Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 183

Monday, August 23 1999

• criticizing gedolim
• proofs of G-d
• Torah-Avodah-Chesed- ADD DREAMS!
• yasher koach
• Re: proofs of G-d
• Badatz / Hisachdus HaRabbonim statement on the internet
• Re: R' Weinberg's Letters
• Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are today obscure
• Re: Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are today obscure
• Shmiros- Rambam's View
• Re: proofs of G-d
• lower criticism
• Re: Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are today obscure

   In the latest Torah umaddah (vol 8, p200) Rabbi J.J. Schacter has
an article "Facing the Truths of History" that details many of the
distortions that have been introduced so that the opinions and deeds of
gedolim of previous generations should agree with modern concepts.
 
He then brings a discussion of the apropriateness of criticizing gedolim
or showing that gedolim did not do what we thought they should do.
After bringing Rav Schwab and others the author obviously felt that telling
the truth (fully documented) outweighed the distortions.

My experience is that RDE comments on nonacceptance of these rosy pictures is
misplaced. My experience is that the "average" yeshiva student completely
accepts everything quite literally. In particulat one story debunked by
R J.J. Schacter that R. Moshe never read newspapers I have heard several times
from Bnei Brak rabbis. Similarly, all these stories that RSR Hirsch didn't
believe his own theories is quite accepted in many circles. Instead, I find
that students that come from families with an open mind like RDE are more
critical. I don't think his son is typical.

Rabbi JJS in a previous article demonstrated that secular studies were taught
in Voloshin. Later this article was quoted by several people to "prove" that
Voloshin was closed as soon as secular studies were demanded, the exact
opposite of what he showed!

I recently spoke with a relative who lived in Munkatch and had connections
with both the Munkaczer and belzer rebbe there. He agrees that the Munkaczer
rebbe was a gadol but says that the treatment of the Belzer rebbe was terrible
The two communities had seperate schools, mikvaot etc with great demands on
noy using the services of the opposing chasidic community. This in spite of the
fact that both communities combined were a small part of a town of some 20,000
Jews. Having lived through this he did not see any purpose in denying that it
took place.
The Satmar rebbe was also a gadol but I think that public demonstrations against
the state of Israel were a chillul hashem and go back to all the horrible practices
of running to the goyim whenever someone does something we don't like.
Obviously he was not deterrred by the consequences of previous history.

History is of use only if we learn something from it. If we continue to rewrite
history to our liking than we learn nothing.
R. Schacter also brings the story of the writings of R. Yehuda haChasid on
Chumash. He mentions that other writings of the era express similar ideas. Thus,
the opinions were not that radical in those times. While the opinion of
Rambam that every letter has to be treated as being from Hashem has been
accepted it is important to know that other opinions existed just like the Mishna
lists minority opinions that are not accepted.

Hence, while one must be careful in ones language I do not agree to whitewashing
all deeds of gedolim that don't agree with present day views.

Finally, RDE insistence that only gedolim can criticize gedolim leads back to
the old question of who is a gadol. Rav Lichtenstein in a recent (1997) article
on modernism quotes a statement of Rav Schach who quotes chazal about the
relative size of the earth,moon and sun as proof that chazal knew modern astronomy.
Rav Lichtenstein shows that first of all this statement is from Rambam and not
chazal. More important this comparison is very far from modern estimates on the
size of the sun and so in fact proves the opposite of what Rav Schach wishes to
say. I am sure that in Ponevezh the immediate reaction would be to criticize 
R. Lictenstein as not being on a level to disagree with R. Schach.

As others have pointed out I doubt that R. Soloveitchik in his letters ever
explicitly criticized other gedolim, though I heard veiled cricitism in his
shiur he never explicitly mentioned names. On the other hand R. Schach, the Steipler
rav and others very clearly denounce others, by name, in their letters and
public speeches. Does that mean we can crticize only some gedolim and not others
based on which gedolim are more "kanai" than others?

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

<< It is known that many were against the learning of Chakira, for the reason
that the answer to a question may not be accepted by the learner as strong
enough to undo the question that was raised, and he is left with Sfeikus in
Emunah that otherwise he would not have had. >>

It is also known that many were against studying the Moreh Nevuchim or any other 
philosophical texts. As I have been told "don't think the rambam did that for us"
I am sure that there lists that give out the Musar aphorism of the day to help
uplift us. While this is an important service I thought the point of this list
was to have serious discussions of issues.
If we are to stop discussing every issue that someone opposed we might as well
close down. Do we want Micha to draw up a list of books that one is not allowed
to mention like moreh nevuchim, Ralbag and more recent ones like Rav Kook etc?

