Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 049

Thursday, May 13 1999

• Brisker Torah and Halocho
• Re: Phrase: GADOL HADOR in shas and rishonim
• Re: Gadol hador nomenclature
• Re: Improper Terminology
• Re: Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...
• Speculation #1: I'm Eatin' in the Rain
• Speculation #2: I Say Mesorah, You Say Mesoroh
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: Avodah V3 #48 Worth-less Women
• Chassidus Website
• Re: Avodah V3 #48-gadol hador

>>
Rav YGB wrote "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. <<

I suspect that is what prompted R. Yeruchim Gorelick to refrain from 
halachically oriented lomdus.  As a devotee of the Brikser Derech, he used it 
almost strictly in tackling shas on a theoretical/academic level.  I suspect he 
would agree that halacha does not always fit into neat "pigeon holes".

To me the beauty of the Brisker Derech is the Derech itself - not its 
conclusions.

Rich Wolpoe

BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> 
> R. Maryles' comment on the "recent" coining of the phrase *gadol hador*
> piqued my curiosity so I ran a search on the phrase *gadol hador* in shas
> and rishonim. Here's what I got:
> GEMARA: Moed Kattan 22b, Sotah 12a, Kiddushin 32b
> RASHI: Sukkah 39a, Taanit 29a, Moed Kattan 22b, Sotah 12a, Kiddushin 80b,
>        Chullin 103b
> TOSAFOT: Brachot 31b, D'H "Moreh halacha"; Moed Kattan 22b D'H "Maaseh b'gadol"
> MEIRI: Berachot 24b, Moed Kattan 16a, Gittin 6a, Pirkei Avot 3:14
> RITVA: Moed Kattan 25a, Avoda Zara 7a
> TOSAFOT HA'RID: Beitza 38a
> YAD RAMA: Bava Batra 14b
> TOSAFOT HA'ROSH: Berachot 31b, Gittin 14b
> SHITA MEKUBETZET: Ketuvot 19a
> 
> Josh

What did these sources mean by Gadol HaDor.  Were the terms just 
refferenced in passing context or do they include definitions?

HM

mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:
> 
> "You raise some interesting questions.  My intuition tells me that the
> term "Gadol" or "Gadol HaDor" was coined in yeshivishe circles.  I have
> no idea how far back the terms go. My best guess is that it must have
> originated about the same time that R. Chaim Volozhiner established the
> Yeshiva as we know it today."
> 
>      Actually the term goes back at least to Tannatic times - see Pirkei
> Drebbi Eliezer ( his father Hurkonos is called the gadol hador).  There
> though it means the leading financial supporter of Torah.
> 
> Moshe Luchins

I use the term "Gadol HaDor" as we define it today.

HM

--- "sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu" <sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu> wrote:
> 
> Reb Moshe Feldman wrote "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."
> 
> First of all, I don't think it is appropriate to use the term Frank
> to refer
> to a sephardic Jew. It was historically used by ashkenazim in a
> derogatory
> way to refer to their sephardic brethren. I don't think that it
> complies
> with the "darchei noam" rule that governs our group. I know that
> reb Moshe
> didn't mean any insult, but I think it is my reposibility to be
> mocheach.
> 
<snip>
> The famous joke referred to by Reb Moshe Feldman is a perfect
> illustration of
> what I am saying. A sephardic Jew (trained in an old-fashioned real
> sephardic
> derekh) may not understand the Rambam in the same way that an
> ashkenazi lamdan
> would, but they are both equally valid, and possibly the sephardic
> method,
> which may be much simpler just might be closer to the emes. The
> undercurrent
> of the joke is that the ashkenazim like to make a "mountain out of
> a molehill"
> with all sorts of fine distinctions and comparisons whereas the
> sephardi,
> in this case the Rambam himself (and I refuse to use the
> aforementioned term)
> just understands what was really meant.
> 
I apologize if anyone was offended.  Actually, as you correctly
pointed out, the use of "Frank" here actually makes fun of those who
make fun of Sephardim.  After all the Rambam was a Sephardi and
understood much better what he intended than did Rav Chaim.  (The
joke refers to Rav Chaim coming to Olam HaEmet and meeting the
Rambam.  Rav Chaim asks the Rambam whether Rav Chaim's complicated
Torah on a certain Rambam is correct and the Rambam says no--there is
a simple, innocuous explanation.  Whereupon Rav Chaim says, "What
does a _____ know about the Rambam.")

