Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 083
Wednesday, June 9 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 21:21:39 -0500
From: Saul Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
Subject: metzius and chazal
Reb Rich Wolpoe; I know that you didn't mean it that way but you said, "It
is "arrogant" to assume that we have THE definitive understanding of the
Gemoro and it is wrong." If you read the quote from R' SR Hirsch, I guess
he would fit into the description of arrogant. He was also being
"fallacious" and I quote your words "I think it is fallacious to assume
that Chazal were strictly making hard and fast scientific statements, or
historical ones, for that matter."
when he stated, "The greatness of his wisdom is in no way belittled if in a
later generation it is discovered that some of the things he maintained or
accepted on the authority of others is unreliable. The same is true for
Chazal in these areas." Be careful when you use words like "fallacious" and
"arrogant" If you disagree, that is your right, but don't start calling
people fallacious...you never know whom you are disagreeing with.
It is very clear from R' Hirsch that he did not look for metaphysical
explanations for the divrei chazal that commented on scientific matters.
He simply felt that Chazal relied on the scientists of their time. This
seems very logical to me. And you are right, they did not "err", they only
used their sense of logic and the science of their time. Any more than you
or I would be "erring" if we felt 100 years ago that space consisted of
"ether" or whatever other theories abounded at the time.
Shaul weinreb
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Goal of Yahadus
Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@mail.netvision.net.il> writes:
:> In the early days of the list, we established that current hashkafos revolve
:> around one of two different concepts about what the goal of Yahadus is:
:> d'veikus or temimus (to use my choice of terms).
....
: Instead of raising people to follow one path and forcing them onto it even
: if it doesn't appear to complement their soul, perhaps it is time to realize
: that different paths: Chassidut; Litvische; Dati Leumi; are actually all
: correct ...
Ein hochi nami. But how is someone supposed to know which derech best fits
his neti'os without clearly defining the different d'rachim? You seem to
want to avoid categorization, as it makes it less likely that people will
jump the border from one to the next. I was intending the reverse, clearly
defining the categories so that people can understand the choices they make
and make them consciously and after much thought.
Remember my test: Ask someone what the goal of observing mitzvos is. You
will get one of the answers from my previous post, and until you bring it
to their attention, the typical yeshiva graduate will not realize that they
believe both. Now how is that person, who isn't even consciously aware of
his beliefs, supposed to build a personal hashkafah?
How is this person (to rehash the rest of my email of nearly a year ago)
supposed to decide whether to daven bizman, or take the time to be mentally
ready and achieve greater kavannah? Misnagdim choose the former, since
temimus will place the greater value on zehirus. Chassidim (by nad large)
choose the latter, since it will afford more d'veikus.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 7-Jun-99: Levi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 325:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 92a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari III 1-4
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:37:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Catharsis vs. "venting"
Our esteemed listowner writes:
>In contrast, R' YB Soloveitchik had much to say about the role of catharsis
>in halachah.
Without intending to engage in a deep analysis of the philosophical
writings of R. Soloveitchik (the Rav), I it clear that the Rav's use of
the term "catharsis" has absolutely nothing to do with the putative
psychological benefits of verbally expressing one's grief, anger,
frustration, etc. The Rav spoke of "catharsis" as a spiritual (or
'redemptive') gesture, typified by subduing the human impulse in
subordination to God's law.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:32:18 -0400
From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
Subject: Ashrei
Can anyone tell me when Psalm 145 acquired its first and last lines, "ashrey yoshvey" and "veanakhnu nevorekh", and how it did so? (I know the midrashic explanations but wondered if any historical-critical reasons were known.) It must have been between the Amoraim and the Rishonim, but when?
Also, while I'm at it: a Rishon (I forget who) reconciles two textual variants of Berachot 4b ("he who recites Ashrei [three times a day]") by saying that the rabbis were gozer three times so that everyone would read at least once. Are there other instances of such redundancy, either as suggested by the Rishonim or present in the Gemara's peshat?
Thanks.
Sholem Berger
bergez01@med.nyu.edu
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:06:45 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and Metzius
CB>>The common denominator: YOU have assumed psychological motives where the
Torah never stated them. I do not pretend to read G-d's mind, and read each
of these cases as gezeirat hakatuv. There are halachot with STATED
psychological/physical assertions - however, none of your cases fit into that
category.
- -Chaim<<
So what IS the category Chazal stated wrt to maggots? Did they say this is a
lesson in entymology?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:24:22 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: compelling argument
EDT writes:
<<<
<<
It's one thing to accept that the Beit Din shel Ma'alah cannot compel the
Beit Din shel Matah to accept the opinion of the Beit Din shel Ma'alah. See
BM 59. I must say, however, that I find it a bit strange to say that the
Beit Din shel Matah can compel the Beit Din shel Ma'alah to accept the
opinion of the Beit Din shel Matah.
