Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 131

Monday, July 19 1999

• Shlosh Esrei Midos
• on being literal/leads in Brooklyn
• Re: on S. Stoker's point
• PAT HASHULCHAN and music
• What moves you?
• Re: What moves you?
• Allegory,chochmot chizoniot
• Re: on being literal
• Re: Allegory,chochmot chizoniot
• Re: What moves you?
• Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
• Re: on being literal
• Allegorization
• Allegorization
• Re: Talmud Tora
• Non lyrical music

Does anyone have a source for Shlosh Esrei Midos being treated like a
dovor shebikdusha,  in the sense that if one hears them being said you
should say them along with the tzibur?  What if you need to interrupt
where you are up to?  The Rav said in a shiur once that the dina deGemara
was that only the Shatz says it.  DId he hold like that lemaaseh?  

Gershon

      Being 1 of less than ten frum sociologists in this world,
I have had the pleasure of reading Stanley Fish as well -- sure, Stanley
Fish talks about how the meanings of things are determined by, and may
even have their social reality be determined by social conventions;  and
sure, especially if one reads Chaim Soleveitchik's Tradition article
criticizing our over-reliance on texts, the nature of Jewish practice
has always been based more on the mimetic tradition than on texts
(note, for instance, the number of shuls that never say Tachanun at
Mincha and don't say kaddish if no one has a chiyuv on a particular
day to do so) -- I think the point Rabbi Yaffe and some other folks
is making is, while the meanings of things are shaped by social convention,
the development of halacha in Judaism is shaped by certain rules and
certain foundational assumptions from which one gains the authority
to have their interpretations taken more or less seriously -- and focusing,
as Stanley Fish and his predecessors do interpretive games and the different
meanings of things does not negate this.  One such assumption which torah
Jews of all stripes believe is the torah worldview of how the world works
(both physically and socially) is light years ahead of whatever new fad or
foible that scientists might be playing around with this decade.

On a personal aside, I have to move within the next three weeks or so
(not before Tisha B'Av of course) and like most bochurim within earshot of
New York I would be interested in any leads any list members might have
for reasonably priced basement apt.'s or roomate situations (<$500)
in Brooklyn (preferrably Flatbush south of Ocean Avenue).  For the sanity
of the listowners please send any such leads to my private e-mail
(perzvi@hotmail.com).

S. Stoker's discussion  of parallels between Torah and other ancient 
near-Eastern cultures is interesting (though I disagree with the overall 
conclusion).  To add another example, there are many places where the Code of 
Hammurabi reads exactly like pesukim from Parshas Mishpatm (l'havdil).  Make 
of it what you will, but the sources deserve attention.

-CB

I want to thank Joel Rich for providing the exact reference to the Pat
Hashulchan on music. I had come across this 2 years ago Shavuot evening
in the Beis Medrash (02:30 am) but read this only in an oblique quote.
Your quote of the GRA almost gave the doc a heart attack :-) Let's just say
that our research team (comprising people in medicine, mathematics, and
physics) may have accidentally found what the GRA referred to re: music.
There were two key papers that had appeared in the Proceedings of the
national Academy of Sciences a number of years earlier, a paper in Critical
Care Medicine 1996;24:1107-1116, and a series of 5 papers written by an
Australian physicist.

If the experiment on rats is successful in August, we start on human
volunteers. If that's successful and we get a specific piece of equipment
from the physics dept. and the experiment on rats carried out with this
equipment is sucessful, we might not have to fast on Tisha B'Av next year
(see my post last week on the shitot of the rishonim on the gemara in Rosh
Hashana 18b). V'Ha'meyvin yavin et ha'remez.

What we found also jives with work run by a Rav Weill (??) in Jerusalem
who is a PhD in physics, a musician, and who runs the Machon Leviim that deals
with the shirat haleviim in the beit hamikdash.

Josh

A simple question:

Is there any mitzvah or minhag that in particular reaches you? Or perhaps, is
there some particular method of performing that mitzvah or minhag that is worth
sharing so the rest of us can have a similar experience?

I'd like to collect such suggested hanhagos. After all, it's only three weeks
until t'shuvah season.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-99: Levi, Vaeschanan
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 340:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 9b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 21-24

In a message dated 7/19/99 8:47:30 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Is there any mitzvah or minhag that in particular reaches you? Or perhaps, 
is
>  there some particular method of performing that mitzvah or minhag that is 
> worth
>  sharing so the rest of us can have a similar experience?
>  
In Loshon Hagimoroh, Avuch Bmai Hava Zojir Tfei, and see Tanya Igeres 
Hakodesh 7 page 112.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I think it is no surprise that those who hold by the Rashba's ban on chochmot
chizoniot would probably also ban  allegory.  I also think that many on the list
don't hold by the ban on chochmot chizoniot. Indeed, if this is the main source,
it suggests that the "ban" on allegory follows the split over  the Rambam and
chochmot chizoniot, as some of the discussion on avoda would suggest.  
 