<< So, I don't believe we should be looking for proofs.
Proofs can be disproved and invite debate.  Rather, we should be looking for that
which allows us to make the leap of faith. >>

Each person has his way of belief. For some there is an inner conviction that
there is a G-d and he needs nothing else. For many other people some "objective"
proof is better. As I previously mentioned R. Gottlieb of Ohr Samayach has an
extensive discussion of proofs. I have also heard tapes from Aish haTorah on
various proofs. The Discovery lectures lean heavily on the codes as an
additional "proof". Hence, all these organizations believe that for many of us
proofs help increase our emuna.
Like any medicine what is helpful for one can be poison for someone else.
That doesn't stop us from taking medecines.

We have been told that allegorizing the flood is a slippery slope - ok I accept that.
Then we are told that anything but a rosy picture of the past is not acceptable
- I disagree but at least see that viewpoint.
Now we are told that proofs of G-d are not a valid topic (I assume this would
also include taamei hamitzvot which is also objected to by many).
Proofs of G-d are part of the mainstream of Judaism from the rishonim through
our day. As we approach Rosh Hashana and malchiot I find it strange that anyone
would limit debate on this topic.
As I have previously stressed what works for one person doesn't work for others
and so we need to increase our proofs and not limit them.
Discussing both the pros and cons of these proofs bring us to a stronger
understanding of the world around.

Sorry, I was not brought up to a blind belief that rejects thinking because it
can give rise to doubts. That was the argument brought up against Rambam.
As a number of rishonim answered - we don't have to stop thinking because some
people will misuse this portion of Torah.

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>

<snip>.
BUT...That ****is**** the point of JOB 33. It is not a proof of God's
existence
(though that is a by product) but rather dreams are a VEHICLE FOR BETTER
RELATING TO GOD. So (unless I misunderstand him) Richard and I are 
still(?) in agreement. <<

Indeed agreed!

Rich Wolpoe

 <KALISPELL, MONTANA -- Bet Harim, a Reform congregation in Kalispell, =
 helped make a western vacation possible for an Orthodox family from... =>

Yiyasher koach. Also yasher koach. Boruch shekivanti.  Though I admittedly
entertained - only very fleetingly and quickly suppressed I assure you -
just the faintest  twinges of doubt here and there in the heat of such
metaphorically bloody engagements as the recent flood wars or the bashing
battles, it is gratifying to see that bestowal of a "moderate' appellation
to RYGB's chareidism is to advance no oxymoron. 

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

In a message dated 8/23/99 11:41:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 Now we are told that proofs of G-d are not a valid topic (I assume this would
 also include taamei hamitzvot which is also objected to by many). >>

But perhaps for different reasons. My understanding of the objections to 
taamei hamitzvot was not that reasons didn't exist but that we might misuse 
them by rationalizing some inappropriate activities.  The counterclaim is 
that if this process can help lead us to a better understanding of the ratzon 
hashem, then its worth the risk.

KVCT
Joel Rich

the Jewish Press has an item about statements from Badatz and Hisachdus
HaRabbonim concerning internet usage. Does anybody have the actual texts of
either of these (scanned copies of these would be welcome) or know anything
more than the report?

thanks

--
Rafi
mailto:rafi@brijnet.org
http://www.brijnet.org 
http://shamash.org/ejin/brijnet/

I avoided mentioning Marc Shapiro, the "author", in my previous posts on
this topic, since, to be fair, it is not his decision to make whether the
essay is published, and it is not his task to set the agenda of the TUMJ.
Indeed, Marc and I have spoken and corresponded, and I enjoy his work, and
he, I think, enjoys mine, despite our different agendas. As a "historian"
working from the vantage point that Marc - legitimately and fairly -
questions in the ensuing e-mail, let me "respond" briefly. I ask to
forward my remarks since I don have Marc's e-mail address off-hand.

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> 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. 
> 

This is part of what sent me through the roof. I went, upon receiving the
essay, to the end, and was very happy: "Here is an apology." But then I
went through the rest of the essay! No apologetic tone there - combatitive
to the hilt!

> 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
> 

I find this position somewhat inconsistent. Perhaps, to be melamed zechus,
it is generally understood that you can ublish more in Hebrew than in
English, as the Hebrew readership is generally more sophisticated than the
English one. So too, a target population in the academic world may be more
sophisticated. But I really do not fully understand the viewpoint.

