wolpoe

There has been discussion whether the Y/S applies to kollel.   My 
question is , Does the person learning in kollel have kavanah that 
part of his learning is going for his financial supporter.

This is even more of an issue when the supporter i unknown to the person 
learning.   In addition many of the solicitation for funds by the various 
kollels go to people outside their communities who the people in these 
very kollel refer too in very derisive terms.

My feeling is that this may go well beyond the scope of a y/s relationship.

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com

Recently, there has been a discussion of the date  at which the modern
calendar algorithm was adopted. A number of readers have quoted Rav
Kasher'as views. Allow me to share some data with you that may put
things in a different light. (All of the following is my own paraphrase
of information in the highly-recommended book "Shae'arim LaLuach HaIvri"
by R. Sar-Shalom. I obtained the book some years ago directly from the
author, whose address is listed in the book as 77 Ben Avi Street,
Netanya). New light has been shed on the origin of the modern calendar
algorithm by the discovery of the "Letter of the Rosh Hagolah" which
explains that year 4595 (836) follows the siman "Zayin Chet Gimmel"
(i.e. Rosh Hashana is on Shabbat, the year is deficient and Pessach
falls on Tuesday), while, according to the modern calendar algorithm the
siman should be "Zayin Shin Heh". There are ambiguities in the letter so
we cannot fully reconstruct exactly what calendar algorithm was in use.
(The letter is reproduced in Otsar HaGeonim , Rosh Hashana p 35; Sinai,
vol. 30 p 121and HaTekufa 14 p. 346). Regarding Rav Kasher's views, Sar
Shalom writes "In chapter 13, vol 13 of Torah Shelayma - a volume
dedicated to issues of Ibbur - Rav Menachem Kasher attempts to disprove
the theories that call for a late date for the current calendar. These
objections have been thoroughly refuted by the learned A.A.Akavia in his
excellent article "A special work regarding the Ibbur", Sinai vol 30.
Someone who has not read the proofs by Borenstein, Yaffe and Akavia is
liable to be convinced by Rav Kasher's arguments. I entreat such a
person to read through Rav Kasher's treatise and search for an answer to
the following question: How can he explain the fact that according to
the letter of the Rosh HaGolah the year 4596 is "deficient" while
according to the rules of the calendar in use today the year should have
been "full" ? Rav Kasher simply overlooks this clear proof"

Sar Shalom also says that even before the discovery of the
above-mentioned letter, Borenstein and Yaffe reached the conclusion that
the calendar algorithm didn't reach its final form until some 500 years
after R. Hillel ben Yehuda HaNasi. This conclusion was based on the
dates found in various documents and tombstones, which were not
consistent with our current calendrical rules. There were attempts to
dispute these proofs, but the above-mentioned letter put an end to the
debate.

Saul Stokar

<<
On the basis of a conversation I had today, it was brought to my attention
that the problem is the other way, i.e., that Pesach will come out too
late - in other words, after the end of the first month of Spring. If that
is correct, it seems that the year 2016 is the first problematic one, for
then Pesach comes out April 23rd.
>>

Look back.  Pesach 1967 was April 24, Pesach 1986 was April 23.  We've had 
this problem in the past.  And Pesach 2005 is April 24 too.

EDT

A quick correction.  I inadvertently listed Erev Pesach dates.  The dates for 
Pesach in those years is actually a date later!

EDT

--- Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com> wrote:
> There has been discussion whether the Y/S applies to kollel.   My 
> question is , Does the person learning in kollel have kavanah that 
> part of his learning is going for his financial supporter.
> 
> This is even more of an issue when the supporter i unknown to the
> person 
> learning.   In addition many of the solicitation for funds by the
> various 
> kollels go to people outside their communities who the people in
> these 
> very kollel refer too in very derisive terms.

Surely, a negative feeling on the part of the one supported should
not, in and of itself, negate the Y/Z relationship.  For example,
there are many sons-in-law supported by fathers-in-law (and
mothers-in-law!).  As a matter of fact, one would think that from a
psychological standpoint anyone supported by someone else would have
some tendency to resent the latter.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> How does the "one-to-one" school deal with the slight population
> discrepancies  
> between Shevet Yissochor and Shevet Zeuvlun found in Sefer
> Bamidbor?
> 

To add on to Richard's question: does the one-to-one school believe
that every single individual in Shevet Y associated himself with a
specific individual in Shevet Z?  Did they have face-to-face meetings
(maybe during Aliya LaRegel they had the Y/Z get-together tent) or
just rely on pen pal relationships?  Did all Zs transfer money to a
central bank account (3000 years ago!) or did each separately give to
his Y counterpart?

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

In discussing whether to wear Bigdei Shabbos on Lag Bo'Omer we came up with the 
following:

Since it is RSBY's yahrtzeit, therefore we should wear sand to commemorate the 
years he was exiled to the cave.  Therefore Bigdei Chol <pun> is appropriate.

Rich Wolpoe

Hopefully tangential enough to a sensitive issue to be safe....

Perhaps the difference between whether or not "n'giah" is an insult also ties
back to our pluralistic halachah debate.

