Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 182

Monday, August 23 1999

• Re: Solar calculators
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication: KEEP IT QUIET, PLEASE
• Proof of G-d's existence
• Midgets and Giants:OUtsiders and Insiders
• Re: Erroneous Psak
• Re: Midgets and Giants:OUtsiders and Insiders
• Re: dirty laundry?
• Correction on Mitzvah Boi by Hechsher Mitzvah
• Rabbis and Humans
• Role models
• Re: Fan blowing on calculator
• Re: Breuer - t'amim
• Re: Breuer"s Tanakh and Cohen"s
• Re: lashon hara about the dead
• Re: Breuer"s Tanakh and Cohen"s
• R' Weinberg's Letters

R'Russ Hendel writes in #173:

>in the Alta Rebbe's shulchan aruch: The rebbe differentiates
>between REMOVAL OF A PREVENTOR and DOING AN ACTION
>(This is said in connection with regard to opening windows and
>possibly putting out candles).

>It would follow from this that if I REMOVE THE COVER of a solar
>run calculator then all I have done is REMOVED THE PREVENTOR

>A step further: Suppose I remove a dam and the water runs a
>wheel which drives a motor. Again, if this is done without 
>HOTZAAH it is completely Mutar.

IMHO, RRJH is confusing "removal of a preventor" with preventing a preventer.  The 
Sh"A in O"CH 277 permits CLOSING a window to stop wind from putting out the 
candles on Shabbat.  The Sh"A Harav adds an important detail that it is not even 
considered to be grama.

But from this one cannot conclude that removing a preventer is permitted.  Just the 
opposite seems to be the case.  Removal of a preventer is a bidka de-maya and is 
considered in two places in the gemara.  In Hulin 16` we have a water wheel equipped 
with a knife which slaughters an animal as it turns.  If the shechita occurs on the first 
turn of the wheel after the dam is opened (koach rishon), it is kosher.  If on the second 
turn (koach sheni), it is not kosher.  Shechita is a mitzva that should be done by a 
direct action. IOW, the person who removes the dam that permits the water to turn 
the wheel and slaughter is responsible for the result of his  action. If less direct, the 
second turn, it is only grama.

In Sanhedrin 72:  Water is released by removal of a dam. A person tied in the path of 
the water is drowned. The remover of the dam is responsible.

Koach rishon in Russ Hendel's case is the first light to fall on the solar cells.  When 
the light, or water, becomes koach sheni is discussed by Rashi and the Yad Ramah.  
Rashi considers the water as koach sheni after is has traveled a considerable 
distance.  By then it has lost its initial velocity at the dam and continues by gravity and 
the slope of the path. Yad Ramah considers all the water backed up behind the dam 
seen to begin moving when the dam is removed as rishon.  Water that starts to move 
later is sheni. Additional question: Is light the same as water?

So the result of removal of a preventer would seem to be a direct action with full 
responsibility, or a grama if the action takes place far before or beyond the point of 
removal.

The shulhan arukh is talking about preventing a preventer and, that, the alte rebbe 
said is not even a grama.

This is getting a bit long, so I'll leave the prevention of preventers for another posting if 
there is interest in continuing this thread. 

And why does the Sh"A have to tell us that it is permitted to close the window and 
thus prevent extinguishing the candle?  If someone wants to put out the lights and I 
block his path to prevent him from doing so, can anyone make that into chilul 
Shabbat??!

