Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 155

Friday, August 6 1999

• Re: Munkacs and Satmar
• Re: Is music value neutral
• Re: Is music value neutral
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: allegory - authority
• allegory - authority
• Re: authority of Sanhedrin
• mitzvos ma'asiyos
• Absence
• MUNKACS: Sefer Em Habonim Semecho
• Re: MUNKACS: Sefer Em Habonim Semecho
• Alleogry - Authority

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:

<<<
> So let
> me just ask you whether you would characterize the relations between the
> Satmarer Rebbe and his nephew and protTgT, 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?
>>>

Precisely.  A consistent pattern of conduct pre- and post-Holocaust.

<<<
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".
>>>

No you did not give that impression at all, but I did gather from your earlier
posting that you were conjecturing that the Munkacser might have 
reassessed his position towards other factions within the Jewish community
in light of the events of 1944 which showed that he and his followers were 
as vulnerable to the enemies of the Jewish people as were those of lesser 
merit.  Seemingly to offer anectodal support for your counterfactual 
conjecture, you suggested that the Satmarer rebbe underwent a similar 
change in view to the one that you were guessing that the Munkacser 
would have undergone had he lived.  The little run-in with the 
Klausenburger rebbe (about which you were kind enough to provide a 
juicy tidbit) suggests to me that the only lesson from World War II that the 
Satmarer internalized in his conduct toward other factions within the Jewish 
community was the risk in fighting a war on too many fronts at the same
time.

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

Eli Clark wrote:

<<<
I found a fascinating reference to Wagner in a teshuvah of R. Hayyim
David Halevi z.t.l. (Aseh Lekha Rav, vol. III, no. 4) while researching
an upcoming shiur on listening to secular music.  R. Halevi writes:

"Music composed by an evil person (like Wagner), if [the music] does not
itself express evil, i.e., a listener who does not know the identity of
the composer would not discern [any evil], it does not appear to me that
it should be prohibited."

R. Halevi clearly assumes that music can be value neutral and provides
an interesting test for such value neutrality.  I hope our resident
musicologists will consent to comment on R. Halevi's approach.  I wonder
if it has parallels in the literature.
>>>

I make no claims to expertise in musicology, but I will nonetheless try to 
respond.  Great composers do, I think, attempt to evoke feelings, very profound
feelings, in their listeners.  Such feelings as reverance, awe, wonder, sadness,
joy come to mind, but may others could be added, too.  The particular feelings 
that composers attempt to evoke will depend on the conception that is
motivating the composer in writing a particular piece.  Remember that a good 
deal of the greatest music ever written was written with a religious purpose, e.g.,
masses, requiems, cantatas, etc.  Music was set to words and had to bear
some relation to the words and evoke feelings that were consonant with the 
words.  But the feelings that a given musical piece will evoke in a listener 
depend not only on the notes, but also on the orchestration and the timing and 
a bunch of other subtle factors.  A slow rendition of a particular melody is more
likely to evoke sadness than a faster rendition.  Particular keys also seem to be
inherently related to certain moods, for example E-flat major is often used in
majestic or heroic music such as Beethoven's Eroica symphony or his Emporer 
concerto and Mozart's 39th symphony.  D-minor portends a mood of mystery or
foreboding as in the opening of Beethoven's ninth smphony, Brahms's first piano
concerto or Mozart's k. 466 piano concerto.

After Beethoven, many composers began trying to use music to tell a story, 
something that had never been done before.  This was not opera in which words
are set to music, but the music itself is supposed to tell a story.  This was what
Berlioz tried to do in his Symphonie Fantastique, which was a development of an 
existing musical form, the symphony.  It also led to the creation new musical forms,
in particular the tone poem.  Wagner, megalomaniac that he was, believed that he
was creating the music of the future by combining the traditional opera with the tone 
poem so that the music was allegedly an integral part of the story line, not just an 
accompaniment to the story or a medium in which the text of the story could be 
conveyed in an aesthetically pleasing and emotionally satisfying way.  Wagner
believed that he had created music that, in fact, was not value neutral but was
the emodiement of his ideas.  

