Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 177

Friday, August 20 1999

• Dam vs. dom
• Re: The argument by design
• Shmiros
• Re: Erroneous Psak
• Re: What is a "Changed content" with regard to laining
• Re: The argument by design
• 8 differences between Yemenite/Ashkenazi Torahs
• Emotional Vs Logical Proofs of Gods existence
• Eclipses and OSEH MAASAY BRAISHITH
• RE: Change of Inyan in Laining
• 100% Purity of Torah Text
• Resolving Mesorah COnflicts with Logic
• Response to David Nadoff: Rambam uses Intemperate language Not me
• Making Chumras for a person
• Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Re: Avodah V3 #176
• Cognitive Dissonance:Misunderstood
• Re: Cognitive Dissonance:Misunderstood
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants

With regard to R. Mechy Frankel's suggestion that there exist vestiges of
the former Ashkenazic practice to pronounce the kamatz like Sefardim do, and
that that is a reason to be lenient with regard to a ba'al kriyah's
mispronunciation of Dom:

Clearly if the ba'al kriyah himself is not makpid on the difference between
patach and kamatz, we would not make him repeat the pasuk.  But what if he
generally is makpid?--Do we measure him against *his* general pronunciation,
or against the *public's* pronunciation?  This also is an issue with regard
to shva na, for a ba'al kriyah who generally distinguishes a shva na from
shva nach (in the case of va'yiri'oo).


Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> People don't believe like that. No one has emunah because they found
> proof, people find proof because they have emunah. That's what the whole
> subject of "cognitive dissonance" is about -- people can't see or accept
> things that defy beliefs in which they have emotional investment. 
> 

Really?

I think there are quite a few Ba'alei Teshuva who have "emunah because
they found proof."

> To quote my own aphorism: The mind is an incredible organ for justifying
> conclusions the heart already reached. 
> 

Just because you are a Chosid it does not mean everyone elas is as well
:-).

> This is why the key to kiruv is getting them to spend a Shabbos. To
> experience Yahadus and see for themselves that it works. 
> 

As a non-kiruv professional, I am curious if this is precisley true.


> Second, (and far more weakly) losing a proof isn't the same as being
> disproven. 
> 

Dunno. Can you prove that?

YGB

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

Yes, yes, Rabbi Bechhofer, its safe to say we see eye to eye on the
subject of shmiros (and red kever Rachel threads, too). I have a
sneaking suspicion the Akaydas Yitzchak that interests you may be
in the parsha of sfiras haomer, but, again, I don't have the
sefer handy to check. I'll put your Chitas questions to some of my Chabad friends, b"n. 

B'virchas haTorah
David Nadoff 

In a message dated 8/19/99 6:47:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

>Even living in a fruhm environment, generally no one aside from she 
>and her husband is supposed to know when a woman is going to 
>the Mikveh..... I always understood 
>that to be one of the reasons why women today only go to Mikveh 
>at night.

See Y"D 197:3, OTOH see Taharas Yisroel 196 Din 28.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind
   

In a message dated 8/19/99 7:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:

> Does everyone agree?  I once convinced Rav Moshe Brown (of Far Rockaway) to
>  make a ba'al kriyah repeat the pasuk on a mistake of va'yiri'oo.
>  
See Tos. D"H Eloh Rosh Hashana 3a.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/19/99 7:20:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> > To quote my own aphorism: The mind is an incredible organ for justifying
>  > conclusions the heart already reached. 
>  > 
>  
>  Just because you are a Chosid it does not mean everyone elas is as well
>  :-).
>  
It depends what Chosid in Tanya it says that Moach Shalit Al Haleiv :-).

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Could someone give a list with references
Russell Hendel;
___________________________________________________________________
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.

Just a note that Richard Walpoles proof by "experience" and 
my 3rd proof "by dreams"(Ala Job 33) have overlap.

The crucial point however is that the proof is objective (refers
to specific events) rather than subjective. To say every person
can "experience God" is not well defined . To see every person
can have "dreams giving him moral direction" is a well defined
concept. (You can view this as my attempt to "sharpen" the
"experience" argument)

Returning to Rabbi Bechoffers warning "this might lead nowhere'--I
think a thread on how dreams can enrich our souls might lead
us to productive ends

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA;
RJHendel@Juno.Com
moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
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.