 

In a message dated 8/22/99 1:45:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> Of course maybe that audience might rethink it's position on newspapers or 
>  knowing what's going on in the world if they knew that the Netziv read 
>  newspapers.
>  
Lav Davkoh, a leader has obligation to know, i.e., the Sanhedrin were 
obligated to learn things that are prohibited for others, also the Mkurovim 
Lmalchus were permitted to have hair cut otherwise prohibited.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Probability is certainly part of the equation -- the best analogy I have 
ever heard is in the name of Rav Twersky Shlita in Milwaukee (whom I should 
say I have never met or heard speak) -- the world is like a chess game where 
the individual is playing HaKodesh Boruch Hu.  You can make whatever move 
you want to make, and HaKodesh Boruch Hu knows what moves you are going to 
make, might even occasionally let you in a round or two to test your 
perceptions of reality, but when all is said and done (or when the fat lady 
sings as they say in the goyishe velt) HaKodesh Boruch Hu is, of necessity, 
the winner.  It isn't cheating, but the game is necessarily unequal from the 
start.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> Daniel Eidensohn quoted his son (in 3:179) as saying that <<< anyone who
> is going somewhere in the Torah world has full access to the stories -
> but it is kept as Torah Shebaal Peh. >>> Unfortunately, this is very
> vague and has the unintended effect of labelling many people as going
> nowhere.......

> He continued, <<< 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. >>>
>
> Again, this unintentionally insults those of us who used to learn in
> yeshiva, but have had to get a job, by labelling them as "outsiders". ...

I am sorry for the upset that my last posting caused but it *is* an accurate
statement of the Litvak point of view. (I believe that there is a totally
different dynamic in the chassidic world.) Let me mention two solid sources
expressing  the elitist litvak view. The first is Rav Dessler's famous essay
(vol 3 page 355) stating that there should be only two options - full time
learning or a low status job. The second is Rav Moshe's (Igros Moshes Y.D. IV
36.15 page 233) adamant refusal to give a baal habayis the status of a ben
Torah. Thus in the litvische yeshiva world - those who are not major league
talmidei chachomim or on their way to being such are outsiders and
deliberately so. This puts tremendous pressure on people to learn - swim or
sink.  But even someone learning full time in kollel - but not regarded as
going somewhere is also an outsider.
In contrast I was told (by one of the Bostoner Rebbe's sons) that in the
chassidic world being a chasid is itself  adequate status. "As long as you
cling to the Rebbe it compensates for the fact that you are not a tzadik or
talmid chachom". He further stated that the chasid is more likely to learn in
a gentlemanly way while the litvak's concern is to defeat his opponent - the
result being that the litvak takes his learning much more seriously and
personally. [I am aware that there are chasidim who learn like litvaks - but
as a generalization it seems to be true]

Bottom line. There are insiders and outsiders in the Torah world. (Something
which I had thought was obvious to all.) The insiders have access to
information which not available to the outsiders. This is related also to the
issue of midgets and giants.

                              Daniel Eidensohn

In message , Carl and Adina Sherer <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.

Well that may be the theory, but in a tight community, I doubt it is the
practice.  For example, we have bought a house in close (court, ie dead
end street) in which we are one from the end. So, after living on the
outskirts of the jewish area, I suddenly find myself in the heart of the
ghetto.  In our street, as with so many houses in England, the living
room is right on the street, and there are these big bay windows, so you
can see everything and everybody that passes (unlike Australian houses,
that are invariably well set back from the street). And in this street,
everybody knows everybody else's business (to give you an illustration -
having only recently moved in, and being in the process of acquiring
furniture, we have a pile of boxes stacked near our rubbish bin, as they
were too many to fit - and while we have been reducing the pile
gradually ,the council won't take away boxes that are not actually in
the bin. A couple of weeks ago we go a note through our door saying that
the people at No X were on holiday this week, so if we would like ot use
their bin to dispose of our excess boxes, we could do so for this week
only, signed by another neighbour!). Now the mikva is literally just
around the corner  - ie it doesn't make any sense to drive or for my
husband to accompany me.  But I can guarantee you that everybody in the
entire road sees me walking out at 10.00 at night - and is able to work
out exactly where I am going (funnily enough, daylight would be less
conspicious, because it is more normal for a woman to be walking around
alone then - but it would be even more conspicious if he walked out with
me, to return a few minutes later by himself).  If this is what happens
when everyone is living in semi detached houses, can you imagine how
much everybody else must know in more cramped environments!



