Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 179

Saturday, August 21 1999

• Proof of G-d
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Revel and Lower Criticism
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Muck and Mire - what?
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Re: Muck and Mire - what?
• Re Proof Of G-d
• Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication

From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
Subject: Emotional Vs Logical Proofs of Gods existence

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<<

I think the single most fruitful point to discuss and upon which to Focus is:  
"How best to relate to G-d" as opposed to "is there a G-d" nor "what is G-d 
like".  IOw how we approach, communciate, behave towards G-d is the critical 
issue...

While contepmlating on this, I thought of R. Shimon Hatzadik;let me paraphrase 
his famous statement:
here are 3 essential ways to Experince G-d or G-dliness in our lives:
1) Via Torah
2) Via Avoda; including service/work AND tefillo which is Avoda shebaleiv 
(As wells as via this list <smile>)
And
3) Via Gemillus Chassodim

It is clear (at least to me) that even secular Jews - who are alienated from 
ritual - still experince a taste of the divine by being intensely involved in 
tzedokkoh, fundraising, caring for the needy etc. 

FWIW, I don't find experinceing G-d strictly emotional, though I do concede it 
subjective. Then again so is enjoying a gourmet meal. <SMILE>

Rich Wolpoe

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> As you say, we're each entitled to our opinions. I have to say that I
> didn't perceive the muck and mire that you did and perceived the soul
> searching over the need for an apology realistic. Of course the bochain
> klayot will make the final determination.  To the educators in our
> midst, what is the general take on role models - are we better off with
> ones who completely model perfection (as we perceive it) or imperfect
> ones who have struggled to overcome obstacles (and seem more
> realistic?)? 
>

I prefer the latter, but do not see the relevance. 

YGB

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

From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil

RRWolpoe wrote: 
<FWIW, we were taught in Benrard Revel Graudate School that the Rambam's 
insistense that the Troah in our hands is that of Moshe Rabbeinu. etc.
refers 
only to the fact that neitherdid Moshe, nor did any subsequent scribe 
intentionally alter or forg anything.  However, it did not preclude the 
possibility of "honest" (ie. unintentional) scribal errors.
As such, I have accepted the possiblity of "lower criticism" in many cases;
but 
reject "higher criticism" which is based>

Just a quickie for the record, I too, in a much previous incarnation,
attended Revel and find the above assertion simply astonishing. <<

For the record I don't get Mechy's point.   let's review what I wrote: 

1) Since I never specified to which text I referred re: lower criticism, I would
be curious to know who does NOT accept lower criticism at all?

2) I never intended to broadbrush BRGS in general. In that sense Mechy is 
astonish because he presumes I meant to impugn all of Revel - well that was not 
intnded; and probably not implied but rather inferred. I omitted to name names 
because I am uncertain which professor said it.  But I would venture that at lat
3-4 would have agreed to the premise.

3) BTW, any yeshiva that accepts any hagohos on the Talmud accepts lower 
criticism insofar as the Talmud goes.  And the TB makes lower critical remarks 
re: Nach.  (EG re: the 7th of Av and Churban Bayis Rishon).  The only area of 
controversy would be Chumash, and I take the TB at its word that we are not 
beki'im in moleh and chosier as indicative that some elements of "lower 
criticism" exist on that level.

Ok, Mechy what aspect of lower criticism is so controversial? 



Rich wolpoe 

In a message dated 8/20/99 3:20:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< To the educators in our
 > midst, what is the general take on role models - are we better off with
 > ones who completely model perfection (as we perceive it) or imperfect
 > ones who have struggled to overcome obstacles (and seem more
 > realistic?)? 
 >
 
 I prefer the latter, but do not see the relevance. 
 
