Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 154

Thursday, August 5 1999

• munkacz and belz
• Titular Kavod
• Turning down the clock-radio volume on Shabbos
• Re: Turning down the clock-radio volume on Shabbos
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: allegory - authority
• Tefila le-choleh
• Re: Lights and Electricity on *Shabbos*
• Is all music value neutral ? - - a Halakhic source, and a possible extension.
• JERUSALEM-APARTMENT
• Volume
• Re: authority of Sanhedrin
• Re: Munkacs and Satmar
• Re: Munkacs and Satmar
• Re: Sinai and the spectrum of ideas
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: Sinai and the spectrum of ideas

> 
> He was known to publicly attack all political parties
> including the Agudah.However on a private level
> their was mutual courtesy and respect for the Rabbonim
> and Rebbes who were the leaders of the Agudah
> including Rabbi Meir Shapiro zt'l and the Gerer Rebbe zt'l

does his mutual courtesy also include the Belzer rebbe?

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

R. Mechy Frankel writes:

>  merely as an interesting datum/footnote, over shabbos i happened to
>be reading a recently published collection of letters by the author of the
>siridei aish, and R. Weinberg in fact refers to hagaon rav Sho'ul
>Liebermann. and this letter was dated in 1960.

Words cannot express my own esteem for the author of the Tosefta
kiFshutah.  But this information regarding R. Weinberg should be seen in
perspective.  Indeed, the Seridei Esh may not be representative.  R.
Weinberg maintained a close relationship with Prof. Shemu'el Atlas, the
well-known Reform scholar and editor of Hiddushei ha-Ra'avad on Baba
Kama (isn't that how all of us were introduced to him?).  An account of
their correspondence was published by the leading authority on Rav
Weinberg, Prof. Marc Shapiro, in the Torah uMadda Journal (not Reader!).

Also, as I noted a month or two ago, in a recent essay on secular
culture, R. Lichtenstein, who is not a delegitimizer by nature, tells a
story about "Prof." Lieberman.   Just another interesting (to me) datum.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:56:33 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Lights on Yomtov and R' Shlomo Zalman

>L'or our modern understanding of electricity and electronics, succinctly
>summarized here, I think it is fair to state that if your clock radio goes
>off on Shabbos, there is no question that you may turn doen the volume,
>provided you do not turn off the radio altogether, nor cause any lights to
>go on or off.

Providing you assume that the only circuits possibly created or destroyed in 
the operation of a clock radio are those involved in turning on or off the
radio or in causing lights to go on and off.  I'm no electrical engineer, but
what if there is a separate circuit controlling the operation of the speaker? 
By turning down the volume I would imagine one is changing the setting of a resistor --
is a circuit with a near-infinite value of resistance halachically equivalent to a destroyed
circuit?

Sholem Berger

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Sholem Berger wrote:

> Providing you assume that the only circuits possibly created or
> destroyed in the operation of a clock radio are those involved in
> turning on or off the radio or in causing lights to go on and off.  I'm

Correct.

> no electrical engineer, but what if there is a separate circuit
> controlling the operation of the speaker?  By turning down the volume I
> would imagine one is changing the setting of a resistor -- is a circuit
> with a near-infinite value of resistance halachically equivalent to a
> destroyed circuit? 
> 

I do not think so.

YGB

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

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>Firstly, it is not at all clear that R' Moshe's chiddush that clapping and
>dancing may be permitted b'zman ha'zeh because there is a retroactive lo
>nispashta works.

Agreed, I indicated that where it applies to something that was poskened
in earlier generations, the matter is contraversial.

> I am not looking right now in the teshuva, but Tosafos is
>readily learnt otherwise, and the Gr"o would likely disagree as well
>(since the former needed to present a rationale for limiting a takkana and
>the latter rejects this form of analysis regardless).
>
>But, more importantly, the following line:
>
>> It is in that sense of collective kedusha that I understood REDT's
>> statement. 
>
>Is most questionable when applied to theology (questionable is a
>questionable term. "Wrong" is the term I would prefer). While, to be sure,
>there are areas in which theological free choice is granted - and those
>are most areas - there are core beliefs that are immutable. (There was an
>essay in the Torah U'Madda Reader a few years ago that seemed intended to
>prove otherwise, but in my view proved davka how little deviation there
>really is from the Rambam's 13).

Not disagreeing with the last statement- but I would not have said that
all of theology fits into the Rambam's 13 (or variations thereof).
There is a lot of scope for theology that leaves those 13 intact, just
as there is a lot of scope for halacha that leaves the core intact.