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
 Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> This is a side point, but I wonder why you say this about R'Aharon, Ztz"l.
> Weren't Torah Vodaath, MTJ, Yeshivas R' Yitzchak Elchanan, and even Chofeitz
> Chaim already established by the time R' Aharon came to the states?
> 
> Jordan

See Rich Wolpoe"s response.  He has essentially answered this the same 
way I would have.

HM

We learned last night in R' Mayer Twersky's shiur at Lincoln Square, the
Tosafot and the Ran on the first mishna on Sukah 27a, where R' Eliezer says
that one eats 14 meals in the sukkah, while Rabanan say that eating in the
sukkah is optional, dependent on eating bread. 

Tosafot brings a gezerah shavah of 15-15 from the Yerushalmi to associate
the first night of Pesach with the first night of SUkkot: just as there
is an obligation to eat a kezayit of matzah betayavon on the first night
of Pesach, there is an obligation to eat a kezayit of bread in the sukkah
betayavon on the first night of Sukkot.

Ran looks at this gz"sh and brings 3 opinions.
  1) On the first night, one must eat an egg of bread, which consequently
obligates one to eat in the sukkah;
  2) Even if he only eats an olive of bread on the first night, he must
eat it in the sukkah;
  3) Even if it's raining on the first night, he must eat an olive of
bread in the sukkah (acherim omrim).

Rema brings this last opinion down lehalacha in O"H 639:5, supported by
the Rosh (to Berachot 39b), this Ran, and the Tur.  The Vilna Gaon,
cited by Mishnah Brurah in 639 s"k [Shaar haTziyun] 63, supported by
Sephardi rishonim (Rabad, Rashba) and what the MB calls "rov poskim",
says that if it rains on the first night we *don't* have to eat in the
sukkah.

[I looked these up at home:
Rambam rules like the 2nd opinion of the Ran (Sukkah 6:7).  Maggid
Mishnah there cites Tosafot ruling like the 3rd opinion, but I don't
know where this Tosafot is.  Aruch haShulchan says explicitly that the
*minhag* is to eat at least an olive of bread even if it's raining
the first night.]

Speculation:  Is this another example of the Gra trumping an Ashkenazi
mesorah that is not necessarily well supported by textual sources?  Since,
after all, there are lots of other ways to read the 15-15 gz"sh?

    Jonathan Baker     |  Daffynition: Omernasolaryngologist:
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  Iyar, nose & throat doctor.

Radical speculation #2:

Assumption 1: traditionally, mesorah trumps sevara, no?  See, e.g., Rambam's
intro to the mishna commentary.

Yet, one of the differences between the Bavli and the Y'mi is that the former
is full of argument, svara, while the latter is mostly a bunch of apodictic
statements - where are they from?  mesorah perhaps?  The Bavli even has
to stop & remind itself now & again that mesorah/gemara is not worthless
compared to svara (e.g., Eruvin 60a, abaye to R' Yosef: is gemara just
meaningless droning?)

Assumption 2: Theory of Agus, C Solowiecijk, Ta-Shma: mesorat Ashkenaz is
mesorat EY via Italy.

Proposition: Since Yerushalmi is largely mesorati (not Israeli traditional
<smile>), and that mesorah is transmitted largely to Ashkenaz, perhaps
minhag Ashkenaz is closer to the original mesorah from Sinai - it didn't
depend on logical constructions?  Perhaps Y'mi should have been regarded
as more authoritative?

Monkey wrench: Yerushalmi's apodictic style is closer to Sephardi 
style of learning via codes, while Bavli's argumentative style is
closer to Ashkenazi mode.  Possible reconciliation: development of
analytical Ashkenazi mode was engendered by a desire to fit Ashkenazi
minhag to the Bavli, and the only way to do so was through copying
Bavli's analytic mode.  Had the two strains developed without trying
to reconcile between themselves, perhaps both would have stuck with
the simpler style.

Obviously, this makes little practical difference.   But speculation is 
fun.

Certes, reading this list has given me a whole new way to understand 
the arguments among the Rishonim and the Gra when I come across them
in shiur.

    Jonathan Baker     |  Daffynition: Omernasolaryngologist:
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  Iyar, nose & throat doctor.