So, in some sense, to listen to Wagner's music and to be moved by it is to accept
the music on Wagner's terms.  But the fact is that Wagner, though he was a very
smart man, probably a genius, was full of claptrap and his music and words are, 
indeed, a reflection of that claptrap, so that it is, I suppose, possible to listen to the 
music and enjoy it at some level even while understanding that it is the product and 
reflection of a twisted and semi-delusional mind.  The young Gottfried Wagner, as I 
understand it, is (quite admirably) reminding people of the unpleasant fact that his 
great-grandfather used his music as a vehicle for expressing his hateful and 
demented philsophy and worldview.  

The "halakhic" question is whether Wagner's nonsensical view that his music was
an actual expression and articulation of his philsophy creates an unbreakable link 
between the music and the philosophy that would not have existed but for Wagner's
megalomania.  I think that you could probably argue the point either way.  But I find 
it surprising that sane people (regardless of religious affiliation or belief) are not 
repelled by the thought of listening to such music.  But then again, I also find it 
surprising that sane people are not repelled by the thought of listening to (some of) 
the music played at orthodox Jewish weddings.  

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

There are two issues in listening to Wagner y"sh's music: 1- the content of
the music; 2- the reminder of who the composer was. Of course, #2 is only
true for people who recognize the piece.

What about music for tephillah? I assume no one would choose Wagnerian music
because no one really wants to think about him while davening. How about a
composer who evokes less exteme emotional reactions?

-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.         Nefesh_Hachaim I 1

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>Define Yiras Shomayim. I think Menashe (the King) probably thought of
>himself as a yerei shomayim.

It is interesting, because I wanted to get into a discussion on Yiras
Shamayim before - because you and Rich Wolpoe were having a discussion
on it, during one of the periods when Avodah reading was not possible,
and I only read the conversation much later (too late, I felt to
comment).

In that discussion, if you recall (and it must have been a couple of
months ago - and i am quoting from memory, so forgive me if I haven't
gotten it quite right), you said you wanted a posek to also have yiras
shamayim, and Rich said that he wanted somebody to just work through the
halacha, and not give him a mussar shmuess or be machmir because of fear
of heaven. And you said that it might actually mean that he was more
makil because of concepts of hefsed meruba etc.

And what I wanted to write was to agree with your position, only more
so.  Because, real psak often imposes real pain on the people to whom it
is given.  Today, in areas like kashrus, we don't see this so much,
because today, Baruch Hashem, at least for most of us, if a chicken
turned out to be treif, so we would buy another chicken (and even that
happens almost never, because the chicken is stopped at the shochet or
the butchers, and the large scale meat seller has allowed for a certain
number of treif chickens and is well placed to bear the loss).  But a
few generations ago, a treif chicken meant no meat for the family,
because one could not then afford to go out an buy another chicken - and
so psak in this area carried with it the potential of pain of the
family's loss.

Today we don't see nearly so much of that kind of psak (probably the
area in which it most occurs in a day to day situation is taharas
hamishpacha). And to me, yiras shamayim in a posek is where that posek
genuinely knows that he will be judged for the psak that he gives, if
too makil, for being over on the Torah, and if too machmir, for every
drop of pain suffered by those who receive the psak from following it.

That, to me, is yiras shamayim, and recognition that you will be called
to account for your actions (with the distinction between that and
ahavas shamayim which perhaps was best described in Avi Feldblum's post
about his grandfather).  

I don't think, on any objective view, Menashe can be considered a yiras
shamayim (what he misguidedly believed about himself is irrelevant).

But there are many people who genuinely try and do the right thing,
Torah wise, to the best of their ability ie genuinely try to be an eved
HaShem. That, of course, is not enough to be a posek, for that you also
need the learning and the intelligence and the gift.  But on its own,
that is what I would call yiras shamayim.

Perhaps that is why I can see this allegory question as being one that a
genuine yiras shamayim could engage in.  On the one hand, he has his
emunas Torah, on the other hand, the world of science that he lives in,
and which his sensory impressions tell him is true (and it is not much
use you standing there and asserting that it really is not true, he is
seeing white, it does not help for you to insist that what he is really
seeing is black - and if he had more faith he could see that it was
black. It don't look black to him, no whichway he looks at it). That
leads to a fairly classic perplexity.  Allegory can provide a resolution
that does not shake his emunah and leaves him free to be the best eved
HaShem he can.  Of course, it could *also* be a mechanism for those
without genuine yiras shamayim to try and be at best clever and show off
(ie a form of guiver) and at worst it could conceiveably be used as a
lever to try and prise others out of their emunah.