>
>Am Yisroel tried mightily in the times of Bayis Rishon to wreak a "lo
>nispashta" on some of that theology - they engaged en masse in Avodah Zara
>- - but to no avail.


This is why I specifically characterised the portion of klal yisroel
that is engaged in this "process" as of necessity being yirei shamayim.
Avodah zara is clearly as far removed as one can go from yiras shamayim,
so I don't think the example is a good one.

> D'orysas are immovable obstacles. So, I have maintained
>- - without necessarily characterizing such as heresy, I might add 

I guess this is the bit of your position i don't understand. I certainly
understand that there is an immutable core that cannot be altered
regardless of what the people do.  But in terms of theology, I would
have said that stepping outside that immutable core is the definition of
heresy. 

But if, one the other hand, the belief in question is not part of the
immutable core, then I would have thought that the same principles
applied to it as applied to any other questions of halacha, including if
the portion of am yisroel with yiras shamayim genuinely held that way
theologically, it would operate in the same way as if that portion of am
yisroel followed Rav X on this point, rather than Rav Y, or did X rather
than Y.

But you seem to have a grey area that is a) not heresy but b) in which
there is no allowance for the kind of maklokus you are happy to
recognise in other areas.

>- is the
>principle, eloquently expressed today by RMBerger and others recently, far
>better than I have written on such - of the integrity and authenticity of
>Mesoras Chazal in matters concerning the historicity and accuracy of the
>text and contents of the Torah. If that falls, it is not just undermining
>a single d'rabonnon...

So why isn't it heresy, in your view?  That is, if you go outside the
ikkarim (whether Rambams or others), that is heresy is it not?  Is what
you are objecting to outside these ikkarim or not?  If yes, are they
not, at least in your view, heresy?

(Of course, the issue gets even more complicated where there may be a
maklokus about whether there is a violation of the ikar.  Let's take the
Avodah Zara case.  Everybody agrees that Avodah Zara is immovable.  But
what if some people say the action in question is Avodah Zara, and some
say it isn't? -The one that springs to mind is going into a church - eg
to admire the architecture - if some hold it is Avodah Zara, as you are
admiring Avodah Zara - not to mention all the other prohibitions, while
other holds it is tourism and art and mutar, would, if the consensus
became the latter, ie that it was not Avodah Zara, would that change
your view if you thought that it was?)



>YGB

Kind Regards

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

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> This is why I specifically characterised the portion of klal yisroel
> that is engaged in this "process" as of necessity being yirei shamayim. 
> Avodah zara is clearly as far removed as one can go from yiras shamayim,
> so I don't think the example is a good one. 
> 

Define Yiras Shomayim. I think Menashe (the King) probably thought of
himself as a yerei shomayim.

> I guess this is the bit of your position i don't understand. I certainly
> understand that there is an immutable core that cannot be altered
> regardless of what the people do.  But in terms of theology, I would
> have said that stepping outside that immutable core is the definition of
> heresy.
> 

I guess you may learn that the reference halocho I have applied here:
"Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah", is heresy. But, I think that when Chazal are
critiquing Menashe on this in Sanhedrin, and others in Avos, that it is
not necessarily "heresy" in the sense of denying Torah Me'Sinai -
otherwise it is not logical to lump it together with, say, "Mevazeh es
Ha'Mo'ados" - rather, it is a grave theological shortcoming that leads to
loss of Olam Ha'Bo in extreme cases - such as when it is used to assert
our superiority im knowledge to Chazal, etc.

> But you seem to have a grey area that is a) not heresy but b) in which
> there is no allowance for the kind of maklokus you are happy to
> recognise in other areas. 
> 

Right. These are the areas noted in Avos 3:11.

> So why isn't it heresy, in your view?  That is, if you go outside the
> ikkarim (whether Rambams or others), that is heresy is it not?  Is what
> you are objecting to outside these ikkarim or not?  If yes, are they
> not, at least in your view, heresy? 
> 

As above, these things are outside the ikkarim, but consistently 
engagingly in these realms of improper theologies and attitudes will lead
one to lose one's OH - according to the Mishna - even though in the
meantime we can drink your wine.

YGB

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

Chaverim--
Could you please include my grandfather, Avraham Yechezkel ha-Levi ben
Chayyah, who is critically ill, in your tefilos.
Ubezekhus tefilas rabbim, may Hashem bring yeshu'os to all of us.