 YGB
  >>
A large part of the article under discussion deals with this issue

KT<SS<KVCT
Joel Rich

RYGB writes:
<he author is entitled to his opinion (generated expost facto). It is this
writer's opinion that it is flat out wrong. This writer finds the manner in
which the "apology" was written even more outrageous than the original
publication. The gratuitous wipes at the right for the overwhelming majority
of the essay, on matters that concern devarim shel ma b'kach; the dragging
of the Gadol b'Torah who was the topic of the origiinal publication through
even lower levels of muck and mire that is inexcusable, and the self-serving
equivoactions over whether an apology is
eve warranted - all are depressing, demoralising, and worse.> and REC also
wrote: <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'm afraid that RYGB has now catalyzed what he would undoubtedly view as
another operational example of the law of unintended consequences, he has
inspired me to re-read the article in question. (this is not the first time
it happened, under RYGB's inspiration I also re-read that flood article and
may yet comment on it).  In any event I was taken aback by RYGB's
characterization of the muck and mire dragging aspect. Along somewhat
similar lines, though with a decidedly different emphasis, REC's comment -
where he speculates whether this will be taken by some as a bizoyon of a
talmid chochom - also does not really accord with my imperfect memory of the
article's focus, or the nature of the public soul searching indulged in by
the editor. 

It never occurred to me, and (modulo my imperfect memory here) I don't
believe it occurred to the editor, that the godol's friendship (BTW I have
nary a clue why anybody thinks that these names ought not be mentioned under
the circumstances, but, in the interest of listful comity, will follow these
precedents for now) with a non-frum professor could be taken as a matter of
bizoyon. Surprise yes, but bizoyone? how odd - though RYGB's reaction
temperature has now alerted even me to such an interpretation.  I thought
all the public agonizing which the editor engaged in, as well as the
indignation of the protesting letter writers, was focused on a much simpler
and more general concern.  And that was simple respect for privacy.  If a
person, whatever his gadlus rating, perhaps even you or me, was known to
value his privacy - the case here - and one may reasonably infer that he
would have objected to the publication of his private letters, by what moral
right does one ignore such preferences.  This has absolutely nothing to do
with any potential bizoyone - in principle they apply as well had the
letters revealed unknown mayseih tzidqus, and i thought this had also been
the concern of the editor.  But then i suspect that it didn't occur to him
that having a human regard or even affection for any but traditionally
religious people ought be considered shameful. 

i also thought that the rest of the article was more than fair. I especially
thought the author's tale of the Yateid Neeman protestor who attacked that
publication's recounting of R. Dessler's education (apparently he was
exposed to various classics in translation, including Uncle Tom's Cabin) not
because it never happened but because it detracted from his role model
image, (BTW a position the author did not take any issue with) - but that
this was done in the name of "emes", without even perceiving the irony, was
not only extremely cute - but in fact touches on very fundamental issues.
Thus this is not another bashing of right wingers on a mah bikach in RYGBs
take but illuminates and is representative of serious stuff. i.e. can people
even talk to each other if the most common words - such as "truth" don't
mean the same things to everybody. We've had a whiff of this in the ongoing
thread related to the "value" of historical "truth". I believe this article,
and the yateid exemplar, take it one step further. 

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

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> A large part of the article under discussion deals with this issue
> 

Which too was irrelevant.
YGB

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

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> It never occurred to me, and (modulo my imperfect memory here) I don't
> believe it occurred to the editor, that the godol's friendship (BTW I
> have nary a clue why anybody thinks that these names ought not be
> mentioned under the circumstances, but, in the interest of listful
> comity, will follow these precedents for now) with a non-frum professor
> could be taken as a matter of bizoyon. Surprise yes, but bizoyone? how

That never occured to me either. It is the privacy aspect, and only the
privacy aspect that concerns me. We should all be friendly with ourr
non-observant brethren, gedolim or not.

Rather, there is ample material in the letters that the Gadol in question
would clearly not have wanted publish. to justify his publishing this
questionable material, the editor of that journal cites numerous other
instances where highly private material was printed without permission!

I.e., two wrongs make a right.