>>
But the case you quote is exactly BD shel Mata compelling BD shel Ma'ala.
After all, HaShem has to punish those who do not follow our BD's p'sakim. Is
that not compelling Heaven to follow our decisions?
EDT
>>>
Very good point. However, might there not still be a distinction between the cases inasmuch as there is a specific obligation on a Jew to follow the p'sak of the "shofet in his days" which would presumably encompass at a minimum halakhic rulings directly derived from the Talmud. Is a gentile similarly subject to Talmudic jurisdiction, which, come to think of it, would be an odd state of affairs if he isn't even allowed to study the Talmud. Even if you say that a Gentile who engages in some form of idolatry is punishable based on the definiton of idolatry propounded by the Earthly Court, why should its requirement to mete out a punishment preclude the Heavenly Court from exercising its merciful discretion when extenuating factors point in the direction of mercy? Why is the Heavenly Court unable to cite the verse "eit la'asot"?
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:33:55 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: hypothesis the Gemoro may err in metzius
Rich Wolpe writes:
<<<
Is it equally "stupid" to hold onto the 51 year versin of the Persian era?
>>>
My use of the s-word was not meant to apply to any particular case. There may always be arguments on both sides of an issue. I was referring to a doctrine, a shitah, that says I will dogmatically cling to the truth of every word of Hazal no matter what contrary evidence is presented. You may reject my characterization, but I do not see how this differs from saying that Hazal were infallible.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:54:33 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Mishnah B'rurah and Humra
Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:
<<<
> It may be that the discussion about the Mishnah B'rurah is getting
> bogged down in semantic issues about p'sak, mussar and other
> terminology. Can we perhaps agree that the Mishnah B'rurah was more
> concerned than were earlier outwardly halakhic works with exhortation
> towards what we would now call spiritual growth and that the method that
No, can you prove that?
>>>
Not at all, just trying out a suggestion. Your negative response is duly noted.
<<<
> the Mishnah B'rurah emphasized for achieving this growth was to accept
> the most stringent halakhic opinon ("u-va'al nefesh yahmir")? If this
No, the MB uses BNY in all about two dozen times throughout the entire
work. That does not constitue an overriding philosophy.
>>>
I admire the bekius that produced that count of the frequency of the BNY formulation in the Mishnah B'rura. But it would have been more helpful, I think, if it were offered in a comparative context. In other words, how often does the formulation appear in comparable works of halakha like the Magen Avraham or the Taz or the Arukh Ha-Shulhan? I agree that it does not "constitute" an overriding philosophy, but may it not be suggestive that there is background philosophical disposition to humrah that informs the work? Now don't get excited. I'm just asking.
<<<
> is so, is there a relation between the increasing acceptance of the
> Mishnah B'rurah as the posek aharon as it is sometimes called and a
> general tendency toward humrah in p'sak? And if this is so, i.e., the
> Hafetz Haim had a hashkafic predisposition to be mahmir, then what is
> the appropriate response towards the psakim of the Mishnah B'rurah and
> the Hafetz Haim by those who do not share that hashkafic predisposition?
>
The appropriate response is to accept the CC regardless, unless some great
Posek takes issue with him :-).
>>>
Were you perhaps thinking of applying for that job?
<<<
> Finally, on a somewhat different but related topic, how do those who are
> hashkaphically predisposed to be mahmir interpret the principle koah
> d'heteira adif?
>
While I am not predisposed to be machmir, the quote is out of context. It
is specific to the preferred style of editing a Mishna, not an Hashkafic
viewpoint.
>>>
My dear Rabbi Bechhoffer, I am shocked to see you write such a thing. Shocked!!! (I can barely resist the temptation to capitalize.) Can it be that Hazal, she'kivnu et ha-emet b'ruah kodesh she'bikirbam, simply made an arbitrary stylistic decision about how to edit the Mishnah and that their decision about how to preserve for all time the foundation of the Oral Torah had no deeper significance than aesthetic preference or editorial convenience? How can you possibly suggest that their decision about how to record the Oral Law for generations was not an expression of the most profound halakhic, hashkaphic, and philosophical significance? Excuse me, I think I have to lie down.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:52:34 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Gemoro may err in metzius
Rich Wolpoe wrote:
<<<
2) Excuse me, but is it arrogant to believe that the picture of the solar system
described by modern science is closer to the truth than the one (or ones)
offered by Hazal?
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov<<
It is "arrogant" to assume that we have THE definitive understanding of the
Gemoro and it is wrong.