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> I am a bit cautious about those who try to compare the Crusades to
> the
> Sho'ah based upon the number of people involved..
> 1. While 5,000 is only 1/4 of 20,000 (and 6,000,000 is 1/3 of
> 18,000,000
> [which was -- I think -- the then-estimated Jewish population],  I
> suspect
> that the Kehilla considered the events AT LEAST as traumatic.  

You are correct that the KEHILLAH considered the events traumatic. 
However, at the time 90% of world Jewry was Sephardic.  So relative
to the population of world Jewry, the Crusades were substantially
less important than the Holocaust.  Remember also that many Sephardim
migrated to Ashkenaz (via Turkey, Russia) in the aftermath of the
expulsion from Spain, so that even many of today's Ashkenazim are not
descended from survivors of the Crusades.

I would also point out that Jews in the 11th century had less of a
sense of "history" than we do today.  For example, some of the cities
listed as "destroyed" in the Kinot we say about the Crusades were not
actually destroyed, just that some died.  (I studied this in 1992 so
you'll have to forgive me for mot providing sources or details.)

>  In
> addition
> to the killings, there was lots of other disruption...
> 2. Another factor may be simply that given the SECULAR Jewish
> "commemoration" of the Sho'ah to the exclusion of the other
> tragedies of
> our past (such as the Tach V'Tat massacres of Chelmnietzki (I am
> not even
> sure if I spelled that correctly) -- which ARE mentioned in S"A as
> a time
> to mourn) -- so the "FRUM" Jewish population has "gone the other
> way" in
> "downplaying" any religious significance...

I find this unfortunate.  The Nazis didn't differentiate between
secular and religious, why should we?  Moreover, the Nazis tried to
kill us, not stop our religious practice; cf. the difference between
Purim and Chanuka and the Gemara [where?] talking about Hallel which
says "u'ma me'avdut l'cherut omrim shira, m'mita l'chaim lo kol
she'kain."

> 3. The "survivors" at the time of the Crusades were all Frum (I
> think) and
> the Gedolim who saw that this all tended to occur between Pesach
> and
> Shavuot (either because of Easter of because that was when the
> roads
> became usable after the Winter) saw fit to link this to the
> existing
> mourning of Sefira (esp. in terms of the fact that both -- each in
> a
> different way -- represented an attack on Torah (Talmidei R.A. were
> the
> ones who could have brought much Torah to all and the Crusades were
> an
> attack upon Jews to convert).  In our case, first of all, many of
> the
> "survivors" (who escaped) were not frum (we will not even get into
> the
> opposition that the Orthodox encountered from the Non-Frum in
> trying to
> save Jews from Europe...) and second, the killing was not limited
> to
> between Pesach and Shavuot 

However, many survivors (for some reason) seem to assume that their
relatives died right around Shavuot.  In fact, my mother, a survivor
of Auschwitz who lost her parents and two siblings, mourns her
parents during Shavuot.  In fact, the Nazis came to my mother's town
in Czechoslokavia (Hungarian part--Kashau) the day after Pesach 1944
and the townspeople were transported to Auschwitz, arriving a couple
of days before Shavuot.

Yom HaShoah is commemorated on the 27th of Nissan.  Charedim protest
that this is no good because you don't say Tachnun during Nissan. 
Interestingly, they have no problem in following the Mechaber's
minhag of Sefirah (which occurs during Nissan).

> and third, the attack was not
> specifically
> against Torah -- it was against JEWS (even converted ones...). 

Same as Purim.

> Thus, I
> can certainly see a reluctance to link the Sho'ah to Sefira and
> they would
> not make up NEW periods of mourning....
> 

Chaval.  I would think that we should focus on mourning our most
recent losses before we put any more energy in mourning over the
losses of the Crusades (which, from a historical perspective, pale
compared to those of the Holocaust).  After all, as time passes, we
have the klal: "batla megilat taanit."

Kol tuv,
Moshe



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
 Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

On Wed, 12 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Yom HaShoah is commemorated on the 27th of Nissan.  Charedim protest
> that this is no good because you don't say Tachnun during Nissan.
> Interestingly, they have no problem in following the Mechaber's minhag
> of Sefirah (which occurs during Nissan). 
> 

1. Not just Charedim.

2. Not just because it is in Nissan.

3. Not relevant to nihugei aveilius of Sefira.

See the famous Iggeres Chazon Ish.