A posting cited the (Lubavitcher) REbbe as APPLYING the
principle "ANy blessing not mentioned in the Gemarrah we
cannot make" to ECLIPSES.

But surely a blessing that arises from a BINYAN AV 
(GENERALIZATION) is certainly as good as the examples
from which it comes. Clearly ECLIPSES are no different
than EARTHQUAKES, LIGHTNING, MOUNTAINS, SEAS
etc. The COMMON GROUND is that they are wonders
of nature and we say either OSEH MAASAY BRAISHITH
or COCHO OGVURATHO .

The statement about "bad omen" would apply to EARTHQUAKES
as well as ECLIPSES--now since we make blessings on 
EARTHQUAKES we should make blessings on ECLIPSES also.

Let me put it this way if you seriously hold  that you shouldn't
make blessings on ECLIPSES is there then any satisfying unifying
theme to why we make bracoth over those items enumerated?

Russel Hendel
___________________________________________________________________
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.

By phonetic I mean not pronunciation but
 vocalizations due to things other
than meaning. This is not circular. For 
example a chirik vs a Kamatz means
Piel vs Kal. Hence I would consider
 this a change in meaning (I guess 
this may disagree with Rabbi Bechoffers yerushalmi).

But the placement of the accent COULD be
 due to meaning or COULD be due
to avoidance of non-consecutive accents 
(NASOG ACHOR). The avoidance
of non-consecutive accents is a NON SEMANTIC issue. Hence
a person who changes accents should not be corrected.

Similarly the issue of Yee Re OO vs YIROO (Which you brought up
when we were in Philadelphia and which no one answered you)--
My approach would focus on the fact that a SHVA can become
NACH/NAH for reasons other than meaning. COnsequently
we don't make him go back even when there is a changed 
meaning.

I hope this clarifies it (If not I will give more examples)

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
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.

I just wanted to Recap an old defense of mine of this theme 
(Which was posted before "Avodah" was born on Bais Tefilah)

I advanced the idea that in COMMERCIAL LAW there are standards
of purity. For example, a photo copier that produced 10 letter mistakes
in 1 million characters could be advertised as 100% accurate. On the
other hand a photocopier that had a 3 or 4% error rate could not be
so advertised.

To say "the Torah we have is the SAME" is simply, at the very least,
using
SAME in the same sense as commercial law. It is saying that the error
rate is less that .0001% (which it is). It really shouldn't bother
anybody
if a half dozen mistakes exist. (On the other hand even 1% error would be
to high and a problem).

These commercial laws have nothing to do with halachah. Every legal 
system has standards of purity--if you sell fruit you may be allowed
5-10%
rotten ones; if you reproduce disks you may only be allowed .01% purity.

There are other approaches which I will give in another posting
Russell Hendel; 
___________________________________________________________________
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 may be dangerous but it can be done.

I published at least 2 in the past 5 years
1) KATONTI (Gen 32:10) has a controversy whether it is
cantillated with a AZLAH GERESH vs KADMAH AZLAH

I show that it has to be an AZLAH GERESH and not a Revii (this
was posted in Mail Jewish or Torah Forum).

The rough idea is that "CHESED VEEMETH" is a different CONCEPT
than CHESED and also EMETH (See Rashi on Gen 48:29). Consequently
the proper way to break up the verse is

  I HAVE BECOME SMALL		FROM THE CHESED
				  AND    FROM THE EMETH

and this corresponds to an AZLAH GERESH.



(The other way of breaking up the verse
	I HAVE BECOME SMALL
	FROM THE CHESED AND EMETH
would correspond to a REviia but to the concept of CHESED VEEMETH)

The meaning of the verse clearly shows that CHESED and EMETH are
two different concepts.



2) DCA in Devarim should have an ALEPH This is based
on a rule of Rashi developed by Rav Hirsch that ALEPH refers
to a PERSON who has an attribute.

Thus C-R means to dig; A-C-R means the PERSON who digs,
the farmer.  "M" means FROM. A-M, the mother, means the
PERSON (ALEPH) FROM which people come. 

Actually the rule as I stated it is oversimplified. But I gave a
developed
form of the rule and examined all LAMED ALEPH words in a Heblang
Posting showing that it worked. Hence DACAH which refers to a PERSON
with crushed testicles should have the ALEPH (as the Yemenite Torah does)

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
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.