>I'll tell you that when we got married we discovered that not 
>everything we had been told in our separate Chosson and Kallah 
>classes matched, and we ended up reviewing the Halachos with 
>the Rav who was then our posek (pre-Aliya) to reconcile the 
>differences. BTAT.

Well, my teacher was so rattled by the Sephardi angle (which wasn't
covered in her notes) that she basically insisted that Robert and I
compare notes (she was Ashkenazi, but nobody could come up with a name
of somebody appropriate within the Sephardi community - the only name
that was mentioned, was dismissed by the person Robert goes to as
teaching Bagdadi chumras - of tbe nature I described last time - and I
was very reluctant to go to somebody I didn't know, and who might not be
able to cope with me - my teacher may have been working from Chief
Rabbinate approved notes, but she knew and could cope with the fact that
I had done Masechet Nida with the daf yomi, and hence was not exactly
your average kala).

>I don't think you have to classify things as "chumros." The term 
>has a connotation of "it's not for everyone," (and not just because 
>not everyone needs it), and I'm not sure that's the connotation we 
>want here. I would suggest that the posek should say something 
>like, "you did something that was wrong, and you feel sorry about 
>it, so I would like to give you some extra preventive measures that 
>will help you to avoid having that happen again in the future." 

I agree we don't see so far apart - you are really objecting to the use
of the word chumra, whereas my objection was to the lack of information,
not the way it was phrased.  
>
>Are the extra harchokos chumros? For this couple I don't think it 
>matters whether or not they are. For this couple they are an extra 
>layer of fencing that will prevent them from being nichshal in an 
>issur. They are not there for punishment, they are not there for 
>them to feel that they are on a higher spiritual level, they are not 
>there to give them a challenge. They are there to help them to 
>succeed in an area where they have failed. 

I still think it is important for the Rav to stress that if these things
are not helping, but hindering, then they should be looked at again with
a view to abandoning them. That is, you are assuming that the Rav knows
the couple so well that he can be 100% sure that these will help and not
hinder.  I am not so confident of any Rav's insight (and wonder whether
a Rav ought to be so confident).  And especially in this case - ie if we
have a situation where the Rav is the long term posek of the couple - if
he knew so well what would help them, why did he not manage to prevent
them stumbling before.  Obviously the previous interactions and guidance
failed, and failed badly.  And if it is a new Rav, that they have now
decided to develop a relationship with, how confident can he be of
having sufficient knowledge to be 100% sure that these will help and not
hinder.  So while I do not object to them "trying" this - what concerns
me is an assumption of omniscience which goes along with concealing the
fact of their chumra nature (while I have no objection to that
particular word not being used, words can have perjorative meanings
which are inappropriate, and hence other words that mean precisely what
the other means without the pejorative sense sometimes need to be
employed).

>- -- Carl

Of course, this also gets into some interesting halachic debate - such
as the one between the Rambam and the Ra'avid (and others) as to whether
Bal Tosif applies to calling even a d'rabbanan a d'orisa (see Hilchos
Ma'marim 4:9) - ie if you need to make it clear it is a rabbinical fence
or not.  The gemorra appears to make the same point regarding Chava as
RJH in Sanhedrin 29a - but despite the language there, the discussion I
have seen does not seem to bring this gemorra - not in the Rambam, and
not in the various nose kellim and others (there is a discussion in the
Sefer HaChinuch on the posek in D'varim and the Minchas Hinuch the and
also in the Sde Chemed on the prohibition of assuring the permitted) -
and i haven't been able to work out why. Any thoughts out there?