>>>
I am taking the Gemoro as it straightforwardly presents the idea of 'kinah einah para v'rava" on the daf and as all (to my knowledge) Poskim from the Rambam to the Mishnah B'rurah have understood that idea. If you or R. Dovid LIfshitz offer a hidush in your interpretation of the sugya and the meaning of "kinah ein para v'rava" you are saying that for 1500 years, the M'farshim and the Poskim who were deciding halakha l'maaseh based on that sugya did not properly understand the sugya. When did this misunderstanding begin? Why is it less arrogant to impugn the interpretative powers of everyone since the time of Rav Yosef and Abaye or Rav Ashi, than to say that Rav Yosef was mistaken on a question of metzius? Even if a reinterpretation of "kinah einah para v'rava" along the lines of R. Dovid Lifshitz could be logically defended, and b'm'hilat k'vod torato, I don't think that it can be, it does not eliminate what you call arrogance, it just aims it in another direction.
<<<
What does Tzorich Iyum mean? doesn't it tell us to dig deeper?
>>>
I encourage everyone to dig deeper, but please don't cast aspersions on my religious integrity, or suggest that I have a bad attitude, when after digging, I arrive at a conclusion that doesn't suit your taste.
<<<
Example : from esteemed listowner Micha:
My Rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l, offered something similar.
The maggot isn't even potentially treif until it's large enough to be
visible. L'ma'aseh, there are two causes for the existance of a maggot
large enough to be a problem: 1- the egg, 2- the food the larvae ate to
get that size. L'halachah, though, the egg doesn't count, as it too is
too small to have mamshus. So, the only remaining goreim is the food
around the egg. In a sense, therefore, it's still true that the visible
maggot is a toladah of the meat.<<
>>>
I'm sorry, I am dust beneath the feet of R. Dovid, but this just won't do. At the end of our sugya, the Gemara takes it as a given that a parush is para v'rava. For purposes of R. Dovid's proposed reconciliation, there is simply no difference in the size of the eggs of a parush and a kinah. So if it is the size of the eggs that is relevant, how could the Gemara have concluded that one is and the other is not para v'rava?
<<<
Doesn't this attempt at a Teirutz pre-suppose that R. Dovid was interested in
being meyasheiev Chazal, IOW in reconcilliation as opposed to rejection? The
fact that R. Dovid's teirutz might not be THE elegant answer does not diminis
his effort at being meyaan for one.
>>>
I do not dismiss it. But I have a right, unworthy though I am, to assess it and criticize it using the same criteria of logic and coherence and plausibility that we all use (or ought to) when engaged in any serious intellectual pursuit. My criticism and assessment is in turn subject to criticism and assessment by others. That R. Dovid, like anyone else, may have failed in a particular case to arrive at the truth does not detract one whit from his greatness. To accept that Hazal may have been mistaken about metzius does not in any way detract from their greatness. If you want to deconstruct the clear words of Hazal on which halakhah l'maaseh was based for 1500 years and instead try to find hidden meanings that no one ever dreamed of, you may do so, but that is not the approach that Hazal took when they refused to pasken like R. Meir mishum she'lo yardu l'sof da'ato.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Gemoro may err in metzius
I gave two views on the kashrus of maggots, given today's knowledge.
R' Kook holds that an issur can't be abrogated based on advances in science
(because of the Gra's opinion that for every reason given, there could be many
that the gemara did not give). However, heterim should. Therefore, R' Kook
paskened that the maggots are treif.
R' Dovid Lifshitz feels that the maggots should still be kosher, by finding
a s'varah that justifies ignoring their eggs.
While R' Kook gives a clear opinion about the instability of a halachah based
on a discredited theory. R' Dovid does not. Perhaps, had he not found this
s'vara, he too would hold lichumrah.
Similar to R' Kook's opinion is that of R' Avraham ben haRambam on "nishtaneh
hatevah". He holds that "teva" in this context means "scientific knowledge",
not the nature itself. And, since we have cases where halachah changes because
of this change in teva, R' Avraham must also hold that the halachah can change
when the underlying theory changes. (He mentions this in his discussion on
why the Rambam doesn't list "fish and meat" in the Yad. R' Avraham says that
his father held it was an example of the gemara's obsolete medical knowledge
that we generally ignore.)
Rich Wolpoe wants to assert that R' Dovid does hold that the halachah wouldn't
change, because:
: Doesn't this attempt at a Teirutz pre-suppose that R. Dovid was interested in
: being meyasheiev Chazal, IOW in reconcilliation as opposed to rejection? The
: fact that R. Dovid's teirutz might not be THE elegant answer does not diminis
: his effort at being meyaan for one.
I disagree on two counts. First, I thought the teiretz was beautiful. Second,
you are assuming R' Dovid's motivation. Frankly, I don't recall if he gave one.
Perhaps he was just stating emes -- perhaps R' Dovid would have been equally
happy being machmir had he found that the beitzim should have mamashus. However,
l'maaseh, he found that they didn't.