KT,
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" 
> 
> See the famous Iggeres Chazon Ish.
> 
What does he say?  I don't have easy access to it (anybody in
Elizabeth NJ have it?).  Anyone want to fax it to me at 212-697-1559
(please include a cover sheet with my name)?

For the record, I am aware of the fact that there are good reasons
not to commemorate Yom HaShoah and that this is not an issue of
nihugei avelut but of hesped (which is prohibited to Nissan); also, 
commemorating the Warsaw Uprising (on 27 Nissan) is not the way to
go.  Nonetheless, I do think that the Jewish community should come up
with some takanah to make the Holocaust remembered on a yearly basis.
 How about forbidding eating very large meals (in excess of 2500
calories per 150 pounds of weight) between Pesach and Shavuot (except
on Shabbat)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

In a message dated 5/12/99 6:34:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 On Wed, 12 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
 
 > Yom HaShoah is commemorated on the 27th of Nissan.  Charedim protest
 > that this is no good because you don't say Tachnun during Nissan.
 > Interestingly, they have no problem in following the Mechaber's minhag
 > of Sefirah (which occurs during Nissan). 
 > 
 
 1. Not just Charedim.
 
 2. Not just because it is in Nissan.
 
 3. Not relevant to nihugei aveilius of Sefira.
 
 See the famous Iggeres Chazon Ish.
 
 KT,
 YGB >>
Can you summarize the Iggeret?

Kol tuv,
Joel Rich

On Wed, 12 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> What does he say?  I don't have easy access to it (anybody in Elizabeth
> NJ have it?).  Anyone want to fax it to me at 212-697-1559 (please
> include a cover sheet with my name)? 
> 

That we no longer rhave the halachic right to tamper with the calendar and
add permanent dates of either aveilus or simcha.

Personally, I myself heard from RYBS that we do not even have the
perogative to add kinnos on the Churban of Europe to the 9 Av liturgy - it
requires a Rishon. I think this is extreme, but it is interesting to note
that common denominator between the CI and RYBS.

> For the record, I am aware of the fact that there are good reasons not
> to commemorate Yom HaShoah and that this is not an issue of nihugei
> avelut but of hesped (which is prohibited to Nissan); also,
> commemorating the Warsaw Uprising (on 27 Nissan) is not the way to go. 

It has very little to do with hesped.

It has everything to do with the calendar.

If the Warsaw Uprising occcured on 27 Nissan, it would be a halbe-tzora.
it did  not. Every bar bei rav knows it was on Pesach. In the year the
Knesset set Yom HaSho'ah the secular date of the Uprising corresponded to
27 Nissan. The day has no inherent significance. Even if one makes the
argument that an event can lend a day calendrical significance b'zman
ha'zeh - this is not it.

YGB

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

In v3 # 48 Rich wolpe replied

Here goes my bit of apologetics:
Arachin is based upon "earning" power.  It is only recently that the idea
of 
equal pay for eaul work as been popularitzed.  Traditionally (I'm talking
for 
over 3,000 years!) men got compensated more for labor.  Especially in the
age 
where muscle counted for a lot.

Lemoshol, if you were bidding on slaves 3,000+ years ago, the average man
would 
fetch more on the open market than would the average woman.

While an infant has little value as is, there is speculative value that
it will 
grow up to earn more.

It probably is the reason.  However it doesn't explain Senior citizens.
Rashi says that the women catches up to the man " ...sovah b'baitoh pecho
b'baitoh....  but still remains at a lesser value.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

R' Moshe Shulman (mshulman@ix.netcom.com) asked me to let the chevra know that
his website, www.chassidus.net, is up and running. He also restarted his weekly
parasha newsletter (YAPN) in which he translates comments on the parasha from
Chassidishe sefarim. I personally got much milage from a d'var Torah from
the Maggid of Mezritch (sp?) that I got off last week's edition.

If there's one thing RMS's time on Avodah taught me, it was that I know far
less Chassidus than I thought I did.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-May-99: Chamishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 318:43-49
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 79b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari II 29-32

Gadol hador also appears in Pesachim -49b I think.Genmara says a man should 
marry his daughter off to a talmid chacham,and if he can't,he should marry 
her of to the daughter of a gadol hador.R.Chiam Zimmerman once quoted that 
gemara as part of his jocular attempt to debunk use of the term today.Rashi 
there says it means a wealthy person, if memory serves.

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


[ 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         ]