Regards

Chana 

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a message dated 8/22/99 5:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< 
 I am sorry for the upset that my last posting caused but it *is* an accurate
 statement of the Litvak point of view. (I believe that there is a totally
 different dynamic in the chassidic world.) Let me mention two solid sources
 expressing  the elitist litvak view. The first is Rav Dessler's famous essay
 (vol 3 page 355) stating that there should be only two options - full time
 learning or a low status job. The second is Rav Moshe's (Igros Moshes Y.D. IV
 36.15 page 233) adamant refusal to give a baal habayis the status of a ben
 Torah. Thus in the litvische yeshiva world - those who are not major league
 talmidei chachomim or on their way to being such are outsiders and
 deliberately so. This puts tremendous pressure on people to learn - swim or
 sink.  But even someone learning full time in kollel - but not regarded as
 going somewhere is also an outsider.
 In contrast I was told (by one of the Bostoner Rebbe's sons) that in the
 chassidic world being a chasid is itself  adequate status. "As long as you
 cling to the Rebbe it compensates for the fact that you are not a tzadik or
 talmid chachom". He further stated that the chasid is more likely to learn in
 a gentlemanly way while the litvak's concern is to defeat his opponent - the
 result being that the litvak takes his learning much more seriously and
 personally. [I am aware that there are chasidim who learn like litvaks - but
 as a generalization it seems to be true]
 
 Bottom line. There are insiders and outsiders in the Torah world. (Something
 which I had thought was obvious to all.) The insiders have access to
 information which not available to the outsiders. This is related also to the
 issue of midgets and giants.
 
                               Daniel Eidensohn
 
  >>
Yes, it is obvious, but I'm not sure that it means that it must be accepted 
as the best of all possible worlds. Is orthodoxy inherently elitist based on 
intellectual ability? How do you then understand al yithallel chacham 
bchachmato.....

I'm also puzzled by your comparison of litvak and chassidic learning. I 
would've naively thought that the goal of each was to uncover amita shel tora 
in whatever methodology worked best and that each would take this seriously 
and personally.

KVCT
Joel Rich

>>>But it would be a Chilul Hashem to let those weak points be known 
publicly, whether one is a gadol, or an ordinary shomer mitzvos. Why is it so 
difficult to
understand that a gadol would be embarrassed for the public to see his
dirty laundry?<<<

Since when is having a friendship with people who do not share your level of 
observance (which is the subject of the original article) 'dirty laundry'?  
Am I missing something here? 

>>>it might not be possible to explain it in a manner which can maintain the 
wall against granting credibility to the anti-Torah factions.<<<

To quote the original article - "While R' Weinberg had a completely negative 
view of the Reform movement, beleiving it akin to Christianity..."etc. 
explaining that he nonetheless maintained cordial relationships with an 
individual in that movement.  

>>> For someone who is  an outsider and is not immersed in learning - the raw 
stories are harmful  because they will be misunderstood.<<<

I don't know - I think almost anyone who works in a secuar world and is 
forced to relate to all people can understand sharing a social, professional, 
or intellectual relationship while maintaining philosophical distance.

-Chaim

In response to a private E-Mail by RCB, I enclose my response to him, which 
is a correction on my previous post.

On further review of O"C 250 M"A 2, 453 M"A 12, 460 M"A 1, and S"A Horav in 
those places especially Kuntres Achron (2) in 250, the issue there is a 
Mitzvah not a Hechsher as by Shabbos "Vheicheenu" (either Doreisoh or 
Drabonon), likewise Matzoh is because of "Ushmartem Es Hamatzohs", I later 
found the Sdei Chemed refers to his Sefer Divrei Chachomim Simon 43, where he 
brings Ntziv in Hameik Shaloh Zos Habracha 169 Ois 1, that although even on 
the Hechsher we say it too, it is only by a Hachana that is mentioned in 
Torah (Vheicheenu and Ushmartem, likewise making of the Sukkah, and many 
other Mitzvahs) not all Mitzvahs, the Sdei Chemed holds like mentioned before 
that the M"A holds that these are Mitzvahs not Hechsher, and not how the 
Tosfes Shabbos understood the M"A (and how I understood it originally) as 
adding even a Hechsher, (and therefore he asks on him). (Af Al Pi Kein one 
can argue that Ulkachten "Lochm" requires the acquisition be done Boi, I 
didn't check the Ntziv).