Daniel

RYGB wrote in Avodah 3:153: <<< L'or our modern understanding of
electricity and electronics, succinctly summarized here, I think it is
fair to state that if your clock radio goes off on Shabbos, there is no
question that you may turn down the volume, provided you do not turn off
the radio altogether, nor cause any lights to go on or off. >>>

Is light required for the definition of halachic fire? I recall from
somewhere that heat is also sufficient evidence of aish, even in the
absence of light. My experience is that the magnet of a speaker gets
noticably hot after a while. Perhaps this establishes the presence of
aish even before it has had enough time to get hot. Any comments?

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.

It seems my 'lurking' did not last very long, and I respond with
considerable caution to a very complex issue.

Western (not Eastern) music derives many of its aesthetic (and 'moral',
if you will) principles from the ancient Greek philosophers, most
notably Plato, and to a lesser degree, Aristotle. I hope that, in the
light of Maimonides attempts to reconcile Aristotelian with Jewish
thought in his 'Guide', I may be forgiven for entering into this
territory on such a list as Avodah, but here goes....

Greek philosophy speaks of the 'ethos' of music, notably its potential
to influence the hearer for good or ill and, in fact, to achieve a moral
change in that listener. In view of this, there are stringent
requirements concerning its nature, particularly if it is to be
available to the populace at large. This represents the first attempts
at musical censorship, such as were later to be revisited upon composers
such as Shostakovich under the communist regime. However, the Greek
assessment of the suitability of music was chiefly dependent on its
intrinsic nature (for instance, the mode in which it was written),
although there are some references to the character of the composer as
being of importance. Under such a system as assessed the suitability of
Greek music, it was more important to guarantee the integrity of the
'assessors' than the composers themselves, a procedure not without
parallel in halakhic decision making. 

One of the principal writers on musical aesthetics in the nineteenth
century, when these views were again being seriously debated, was Eduard
Hanslick. In summary his view was "[m]usic simply requires to be taken
in as music, and can only be comprehended on its own terms...". Here
also, the character and identity of the composer is considered to be
irrelevant to any assessment of the worth, and presumably moral effect,
of the music itself.

In both the above instances, a very brief selection from the documents
of an ongoing debate, it would seem that the view expressed by R. Halevi
is the dominant position. Whether the opposite is true, that 'evil'
music can be written by persons not themselves so inclined, is also
worthy of consideration.

To broaden the discussion somewhat, a recent response (Aug 4) to a
question concerning the use of music from popular shows in shul by the
senior rabbi of the Great Synagogue in Sydney, Australia -- Rabbi
Raymond Apple -- was published on the Australian torah-wej list. Rabbi
Apple concluded his response by writing: "It goes without saying,
though, that melodies composed for and/or used in the worship services
of other religions must not be used in the synagogue". This suggests to
me that, since in many (most?) cases there would be no question of the
composers of such music being irreligious, let alone anti-semitic, there
is a very strong case for regarding much of the effect, and perhaps
dangers, of certain music as being by association, rather than inherent
in the music itself.

Kol tuv,

Barbara Gibbs

large penthouse, furnished,
4 bedrooms, parking,

for rent Aug 20 1999 - Aug 20 2000
Palmach 42, Jerusalem

Michael Werman   werman@cs.huji.ac.il

From one of our alert readers:

> Any way I did turn the volume, on the basis of something that Rav Shlomo
> Fischer told me - that if I am in the army on Shabbat and my secular
> tent mate leaves a radio on when he goes out of the tent, it is better
> to turn down the radio than to get hana-ah from hillul shabbat. 
> 
> Later I spoke about this with my boss, who has a Ph.D. is Electrical
> Engineering (and is frum).  He told me that while on the older radios
> turning down the volume has no real effect on the function of the radio,
> in modern digital radios, the volume control opens and closes circuits. 
> 

I think that may be the case in digital radios that have LCD guages that
indicate volume level - could you please ask if that is the case where
there are no LCD indicators?

YGB

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

Chaim Brown wrote:

<<<
>>>They are not general purpose universal truths amenable to an 
indiscriminate applicability.<<<

While I salute your [M. Frankel's] erudition, in no way does anything you have written 
constitute a defense of the original post, which I requote - >>>If a  
Sanhedrin were constituted today, it could overturn vast parts of what was  
already accepted....  It is really all up to US.  What we accept is what we 
follow.<<<  Yes, we can define takkanot as limited in scope, duration, etc., 
we can say they were never ruled on b'minyan, we can even say there are needs 
which override them (as you noted), but NONE of these considerations are a 
function of reconvening a Sanhedrin, and NONE of the considerations you raise 
are a function of 'acceptance' of the authority of Sanhedrin.  I stand by my 
original criticism.
>>>