The question, though, is even if we accept a ban on allegorization, does it
extend to the mabul?  There seems agreement that there is room for allegorical
interpretation of ma'aseh breshit.  As Rav Berger asked, are there sources that
extend ma'aseh breshit past vayechulu?  There clearly seems sources to support
it at least for gan eden (Sforno, rav Kook).  The article on Tradition,when
discussing allegorical interprtation of the mabul, specifically says it might be
permissible because the mabul is before the avot, where real history starts.  He
too rejects extending the allegory to the avot (one of rav Bechhofer's main
complaints) This approach - allegory acceptable before the avot - can be be
found explicitly in rav zvi Yehuda Kook.

Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook says that history begins with the avot, and that everything
before them is "para history", and that the issur of en dorshin bema'aseh
breshit applies up the end of parshat Noah.  This is brought specifically with
regard to the issue of potential conflicts with science.
I do not know  the sources for RZYHK (my source, the sichot on sefer
breshit,refer to other sichot I don't have).  He does bring two drashot - one on
that zchor yemot olam - noah, binu shnot dor vador - avraham, that everything
prior to avraham is in the category of zchor, general memory, rather than clear,
detailed knowledge of binu (See he'emek davar), and the midrash in Sanhedrin
that the first two thousand years (ending in the 52nd year of Avraham's life by
seder olam - end of Noah) were tohu. 

While I would hardly suggest rav Zvi Yehuda Kook (or any other rav) as the last
word on this group, I would think that opinions espoused by him  fall within the
pale of Orthodoxy,  even given the tshuvat hasrashba, and do not deserve
condemnation as epikorsut and megale panim batorah shelo kehalacha (even if you
do not accept them as emet). There were other articles in that Tradition far
more deserving of condemnation (although for different reasons, vehamevin
yavin).

With regard to Rav Wolpoe's susggestion - that as both science and torah are in
flux, why reject the mesora for now? Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook answers that this
presupposes that current scientific knowledge does not also come from hashem.

Meir Shinnar

Alan Davidson writes:
:       especially if one reads Chaim Soleveitchik's Tradition article
: criticizing our over-reliance on texts

I didn't find a value statement in Dr Haym Soloveitchik's article. He comments
that a transition occured -- not whether the transition was for the better
or worse.

According to our chaver Moshe Koppel's sefer "Metahalacha" such transitions
from intuitive to formalization of halachah is a normal part of the halachic
process. The earliest example he finds to be the "rupture" caused by the
death of Moshe and the subsequent "reconstruction".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-99: Levi, Vaeschanan
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 340:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 9b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 21-24

I see no further reason to continue this conversation, as obviously some
of us are convinced that Allegorization is beyond acceptance: As Megaleh
Ponim ba'Toah, as Doresh Derashos shel Dofi, as leading to Weakening of
Emunah, and as falling beyond the opinion of every single Rishon
(including the Sforno) on record, not to mention Chazal and Nevi'im (who
refer back to a Mabul...). Not all of us agree that these reasons apply
with precision, but that the geist of these issues pertains. Furthermore,
many here obviiously see no qualitative difference between allegorization
of Noach (I assume together with Mesushelach et al) and the Avos.

I had hoped that even those who have milder feelings about this topic
would agree that this is a terrible way to be mechanech a dor to proper
attitude towards Chumash, Chazal, Rishonim, and Avodas Hashem.

But, in my opinion, tragically, this is not the case. As R' Meir - whom I
respect and with whom I always carry on respectful conversations, and who
has the rare knack of discussing controversial topics without resorting to
hyperbole and rhetoric - indicates, there is a gulf between our approaches
that is likely unbridgeable. As I say, this is tragic, and may well
eventually lead to an irreparable rift within the Halachic community.

Since this is the state of affairs, I only respond briefly to the points
below to clarify my position.

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> 
> I think it is no surprise that those who hold by the Rashba's ban on
> chochmot chizoniot would probably also ban allegory.  I also think that
> many on the list don't hold by the ban on chochmot chizoniot. Indeed, if
> this is the main source, it suggests that the "ban" on allegory follows
> the split over the Rambam and chochmot chizoniot, as some of the
> discussion on avoda would suggest. 
> 

The two issues are not linked. Even the Rahsba's antagonist, in no. 419,
when justifying his position in degense of Chochmos Chitzonios, makes
clear that he fully agrees that Allegorization is not acceptable. The
Rashba banned Chochmos Chitzonios because they lead to results like
Derashos shel Dofi. But even if we do not accept now that ban, it is
because we hope we can prevent the result of derashos shel Dofi - the
reason for the gezeira.
 