As an aside, the PRi Mgodim's Tzushtel to Dovid HO"H "vnikloise", is 
understood according to the Rambam end of Hil. Lulov.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

> It seems to me that all we can ask of Rabbis is that they be factual 
> and leave complex things like marriages to people to manage
	Very nearly all the Rabbis I have met have, in fact, been people <g>

	 I think this is the crux of this thread:  can/should a Rabbi be a
psak-machine?  I think historical precedent weighs heavily against this
model.

Gershon

> From: Joelirich@aol.com

<snip>

> 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?)?
	Rav Hutner,  z"l in one of his published letters,  states very clearly
that the imperfect model is preferred.  The rosy pictured ones,  being
unrealistic portrayals of a gadol only in his final form,  do not leave a
role model which the rest of us can relate to on a practical level. 
Understanding the struggles that the Chofetz Chaim z"l went through to
master shemiras halashon (R"H's example) empowers us much more in our own
avodah than a description of the completed product,  which appears, to
us,  unattainable.

Gershon

RRJHendel writes:
>I recently argued that a SOLAR OPERATED CALCULATOR would 
>be permissable on Shabbath.

>My apologies. What I meant was a SOLAR OPERATED FAN would be
>permissable (See footnote below for why I prefer a fan to a calculator)

>I still have not heard an answer. 

I suppose but by the time I write this, RRJH has read my answer.  Calculator or fan, 
makes no difference.  I believe that RRJH's entire argument is based on error, namely 
confusing hasarat moneya with meni'at moneya. (Removal vs. preventing),  I am going 
away for a few days, so more on this, if at all, will have to wait.

Shana tova to all Avodah readers as well as to klal Yisrael,

David

Moshe Feldman asks:
>Did this method also apply to ta'amei hamikra?  Did Breuer inject any
>of his theories regarding t'amim into his tanach?

He used his method of comparing texts and checking mesorot for t'amim as well as 
for text and nikkud to determine the aharei rabim le-hatot.  I don't think "his theories" 
can have much influence on that except if they can tip the majority to another side. 
For example, as I mentioned above in my reply to RMFrankel, he considers Leningrad 
to be the poorest text (of the five) on ketiv but he rates it the best on nikkud and 
t'amim.  So when he cannot decide, he'll pick the Leningrad.  See above also on 
nikkud with hatafim.  

Maybe the following belongs in my previous posting.  Breuer has the broken vav in 
shalom and small alef in vayikra. As these are not in the keter,I wonder what Cohen 
did.  He hasn't published most of the humash as yet and I do not have the CD of his 
Keter Tanakh text.  Now it looks as though I'll have to get it so I can relax.

Biv'rakha,

David

In #175 RMFrankel writes that my 
>brief description may inadvertently short change the remarkable
>work that R. Breuer has produced.  Indeed, your equally brief description >of Cohen's 
work (which I'm not familiar with) applies as well to R. >Breuer. To expand slightly on 
your description - it is true that R. >Breuer relied on a kind of majority rule, but there 
were major filters >and extensive chaqiros before one even got to vote - kinda like a 
>prohibitively restrictive poll tax .  Firstly, he did not simply count >extant 
manuscripts.  he utilized only five of the earliest and most >miduyoq of extant codices. 
 Secondly, he did not merely look at the >textual girsoh, but also at the accompanying 
mesoroh  - both of which >were extensively analyzed.  It was from both of these 
sources, text + >mesoroh, pruned by, literally, a letter by letter analysis - that he 
>arrived at his "final" text. 

I regret that RMF or any reader could even consider the thought that I might have 
short changed R' Mordechai Breuer.  In another posting I wrote, although briefly, much 
of what RMF wrote as quoted above. To me R' MB is a new star in the constellation of 
ba'alei ha-mesorah.  