I am a bit puzzled, because the original post to which you were responding was 
clearly referring to the power of a Sanhedrin (at least according to the Rambam] to
overturn established halakhot based on changing drashot (except possibly the 
highly problematic mi-pi ha-shemuah drashot posited by the Rambam) irrespective
of the minyan/hokhmah restriction that applies to overturning takanot.  So I can't 
see why you think it is so important that a new Sanhedrin (which is supposed to 
be established before Elijah and the Messiah enter the scene) wouldn't be able 
to undo a few takanot and gezeirot when it would be able to change fundamental 
d'oraita level halakhot without constraint.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:

<<<
It would be interesting to hear from someone like our very own RMFrankel
his take on this, as he is me'beis the Satmar Rebbe 
>>>

I will forbear from characterizing this statement other than to note that, to my 
admittedly limited acquaintance with the distinguished Frankel yichus, it is 
factually inaccurate.  However, we all know that Mechy is more than capable 
of speaking up eloquently in his own defense.

<<<
My impression is that while the Satmar Rebbe retained anti-zionism - indeed, 
kept it alive in the face of many seemingly compelling reasons to drop it - his 
cordial postwar relations with the Agudistin were somewhat of concession that 
the hard lines drawn by the ME before the War were simply too impossible to
continue thereafter.
>>>

Any comments by me about the Satmarer Rebbe would be tainted by a familial
negius that goes back two and three generations and would therefore serve to 
distract attention from the relevant point.  So let me just ask you whether you 
would characterize the relations between the Satmarer Rebbe and his nephew 
and protégé, the Klausenburger Rebbe, after the latter saw fit to establish a 
settlement for his followers in the territory controlled by the Zionist entity as 
cordial?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> <<< My impression is that while the Satmar Rebbe retained anti-zionism -
> indeed, kept it alive in the face of many seemingly compelling reasons
> to drop it - his cordial postwar relations with the Agudistin were
> somewhat of concession that the hard lines drawn by the ME before the
> War were simply too impossible to continue thereafter.  >>>
> 
> Any comments by me about the Satmarer Rebbe would be tainted by a
> familial negius that goes back two and three generations and would
> therefore serve to distract attention from the relevant point.  So let
> me just ask you whether you would characterize the relations between the
> Satmarer Rebbe and his nephew and protégé, the Klausenburger Rebbe,
> after the latter saw fit to establish a settlement for his followers in
> the territory controlled by the Zionist entity as cordial? 
>

I really have no idea. It is said that they traded curses, but wasn't that
common in the Old Country already?

In any event, I hope I did not give the impression that the Satmer Rebbe
moderated his position towards Zionism - I thought I made it clear that he
did not, and to the contrary. My query considered  his relationship
towards the "Agudistin".

YGB

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

In v3n151, Joel Rich <Joelirich@aol.com> quotes me and asks:
:> Claiming that "Chazal would have said" means that the omission of the idea
:> by them can be due to a lack of outside data on their part. Which could only
:> said if one ch"v believes that these ideas are created ex nihilo by Chazal.

: Are you saying that everything that Chazal(to be defined - including what 
: time periods) said was received by them as a specific mesora(ie they provided 
: no creativity or insight based on general principles) but rather just wrote 
: down what they heard?

No.

Note I said "the omission of the idea ... due to a lack of outside data". IOW,
their conclusions are either what was handed down, or what conclusions could
be reached from what was so transmitted. A point I meant to stress by talking
about "created *ex* *nihilo*" (emphasis added) as opposed to just created.

Here we have the authorities on what mesorah says or implies about the topic
of mabul reaching a particular answer. (To be pedantic on this point for the
last time, assume this going forward: .. a given spectrum of answers.) As far
as I can tell (without having read R' YZ Kook yet, Meir Shinnar's fax reached
me this morning) they reached the conclusion that the mabul is literal history,
and differ only on points within that assumption.

Data outside to masorah would only have weight if you believe that: a- masorah
is flawed; b- the consensus was reached for reasons other than masorah. My
statement was that I believe neither, and rejection of the Historical School
(and therefore Conservativism) requires rejecting them as well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Aug-99: Chamishi, Re'eh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 347:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 18a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In v3n151, Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> writes:
: If anything, that we, meaning the whole of klal yisroel decide, is
: relatively uncontraversial in relation to something that has not been
: definitively poskened in an earlier generation.
....
: My understanding of how the Conservative movement differs is that a)
: they extend this to apply to people who clearly are not desirous of
: having their actions accord with the will of heaven and b) it is a
: process that can be led, eg by agitation. 

