Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 046

Sunday, May 9 1999

• Re: Halacha & minhag in Ashkenaz
• Baseball, Dinners, Brisk
• Re: Permissibility of attending baseball games
• Re: R. Moshe on "Minhag America"
• Halacha & Minhag in Ashkenaz
• Re: Tzedaka
• More on Sefirah: Fundraising Dinners
• assur of sporting events
• Re: Minhag America, Minhog EY
• Re: Pesahim 112a
• Re: assur of sporting events
• Re: More on Sefirah: Does Excitement Equal Simhah? / Baseball
• Re: Halacha & minhag in Ashkenaz
• Seudos mereius
• Re: Halacha & minhag in Ashkenaz
• Re: Halacha & minhag in Ashkenaz
• Multiple minhagim in a single locality
• Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...

On Thu, 6 May 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

>     The actual historic development of Ashkenazic custom and
>     the struggle concerning it are dealt with in the second part
>     of this paper. The establishment by R. Gershom of the
>     yeshiva in Mainz, and the ensuing advance of the study of
>     the Babylonian Talmud, undermined the basic Ashkenazic
>     perception of the precedence of living custom and oral
>     tradition over halakhic literary sources. In the ensuing
>     competition between the mitzva of theoretical Torah study
>     and observance of other mitzvot, the former gradually
>     gained the upper hand. The many contrasts between
>     Babylonian halakhah and the traditional halakhah and
>     custom of Ashkenaz were gradually exposed and it became
>     clear that these could be harmonized only with great
>     difficulty, if at all. During the eleventh century the devotees
>     of the old school strggled to protect their traditions and their
>     attitudes, and they sanctified custom in almost
>     metaphysical terms. Important scholars opposed this trend,
>     but the devotees of custom succeeded in censoring the
>     opposition in their writings, which constitute the majority of
>     what has come down to us from eleventh century literature.
>     Thus, when we first meet Ashkenazic custom in its full
>     strength, in the middle of the eleventh century, it wass
>     already in retreat, struggling to survive in the face of young
>     scholars whose "academic" study was at its peak and who
>     sought halakhic authority for their own method. This
>     process is the background of the Tosafist phenomenon and
>     the revolution they brought to the Jewish word of spirit and
>     of halakhah.
> 

I guess Prof. Ta-Shma has little use for the Bi'ur Ha'Gra on shulchan
Aruch.

YGB

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

Lomir ibber-chazzeren: 

Vos is der chiluk?

Having not been left satisfied by my learned colleagues responses, let me
note my belief:

It is a a trait that Brisker Torah has imparted to us, almost as second
nature, to pursue the neat classification of practice into hypothetical
constructs of conceptual pigeonholes.

It don't always work.

Sefira's restrictions were not decreed by Chazal to be equivalent with Yud
Beis Chodesh.

They evolved on their own.

They therefore are not necessarily internally consistent, nor more than
approximately similar to Yud Beis Chodesh.

(Otherwise we would *all* be shaving everyday of Sefira.)

Therefore, minhag ha'olam is "lo kiblu aly'hu" to ban fundraising dinners
(perhaps, granted, for bottom line considerations.

V'yesh l'ayein gabei baseball, v'tzorich iyun gadol!

YGB

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

On Thu, 6 May 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> I think this is one of the more pressing issues for all benei Torah to
> resolve (especially those who are Yankee fans).  On this question, I
> direct the tzibbur's attention to the high-level debate on this question
> between our esteemed listmember, RYGB, and R. Mayer Schiller, which
> appears in the correspondence pages of the Torah u-Madda Journal (I
> forget the volume number).  Indeed, perhaps RYGB would like to take the
> opportunity to get the last word in here, on this list, as he was not
> able to in print. 
>

I think REG is familiar with my position :-). 

YGB

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

--- Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
> Reb Moshe doesn't reject the *possiblity* of Minhag America or
> New York.
> For example in O.H. IV 75.1 page 145 he notes that in Europe
> there was no minhag not to take a cold shower on Shabbos. " but
> in our country here in america where there are showers we see
> that showers are not taken on Shabbos even cold ones. Even though
> it is not noted in seforim as a minhag - perhaps showers are not
> taken because of ignorance and not with intent of minhag
> nevertheless it is appropriate to be machmir when there is no
> discomfort because perhaps [the not taking of cold showers] is
> because of an intent for a minhag - but when in discomfort one
> can be lenient."