> 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. 
> 

I think this is a very real problem. I think everyone should agree on
certain areas, and we that protested the TUMJ's publication of your essay
thought that the type of criticism levelled at individuals and
organizations by the SE in his private letters was of that kind. I think
RJJS confuses the issue when he brings in far more gray areas such as the
Volozhin and Netziv issues. I do not know if that obfuscation and blurring
is intentional or not.

The rest of Marc's e-mail raises very legitimate concerns (which, I
assume, will be a basis for an essa I look forward to reading :-) ). I
think it is more of a question where the line is drawn, for what one would
suppress one would promote. However, it is certainly true that there are
certain areas that would only diminish Avodas Hashem if publicized, not
enhance it. So, from the perspective of one writing Orthodox "history",
that is the ultimate barometer. I think R' Rakkefet's books on R' Revel
and R' Silver - though I know not how historians regard them - are good
examples of a balance struck in the aforementioned vein.

YGB

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

Marc Schapiro wrote:
<<
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.>>

I am not sure that this is true.  The heter of "b'apei tlat"
[information repeated in front of 3 people may be spread further] as
understood by the Rambam (which I presume that a historian--and every
newspaper reader--relies upon, and I myself believe to be correct, as
I wrote in a post on May 24) relies on the phenomenon that news tends
to spread.  Three people are not that many, and not always does news
spread like wildfire.  So if the historical item was well-known in
its time, I doubt it is less known today than knowledge told to 3
people (after all, presumably there are at least 2 other Marc
Schapiro-like individuals in the world!).

For those who are interested, here is an excerpt from my May 24
posting:

> Actually, this is the issue of whether we pasken like the Rambam in
> Hilchot De'ot [7:5] who says that when X tells information about Y
> to
> A, B, and C, then the information is now public and therefore there
> is no possibility of lashon hara provided that X has no intention
> of
> deliberately spreading the news.  As a result, B is now permitted
> to
> tell D the information.  (I just gave a shiur on Shavuot night on
> this issue, but I don't have the sources at my office, so I am
> writing from memory.)
> 
> The Rambam is based on the Gemarah [Bava Batra] which says that
> "b'apei tlat let ba mishmum lishna bisha."  There are two
> interpretations of this Gemarah: 
> 
> (1) Tosfot: the issue is whether X is permitted to tell information
> to A, B, and C; the Chofetz Chaim in his Be'er Mayim Chaim
> commentary
> at the beginning of Sefer Chofetz Chaim (Ch. 1 paragraph 2 or 3 in
> the main text) explains that the case is where X is making a
> neutral
> statement that could have a negative meaning is certain contexts
> (e.g. X says: " Y always has food in his house;" this could mean
> that
> Y is a glutton or it could mean that Y is generous in hachnasat
> orchim); by saying it in front of 3 people, X knows that word of
> his
> statement will get back to Y so it must be that X intended the more
> positive meaning of the statement.  The position of Tosfot is
> agreed
> to by Rashi and Rabbenu Yona.
> 
> (2) Rambam, Rashbam, Smag (and possibly She'iltot): The case is: if
> X
> tells information about Y to A, B, and C, then the information has
> become public and therefore there is no possibility of lashon hara
> provided that X has no intention of deliberately spreading the
> news. 
> As a result, B is now permitted to tell D the information.
> 
> I would suggest, (based upon the Be'er Mayim Chaim ("BMC") but
> adding
> a little) that the Rambam can be understood as follows:  BMC asks
> on
> the Rambam: isn't this similar to a case where there are 9 thieves
> prepared to rob an empty house and a potential 10th thief is
> debating
> whether to join them.  He rationalizes that all the goods in the
> house will be stolen, so the damage will be done anyway; if so, why
> not join?  Of course, the reason is that he will still be doing an
> act of g'zeilah.  Why isn't the case of the Rambam similar?  I
> would
> answer that there are two issues in lashon hara: (a) the ma'aseh of
> lo telech rachil and (b) the to'tza'ah (result)--negative
> information
> has been spread.  In order to violate (a), one must intend to
> spread
> the information, but (b) can be violated even without intent. 
> However, in the case of the Rambam, where (b) will occur anyway,
> there is no problem to speak lashon hara (provided there is no
> intent).
> 

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

I believe this obscures Marc's very valid point. Regardless of whether or
not heterim can be found, it is the purpose of history from our
perspective that is in question. The philosophy, not the halacha.