>YGB

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I don't think, on any objective view, Menashe can be considered a yiras
> shamayim (what he misguidedly believed about himself is irrelevant). 
> 

Um, I am not so sure. I think the episode in Sanhedrin concerning R' Ashi
and Menashe is meant to instruct us that one may well be a yerei shomayim
on some level, and a source of halachic ruling to boot - and still be
liable to be a choteh u'machti and lose one's OH (a very mussar'dike
idea). 

> Perhaps that is why I can see this allegory question as being one that a
> genuine yiras shamayim could engage in.  On the one hand, he has his
> emunas Torah, on the other hand, the world of science that he lives in,
> and which his sensory impressions tell him is true (and it is not much
> use you standing there and asserting that it really is not true, he is
> seeing white, it does not help for you to insist that what he is really
> seeing is black - and if he had more faith he could see that it was
> black. It don't look black to him, no whichway he looks at it). That
> leads to a fairly classic perplexity.  Allegory can provide a resolution
> that does not shake his emunah and leaves him free to be the best eved
> HaShem he can.  Of course, it could *also* be a mechanism for those
> without genuine yiras shamayim to try and be at best clever and show off
> (ie a form of guiver) and at worst it could conceiveably be used as a
> lever to try and prise others out of their emunah. 
>

Which is why I would not call such a person heretical (although R' Chaim
probabyl would still put him iinto the category of "nebbich apikores"!).
But sincerity does not equal truth, nor even that a person is not
sincerely misguided, etc. 

YGB

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

An anonymous poster writes:

: 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.

For the record, as both talmid and preparer of the typescript, I would
like to present R. Lichtenstein's words as delivered, so that his words
be better understood in context:

                 Confronted by evident contradiction, one would of
course initially strive to ascertain whether it is apparent or real: to
determine, on the one hand, whether indeed the methodology of madda does
so inevitably lead to a given conclusion and, on the other, whether the
received content of Torah can be interpreted or reinterpreted so as to
avert a collision.

	This interpretation or reinterpretation may take one of several forms.
It may focus narrowly upon the meaning of a particular term.  Whether,
for instance, the term "vermin which do not multiply and increase" in
Shabbat (107b), is to be understood to refer to spontaneous generation
-- now out of fashion with some biologists -- or just to a lower level
of sexual reproduction.

	At another level, one may alter the substance of whole areas by
examining them, legitimately, through a different prism.  The great
model here is Maimonides, whose recourse to the concept of "Torah speaks
in the language of man [i.e. in human idiom] (Sifrei, Shelah 112)," on
the one hand, and to the mode of allegory on the other, enabled him to
interpret so much of Bible and midrash aggadah in a philosophic rather
than purely literal, popular vein.

	At still a third level, admittedly far more controversial, one might
perceive an entire corpus differently.  Sensing that incessant
eighteenth century debates over scriptual veracity -- largely conducted
under rules at least implicitly set down by rationalists -- were leading
to a dead end, Coleridge decided to stop searching for piecemeal
solutions and rejoined instead with the radical -- in two senses of the
term -- view that the Bible was intended to convey moral and spiritual,
but not necessarily historical and scientific, truth, thus seeking to
undercut the whole debate at one fell swoop.

[passages omitted]

	But let there be no mistake about the fundamental stance; when push
comes to shove, there can be only one answer:  "For eternity, o Lord,
Your word stands erect in Heaven" (Ps. 119:89).  When all options of
reconciliation have expired, devar ha-Shem and only devar ha-Shem reigns
supreme.  Commitment to it receives normative priority even at the
apparent expense of personal intellectual integrity.

[passages omitted]

If our problem were to be dealt with exhaustively, surely a number of
important issues yet need to be addressed.