If one believes that halachah offers multiple options, and it's the job of the
posek to determine which is appropriate, then neig'ah is not only inoffensive,
but perhaps even necessary! How else is the poseik to determine which of the
darchei noam is appropriate for his kehillah?

OTOH, if the job of a poseik is to find the singular true halachah, then
negi'ah would get in the way of an objective search for truth. To imply that
someone, despite knowing themselves to be nogei'ah, would still make a
statement would be implying a kind of dishonesty.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-May-99: Levi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 317:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 74b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari II 5-8

I'm bothered by the terminology being used. The implication is that zechus
is a fungible, and that the Yissachars of this world could actuall selly their
zechus to another.

What happened to "prepare in the foyer so that you can eat at the banquet
hall"

I understood R' Moshe's words to be shorthand for saying that the Yissachar
loses half his zechus for needing a Zevulun, and the Zevulun, by willing to
give money to support Torah, earns for himself a similar kind of zechus.

About Richard's comment:
:                          That it is a special chiddush that one is even
: ABLE to make such a deal because how can 1/2 of one's Torah be "equal" to
: 1/2 of worldy goods...

Actually, any studend of R' Kook's would be totally unsurprised.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-May-99: Levi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 317:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 74b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari II 5-8

On Mon, 3 May 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> W/O being too Brisker, there are minhoggim and there are minhoggim. 
> Lich'ora, YT Shieini is binding in way similar to Tefillas Maariv. 
> 

The Brisker Rav said that YT II is precisely a minhag that we are now
obligated to maintain. There are nafka minas. See the Rambam Frankel in
Hil YT for the mareh mekomos.

YGB

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

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Perhaps the difference between whether or not "n'giah" is an insult
> also ties
> back to our pluralistic halachah debate.
> 
> If one believes that halachah offers multiple options, and it's the
> job of the
> posek to determine which is appropriate, then neig'ah is not only
> inoffensive,
> but perhaps even necessary! How else is the poseik to determine
> which of the
> darchei noam is appropriate for his kehillah?

I don't think I was on the list for the pluralistic halacha debate. 
However, based on the articles by Rabbi Michael Rosensweig in both
the Torah U'Maddah Journal (vol 1 OR 2) and in the volume by the
Orthodox Forum entitled "Personal Autonomy and [Halacha]" I would say
the following: The brother of the Marahal emphasized that each person
is different and that is why the Torah was given with shiv'im panim;
in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai understood something slightly
different.  So personality does count.  Nevertheless, the posek must
ensure that he is striving for "truth" within the shiv'im panim. 
Therefore, there is a need for the posek to eliminate any external
negiot, which I would define as influences stemming from a person's
base desires, desire for kavod, money, etc.

> 
> OTOH, if the job of a poseik is to find the singular true halachah,
> then
> negi'ah would get in the way of an objective search for truth. To
> imply that
> someone, despite knowing themselves to be nogei'ah, would still
> make a
> statement would be implying a kind of dishonesty.
> 

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

<< W/O being too Brisker, there are minhoggim and there are minhoggim.  
Lich'ora, 
 YT Shieini is binding in way similar to Tefillas Maariv.   
 2) When we accept YT Sheini, we exempted halvoyos hameis due to kovod hameis.
 And HOW YT Sheini is implemented proably was a  function of HOW it became 
accepted (like maariv is accpet w/o CH).<<<

Ma'ariv is never described in the gemara as a minhag; Y"T sheni is.  See Ch. 
HaGriz in the kuntras on Yoma, Sukkah for his discussion of the machloket 
Rambam and R"T re: berachos on minhag as it relates to Y"T sheni. I don't see 
in any sugyos that kulos of Y"T sheni are do to the way the minhag was 
nitpashet; contrast Y"T, for example, with the sugya in A.Z. 36.  It is 
interesting that you use halvayat hameit to illustrate the difference between 
Y"T rishon and sheni.  See Rambam 1:22-23 who prefaces his discussion of this 
distinction by stressing the fact that the two days of Y"T are parallel in 
chiyuv (and note here the Rambam refers to Y"T sheni as divrei sofrim, not 
minhag!) and meit is an exceptional distinction.  Perhaps halvayas hameit 
fits the pattern that chachamim were not gozeir b'makom mitzva, consistant 
with Rambam's shitah that a milah shelo b'zmana is doche Y"T sheni.  Netziv 
on Parshas Emor has a nice discussion of these topics.  
-CB

 

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> --- Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> wrote:
> > Moshe Feldman wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the
> > > Rav will be another Rambam--his philosophy will be ignored but
> > his
> > > Torah will be learned.
> >
> > This is already being done.  The sefer of his shiurim written by
> > one of
> > his talmidim on various Mesechtos of Shas (I forget the name of the
> >
> > sefer offhand) are being gobbled up by many charedei tamidim in
> > Yeshivos (such as Mir, and Brisk) in Israel.
> 
> I was told by my charedi cousin in Zichron Yaakov that this is being
> done specifically in connection to Reshimot Sheurim on Masechet
> Succah by Rabbi Heshy Reichman.

Now that you mention it, I think that "Reshimot Shiurim" IS the sefer I 
was reffering to.  

