Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 146

Friday, July 30 1999

• Re: Allegory
• Re: divided community
• Re: Allegory
• Tur - Bet Ysef - Maran
• Re: using mikvaos for non-halachic "conversions"
• Re: Is all music value-neutral?
• Re: Allegory-confessions of a fundamentalist
• mabul vs creation
• Re: parshanut and Chazal
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: parshanut and Chazal
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: Mabul: end of ice age ?
• Sha'atah, Dor Hapalagah?

RYGB wrote:

<<
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> 
> You consistently make the same mistake.  No one says that chazal
> allegorized the mabul.  They had no reason to.  Neither, for that
> matter, did Rambam have any reason to allegorize the mabul.  The
> question arises only in the modern day because of scientific
> discoveries. 
> 

So Chazal werre wrong? Or ignorant? Or uninformed?
>>

This goes back to the debate of a month ago re Chazal.  I believe that
Chazal were not aware of future scientific discoveries.  That is why until
the 19th century, no one (in a clear fashion) talked about the 7 days of
creation as being Divinely guided evolution.

Perhaps, one could argue that with regard to actual Halakhic decisions,
there was hashgacha pratit to ensure that Chazal did not come up with the
wrong conclusions.  I don't see why that should be true of
aggadah/parshanut.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Again, I differentiate between (1) disagreeing respectfully, even
> vehemently, and (2) condemning to the extent that one disassociates
> with the condemned party.

I guess that my problem is finding real life examples of a gadol
perceiving that his opponents views were a threat to yiddishkeit - yet he
disagreed vehemently though respectfully. I think we all agree that the
eilu v'eilu model does allow for a variety of valid Torah opinions. Where
there is no significant consequence I think we will generally find
disagreeing being respectfully. Rav Eisemann's comment applied where the
party felt that there were dangerous consequences to following their
opponents position.

> The attitude that you project seems to be black and white.  I think
> that there are plenty of shades of grey.

The issue is whether historically there have been  a wide range of
responses when one views the opponents views a danger to yiddishkeit or
did they follow a fairly predictable and narrow range of strong language,
social sanctions which were moderated by such factors as  the anticipated
collateral damage resulting from dispute, the likelihood of winning etc.
You seem to posit that any violent disputes lacking in respect are not
the result of a genuine Torah position -  which means they were the
result either of psycho pathology or living in a  more primitive culture
than we have to day. I have great difficulty with such an alternative
The fairly consistent historical data is that there have been a lot of
vehement disrespectful disputes. How do you explain this fact?

> >Call me crazy, but I shlepped in my copy of "Rabbinic Authority and
> Personal Autonomy" just to quote excerpts from R. Rosensweig's
> article:
>
>  .  Passionate argumentation regarding the very legitimacy of such
> basic orientations as philosophy, Kabbalah, Hasidut, and Musar
> characterizes this approach . . . .  Clearly, diversity of opinion
> and multiplicity of meaning are not only acceptable but contribute to
> and are consistent with the attainment of the religious ideal in
> Judaism."
>
> So R. Rosensweig describes passionate argumentation as compatible
> with the ultimate recognition that elu v'elu divrei Elokim chayim.

He doesn't say that harsh confrontation are incompatible with eilu
v'eilu. He says that theoretically there are a variety of opinions that
can be legitimate. In addition - eilu veilu also allows for the
possibility that the opponent is wrong. There are two major
understandings of eilu v'eilu. The first is that only one opinion is
correct. But that the second is a legitimate position (see Rashi ion
Kesubos 57a) that might be correctly applied in a different situation -
but it is wrong here. The second is that both sides are true but that one
one can be halacha l'maaseh. [see Prof Avi Sagi's book eilu v'eilu for a
detailed discussion.

> He also quotes Maharshal from the introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on
> Bava Kamma(p. 108):
>
> "One should not be astonished by the range of debate and
> argumentation in matters of halakhah. . . .

As I recently demonstrated - there is a major problem using secondary
sources which only selectively cite excerpts of the original. If you read
the whole Introduction you will find the Yam Shel Shlomo says some not
respectful words about the Rambam and especially the Ibn Ezra. This -
despite the fact that obviously knew about the concept of eilu v'eilu.