David--I was merely paraphrasing the Rambam. Since you are "appalled"
I will cite him directly (kindly show me how I was "worse" then him)

>>But those who write inside the Mezuza the names of Angels, holy beings,
>>verses, or ??,--these people are among those who HAVE NO SHARE 
>>IN THE HEREAFTER because these FOOLS --it is not enough that they
>>annuled a Mitzvah but rather they took a great Mitzva, the unification
>>of God, His Love and His Worship and sort of made it into a KAMAH
>>for their own personal benefit just as the THICK HEADED believe that
>>this HELPS IN THE VANITIES OF THIS WORLD (Mezuzah 5:2)

There are other Rambams which speak very harshly about people who make
the Torah something >>that helps in this world vs the next workl<<. I
don't 
want to get lengthy.

To answer David's question--about my attitude (which is based on the
Rambam)
What is really bothering me is that I see no discussion about resolving
those
agadoth that SEEM to speak about these SHMOUROTH and the various 
prohibitions that exist in Avodah Zarah. 

For example the agaddah that Ps 67 appeared as a Menorah to King David
could
simply be an agaddic way of stating that the topic of the Psalm is
JUSTICE (and
not eg PRAISE).

I would like to see some discussion about WHAT IS IT THAT IS PROHIBITED
IN
AVODAH ZARAH and why this does not apply to these various Shmuroth 
Citing Acharonim who believed in them doesn't really do me any good since
the goal of the halachic process should be a holistic understanding of
sources.

I hope this clarifies my position (I will cite the other Rambam's if you
still need it)
Russell Hendel; Moderator; Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/


___________________________________________________________________
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.

Carl is right--my Biblical examples do not prove my thesis.

Let me back up and relate a similar paradigm that I once heard.

This Rabbi's wife had had cancer for over 10 years. Based on a 
Psak from Rav Moshe she was never told.she had cancer (till
the very end).

I was extremely annoyed at this psak when I heard it. I suggested
---it was GNAYVATH DAATH
---it eg deprived her of the right to pray for a cure from cancer
---it deprived her of the right to exercise precautionary measures 
if she had known she had cancer.

This is similar but not identical to Carl's case of being Machmir
for a couple doing wrong things.

Rather than get involved in a halachic discussion let me ask Carl
how HE acted when eg he was an NSCY director. Did he 
give Chumras when he saw teenagers misbehaving. OR did he
tell them the truth and let them take responsibility.

I think we have too few examples to make an intelligent 
decision. We need some more examples.

In passing does anyone have a defense for the Psak of Rav
Moshe (Her husbad told me that Rav Moshe "knew her
personally" and this is why he made the PSak)

Russell Hendel
___________________________________________________________________
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.

Moshe Feldman writes:

> Carl Sherer wrote:
> <<
> Lashon Hara does apply to the dead. See Chafetz Chaim Hilchos 
> Lashon Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 [translation mine]: "And know also that 
> even to disparage and curse the dead is also forbidden (citing 
> Mordechai in Bava Kamma Letter 82), and the poskim have written 
> that there is a regulation and cherem of earlier generations not to 
> speak ill of and besmirch the dead. And this even if the subject is a 
> boor, all the more so if he is a Talmid Chacham, certainly one who 
> disparages him commits a crime and should be excommunicated 
> for this as is paskened in Yoreh Deah 243:7. And the issur of 
> disparaging a Talmid Chacham applies even if he is disparaging 
> him personally, and certainly if he is disparaging his Torah.>>
> 
> In contrast, R. Eidensohn wrote:
> <<The gemora Berachos 19a: Rabbi Yitzchok said, Who ever speaks
> disparingly about someone after his death is as if he spoke
> about a stone. Some say because the deceased is not aware of
> the comment while others explain it is because the deceased is
> aware of the negative comments but doesn't care.>>
> 
> I looked up these sources last night.  It seems to me that the Chofetz Chaim
> did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about the dead.  Rather, he prohibited
> (a) disparaging & cursing and (b) being motzi shem ra (which is what the
> Mordechai says).  Lashon hara, in contrast, is speaking the truth, and not
> necessarily in a disparaging way.

My fault - I didn't cite you all the sources in the footnotes of the 
Otzar Chaim edition of the Chofetz Chaim. This morning in shul I 
looked up the question in the Kuntras Zera HaChaim in the back of 
the Nesivos Chaim edition of the Chofetz Chaim (got all that? :-). 
The Otzar Chaim and the Zera HaChaim both cite the Mordechai 
Siman 106 in Bava Kama with respect to speaking Lashon Hara 
about the dead generally. 