> The question, though, is even if we accept a ban on allegorization, does
> it extend to the mabul?  There seems agreement that there is room for
> allegorical interpretation of ma'aseh breshit.  As Rav Berger asked, are
> there sources that extend ma'aseh breshit past vayechulu?  There clearly
> seems sources to support it at least for gan eden (Sforno, rav Kook). 
> The article on Tradition,when discussing allegorical interprtation of
> the mabul, specifically says it might be permissible because the mabul
> is before the avot, where real history starts.  He too rejects extending
> the allegory to the avot (one of rav Bechhofer's main complaints) This
> approach - allegory acceptable before the avot - can be be found
> explicitly in rav zvi Yehuda Kook. 
> 

As you yourself indicate, we need a Rishon or some comprehensive Marei
Mekomos. But, it seems to me that RZYHK is a proof to the contrary: "Ein
dorshin" means one cannot presume to impose one's own understanding on the
text - certainly including the Allegorization of said text, no?

> Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook says that history begins with the avot, and that
> everything before them is "para history", and that the issur of en
> dorshin bema'aseh breshit applies up the end of parshat Noah.  This is
> brought specifically with regard to the issue of potential conflicts
> with science.  I do not know the sources for RZYHK (my source, the
> sichot on sefer breshit,refer to other sichot I don't have).  He does
> bring two drashot - one on that zchor yemot olam - noah, binu shnot dor
> vador - avraham, that everything prior to avraham is in the category of
> zchor, general memory, rather than clear, detailed knowledge of binu
> (See he'emek davar), and the midrash in Sanhedrin that the first two
> thousand years (ending in the 52nd year of Avraham's life by seder olam
> - end of Noah) were tohu. 

(deleted)

> do not accept them as emet). There were other articles in that Tradition
> far more deserving of condemnation (although for different reasons,
> vehamevin yavin). 

I thought you might feel that way. Without getting into that (as there
would be no to'eles - I think you agree), I feel that that sentiment on
your part is also indicative of the gulf mentioned above.

YGB

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

I think yeshiva bachurim - for better or worse - are subtly and not so
subtly sent the message that mitzvos ma'asios are not what should "turn
you on" - rather, Torah Torah and more Torah. To a greater or lesser
degree we (yeshiva alumni) probably have all absorbed that value.

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> Is there any mitzvah or minhag that in particular reaches you? Or
> perhaps, is there some particular method of performing that mitzvah or
> minhag that is worth sharing so the rest of us can have a similar
> experience? 
> 

YGB

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

Rabbi Bechhoffer:

<<<
> Whoa.  I think the rhetoric is starting to get a bit overheated.  To
> invoke a currently fashionable cliche, let's all take a deep breath.  A
> megaleh panim ba-Torah she-lo k'halakha forfeits his portion in the
> world to come.  While you warn against making any fine academic
> distinctions, don't you think that intent is critical here?  The example

I told you so.  [I don't know what you're referring to.  - DG]

I was really not interested in quoting the source, but was challenged to
provide sources.

I am not c"v interested in depriving anyone of their chelek in Olam ha'Ba,
and am perfectly willing to let anyone off on a technical chiluk. The
geist, however, of the relevant passages is clear beyond all doubt. This
is not rhetoric - but a simple perusal of sources.
>>>

Well, you're tone, if not your rhetoric, is still overheated.  And, though I hestitate to press the point, since I obviously am not familiar with any of the further sources that you have cited, I do not accept that the difference between an allegorization of the flood narrative in Genesis and m'galeh panim ba-Torah she-lo k'halakha as a technicality, and I would urge caution in pressing your own (if you'll pardon the expression) analogy, though I do not dispute the relevance of the larger point that you are trying to make to the issue under discussion.

<<<
> These are perfectly good questions, though perhaps a tad hostile (but
> then I have my own hot bottons).  I have no idea how the allegorizers
> would answer them, and I would certainly not presume to speak on their
> behalf.  But before condemning them out of hand, why not wait for their
> answers? 
> 

I came not to condemn *them* - as above - but their *approach* (Chata'im
v'lo chot'im :-) ). I would, indeed, be interested in what they do with 
Noach...
>>>

Fine, their approach.  But even here, you are reaching a conclusion without hearing the other side of the story.  Why not find out what they would do with Noach, and then hang 'em.  By the way, I am happy to confirm that I did not interpret any of your remarks as being directed at me.  It is a lot easier to maintain a statemenlike pose when you're not the one getting shot at.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                 

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Alan Davidson writes:
> :       especially if one reads Chaim Soleveitchik's Tradition
> article
> : criticizing our over-reliance on texts
> 
> I didn't find a value statement in Dr Haym Soloveitchik's article.
> He comments
> that a transition occured -- not whether the transition was for the
> better
> or worse.