[passages omitted]

	Or, to take a similar issue: How far can certain methods be pushed?
Maimonides, as I noted earlier, extended somewhat the realm of allegory,
not only in dealing in the first Part of the Guide with anthropomorphic
terminology, but at times in dealing with whole episodes.  The visit of
the angels to Abraham, he says, is all a dream. Jacob's encounter with
that mysterious stranger is all a dream.  And Nahmanides, as we know,
criticized him sharply for that.  The Vilna Gaon suggested that the book
of Jonah essentially is not historical, but an allegory, as one opinion
in Baba Batra (15a) -- that which Maimonides in the Guide accepts --
said with regard to the book of Job.  And, of course, the question
arises, how far can one go in this direction?  This is the question
which was raised at one point with regard to Philonic interpretation and
which became the focus of considerable controversy in Provence in the
wake of Maimonides.

[passages omitted]

	These are all difficult questions, but surely this is not the
opportunity to try to exhaust them all.  Each and every one of them
requires analysis in depth in its own right.  What I sought here is
rather to emphasize a particular perspective, an attitude, a stance, a
relation, a priority.  The priority, I repeat, is one which, within the
context of a certain tension, is an attempt somehow to balance the quest
for the integration of Torah and madda, to try to stretch both in order
to avoid that confrontation, but nevertheless, should confrontation
occur, let our priorities as believers be crystal clear: "For eternity,
o Lord, Your word stands erect in heaven."

The text comes from a lecture delivered at Yeshiva University in 1987.
Anyone interested in receiving the entire text via e-mail is invited to
contact me off-line.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

D. Glasner asked:
>>> 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.<<<

Your kashe is not on me; I didn't say anything new -  I was merely quoting 
the shittas HaRambam in Mamrim ch 2 and the Kesef Mishne there on halacha 1.  
Your kashe is on the Rambam, so take a look at his nosei kelim who bring the 
mekoros.    

-Chaim

> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:08:37 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
> 
> 
> In fact, I think there are very few of us who are turned on by Arba Minim,
> Tefillin, Tzitzis, Shilu'ach Ha'Ken, Pidyon Petter Chamor (I'm naming at
> 
After learning, discussing, and thinking about 
Tzidkas Hazadik vov (6)-in anyone wants a clearer reference let me know- 
(Reb Zadok HaCohen of Lublin) about mitvos and
hanhagos done immediately upon rising in the morning -
netilas yadayim and other hanhagos (see T"H) have taken on much greater
meaning.

Will be out of town from tomorrow until next Friday ha'ba aleynu l'tova.
E-mail access will be spotty after Motzo'ei Shabbos, if at all. Please
forgive any lag in response time.

Kol Tuv!

YGB

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

From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Munkacs: Rabbi Teichtal and Em Habonim
Semecho

 "Lawrence M. Reisman" wrote:

>YGB states that "For what it is worth, R' Teichthal, Em ha'Banim
>Semeicha new ed. p. 98 claims the Munkatcher would have been
>chozer bo had he been alive in 1944."

>Highly unlikely.  Neither the Brisker Rov nor the Satmar Rebbe
>changed their positions because of the war, and neither of them
>were as extreme as the Munkatcher in their anti-Zionism.

Levi Reisman

In the late seventies, the late Nissen Gordon a columnist with
the NY Algemeiner Journal weekly  had a 'minhag' that in the
Yom Ha'atzmaut issue he would recount the story of Rabbi
Teichtal and his 'seeing the light' and charoto  for his earlier
anti-Zionist opinions. This was standard fare - year after year
after year.

If my memory serves me right, this came to an end (around
1981) when the AJ published a rejoinder from a reader, where
(again, I am working from memory) the writer made a
number of points which took away most of the flavor ('taam')
of NG's arguments. Amongst them was the obvious
observation (which probably rebuts those who speculate if
the Munkatcher Rebbe would have been ''chozer bo''): Where
are the "tanna demesaye's" to Rabbi Teichtal zt'l? Of the
hundreds of rabbonim and rebbe's  who suffered but survived
the horrors of the Holocaust - losing their nearest and dearest
- how many were "chozer bo"? How many of these rabbonim
published works  ''klapping al chet'' for their anti-zionist
views?