> --- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Let's re-visit Minhag EY. Isn't that also a place that has absorbed
> numerous 
> immigrants?  So how is it Benie Ashkenaz would be forced to wear
> Tefillin 
> be'tzin'o during chol hamoed while in NYC they can wear it
> befarhesyo?  
> 
> to quote RYGB "Vos is der chiluk?"        
> 

Perhaps the chiluk is, based on what Daniel wrote, that there is the
possiblity of "minhag makom X"  even where makom X is a place with
multiple batei din.  Rav Moshe's position is that where there are
multiple batei din in X, then despite the fact that batei din 1 . . 8
hold one way, a person may follow bet din 9 which holds the other
way.  However, if ALL batei din hold a certain way in makom X, then a
resident of X must follow minhag makom X.

There are many parallels between America and Israel.  Both were
settled by immigrants coming from many different places.  To the
extent that the immigrants maintained their prior customs, such
customs have the status of existing under the imprimatur of a
particular bet din.  However, where immigrants, upon coming to
Israel, found a uniform minhag (e.g. no tefillin on chol ha'moed) and
those immigrants decided not exercise their right (as a collective
group) to maintain a different minhag, a single immigrant may not
decide to maintain the minhag.  

Of course, in this regard the issue exists whether it is possible for
a collective group of individuals to claim that they are a bet din;
whenever each individual--separately-- gets off the boat, he becomes
swallowed by the minhag of the existing group of people in Israel
(kind of like the laws of bittul b'rov: spilling treif soup little by
little--with interruptions in the flow of liquid--into a kosher pot).
 Maybe the answer is by analogy to Marat Ayin--the first people to
use Shabbos clocks may have violated an issur but today people know
about such things.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

Thank you JJB for this excellent post <G>.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that the following hypothetical caveats are
true::
1) The Zohar is authentic
2) It was transmitted orally only before RM DeLeone
3) It is Halachially authoritative  (let's say a bit less than TB)

Questions:
1) Hyptothetically RM DeLeone NEVER publishes Zohar, what would its current 
status be?

2) Given that DeLeone eventually publishes the Zohar.  What was its 
pre-pulibcation status wrt it being Halachic?

Rich Wolpoe

I'm surprised that R. Eli suggested that donating money to a shul or
yeshiva is *not* in the category of tzedaka. See the Sridei Eish Choshen
Mishpat Siman 138 (IM TALMIDEI CHACHAMIM CHAYAVIM B'MISIM SHE'GOV'IM RASHEI
HA'KAHAL). I quote from Anaf 3: "Ve'hamas she'gov'im rashei ha'eda l'tzorchei
ha'eda u'mosdotav, hem maasei tzedaka mamash, l'hachzakat hamosdot ..."

Josh

RYBG: >>Nevertheless, the halachos of aveilus do not differentiate 
between exciting seu'dos merei'us and tedious ones.<<

Jordan:>> Well, I would think that perhaps a dinner that is in many 
respects like a business function,<<

 Jordan is on the right track.  EG, there are "heteririm" for availim 
to attend functions when they are "working" there. EG, I know of a 
porfessional photographer who worked at simchos while an oveil.  And 
even then, even an oveil who is "working" at a simcho will attempt to 
leave while the dance music plays.  

During the year when these dinners DO have music, an oveil,  might have 
a problem, because then, it's not strictly business, it's a hybrid.  
During Sefiro the music problem falls away because there's no mucis.  
the  Reius part falls away becuase in a sense the contributors are at a 
"working session", a board meeting of sorts.

Rich Wolpoe

E. G. said what I've been thinking during this whole debate over whether
sporting events are assur during sefirah or not.  My understanding was that
sporting events fell into the category of goyische activities to be avoided. 

Arielle Cazaubon

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Let's re-visit Minhag EY. Isn't that also a place that has absorbed numerous
> immigrants?  So how is it Benie Ashkenaz would be forced to wear Tefillin
> be'tzin'o during chol hamoed while in NYC they can wear it befarhesyo?
>
> to quote RYGB "Vos is der chiluk?"

Reb Moshe discusses this question O.H. IV #105.5 page 194.
"...the main original source of the immigrants  was from the sefardim and the arab
lands where the majority follow the Rambam and Beis Yosef not to put on Tefilin
chol hamoed. and those that came from Europe in the beginning were talmidim of the
Gra and Besht and Chabad who also didn't wear Tefilin chol hamoed - consequently
the minhag of Eretz Yisroel was not to wear Tefilin chol homoed. And since there
was a homogeneous practice ....