However, I did hear Dr. Soloveitchik speak in the Fifth Avenue
Synagogue about this, and it was clear that he does criticise those
who abandon the mimetic tradition.  I also got this impression from
attending two semesters of his classes in history of
Rishonim/Achronim.

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

Dear Chevra,

There are many valid points by both sides.  I am not sure if the Rishonim are 
warning against allegorization because it is intrinsically wrong or that it 
might lead to something wrong (e.g. Reform).

Bepashtus, LFAD, any allegorization that is: 
A) non-halachic 
B) Violates no ikkar
is 
C) not a "big deal": (although it might indeed be erroneous)

As far as halacha goes, regardless of pshat/drash/ we have a halachic process 
that relies on mesora, precedent, texts, teshuvos etc., and I think it would not
be so easily revisable by a clever darshan.  

IOW, regardless of droshos to the contraray, I still say Berachamov in Boneh 
Berachmov Yerusholoyim.

Now a drosho that violates an ikkar WOULD be rejected.  And in this sense, I 
would assume that the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam are THE  normative litmus test 
at this point in time.

Perhaps if ikkarim had never been developed, we could have fallen back to a 
more fundamentalist position that ever word of the Torah is literally true and 
perhaps the same re: various Chazals.  I'm not sure what the Rishonim meant by 
attacking allegorizations, but it seems unlikely that they themselves took are 
word in the Torah as literal.

OTOH ever word of the Torah IS significant. and in that sense, I would never 
claim that an alternate text could have been made to be equally valid.  If the 
Torah told us a story a certain way, it has a profound meaning in THAT way, and 
another way would not have conveyed the message as well. Nevertheless, that 
profound, sublime meaning does not mean that we must always think in terms of 
literal truth, only in terms of a valid lesson that Hashem, Torah, Moshe, 
Mesorah are teaching us. 

And the words themselves are significant.  If Shelach uses lossur and Dvorim 
uses lachpor it IS significant.  But the lachpor in Dvorim does not mean to 
tunnel!

Rich Wolpoe

FWIW, I recall that Joesphus opined sevearl times (in Antiquities) opined that 
believing in the literallness of Krias Yam Suf etc. was not relevant to being a 
"good, beleiving" Jew.  Perhaps R. Moshe Feldman can confirm this.

Rich Wolpoe

Does anyone know of any sources on the "relative value scale" for the kiyum 
of mitzvat talmud tora - i.e. is it a function of the time spent, effort 
expended , chidushim produced, other mitzvot enabled(the learners or 
others)....

I wonder if this has an impact on community resource decisions as well as on 
an individual's decision as to whether to seek community resources to support 
their learning.


She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
Joel Rich

Reb Shlomo Godick writes "I recall that Janis Joplin and other rock singers
of the sixties and
seventies  were quite open  about the motivation of
the rhythms and beat of rock music - namely, to stir
up the basest animal instincts in man (they phrased it far less delicately).
With this in mind I cannot help being astounded at the crassness of
"Jewish" rock tunes by Ben David et al.    For those of us not fortunate
enough to have been born frum, and still bearing aural memories of this
garbage, listening to some of the "music" played at Jewish weddings
can be pure torture.

Lyrics aside, the medium here definitely is the message."
As a great grandson of the Modzitzer Rebbe ZT'l, who was arguably the most
important Chassidic singer and mechaber of niggunim in recent religioius
Jewish History, I also lament the decline of old fashioned chassidishe
neginah, and I am not too pleased with the modern "chassidic" music.
However, I strongly disagree with Reb Shlomo's words.  The old rebbehs
routinely borrowed from popular Polish, Russian and German styles of music,
sometimes borrowing whole tunes (many niggunim actually have elaborate
traditions relating the shepard who was singing this tune or the drunk who
was singing another). I don't think the atmosphere of a tavern in Poland
was much more holy than Janis whatever his name was.  Without going into a
whole discourse on the phiulosophy of neginah in Modzitz, let it suffice to
say that ANY niggun which brings about simcha can be used  to arouse one's
soul and bring one closer to Hashem.  I therefore have no problem with
using rock tunes or pop tunes or whatever, if people find them inspiring.
HOWEVER,  my personal objection to many of the modern tunes is that they
are not singable by the average person, they are written to entertain
(which, in my opinion, some of them do quite well) but they are not written
to be sung, and singing is the essence and the core of the aliyah that a
person is supposed to achieve through neginah.
Shaul Weinreb

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


[ 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         ]