The Mordechai proves from a Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas 
VoEschanan (I found it in Os Vav there) that Moshe Rabbeinu did 
not go into Eretz Yisrael because of six aveiros. One of those 
aveiros was that he spoke Lashon Hara on the dead of Bnei Yisrael 
(although the Medrash Tanchuma speaks of Avraham, Yitzchak 
and Yaakov, the last aveira looks clearly to be having spoken 
lashon hara on the dor hamidbar ("vHinei Kamtem Tachas 
Avoseichem Tarbus Anoshim Chatoim")). 

OTOH, the Zera HaChaim agrees with you that the issur is not 
d'Oraysa, and he says that there may be kulos when it is l'toeles 
(like that we have to learn how to act).

Note that I only gave the Zera HaChaim a cursory reading (I don't 
own the sefer yet and I had to rush out of shul because my son 
who davens with me starts school today and had to make his 
hasaa), but bli neder I will try to look at it again over Shabbos if you 
don't have access to the sefer.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> Does everyone agree?  I once convinced Rav Moshe Brown (of Far 
> Rockaway) to make a ba'al kriyah repeat the pasuk on a mistake of
va'yiri'oo.
		Rav Asher Zimmerman z"l needed no convincing or even prompting when I
saw him correct a baal kriah for this.

Gershon

The concept of cognitive dissonance was recently invoked to
defend the appropriateness of  presenting contradictions to
proofs of G-d. To paraphrase the assertion [ if my memory is
correct] is that contradiction to intellectual beliefs do not
change ones views. Rather it is the cholent and the heart which
are what holds and influences a person.  Two objections 1) this
is not an accurate understanding of cognitive dissonance 2) it
is not true that being presented with intellectual challenges
to ones beliefs doesn't undermined them.

Cognitive dissonance theory asserts that when someone is
presented with mutual exclusive cognitions - an aversive state
is created which motivates the person to do something to reduce
that aversive state. There are a number of alternatives to
reduce this adverse emotional state. One is simply to drown out
the aversive state (i.e. drugs, alcohol or a trip to Disney
Land). Alternatively the person can strengthen one of the
cognitions until it obliterates its opponent. This in fact was
the origin of the theory. It was observed that when a predicted
earthquake failed to materialize - there was a great increase
in rumors that an earthquake had in fact happened. This was
viewed as a counterintuitive behavior. Why should anxiety
arousing rumors be spread just when there was in fact no
danger? The explanation was that people sincerely believed the
predictions. The failure of an earthquake to materialize
aroused an aversive state. People started talking about
earthquakes to reduce the dissonance.

This is also used to explain the phenomenon of various
apocalyptic cults who increase  missionizing activities when
their predictions fail. Apparently if they can convince others
of their beliefs then dissonance is reduce. Baalei Tshuva also
sometimes try to convince others of their beliefs in order to
settle their own doubts.

Regarding the second point. Intellectual challenges to beliefs
do undermine them. Try out an Aish HaTorah Discovery Program.
The fact that many times a person does not change simply
because of intellectual challenges can be explained by the fact
that a person often has much to lose by changing - this weakens
the impact of the dissonance. To the degree to which change
causes a loss the greater is the resistance to change. This
idea was articulated by Rav Elchonan Wasserman and expanded
into a very successful kiruv technique  - the 2001 Principle.
[They have a web site by that name].

The issue of whether it is appropriate to raise fundamental
questions is a very unclear one. There are sources such as Rav
Chaim Brisker who says one can not raise questions unless there
are clearly available answers. In contrast the Maharal seems to
argue that not facing hard questions is a sign of weakness in
ones religiosity. This is also reflected in the debate over
Chovos HaLevavos. The Chovos HaLevavos holds that the main
source of religious belives should be your own hard earned
values. Rav Yisroel Salanter held that many problems in
Yiddishkeit are the result of have one's core values fixed at
the age of 8 years old and never maturing. In contrast many
others hold that an unthought out mesorah is more desirable.