                                   Daniel Eidensohn

"Clark, Eli" wrote:

> As I understand it, the story is abour Rashbi's willingness to sacrifice
> his life for Torah.  This is very much in keeping with other midrashim
> ("Adam ki yamut ba-ohel . . .") as well as the related aggadah about R.
> Akiva in Berakhot.  While R. Akiva was willing to make the sacrifice for
> himself, he did not want to risk the life of his talmid.  When Rashbi
> insists that he wishes to take the risk upon himself, R. Akiva relents.
>
> The ma'aseh is still extreme.  But it does not lack rough hashkafic
> parallels.

The only source (aside from the Ben Ish Chai) who discusses this gemora is Rav
Menachem Azaryah M'Pano (Mamar HaNefesh 5:1). He states that Rabbi Akiva was in
prison because he taught Torah in violation of the gezera. When the Rashbi saw
that his rebbe refused to teach Torah in private to one ( i.e., Rashbi) who
requested  it and was sitting at his feet this aroused the suspicion that Rabbi
Akiva's public act was only - chalilah - for showing off and was not sincere. If
such were so it was proper to hand Rabbi Akiva over to the government so that he
would not endanger anymore the masses who followed him,  because G-d doesn't do
miracles for deceit. Rabbi Akiva got the message and then taught him Torah ...

The Ben Ish Chai also understand the gemora as showing that the Rashbi felt
strongly that Rabbi Akiva was wrong and needed to be threatened.

In sum, the commentaries I have found - indicate that it was not the Rashbi
indicating a willingness to sacrifice himself for Torah - as his rebbe had done
but rather that the Rashbi felt that Rabbi Akiva was wrong and had to be
threatened to do what was proper.
Your interpretation is more digestible - and I would really like to accept it -
but doesn't fit in with the words of the gemora nor with the above commentaries.
The Rashbi was apparrently pure midos hadin and held everyone to an absolute
standard as is apparent from the gemora Shabbos 33b and the debate with Rabbi
Yishmael concerning earning a living. This seems to parallel the actions of Rabbi
Eliezar HaGadol. One must do what is absolutely right - without compromise and
without excuses.


                          Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 5/6/99 4:26:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cazaubon@qualcomm.com writes:

<< E. G. said what I've been thinking during this whole debate over whether
 sporting events are assur during sefirah or not.  My understanding was that
 sporting events fell into the category of goyische activities to be avoided. 
 
 Arielle Cazaubon
  >>
Please provide references for determining activities which fall under the 
category of goyische

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman writes:
> 
> >Excitement and simcha she'balev are
> >two different things.  Perhaps baseball games are exciting for
> some
> >and bungee jumping is exciting for others.  No one ever prohibited
> >bungee jumping during sefirah.
> 
> >Again, I differentiate between excitement and happiness.  Remember
> >that in the time of Chazal, simchat m'reut with music was probably
> >infrequent (weddings, probably not bar mitzvahs).
> 
> I believe the technical distinction between excitement and simhah
> collapses when the person in question derives great enjoyment from
> it.
> For whatever reason (and I leave such analysis to sociologists and
> psychologists), many people today "enjoy" shocks, thrills and
> excitement.  A huge sector of the entertainment industry caters to
> this
> audience, from roller coasters to horror films, from shock radio to
> Stephen King novels.  I believe that going to an amusement park is
> entirely inconsistent with the nihugim associated with sefirah, and
> I
> think most authorities would agree.   Similarly, if a person finds
> bungee jumping very enjoyable then (he should get professional
> counselling :), but in any case) such an activity would also be
> off-limits during Sefirah.
> 

If you are willing to prohibit bungee jumping (or more realistically,
amusement parks) then I might agree with you with regard to baseball
games.  However, if you don't prohibit amusement parks because they
cause fun & excitement, but not happiness (simcha), then I would
categorize baseball games as permissible as well.