Solomon Schechter's notion of "Catholic Israel" is that it only includes
people who are observant. There's a bit of circularity here. He defines
halachah as being the interaction between what the Rabbis say, and what the
Jews who observe halachah do. The word "halachah" is used in its own
definition. If we take a broader definition of halacha, we get a wider
population in "Catholic Israel", which would yield a "justification" for that
broader definition. Any position, not just the one Schechter was trying to
explain, that uses the words "observing halachah" can be justified -- even
the R Jew who thinks keeping kosher means not smoking (or some other unhealthy
activity).

The Rav, in his letter (teshuvah) to the RCA about joining the SCA talks
about "Am Yisrael" (the community of fate; a term the Torah first uses in
Mitzraim) with "Adas Yisrael" (the community of destiny, which provides eidus
to Har Sinai -- which is where we first find the term in Chumash). The Rav
therefore states that C and R share in the notion of "am" but not in "eidah".
So, in contrast to "Catholic Israel", let's speak of "Adas Yisrael" (AY).

AY's power is limited to deciding between various validly obtained shitos.
There is a base to prevent the definition of halachah from drifting just
anyway (unlike CI). There is a concept of minhag ta'us.

I'm not sure what Rich Wolpoe would say, and I invite his comments.

-mi


-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Aug-99: Chamishi, Re'eh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 347:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 18a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I was asked (2nd hand!) to post the following anonymously. Unfortunately to
the original writer, this means he doesn't get a say-so without my interspersed
comments.

: R. Kafih, certainly one of the gedolim of our time, in his perush on Mishne
: Torah Shabbat 5:3 says that the Garden of Eden episode is an allegory acc.to
: Rambam (i. e., Eve never caused Adam to sin -- this was not a real event
: but an allegory.)

: Also, R. David Hoffmann in his perush on Bereshit says that it is possible
: that not all of the animals were destroyed since the flood only encompassed
: places where people live (although this contradicts the verse that all living
: things were wiped out. Schroeder, in his book Science of God, tries to limit
: the flood (in contradiction to the verses -- not that he is a gadol, but he
: seems to be accepted).

: What the Rambam did with the Torah is certainly more radical than what these
: people are doing re. allegories (and I guess that is why Ramban and others
: said that it was forbidden to read what he write in these matters.

This point was already addressed. The Rambam moved some events from the
physical plane to the metaphysical one. He declare anything non-historical,
only non-physical.

[The following was added in a 2nd email. -MB]

: R. Lichtenstein has an essay on Torah u-Madda (unpublished but available
: in typescript form) in which he says that when there is a conflict between
: scientific truth and the Torah than allegory is a proper method to employ. He
: also says that it is acceptable to posit that the Torah was interested
: in imparting spiritual and moral truth, not necessarily scientific and
: historical truth. If the Torah is not necessarily interested in imparting
: historical truth, then it's history is not really history, but something
: else.

Something can be both history AND allegory. Or even, a historical even can
be described in a way that stresses certain allegorical points, omitting
other details. (See earlier comments about the Avos as archetypes.) I don't
see how the last sentence can be concluded from the rest.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Aug-99: Chamishi, Re'eh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 347:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 18a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

: This point was already addressed. The Rambam moved some events from the
: physical plane to the metaphysical one. He declare anything non-historical,
: only non-physical.

Typo correction:
He DIDN'T declare anything non-historical, only non-physical.

-mi

In a message dated 8/5/99 1:19:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

<< 
 Note I said "the omission of the idea ... due to a lack of outside data". 
IOW,
 their conclusions are either what was handed down, or what conclusions could
 be reached from what was so transmitted. A point I meant to stress by talking
 about "created *ex* *nihilo*" (emphasis added) as opposed to just created.
 
 Here we have the authorities on what mesorah says or implies about the topic
 of mabul reaching a particular answer. (To be pedantic on this point for the
 last time, assume this going forward: .. a given spectrum of answers.) As far
 as I can tell (without having read R' YZ Kook yet, Meir Shinnar's fax reached
 me this morning) they reached the conclusion that the mabul is literal 
history,
 and differ only on points within that assumption.
 
 Data outside to masorah would only have weight if you believe that: a- 
masorah
 is flawed; b- the consensus was reached for reasons other than masorah. My
 statement was that I believe neither, and rejection of the Historical School
 (and therefore Conservativism) requires rejecting them as well.
 
 -mi
  >>
So if they had a general mesora such as - believe that everything is literal 
unless you have a different mesora or scientific evidence implies it isn't 
(or likely isn't) and in that case use allegory - would you agree that the 
fact that earlier commentaries were unanimous in interpreting in a literal 
way would only be a proof that we couldn't use allegory if scientific 
evidence against literalness existed in their day as well?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]