> "R. Feinstein [intro to Iggerot Moshe] suggests that the underlying
> principle of eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim hayyim demand that we treat a
> rejected opinion relating to a halakhic concept . . .

Rav Moshe's views on certain opponents such as the Conservative and
Reform are well known. He also psakened that an edition of  Rabbi Yehuda
HaChasid's writings should be burned because he felt that someone had
inserted heretical views in the manuscript. I'd appreciate any example of
Rav Moshe dealing respectfully with those he felt were damaging
yiddishkeit and there were no mitigating factors such as preservation of
the community .

> with a full measure of reverence even if we are familiar with and still
> not
> convinced by its argument  The climate of debate between Bet Shamai
> and Bet Hillel as related in Yevamot (13b-14b) eloquently expresses
> this theme:

Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are also mentioned in  Mesechta Shabbos.
According to the Yerushalmi  they either killed each other or were at
least willing to kill each other over halachic disputes. It thus seems
that in the case of Yevamos there was a possibility of living peacefully
with different opinions. But where they viewed their opponent as a threat
they were ready to kill.

In sum: Rav Eisemann asserts that the existence of harsh relationships is
not necessarily the result of pettiness but rather is usually an
indication of how seriously the issues are viewed. Historically we find
many unpleasant disputes between major gedolim. One must posit either
that they were fighting for Truth and the preservation of Torah or that
they were just nasty people c.v.. Eilu v'eilu is not an excuse to
tolerate what you find abhorrent.


                            Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Feldman, Mark wrote:

> This goes back to the debate of a month ago re Chazal.  I believe that
> Chazal were not aware of future scientific discoveries.  That is why
> until the 19th century, no one (in a clear fashion) talked about the 7
> days of creation as being Divinely guided evolution. 
> 

No, this goes back nowhere.

I have changed my mind.

Allegorization is far worse than even I originally thought. 

I shudder to write the word going through my mind to describe it, so I
will not. 

It is one thing to say that Chazal were mistaken about scientific
knowledge as scientific knowledge. There was no mesorah on kinnim per se,
and they may well have applied the principles of mesorah (netillas neshomo
on Shabbos) to a "contemporary halachic problem" and not necessarily come
up with an answer in line with reality, because they were using the
science of the time. 

Like the Aruch HaShulchan's heter to turn on electric lights on Shabbos.

But it is altogether another thing to say that Chazal were wrong about the
Mabul, that modern tools have proven them wrong, that they were stabbing
about in the dark when they took these matters as real, and we know
better.

There was a fellow named Wellhausen that had a similar idea about Troah
she'b'Ksav, if I recall correctly. Chazal thought all of Torah was
Me'Sinai, but he knew better, because he had more modern tools of
analysis.

There is a Conservative Rabbi in LA who has a similar idea about Mishkav
Zachor.  Chazal thought it was always forbidden, but he knows better,
because he has modern tools that tell him it was only forbidden in a
non-monogamous cultic setting.

> Perhaps, one could argue that with regard to actual Halakhic decisions,
> there was hashgacha pratit to ensure that Chazal did not come up with

And perhaps not. Why should there be? If they were so ignorant as to mess
up on the Mabul, then why not on "totofos"?

Let me emphasize: This is not a slippery slope argument. We, in my
opinion, are already well into the abyss. If we know better than Chazal,
then we know better than Chazal. In reality, then, it is not Chazal who we
are following, but ourselves. We pick and choose which Chazals to accept
and which we don't. We pick and choose which modern tools we use and which
we choose not to use. It is not the Yahadus of Mesorah, but our Yahadus.

Am I truly a "Kol Koreh ba'Midbar" on this?

YGB

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

We often find that the Bet Yosef will comment (disagree or modify a Tur)
but in the Shulchan Aruch he will only bring the opinion of the Tur
whereas the Ramah will bring the dissenting opinion of the Bet Yosef

Does anyone have an explanation?

reuven 

In Avodah 3:142, Jeff Zuckerman recalls <<< once reading that the Rav
said that we should allow mikvaos to be used by Conservative and Reform
rabbis for their "conversions." >>>

It is possible that you had heard this not in Rav Soloveitchik's name,
but in the name of Rav Moshe Feinstein. He discusses this in two
teshuvos, Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:125, and Choshen Mishpat 2:24. He
mentions conservatives in both, and reform in neither.