The only problem that I have with forbidding amusement parks is that
chazal specifically prohibited simchat m'reut and not all forms of
enjoyment.  Again, as I pointed out in my previous post, such a
distinction is logical: simcha is the antithesis of avelut she'ba'lev
while excitement is not.  (I will agree, however, that there is a
s'varah to prohibit excitement--it detracts from one's concentration
on avelut)

> A different question involves the subjective vs. objective
> question,
> i.e., when is a particular activity so generally regarded as a
> simhah-oriented activity that is becomes prohibited for all.  It is
> not
> my place to to establish a general standard, but I think baseball
> games
> pass the test.
> 
> Finally, you add a bit of historical speculation regarding the
> times of
> Hazal.  Honestly, I have no idea (and I wonder whether you do) how
> often
> simhat me-re'ut occurred in the time of Hazal.  Al regel ahat, I
> would
> guess that the answer was, for the rich, often, for the poor,
> infrequently.  But, in truth, I believe the point to be irrelevant
> to
> our discussion.
>

I do see a relevance.  As you pointed out, it makes sense to
differentiate between "subjective" and "objective" simcha. 
Presumably, chazal, in issuing a ban on simchat m'reut, addressed
simcha that was applicable to the masses, who were poor.  Thus, it is
reasonable to presume that such simcha was out of the ordinary simcha
(e.g., weddings with music, in contrast to a bunch of friends getting
together in a restaurant), i.e., simcha that is substantially
different from the ordinary course of people's lives.

Quite possibly, if an average person living at the time of chazal
were transported by time machine to the 20th century, that person
would find great excitement in watching TV, listening to the radio,
etc.; perhaps such activities would be prohibited to ancient time
travelers.  To us moderns, such activities are blase and should not
be prohibited during sefirah.

Thus, it makes sense to differentiate between the "baseline" level of
happiness/excitement that people enjoy day-to-day and the greater
amounts of happiness which accrue when one does something out of the
ordinary.

In the late 20th century, we live in a society where people have easy
access to all types of pleasures (of course, people aren't
necessarily happier, but that's a whole other issue).  As a result,
we do not easily vault much higher than the baseline when we do
certain happiness-causing activities.  Clearly, activities
specifically proscribed by chazal would be prohibited today despite
the fact that we may not enjoy them to the same extent.  OTOH, I am
reluctant to create new issurim (e.g. baseball) where the level of
happiness does not increase substantially over the baseline.

--- Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
> In real life, however, even those with a keen intellectual
> appreciation of
> the unfolding drama on the field will usually attend a baseball
> game as a
> social event. Few of us, except for journalists and scouts, would
> go
> alone. Thus the essence of such attendance is social.

With regard to baseball: There are two aspects of m'reut here.  (1)If
you go with friends, you enjoy yourself more than when you go alone. 
In this regard, baseball is not much different than movies--I would
rather go to a movie with a friend although I don't speak to the
friend throughout the movie (unless I'm doing an Ernie & Burt
imitation).  No one would suggest that it is permitted to go to a
movie alone but prohibited with a friend.  (2)The roar of the crowd
enhances the excitement.  A standing room only crowd is more exciting
than a spring training crowd.  But is that simchat m'reut?  Do I
really connect with the crowd on a personal level (compare with a
wedding)?

Thus, my position (and again, I'm not much of a sports fan) is that
going with others enhances the baseball experience but is not the
essence of the experience.  In contrast, what's a wedding if there
are only 5 people there?--The people are the essence of the
experience.

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

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> 
> >     The actual historic development of Ashkenazic custom and
> >     the struggle concerning it are dealt with in the second part
> >     of this paper. The establishment by R. Gershom of the
> >     yeshiva in Mainz, and the ensuing advance of the study of
> >     the Babylonian Talmud, undermined the basic Ashkenazic
> >     perception of the precedence of living custom and oral
> >     tradition over halakhic literary sources. In the ensuing
> >     competition between the mitzva of theoretical Torah study
> >     and observance of other mitzvot, the former gradually
> >     gained the upper hand. The many contrasts between
> >     Babylonian halakhah and the traditional halakhah and
> >     custom of Ashkenaz were gradually exposed and it became
> >     clear that these could be harmonized only with great
> >     difficulty, if at all. . . . 
> 
> 
> I guess Prof. Ta-Shma has little use for the Bi'ur Ha'Gra on
> shulchan
> Aruch.

I can tell you that Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his 2 semester class
on History of Rishonim, more or less agreed with this view of
Ta-Shma.  (Now of course, Dr. S. is not required to agree with his
father, the Rav.)

Remember, the Gra was not a historian.  He assumed the primacy of
Talmud Bavli and that that had always been the case.  Liebermann and
others have proved, using historical methods, that that was not the
case in early Ashkenaz (which derived from Italy and ultimately from
Eretz Yisrael).  Dr. S., a historian of the development of Halacha,
agrees with the historians on this one.  The Rav, a non-historian,
did not.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

>My query is, surely fundraising dinners fit under the category of 
>Seu'das Merei'us. 
	I don't think all poskim would agree with that.  The  *purpose*  of the
seuda is not mereius,  which some consider to be the criterion.