It's a stretch to say that R' Dovid was giving p'shat of "ein lahem piryah
virivyah". It's simpler to say he was asserting the correctness of the p'sak
despite a change in s'varah. This could be because R' Dovid believes that HKBH
guarantees that "lo yavo takala" (but what about miseches Horiyos?) and through
si'ata dishmaya Chazal reached the right p'sak despite bad science. And (to
repeat) it could also be that R' Dovid just happened to believe that in this
particular case the halachah would be unchanged.
I'm not sure what to do with Saul Weinreb's quote from R' SR Hirsch. The cases
R' Hirsch gives are aggadic. So, it's unclear if R' Hirsch would hold that
the p'sak is guaranteed to be correct even though he holds the science is not.
While Hirsch says:
: Pliny says the same statement almost
: word for word (Natural History X 188) "After a number of years the human
: spine turns into a snake." Chazal, however used this to teach us a mussar
: lesson. To any mind it is clear that every similar surprising statement of
: Chazal, if we look into it, was accepted as true by the scholars of the time.
I would have been more comfortable with an expanded version of this statement.
Not only were they repeating the science of the day, but note how they aren't
repeating it qua science, but as a metaphor on which to base "a mussar lesson".
I would not assume that Chazal necessarily cared whether or not it was true.
It served as a handy mashal.
In summary, we have R' Kook and R' Avraham ben haRambam who say that changing
scientific theory can yield new chumros. R' Dovid might feel that it can't,
that chazal is guaranteed to pasken correctly despite the validity of the
science they use. However, we can't rule out the possibility that he would
in principle hold that new chumros can be born abiogenetically out of dead
scientific theory but beitzei kinim happens to still be mutar for other
reasons. Either way, it appears that he, as well as R' Hirsch (and of course
R' Kook and R' Avraham) are comfortable dismissing the science found in shas
as often inaccurate.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Jun-99: Shelishi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 325:11-17
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 92b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari III 5-8
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:25:51 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Gemoro may err in metzius
In a message dated 6/8/99 2:01:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org
writes:
<<
In summary, we have R' Kook and R' Avraham ben haRambam who say that changing
scientific theory can yield new chumros. >>
From your summary it seemed that R' Avraham would also be comfortable with
new kulot. Is that your understanding? BTW - the theory that HKB"H would
not let a "wrong" psak come out - How does that square with a later bet din
being able to overturn an earlier one in certain circumstances?
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:29:36 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Time for a Humor Alert
We just learned in Mishna Shabbos 12:1 that one is not allowed to BORE on
Shabbos.
Q: Does this prohibit sermons?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mishnah B'rurah and Humra
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, David Glasner wrote:
> I admire the bekius that produced that count of the frequency of the BNY
> formulation in the Mishnah B'rura. But it would have been more helpful,
> I think, if it were offered in a comparative context. In other words,
> how often does the formulation appear in comparable works of halakha
> like the Magen Avraham or the Taz or the Arukh Ha-Shulhan? I agree that
> it does not "constitute" an overriding philosophy, but may it not be
> suggestive that there is background philosophical disposition to humrah
> that informs the work? Now don't get excited. I'm just asking.
>
It is good for you to admire CD-ROMS, so do I. Since the AH is not
available on CD, we cannot for the present know how often BN appears
there. In the Kitzur SA - a far briefer work than the MB - it appears
eight times.
> My dear Rabbi Bechhoffer, I am shocked to see you write such a thing.
> Shocked!!! (I can barely resist the temptation to capitalize.) Can it
> be that Hazal, she'kivnu et ha-emet b'ruah kodesh she'bikirbam, simply
> made an arbitrary stylistic decision about how to edit the Mishnah and
> that their decision about how to preserve for all time the foundation of
> the Oral Torah had no deeper significance than aesthetic preference or
> editorial convenience? How can you possibly suggest that their decision
> about how to record the Oral Law for generations was not an expression
> of the most profound halakhic, hashkaphic, and philosophical
> significance? Excuse me, I think I have to lie down.
>
Sarcasm becomes you. Nevertheless, I do hope you have recovered from your
feeling of faintness. When confronted by the truth, a sense of being
overwhelmed often follows.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:05:37 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Halcoho and Metzius
Tangential to this thread...
Has anyone considered modifying Kevias se'udo in light of the metzius that
today's society is not koveia on betzius haPas - Except that this is a halachic
requirement to do so?
IOW, the metzius in ancient tiems was to break bread as a formal way of
beginning a se'udo.
Nowadays, it's unusual to make bread the "ikkar" of a typical meal. (ok, Matzo
on Seder Night IS different. We know that already from the 4 questions
<smile>).
EG, what prevents someone say on the atkins diet from being kovei' his se'udo
on a nice, thick, juicy steak?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
********************
[ 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 ]