RMF writes that Breuer's text  is close to the keter,
> far exceeding that of the "best" of the rest - the Leningrad codex.

I am happy to see the quotation marks on the word "best".  The "scientific" scholars 
presented the Leningrad text as proof of the inaccuracy of the masoretic Jewish 
accepted text.  Breuer has shown that, in ketiv (spelling), it is the most inaccurate of 
his five best kitvei yad. It has about 120 spelling differences in the Humash.  From 
mish'arotekha in Ki Tavo to the end of the Humash there are 14 spellings different 
from the Keter. As RMF points out, the Keter, the Yemenite and then the traditional 
text are the closest together and not far from identical.

RMF:
>It would be interesting to know what alternate methodology Cohen may have
>hit on to reconstruct the torah text which, after all, is almost entirely
>missing from the keter.  it is hard to believe that Cohen's reconstruction
>could have been any more rigorous than R. Breuer's

Beuer was finding the "correct" text.  Cohen's tanakh is giving us the keter and the 
masoretic comments.  For example, because nowadays people pronounce a chataf 
patach as a  patach which is wrong, Breuer cut out a large number of hatafim.  As the 
keter was marbeh be-hatafim, Cohen has them too.  Where Cohen does not have the 
keter he reconstructs.  
In the first two published volumes, Yehoshua and Melakhim he has detailed 
descriptions of his analytic methods of reconstruction. There are some hiddushim. 
For example, in some use of metagim, where Breuer found them to be random, 
Cohen found a shita.
Cohen put nikkud according to his "rules" into texts and then compared with the same 
text in the keter and found excellent correlation.

KT,  David

Carl Sherer wrote:
<< [Moshe Feldman wrote:]
> I also have a svarah to distinguish motzi shem ra from lashon hara
> regarding the dead.  It's not right to falsify information about a
> person whether he's dead or alive.  But the sin of lashon hara
> (speaking the truth) is really one of causing the person pain; dead
> people don't feel pain (see Brachot 19a).

Ah, but we don't pasken like that Gemara. We pasken like the 
Gemara at the bottom of Brachos 18a that says that we don't wear 
tztzis or tfillin in a Beis HaKvoros because of loeg larash. If the 
meisim don't understand anyway, why would we pasken that way? 
(See Yoreh Deah 361:3). Obviously the meisim do feel something. 
(And yes, that's what the Zera Chaim I cited yesterday brought as 
proof).
>>

Despite the Zera Chaim's position, my understanding is that we do pasken
like Brachot 19a.  Proof: the Mordechai brings this as a cherem which was
instituted, not as ikar hadin of hilchot lashon hara.

BTW, the context of the Mordechai is dealing specifically with motzi shem ra
and how one never receives forgiveness from the sin; it seems that the
Mordechai is *not* using the term motzi shem ra as equivalent to lashon
hara; he means *specifically* motzi shem ra.

Also, on Friday, Carl wrote:
<<
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. 
>>

However, the Be'er Mayim Chaim and the Chofetz Chaim do not say this.  I
find it notable that although the Chofetz Chaim generally tries to extend
the issur of lashon hara as far as possible, he does not stray here from the
specific language of the Mordechai, dealing with motzi shem ra.

BTW, I agree with you regarding "talbut anashim chataim."  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

--- D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net> wrote:
> Beuer was finding the "correct" text.  Cohen's tanakh is giving us
> the keter and the 
> masoretic comments.  For example, because nowadays people pronounce
> a chataf 
> patach as a  patach which is wrong, Breuer cut out a large number
> of hatafim.  As the 
> keter was marbeh be-hatafim, Cohen has them too.  Where Cohen does
> not have the 
> keter he reconstructs.  
> In the first two published volumes, Yehoshua and Melakhim he has
> detailed 
> descriptions of his analytic methods of reconstruction. There are
> some hiddushim. 
> For example, in some use of metagim, where Breuer found them to be
> random, 
> Cohen found a shita.
> Cohen put nikkud according to his "rules" into texts and then
> compared with the same 
> text in the keter and found excellent correlation.