Aveilim, R"L, do not attend them.
	I know of at least one posek who told someone I know,  in shloshim,  to
go to a fundraising dinner.  The rationale was that the purpose was
raising money,  not having a good time.  This was later summarized as
follows:  "if you want to go,  you can't.  If you go because you have to
(e.g. Yeshiva dinner) then you can/should"

Gershon

On Thu, 6 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> > I guess Prof. Ta-Shma has little use for the Bi'ur Ha'Gra on
> > shulchan
> > Aruch.
> 
> I can tell you that Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his 2 semester class on
> History of Rishonim, more or less agreed with this view of Ta-Shma. 
> (Now of course, Dr. S. is not required to agree with his father, the
> Rav.) 
> 
> Remember, the Gra was not a historian.  He assumed the primacy of Talmud
> Bavli and that that had always been the case.  Liebermann and others
> have proved, using historical methods, that that was not the case in
> early Ashkenaz (which derived from Italy and ultimately from Eretz
> Yisrael).  Dr. S., a historian of the development of Halacha, agrees
> with the historians on this one.  The Rav, a non-historian, did not. 
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> 

Slightly before your arrival here at Avodah we discussed the
yeshiva-world/academic-world dichotomy. The distinction is quite manifest
here, of course, but I fail to see, in any event, how a historian can
prove the Rav or the GRA "wrong". If they found the source of a minhag in
Bavli, Yerushalmi, etc., then that is a makor, period.

YGB

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

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" > Slightly before your
arrival here at Avodah we discussed the
> yeshiva-world/academic-world dichotomy. The distinction is quite
> manifest
> here, of course, but I fail to see, in any event, how a historian
> can
> prove the Rav or the GRA "wrong". If they found the source of a
> minhag in
> Bavli, Yerushalmi, etc., then that is a makor, period.
> 

The GRA cannot *prove* where a given minhag derives from unless he
has documentary evidence, which usually does not exist.  Rather, the
GRA *postulates* that given certain similar mekorot in Bavli, etc.,
the minhag most reasonably derives from a certain source.  The
historians similarly cannot prove, only postulate.  They postulate
that due to the movement from Israel to Italy to Ashkenaz, old
minhagei ashkenaz is often rooted in Eretz Yisrael tradition.

Kind of like figuring out a shver Rambam.  Remember the joke about
Rav Chaim--you can't trust a Frank to figure out the Rambam.

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

Rich Wolpoe writes:

>BTW  focus re: Minhag America has been primarliy litrugical. With all due
>respect, the above sevoro seems to be a bedieved rationalization of what
>happened rather than a lechatchilo prescription for what should happen.
>(Remember, NYC was originally colonized in 1654 by Sefardic Jews refrained
from
>There was no Ashkenzic Minyon in NYC prior to circa 1820.)

You have more than once asserted that every person who came to America
(or at least NYC) after the first Jewish community was established
should have been required to follow that community's minhag.  However,
that is simply not the case.

If a town has ten Jews, all Sefaradim, and then 20 Ashkenazim move in,
the latter are entitled to establish a separate minyan in which they may
follow their own minhagim.  This rule has a long established history,
but if you request mekorot, I will provide them.  Rather than putting
forward a post facto rationalization, R Moshe was, I think simply
applying this rule to the more complex situation, in which not one set
of 20 Ashkenazim arrived, but literally scores of groups from many
different regions.  The newcomers clearly outnumbered the residents by
several orders of magnitude.

>Let's re-visit Minhag EY. Isn't that also a place that has absorbed numerous
>immigrants?  So how is it Benie Ashkenaz would be forced to wear Tefillin
>be'tzin'o during chol hamoed while in NYC they can wear it befarhesyo?

>to quote RYGB "Vos is der chiluk?"

Surely anyone who visits Eretz Yisrael is aware that different minhagim
abound there.  Nevertheless, certain minhagim seem to have been
universally adopted.  In such case, newcomers are also required to
follow such a minhag.  This possibility was clearly demonstrated in R.
Daniels's post, where he showed that R. Moshe, though noting in many
places that NYC does not generally have a unitary minhag, may have one
with respect to not taking cold showers on Shabbat.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli

I would like to share a dialouge with the list I have been having off 
list with Saul Z. Newman. It is rather lengthy because, in order to make 
sense of it I have to re-post my list of qualifications to Gadlus.  This 
will be followed by Saul's points and my responses.