In sum. I don't think Rabbi Bechhofer's concerns can be so
lightly dismissed - especially when the dismissal is based in
part on a faulty understanding of psychology and a rather
biased sample of reality - and little attention to the
hashkofic problems.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> The issue of whether it is appropriate to raise fundamental questions is
> a very unclear one. There are sources such as Rav Chaim Brisker who says
> one can not raise questions unless there are clearly available answers.
> In contrast the Maharal seems to argue that not facing hard questions is
> a sign of weakness in ones religiosity. This is also reflected in the
> debate over Chovos HaLevavos. The Chovos HaLevavos holds that the main
> source of religious belives should be your own hard earned values. Rav
> Yisroel Salanter held that many problems in Yiddishkeit are the result
> of have one's core values fixed at the age of 8 years old and never
> maturing. In contrast many others hold that an unthought out mesorah is
> more desirable. 
> 
> In sum. I don't think Rabbi Bechhofer's concerns can be so lightly
> dismissed - especially when the dismissal is based in part on a faulty
> understanding of psychology and a rather biased sample of reality - and
> little attention to the hashkofic problems. 
>

Just a tad clarification (with which I believe RDE would agree): I am not
in agreement with R' Chaim's approach, eloquently expressed in the Griz on
the Akeida. But there is a difference between asking questions and casting
aspersions. And, there is a difference between asking a question to a
specific knowledgable person or persons and casting arguments into the
e-mail sea. 

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 8/19/99 :
9:22:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Joelirich writes
<< 
 Is there any room for accurate histories of gedolim which recount certain
 negative facts (provided that there is no bizayon)?  R. Eidensohn asserts
 that there isn't.  He writes:
 
 <<From the point of view of a secular historian it would indeed
 be a great loss not to have a record of all the conflicts and
 the various analyses of who insulted whom and the revisionist
 permutations of the above. From the Torah point of view - I
 don't see what the problem is. Is there a Mitzva anywhere to
 preserve records of conflicts for posterity? >>
 
 I am not quite so sure.  First, there is benefit in our realizing that no
 one is perfect; otherwise we may not aspire to emulate the gedolim because
 we may feel that they are otherworldly.  Second, overly rosy histories tend
 to perpetuate the notion of daas torah in areas where it may not be
 warranted.  Third, we can learn from their mistakes--after all, Tanach
 recounts certain failings of our Avot and other figures for precisely that
 reason.  Fourth, "binu sh'not dor vador"--those who ignore history are bound
 to repeat it; on a communal and leadership level, it is important for us to
 understand exactly what decisions leaders of prior generations made and what
 were the results.  While "who insulted whom" may seem petty, it may have had
 an impact on the cohesiveness of the Jewish community; those gedolim who
 today are inclined to put Rabbi Riskin (for example) in cherem may learn
 something from the miscalculations of past gedolim.  In fact, they may even
 disassociate themselves from the statement of R. Eisenmann quoted
 approvingly by R. Eidensohn in Avodah 3:135: "There are no small matters.
 They are worth fighting over. Moreover, they make talkof "major halakhic and
 religious issues which unite the Orthodox community"meaningless."
 
 Kol tuv,
 Moshe
 
 On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
 
 > Finally, we encounter what i think may be the most difficult issue of
 > all: what constitues "criticism."  In the most recent issue of something
 > called the Torah U-Madda Journal, there is a discussion of the propriety
 > of publishing certain letters that were written by a Gadol to a
 > heterodox professor, letters that reflect a warm personal friendship
 > between the gadol and the professor (who knew a great deal of Torah,
 > notwithstanding his hashkafot/association with a non-Orthodox Jewish
 > movement).  The existence of such a friendship is very unusual, and no
 > doubt surprising to many.  My question is: does publicizing the fact of
 > this friendship constitute bizui of a talmid hakham?  (I hope not,
 >
 
 No, and these friendships are not necessarily unusual either. But
 publicizing the contents of those letters was clearly forbidden
 and outrageous.
 
 Now that the damage has been done by this "something" journal, I wonder
 what we are allowed to extract form these letters. In an American court,
 Ii believe illicitly obtained evidence is inadmissible. One is tempted to
 apply similar standards here.
 
 YGB
 
 
 The same article in the Tora U-Madda  Journal(Dear YGB - what was the intent 
of referring to the "something" journal?) deals with the issues raised by 
Moshe concerning the pros and cons of  history.  It also contains the 
author's (I'm not sure why not to name him but I'll follow that protocol for 
now) explanation as to why he did not feel from a halachik basis that the 
publicizing of the letters was "forbidden or outrageous". He concludes with a 
public apology in case he was mistaken.
 
 KVCT
 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         ]