What does Cohen do for the overwhelming majority of the chumash,
where there is no keter?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

The following is from a non-subscriber. Sorry for the abrupt ending, I think
we can guess the rest of the sentence.

-mi

Two people have forwarded to me things that appeared on this list
re. the publication of Rabbi Weinberg's letters and the article by Rabbi
Schacter. Since I am intimately involved in this I thought I should let
everyone know what happened, because I am sure that there is going to be a
lot of untrue things put forward about this (misstatements of fact seem to
be endemic to these sorts of lists)

Let me begin by saying that I find R. Schacter's article quite strange. He
says that he is prepared to agree that he erred in publishing the article
and by the end he apologizes for doing so. But the entire article is a
justification for the publication. Go figure.

Let me also say that in my work I have no ax to grind, am not interested in
Orthodox religious politics, and really am oblivious to these issues. This
explains why I was quite surprised that there was controversy at the appearance
of the article, which I first heard some time after its appearance from
R. Moshe Kolodny of Aguda Archives, and a few days after that from R. Schacter.

Since everything I have ever written is "pure" scholarship, without any
agenda (e. g., to support so-called Modern Orthodoxy, strengthen it against
the "right" etc. etc.) it really never mattered to me where to publish the
article. I presumably could have put it in a journal like Modern Judaism,
and R. Weingort himself told me that he had no objections to me publishing
letters in English in an academic journal.

I met R. Schacter in Paris, told him that I had some very interesting
letters. He said to send them to him and after seeing them wrote me that
they were very important and should appear in TUMJ. I now learn that certain
important people read them ahead of time and gave a go-ahead. Obviously
he was a little hesitant, but I'm sure never expected such a controversy.
When the controversy started, he told me that it was his decision to publish
them and he would write an article explaining the decision. Whatever the
merits of his article, R. Schacter is completely intellectually honest (in
addition to his many other fine qualities). I think that as a leader of the
Orthodox community he is truly hurt when he sees the purposeful rewriting of
history that goes on in his community Myself, being somewhat of an outsider,
I don't share his sense of outrage. R. Weingort wrote to me (I know him for
many years) very upset. He told me that he never intended, when he agreed
that I publish them in English, that they appear in TUMJ which is read by
yeshiva people. He only meant a "pure" academic journal. I wrote to him and
apologized, and said that I would not publish any more such controversial
letters, although in my biography I would discuss them. He agreed with
me that discussing them in a biography doesn't have the affect as actually
reading them. As I said above, I was totally surprised by the response. Maybe
I should read Yated -- I would be more sensitive to these things

However, this episode has caused me to wonder whether halakhic Jews can really
be historians and tell the truth, and I think maybe R. Schwab and others are
actually representing Jewish law when they call for censorship. Let me explain.

Let's say in doing research on a sage I discovered that he had an affair
or that he spent time in jail in his youth. Presumably, in a biography this
should be included, but I think it is clearly a violation of the laws of lashon
hara. I guess the case can be made that if these events have no impact on the
sage's future life, even from the standpoint of history there is no need to
record them as this will needlessly tarnish him to destroy someone, However,
most historians would no doubt say that this is a judgment that has to be
left to the reader (note the controversy over the Arendt-Heidegger letters
and the recent Koestler biography). From a halakhic standpoint, even if this
fact was well known at the time, it can't be repeated today, since today
people don't know it and especially since it can be assumed he repented. (I
say this as someone who knows more "dirt" about certain great sages than he
ever wanted to know, all gathered from written sources! Is it "listening" to
lashon hara to read something?) This is one problem with writing true history.