The list:

1. High degree of intelligence 
2. Highest degree of Ahavas and Yiras Shamaim 
3. Highest degree of integrity...
4. A certain degree of humility
5. Complete knowledge of Shas and Rishonim 
6. Complete knowledge of  Shulchan Aruch and early Achronim (i.e. Shach 
and Taz etc.) 
7. The ability to Paskin new Sheilos and to be Mechadesh new "Torah" 
(with accomplishments in at least one of these two areas) 
8. Working knowledge or high degree of familiarity with secular 
disciplines 
9. Knowledge of current events, especially their impact on Klal Israel 
10.  Acceptance of points 1 through 7 about such an individual by a 
majority of his peers (i.e.  Roshei Yeshiva and other Poskim) 

11.  To be "THE" Gadol Hador, one would need, additionally, acceptance 
by the majority of Bnei Torah as "THE" Gadol Hador.

Bnei Torah as defined in this context is: all sincere members of the 
Torah world-left to right,  Y.U.  to  Lakewood, Chasid  to Misnagid, 
Sefardi to Ashkenazi, Students, Baleil Batim, Rabbis.  (I hope  I've 
covered everyone.)

Things not included in this definition are:
1. Personality type 
2. Popularity of his political opinions 
3. Popularity of his teshuvos.
4. Acceptance by "only one segment" of Bnei Torah as a Gadol Hador.

It might be argued that one might not find anyone alive today that has 
all eleven qualifications, and since every generation has it's Gedolim 
it becomes necessary to eliminate or modify
one or more of the above mentioned requirements.  Which one(s)? 

Again, please feel free to comment/criticize.  Also, please feel free to 
nominate any contemporary individual if you feel he fulfills or comes 
close to fulfilling all these  requirements.

I personally don't think we have any Gedolim today of the calibre of the 
previous generation.


The Response:

Saul Z. Newman wrote:

> first, i think you should present it to the avodah group for comment.

I already have, a while back. I don't remember how long ago but I think
it was somtime earlier this year. Subject matter on this list sometimes
gets recycled with a somewhat different spin each time.  This one of
those times and is the reason I asked for off list requests. I didn't
want burdon the list with repetition.



> second,  i assume you mean on #7 and/or,  since i assume there are
>many who
> concentrae on b]  to the exclusion of a]

I meant #7 exactly as I stated it. I believe that a Gadol should have
the "ABILITY" to do both but need only have acheivements in one or the
other.


>  also, i doubt that the majority of rabonim bandied about as a gadol
> qualify on number 8.    maybe   8  and 11 are mutually >
>contradicting----if
> one lacks 8, he's not going to be recognized by the non-yeshivish
>element.

I know where you are coming from but I diasagree with you.  There are,
of course, many Gedolim who have achieved expertise with various of the
secular disciplines with a university background, such as the Rav. But
knowledge of Mada does not always require a college education.  Witness
R. Shlomo Zalman's understanding of the physics of electricity.
Obviously the more training someone has the better so that the Rav's
knowlege was more complete.  That is a function of many factors in his
case which include genius level intelligence and a hashkafa that viewed
the learning of secular knowledge with a very positive attitude.   an
example of what I meant by "working knowledge or high degree of
familiarity is that a Gadol should know all there is to know about
medical and scientific aspects of a particular shailoh dealing with a
life and death matter in order to paskin correctly.  R. Moshe would
never paskin on health issues without first consulting with his
son-in-law, R.Moshe Tendler about the biology of a medical situation so
he could understand every detail and paskin accordingly. Too many... so
called "Poskim" will paskin from ignorance and therefore incorrectly.
 
#11 is a virtual impossibilty today as Klal Israel has become too
partisan and fractious.  Even in this last  generation of gedolim there
was no universal acceptance of who was the Gadol Hador.  YU thought it
was the Rav.  The Yeshiva world in America thought it was Rav Aaron
Kotler followed by Rav Moshe. In Israel it was Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach. Chasidim thought it was their individual Rebbes (The Satmer
Rebbe or The Lubavitcher Rebbe, etc.)

> it would also explain why a YU rov would be automatically eliminated

If you mean that a college education disqualifies them in the eyes of
the RW, you may have a point, although I do believe there are many
reasons why a YU rov would be eliminated... most of them political!

>
> and  9  will get into the always controversial area of daas torah.......

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Please explain.

HM

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


[ 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         ]