> i also thought that the rest of the article was more than fair. I
> especially thought the author's tale of the Yateid Neeman protestor who
> attacked that publication's recounting of R. Dessler's education
> (apparently he was exposed to various classics in translation, including
> Uncle Tom's Cabin) not because it never happened but because it
> detracted from his role model image, (BTW a position the author did not
> take any issue with) - but that this was done in the name of "emes",
> without even perceiving the irony, was not only extremely cute - but in
> fact touches on very fundamental issues.  Thus this is not another
> bashing of right wingers on a mah bikach in RYGBs take but illuminates
> and is representative of serious stuff. i.e. can people even talk to
> each other if the most common words - such as "truth" don't mean the
> same things to everybody. We've had a whiff of this in the ongoing
> thread related to the "value" of historical "truth". I believe this
> article, and the yateid exemplar, take it one step further.
>

C'mon. A letter writer to the Yated constitutes a trend?

Moreso, this is an avla that is prevalent to the left as much as to the
right (references upon request, b'didi hava uvda). So why focus on the
right?

Above all. This was not the place to rehash all this. The voluminous
distraction from the actual substance of the "apology" is egregious. 

YGB

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

The reference for Godel's Ontological proof is Godel *1970 in  "Kurt
Godel Collected Works Volume III Unpublished Essays and Lectures"
Edited by S. Feferman, et al.  Oxford 1995 pages 388-404.

>
> To the educators in our midst, what is the general take on role
> models -  are we better off with ones who completely model perfection
> (as we  perceive it) or imperfect ones who have struggled to overcome
> obstacles  (and seem   more realistic?)?



I think a rather inaccurate and naive black and white picture
is being  presented of the nature of information transfer in
the Orthodox world. There are those who feel that if we only
have Artscroll biographies - then future talmidei chachomim
will  inevitably repeat the errors of their predecessors. This
is contrasted with the narrow minded rosy view of the right
wing that halacha requires focusing only on the  positive and
perhaps even lying c.v..

I once asked one of my sons who was learning at Ponevitch about
this issue. He replied, "the rosy stories are presented for the
masses. The fact is that anyone who is going somewhere in the
Torah world has full access to the stories - but it is kept as
Torah Shebaal Peh. It is simply a question of to'eles. For
someone who is an outsider and is not immersed in learning -
the raw stories are harmful because they will be misunderstood.
For the insiders - those who come in contact with the big
people - the stories are understood in context."

Thus for those historians (and baalei batim) who rely primarily
on written material  - there is a great disparity of what is
learned compared to one who has close relationships to gedolei
Torah - who pass down information concerning these issues. It
is  rather naive to think that someone who has studied world
history, Jewish history and American History and regularly
reads the New
York Times, Jewish Press as well as participating in internet
discussion is more sophisticated in understanding the dynamics
of Torah and Torah politics than the elite who devote their
lives to study at the main yeshivos whether it is Lakewood or
Yeshiva University.

This filtering of information relates to the problem of the
letters published by the Tora UMaddah Journal. Aside from the
halachic question of publishing these letters is the question
of what information Rav Weinberg wanted publicized. There is no
question that the harsh condemnations stated in the letters are
stated nowhere else in his large numbers of published letters
and tshuvos. Did he not publish them elsewhere because he
simply felt that they would not be properly understood in
written form or did he conceal them because he was legitimately
afraid that he would be condemned for these views? Did he
strongly exaggerate his views to Prof. Atlas as a way of
empathizing with his correspondent's views or were these in
fact his actual personal views that he expressed to anyone he
felt he could trust?
The bottom line is that the publication of the letters severely
damaged his reputation in the Orthodox world where he has been
acknowledged as one of the major talmidei chachomim of the 20th
century.
If the views are accurate then he and his halachic opinions
will be discounted or ignored  - if they are not accurate then
his name has simply been besmirched. So what was gained? Did
someone think that there would be a movement of talmidei
chachomim to legitimize the harsh statements found in the
letters? Did someone fantasize that Rav Weinbergs standing is
so absolute that it would influence and bend the whole world in
his direction?!


                              Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]