If I understand him correctly, his main points are: (1) He's not too
thrilled with the conversions done by the orthodox either. (2) For
various reasons there is no Lifnei Iver problem. (3) It's not worth
starting a community machlokes over. (4) If they donated funds to build
the mikveh, then there's no way to forbid them to use it.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In Avodah 3:143, Shlomo Godick shared a clip from Arutz Sheva:

<<< The younger Wagner, himself a student of music, said that Israelis
simply do not understand his great-grandfather, and that if they would
research the matter more, they would understand that even compositions
that sound purely artistic contain strong traces of Wagner's
strongly-held racist views." >>>

I believe Wagner is correct; amateurs such as myself do not understand
such things. Are there any music scholars on this list who might try to
teach us?

I can understand how pure music can evoke a very general *emotion*.
Nothing as specific as love or hate, but, for example, classical music
can evoke a feeling of calmness, while heavy metal causes a more frenzied
feeling. Without any accompanying words or imagery, how can pure music
"contain strong traces" of an *concept* as specific as racism?

Akivs Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

"Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" wrote:

> Let me emphasize: This is not a slippery slope argument. We, in my
> opinion, are already well into the abyss. If we know better than Chazal,
> then we know better than Chazal. In reality, then, it is not Chazal who we
> are following, but ourselves. We pick and choose which Chazals to accept
> and which we don't. We pick and choose which modern tools we use and which
> we choose not to use. It is not the Yahadus of Mesorah, but our Yahadus.
>
> Am I truly a "Kol Koreh ba'Midbar" on this?
>

I just finished reading the article in Tradition. I was
astonished that such
an article would be published - not only because of its non
traditional stance [see the above] but because of the absence
of meaningful scholarship in the article. It reminded me of the
time in my college Biology class hearing how evolution produced
man. First there was the sloshing chemicals which by accident
became complex molecules which by accident became organic
building blocks etc etc. I raised my hand and asked how the
process went for one stage to the next given the incredible
statistical implausibility. The professor looked at me in
astonishment. "But if you don't *believe* that this is the way
it happened  = that means you are a fundamentalist."
The tone of the Tradition article is that of my former
professor - we enlightened people can not accept such an
epithet -under any circumstances. Since R' Spero  knows that 
Science is right and defines reality - he clutches at straws or
rather fig leaves to conceal this shameful piece of evidence.
He mentions in passing various rabbinic sources -but no where
does he show (or attempt to show) a meaningful causal link
between his conclusions and these  sources.

I don't understand Why this blatantly apologetic article
was considered worthy of publishing? If this were scholarship
he first needed to explain the concept of pshat and drash. He
needed to prove that it is acceptable to accept a modern drasha
and throw away the pshat (Shabbos 63). He then needed to
demonstrate that our mesora or at least some significant
elements of it allows a rejection of chazal when in conflict
with Science - especially when we are dealing not just agadata
but the pshat of the Torah itself. He needed to explain why his
methodology doesn't justify allegorization of the entire Torah
and mitzvos [except to say it depends on what makes sense]. And
finally he needed to show that this issue of the Flood - which
has been a difficulty for many years - can acceptably be
resolved by being declared an allegory. In sum - he needed to
show the basis for his rejection of the mesora in the context
of the mesora.[see the Introduction of the Bal HaMeor]

                           Daniel Eidensohn

> 
> I assume my interlocutors have not been learning Daf Yomi, as, were they
> to have learnt through the sugya at the beginning of RH that discusses in
> great detail how R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua deal with the dates in the
> Mabul account, they would surely and sppeedily concede that it would seem
> but a poor joke to argue about dates in a story that is mere allegory.
> 
However, this gemara is based on the dates of the creation of the world.
Thus, according to this gemara if one accepts the mabul literally then
one must accept the creation of the world on tishre/nissan 5759 years ago
without any re-interpretations about lentgth of years, etc.

Eli Turkel

No one says that chazal allegorized the mabul.  They had no reason to.   The
question arises only in the modern day because of scientific  discoveries. 