Another interesting observation is, that unlike his previously
published Shu't 'Mishneh Sochir' which had the Haskomos of
many Gedolei Yisroel from Poland and Hungary, Rabbi
Teichtal does not have a single Haskomo on the EHS.
This in itself is highly unusual as it is rare to find a sefer
published by a Hungarian Rav not to include a Haskomo. (I
understand that  the Chasam Sofer writes that it is  pre-
requisite for every Mechaber.) When published in 1943 R'
Teichtal was living in Budapest, which besides being an 'ir
v'em beyisroel' in its own right, was a temporary refuge and
haven to hundreds of rabbonim who had (like R' Teichtal)
escaped to the capital. But it seems that nobody was prepared
to give a Haskomo. Thus the EHS makes do with repeating
the Haskomos given on  the sefer Drishas Zion written by Rabbi
Zvi Kalisher 50-80 years earlier.

Sadly, Rabbi Teichtal, at the time of writing EHS
was in a state of anxiety and depression having gone through
several years of terrible deprivation and suffering - according
to the short biographies written by his son in the new editions
of Teshuvos Mishneh Sochir (Machon Jerusalem 1987) and
Em Habonim Semecho (Pri Haaretz 1983) where,
incidentally, he writes of his father's concern  that his
promotion of Binyan and Yishuv Haaretz should not be
misconstrued as support for secular Zionism. (He writes that
the Lubavitcher rebbe zt'l assured him that his father was not
a zionist - and that he should publicise this fact.)

 (BTW Rabbi Meir Brandsdorfer shlita, a leading member of
the Edah Hacharedis Bes Din in Jerusalem and Rabbi
Teichtal's grandson, is reputed to espouse the  (original)
Kanous'dike views of his grandfather...)

Shlomo Abeles

On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, SBA wrote:

> If my memory serves me right, this came to an end (around 1981) when the
> AJ published a rejoinder from a reader, where (again, I am working from
> memory) the writer made a number of points which took away most of the
> flavor ('taam')  of NG's arguments. Amongst them was the obvious
> observation (which probably rebuts those who speculate if the Munkatcher
> Rebbe would have been ''chozer bo''): Where are the "tanna demesaye's"
> to Rabbi Teichtal zt'l? Of the hundreds of rabbonim and rebbe's who
> suffered but survived the horrors of the Holocaust - losing their
> nearest and dearest - how many were "chozer bo"? How many of these
> rabbonim published works ''klapping al chet'' for their anti-zionist
> views? 
> 

You may well be right. That is certainly a very good circumstantial
argument, although not proof. It is too bad. Since I believe the
Munkatcher's hashkofos were incorrect, it would be nice to be able to
retain the belief that he would have been chozer bo, as sliim as that
possibilitty may be.

> Sadly, Rabbi Teichtal, at the time of writing EHS was in a state of
> anxiety and depression having gone through several years of terrible
> deprivation and suffering - according to the short biographies written
> by his son in the new editions of Teshuvos Mishneh Sochir (Machon
> Jerusalem 1987) and Em Habonim Semecho (Pri Haaretz 1983) where,
> incidentally, he writes of his father's concern that his promotion of
> Binyan and Yishuv Haaretz should not be misconstrued as support for
> secular Zionism. (He writes that the Lubavitcher rebbe zt'l assured him
> that his father was not a zionist - and that he should publicise this
> fact.) 
>

This argument, however, I tend to doubt. It is prevalent in many circles
to dismiss a person's writings at some stage based on his state of mind.
I believe that the Minchas Elazar's son-in-law, who became somewhat more
"Zionistic" and had a shtiebel in Petach Tikva is also dismissed in a
similar fashion.

In any event, I do not thiink the EhBS claims that his Rebbe would have
become a Zionist! Rather that the extreme zealotry manifest in remarks
like that "KMZA" one would have been relinquished by him.

YGB

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

Esteemmed listowner Micha:
>>


From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

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

also:
> 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<<
I'm not sure what I'd say eitther <smile>

Warning: A bit of rambling... 

Hypothetical Question #1: Rabbi XYZ becomes a physicist and via modern tehcnical
advances realizes that electricity is totally different from Aish.  Now what?  
Do we alter halocho?  Does the matter become re-open for discussion?

Hypothetical Question #2:  Givin that women WERE not given aliyos due to "kovod 
hatzibbur" would the socioligical metzius of today allow us to now call women to
the Torah OR since the minhog was decided upon premise X, even if the premise 
disappears the minghog continues. (Perhaps analogous to mayim acharonim after 
the disappearacne of melach sedomis?)