Or let's say I discover that a rabbinic sage was a Nazi collaborator (I have
not!). On the one hand you could say that this action ipso facto removes him
from gadol status and since he did a terrible thing it must be revealed so
that no one respects him anymore (uprooting wickedness is a positive thing).
Or you can say that he must have repented later and thereofore to reveal it
is a violation. In this case however, all historians will agree that it must
be revealed. What does Jewish law say? If he is respected in the community,
and has lived a good life for 40 years, presumably it is forbidden to reveal
this. Thus, one cannot write a good biography of this person. Ergo, true
history cannot be written by halakhic Jews.

Getting back to the first case. Let's say this well-known rabbinic figure
had a child out of wedlock (there is such a case) and throughout his life
had a close relationship with the child, or alternatively abandoned the
child and refused to support it. These facts certainly say something about
the person's character and it is impossible to write a biography without
taking them into account. But would Jewish law permit one to?

There has yet to be an article discussing how one can write history within
halakhic bounds. If I discover something negative about a person, which was
well known in its time, and thus not lashon hara to repeat 100 years ago,
but is today forgotten, according to Jewish law it probably cannot be repeated
today. How then can one write history truthfully, exposing the flaws as well
as showing the good? Presumably you can't, which is why Artscroll chooses to
only focus on the good. It is not just that they are interested in creating
hagiographa, but they are no doubt concerned with halakhic strictures.

I don't know where this ends? Presumably it would be forbidden to write a
biography of R. Jacob Emden because one would have to discuss all the things
he did and said and anyone who does this will come off thinking he is totally
mad or thinking that R. Eybschuetz is a total low-life. Religously speaking,
both of these are presumably not acceptable outcomes. So is it any surprise
that the "Orthodox historian" will ignore the entire dispute?

Or take the controversy about the Rivash some years ago. Who gave permission
for it to be revealed what the Rivash during the Inquisition. Or who
gave permission for the letter of the Netziv criticizing R. Reines to be
published? Is it even permissible to publish R. Emden's polemical sefarim
or attacks on the hasidim, or to write about what certain gedolim did
in persecuting the hasidim (for anyone today who reads it will probably
judge them poorly). When do you say that a certain figures actions cause
him to lose the protection of halakhah. I would think this would apply
to a repeated pattern of behavior, although some might say even one such
Clintonesqu outrage would be enough to expose him.

History is about reporting the truth and interpreting it. If I discover that a
certain gadol -- actually why do I keep mentioning gadol, even if I discover
about a regular guy -- that he was involved in some event which reflects
poorly on him, it seems that it is forbidden to report it. And if it is
already publicly reported, then how can one interpret it, and cast judgments,
which is also forbidden. How then can one do history? Maybe one cannot? Let's
take the story of the Belzer rebbe and assume the worst, what is the halakhic
rationale for repeating the story? The rebbe was a gadol and even if he erred
in the worst way, or even if you think he "sinned", mustn't one assume that
he did teshuvah, so why tarnish his reputation? From a religious standpoint,
the Haredi position makes perfect sense, although it is of course not history.

A long time ago I told a leading Orthodox historian that the article he
should write is how can halakhic Jews write history without falling into
lashon hara. I am still waiting.


Sincerely,


Marc Shapiro

P. S. Is it permissible to repeat certain terrible things said by the
Satmar rebbe or the Munkatcher (e. g,. that R. Kook was a heretic, that the
Holocaust was a punishment for Zionism)? The rebbes certainly wanted them
publicized but if you repeat them people will regard these two as hateful
people and this will lead to lashon hara and disrespect. So paradoxically,
perhaps it is precisedly because of respect for this individuals that one
should never repeat what they said, which is the eact opposite of the reason
usually given for not repeating.

While on the topic of the Munkatcher, let me just say that despite his
heated rhetoric, he was very friendly with R. Weinberg even though they
disagreed on everything. R. Weinberg was one of the guests of honor at the
great Munkatch wedding in

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


[ 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         ]