(YGB)>>>So Chazal werre wrong? Or ignorant? Or uninformed?<<<

To once again contribute $.02 - yes, Chazal were uninformed or ignorant of 
20th century scientific discoveries.  Secondly, Chazal are not arbiters of 
parshanut.  Shall we compile a list of Rambans, Rashis, and other comments of 
Rishonim that contradict Chazal's interpretation of pesukim?  I think the 
demonstration would be unnecessary.  (And please don't say that they can do 
it bec. they are Rishonim - that is an artificial and unprovable assertion).  
So to argue that since Chazal didn't allegorize the flood means we can't is 
as wrong as saying that since Chazal read ayin tachat ayin as money we cannot 
interpret it literally on a certain level (as Rambam does in Moreh).  

In short, reading the flood as allegory is controversial because it 
represents a fundemental shift in our understanding of the episode.   
Extraodinary ideas demand extraodinary proof.  I doubt you can pin a specific 
issur on such an reading (as YGB is wont to do), but that is almost 
irrelevant.  Barring scientific evidence, there is no textual support or 
other proof that would lend credence to an allegorical reading (unless I 
missed something).

-CB

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> However, this gemara is based on the dates of the creation of the world. 
> Thus, according to this gemara if one accepts the mabul literally then
> one must accept the creation of the world on tishre/nissan 5759 years
> ago without any re-interpretations about lentgth of years, etc. 
> 

Not at all.

The 5759 are from the beginning of this cycle. There were cycles before
this. This is the Tiferes Yisroel/R' Aryeh Kaplan School to which I
adhere.

There is also the Schroeder School of the use of relativity to jibe a much
older world with 5759 years. I like tthe creativity of this line of
thought, although I am not happy with the implications of it for the sixth
day of creation.

> Eli Turkel
> 

YGB

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> To once again contribute $.02 - yes, Chazal were uninformed or ignorant of 
> 20th century scientific discoveries.  Secondly, Chazal are not arbiters of 

That is not relevant.

> parshanut.  Shall we compile a list of Rambans, Rashis, and other comments of 
> Rishonim that contradict Chazal's interpretation of pesukim?  I think the 
> demonstration would be unnecessary.  (And please don't say that they can do 

YES!! I want the list! I really need to be hit over the head with it to
concede that there is a Rishon of repute that allegorized what Chazal took
undeniably literally. So far no one has found anything. I invite you to
try.

THIS IS NOT PARSHANUT!

If R' Spero, like the Abarbanel, had said, besides the pshat one can give
allegorical interpretations of the Mabul, that is parshanut.

But he discards the whole parsha.

That is not Parshanut. It is Doresh Derashos shel Dofi (Tesh. HaRashba
414).

YGB

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

In a message dated 7/30/99 8:49:29 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

>  There were cycles before
>  this. This is the Tiferes Yisroel/R' Aryeh Kaplan School to which I
>  adhere.

Which takes "Boneh Olomos Umachrivon" literally, something the Arizal 
rejected, (My intention is not to start a thread on this rather to bring out 
the other side of the coin.)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/30/99 10:04:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< In a message dated 7/30/99 8:49:29 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
 writes:
 
 >  There were cycles before
 >  this. This is the Tiferes Yisroel/R' Aryeh Kaplan School to which I
 >  adhere.
  >>

Did they come to this school through a pure mesora wrt the cycles or because 
they (or their predecessors) couldn't make the number of years since creation 
jibe with history/science?

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

I know that, as did R' Kaplan, and he addresses this. If you look in the
back of the first vol. of Torah Shleima you will see that there are
several sources in the Midrash that take "bone olamos u'machrivan"
and the 974 doros prior to Adam literally, so, as R' Kaplan points out,
this line of thinking is not apologetics l'achar a challenge, like most
lines of thought, but a well based shitta in Chazal long before any
scientific evidence even existed.

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/30/99 8:49:29 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
> writes:
> 
> >  There were cycles before
> >  this. This is the Tiferes Yisroel/R' Aryeh Kaplan School to which I
> >  adhere.
> 
> Which takes "Boneh Olomos Umachrivon" literally, something the Arizal 
> rejected, (My intention is not to start a thread on this rather to bring out 
> the other side of the coin.)
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 

YGB

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Did they come to this school through a pure mesora wrt the cycles or
> because they (or their predecessors) couldn't make the number of years
> since creation jibe with history/science? 
>

I responded to this in my reply to RYZ, but I reiterate - the unambiguous
midrashim well preced any challenges.

Aderaba v'aderaba! The Tiferes Yisroel perceived the discovery of
dinosaurs etc. ass a great chizuk emuno! It "validates" Chazal's
perspective that there were worlds before this one! 