Remember the discussion re: sheitels (perouks) and Dr. Hyman Grinstein's lecture
that originally poskim opposed human hair coverings but relented under pressure?
In THAT case, "Catholic Israel" as embodied by the distaff component were 
"vetoing" a brand new psak.  It seems that there is something to the fact that a
valid tzibbur can "veto" a decision; but probably only when there are 2 valid 
options.

Now, could they have vetoed that same decision a generation later?  2 
generations later? etc.  THIS is where I part company from the so-called 
histgorical school.  Philisophically speaking, in order to have a relatively 
stable Mesorah we should avoid or "estop" ourselves from making sudden lurhces, 
even if it is based on the premise that an old decision was "faulty".  EG, This 
is how I dispute Micha's premise that if we wer to dig up archaologicla evidnece
to support RT's Tefillin over Rashi, it's too late IMOH the matter is closed.  
OTOH the perouk issue was brand new and in flux...

Remember Microphones on shabbos and the 1950's.  Apparently there were some 
tehsuvos permitting them, especially when solid-state technoliogy (essentially 
when transistors replaced vaccum tubes).  R. Moshe was so vehement that It 
struck me as odd, but he paseled the Shechito of anyone relying on this heter!
Now let's say that during that era "great" poskim differed.  "Catholic Israel"  
MIGHT have been the machria, IOW had the vast majority of Orthodox Kehillos gone
with the kullo, it might have been a doen deal.  Guess What?  Most went 
lechumro, and I would say unless/until a new breakthrough in tehcnology comes, 
microphones are out for Shabbos, although I would not go as far as R. Moshe to 
pasel one's shechita bedieved.

In general, I am NOT fond of either Dr. Schahcter nor his basic hashkofo - 
despite what many may sense.  I do think he had a BIT of a good idea, and he 
carried it IMHO way too far.  Same might be said for Z. Frankel.  I think they 
sensed shifts in halacho as practiced and attempted to engineer it artifically. 
I think this is a no-no.  Halocho IMHO does shift grudaully in how it's 
aplplied, Yet I concur with RYGB that the underlying principles are not subject 
to revision, only their practical applications - AND even then things usually 
are done gradually.

In once case I feel a bit of regret about the gradual nature of halachic shifts 
and that is wrt to agunos.  I have a hunch that had Reform/Conservative never 
emerged, that Rabbonim would have come out with bolder more forecful solutions, 
but were a bit intimidated by the fear that they might undermine halachica 
staiblity.  Then again, I an NOT an expert on these issues, and this is merely 
an impression, an impression that a modern day R. Gershom could have come up 
with something a bit radical.

I confess that R. Moshe was THE poseik of his generation, yet his style is 
clearly original analysis.  In theory, I would favor a sysmte of using 
precednets, i.e. consulting Teshuvos.  I am not a constitutional attorney and 
perhaps Elic Clark can halp out on this... my view is that Halacha evolves in 
the way common law does, based upon precedent.  With exceptions allowed for 
serious issues such as aguna, this fosters a stable system that is constnaly 
growing and respecting previous psak.

Where I feel uncomfortable is the ability of "illuyim" to go back into time, 
revisit old issues, and retro-actively undermine halachic practice.  EG, I think
it is a very desirable thing to say morid hatal, but I do not tamper with our 
Minhog/mesorah.  Also, I think that conservatives would argue that a lot of 
their innovations are based upon revisiting old decisions, finding some fault in
the logic or metizus, and being oker an accpeted practice.  This is IMHO a bit 
dangerous.  IOW it's not the scholarship that questions those premises that I 
object to, it's taking those theories into action that I find objectionable...

So if Solomon Shchater were aliveand well and lectured on the geniza I would say
aysher koach Dr. Schacter, but I'd still follow the SA as I know it.  This is 
smilar to the 420 discussion we had.  I can accept that 420 is not a figure that
acucrately refelcts the entire era from a historical perspective, but I submit 
to the halachi impertaives derived from the assumption that it does.  IOW, 
halachically we have no right to revisit that deicision - acadmeically it's ok 
with me.

Rich Wolpoe

  

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


[ 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         ]