It has always bothered me that the Rav was "dissed" by the right.  It 
was never overt until I saw his Obit in the JO. As far as I am 
concerned, the Rav was the best canidate to be Gadol Hador of his 
generation.  The only component missing was the lack of acceptance by 
the Right Wing. In my conversations with various of my RW friends, it 
seems to be universally accepted that he would have been THE Gadol Hador 
if not for...  there is always some reason given, usually having to do 
with his Hashkafa: 
His positive attitude towards college,   
his preoccupation (according to the RW) with secular philosophy,  
his association with YU, his Rejection of Agudah, his asscociation with 
Mizrachi, critisizms about the religiosity of his wife, 
his producing too many musmachim who went on to take non-mechitza shuls 
(I'm not even sure that one is true),
the fact that so many seem to speak for him while at the same time 
representing seemingly opposite points of view. I could go on but I 
think the point was made. 

I think most of us on the list know that the Rav spent vast majority  of 
his time learning and teaching Torah.  The fact that he was able to 
master Torah knowledge seems to be undisputed even by his biggest 
detracters on the Right. Indeed, Gedolim like R. Baruch Ber 
Leibovitz,the Talmid Muvahk of R Chim Brisker,(the Rav's grandfather)  
conceeded that the Rav knew Mesches Gitin better than he did, and  R. 
Baruch Ber was a Baki on Meseches Gitin.  The fact that the Rav was able 
to do so and master other disciplines such as philosophy to the extent 
that he was considered by academia to be the quitessential philosopher 
of Orthodox Judaism, in my mind, makes him even a bigger gadol.  As Rav 
Aaron Soloveichik, whose anger was burning at the way the JO and others 
in the Right Wing treated his brother, said in the Hespid Shloshim, the 
Rav's point was to teach Torah and the purpose of his philosophical 
approach was to teach Torah through the "Prism" of philosophy because 
that is what the times demanded..a sort of Eis Laasos. 

Well, all the denigration by the right will fall into the ashheap of 
history, because his Torah scholorship will stand the test of time as 
did the Torah schlorship of the Rambam in his generation eventhough he, 
too, was critisized for his "preoccupation" with philosophy. 

I am only greatful that I am able to see the begining of his redmption 
so relatively soon after his death.

HM

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: Mon, 3 May 1999 20:54:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Date of the current calendar algorithm (fwd)

On Mon, 3 May 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> the "Letter of the Rosh Hagolah" which
> explains that year 4595 (836) follows the siman "Zayin Chet Gimmel"
> (i.e. Rosh Hashana is on Shabbat, the year is deficient and Pessach
> falls on Tuesday), while, according to the modern calendar algorithm the
> siman should be "Zayin Shin Heh". There are ambiguities in the letter so

Would it be possible to note a technical difficulty in the above?

It is Rosh Hashannah 4597H which would be most likely to begin 
during the year 836g. And using the FIXED calendar algorithm, the year 
4597H can be seen to begin on Saturday and have only 353 days.

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

On Mon, 3 May 1999, Harry Maryles wrote:  > > I was told by my charedi
cousin in Zichron Yaakov that this is being > > done specifically in
connection to Reshimot Sheurim on Masechet > > Succah by Rabbi Heshy
Reichman.  > 

> Now that you mention it, I think that "Reshimot Shiurim" IS e sefer I
> was reffering to. 

In fact, you were referring to the "Chiddushei HaMasbir" by R' Altuski,
author of the Chidushei Basra. The Masbir is R' Soloveichik.

YGB

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

In a message dated 5/3/99 9:30:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<<  As Rav 
 Aaron Soloveichik, whose anger was burning at the way the JO and others 
 in the Right Wing treated his brother, said in the Hespid Shloshim, the 
 Rav's point was to teach Torah and the purpose of his philosophical 
 approach was to teach Torah through the "Prism" of philosophy because 
 that is what the times demanded..a sort of Eis Laasos. 
 
 Well, all the denigration by the right will fall into the ashheap of 
 history, because his Torah scholorship will stand the test of time as 
 did the Torah schlorship of the Rambam in his generation eventhough he, 
 too, was critisized for his "preoccupation" with philosophy. 
 
 I am only greatful that I am able to see the begining of his redmption 
 so relatively soon after his death.
  >>
I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the Rav''s innermost thoughts 
but from his written works and many hours listening to his shiurim that have 
been preserved on tape, one would not empirically conclude that the Rav's 
philosophy was an et laasot. I suspect one would more likely intuit that 
philosophy was an integral part of the Rav''s being and understanding of tora 
..  

Given the Rav's obvious gadlut, it's fairly clear that on an objective basis 
his tora will be "redeemed".  The more likely attack will be a 'redefinition' 
of the Rav and a distancing of him from Tora U'mada like concepts and YU.  
You might find of interest the thumbnail biography in the Stone Chumash which 
lists the Rav as the head of the Boston Jewish community but does not mention 
YU.  

Not to worry, the Jewish people have been down this road before.  As long as 
we each concentrate on doing our best to do the ratzon hashem, we'll be ok.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]