YGB

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

In a message dated 7/30/99 10:25:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
 
 > Did they come to this school through a pure mesora wrt the cycles or
 > because they (or their predecessors) couldn't make the number of years
 > since creation jibe with history/science? 
 >
 
 I responded to this in my reply to RYZ, but I reiterate - the unambiguous
 midrashim well preced any challenges.
 
 Aderaba v'aderaba! The Tiferes Yisroel perceived the discovery of
 dinosaurs etc. ass a great chizuk emuno! It "validates" Chazal's
 perspective that there were worlds before this one! 
 
 YGB
  >>
And at that time did contemporary historians/scientists have a common wisdom 
as to the age of the world and did it differ or coincide with Chazal's?(as 
usual I'm asking out of ignorance)

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 7/30/99 9:23:46 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> I know that, as did R' Kaplan, and he addresses this. If you look in the
>  back of the first vol. of Torah Shleima you will see that there are
>  several sources in the Midrash that take "bone olamos u'machrivan"
>  and the 974 doros prior to Adam literally

Gam Ani Yodati, as I said my intention was just to bring out that there are 
others that reject the literlness of this.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/29/99 1:55:07 PM EST, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

> 8000 years = 80 centuries. At 0.92 meters per century, comes to a whopping
>  73.6 meters (241 feet !) above what was sea level. Nice flood ending a 
> little
>  less than 6000 years ago. Add a few hundred years, and you get the time
>  of Noach !
>  
Where does all this fit into what Torah says that HKB"H told Noach that the 
Mabul will be in a 120 years and it is due to "Ki Hishchis Kol Bosor Darkoi"?

Umisaymin Btoiv, Kol tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB inquired:
<Once we're doing grammar, explain please to me "sha'ata" instead of
"she'ata" (in Modim and other places in davening, based on a word in
Shoftim). I think we once might have discussed this years ago, but have
since forgotten.>

Don't recall any previous discussion but my memory is not what it was (if it
ever was). Anyway, lo'inyon.  The use of the long qometz vowel under the
prefixed shin would seem simply driven by the fact that the following aleph
cannot take a dogeish chozoq which would otherwise be expected to close a
syllable beginning with a short vowel, which would have been the case had
the shin taken the segol you seem to have expected.  

I delayed responding to this yesterday as soon as it appeared because i
wanted to go home first and check the concordance for possible charigim
which might be found in tanach. i.e. to figure out why you expected
"she'ata' in the first place. in fact there are none.  The only form listed,
and that only once, is the very same "sho'atoh" in shofitim 17:1.  (which I
presume is your "sha'atah". Since transliterations tend to be idiosyncratic
i also wanted to convince myself that we were referring to the same object).
i would not characterize the davening's niqqud as being based on the single
instance in shofitim, - rather they were both driven by the same diqduq
pattern and there are no alternative solutions actually employed. it is thus
not surprising to find every instance of use outside tanach - as you note,
such as the davening (see. e.g. end of tifilas tal &geshem) - employing the
same form for the same reason.   of course the tiberian mesoroh could have
solved the problem by employing a segol, or other short vowel, in
conjunction with a meseg - but they didn't.

A few posters commented on the form of "she'qamti" in shiras divoroh.  the
posted remarks, that, it is an archaic form of 'asher", are accurate but
irrelevant to the posted shayloh which focused, I thought, on the
vowelization of the shin in this circumstance

R Shlomo Godick writes:
<Dor Haflaga  (or Dor haHaflagah) would mean the "generation of
sailing" or the "generation of exaggeration".    The correct pronunciation
is Dor HaPalagah  (the heh is heh ha-y'dia and not part of the word its>

That may be correct, but is not necessarily so.  Dor Ha'pi'logoh (with a
shivoh noh under the peh) would do just as well, as would other variations
(e.g. ha'pil'goh. chiriqed peh, shivoh noch under lamed and dogeish qal in
gimmel).  Words with ancient provenance, but no authoritatively ancient
accompanying niqqud, (or contemporary transliterations, the most useful tool
available to those interested in reconstructing the sounding of ancient
hebrew, BTW a fascinating subject) are tough to make definitve statements
about.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H: (301) 593-3949

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


[ 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         ]