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> I am not sure that this is true.  The heter of "b'apei tlat" 
> [information repeated in front of 3 people may be spread further] as
> understood by the Rambam (which I presume that a historian--and every
> newspaper reader--relies upon, and I myself believe to be correct, as I
> wrote in a post on May 24) relies on the phenomenon that news tends to
> spread.  Three people are not that many, and not always does news spread
> like wildfire.  So if the historical item was well-known in its time, I
> doubt it is less known today than knowledge told to 3 people (after all,
> presumably there are at least 2 other Marc Schapiro-like individuals in
> the world!). 
> 

YGB

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

Russel J. Hendel (V3#177, #180) cites 2 passages from Yad Hachazoko
for Rambam's position on shmiros in general: Mezuza 5:4 and Avoda Zara 11:12, 16. The passages cited by RJH pertain to very specific
practices that Rambam considered forbidden and do not relate to the
subject of shmiros in general. (It is for this reason that, in an
earlier posting, I cited only Moreh Nevuchim I:61, which deals with
kamiyos in general, for Rambam's position.) RJH's citations
provide no justification for his claim that shmiros are degenerate
and idolotrous.

In Mezuza 5:4, Rambam forbids only the practice of adding to the
inner, text-side of a mezuza biblical verses, angelic names, divine
names and chosmos (letter grids based on verses or holy names). Rambam
notes, without disapproval, the "minhag pashut" of writing the name Shakai on the back of mezuzos. He does not forbid or otherwise comment
on the practice of writing verses, names or chosmos on the back of a mezuza or elsewhere. (Today, in addition to the name Shakai, there is another inscription on the back of our mezuzos.)

In Avoda Zara 11:12 Rambam addresses only the specific practices of whispering verses over a wound, reciting a verse to assuage a child's
fear and laying a torah or tefilin on a child to help it sleep. These
are all instances of using scripture or a sacred object for healing an "illness" (note Kesef Mishnah's gloss that Rambam must consider
sleeplessness and fear in children to have the status of an illness
for this purpose). This is an entirely different issue than the use of
shmiros in general to avoid illness, harm, ayin hara, chevlay laydah,
etc., and it does not even begin to address the use of shemos (as
opposed to psukim, tefilin or sefer Torah) for protection or healing.
Halacha 16 cited by RJH is irrelevant because it is a summary statement regarding a whole litany of forbidden practices and doesn't even refer specifically to those in halacha 12.

The only place I know of where Rambam speaks to our issue is the one I
already cited, Moreh Nevuchim I:61, and he does not say there that use
of kamiyos or shemos is idolotrous or borders on avoda zara (athough
he does criticize them harshly). Perhaps there are other relevant Rambam passages, but nothing I have seen so far provides any
authority for RJH's extreme remarks about shmiros or justifies his
claim that the strong language he has used is the Rambam's and not
his own.

Ksiva vcahasima tova
David Nadoff

In a message dated 8/23/99 10:41:28 AM EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

> << It is known that many were against the learning of Chakira, for the 
reason
>  that the answer to a question may not be accepted by the learner as strong
>  enough to undo the question that was raised, and he is left with Sfeikus in
>  Emunah that otherwise he would not have had. >>
>  
>  It is also known that many were against studying the Moreh Nevuchim or any 
> other 
>  philosophical texts. 

And yet along with that I mentioned the obligation of "Leida", while everyone 
is obligated in Leida, Chakira is not for everyone, (and WRT Chakira yes I 
meant also Moreh), the point I was making is that while there may be benefit 
in Chakira for some, for others it may be a problem, since our obligation on 
this world is "Lo Nivreisi Eloh Lshameish Es Konee" (last Mishna in 
Kisddushin), and not to gain knowledge Lsheim being called a Chochom, it is 
our duty to learn that which will help us reach that obligation, and refrain 
from creating obstacles to reach that, hence even a high level discussion 
list has it's limitations, even the level of Da Mah Shetoshiv is not for 
everyone.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

> 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?

R. Chaim Heller, to begin with. A minority voice, perhaps, but still
a gadol be-Torah who knew the evidence.

> 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).

This does not imply erroneous text transmission. Only that the original
correct text reflects confusion on the part of the author.

  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.

+ R. Akiva Eger (Gilyan haShas, Shabbat 55b) Hagahot habah (San. 4b). See
also article by Y. Maori in Carmy, Modern Scholarship in the Study of
Tora: Contributions and Limitations.

<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I believe this obscures Marc's very valid point. Regardless of
> whether or
> not heterim can be found, it is the purpose of history from our
> perspective that is in question. The philosophy, not the halacha.

I beg to differ.  Marc made it very clear that one of the more
difficult questions a halachic historian must deal with is the
parameters of lashon hara.  While you may be bothered by the
philosophy, it seems that he is bothered more by the halacha.  To
quote Marc:

<<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.>>
<snip>
<<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.

>>
--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I believe this obscures Marc's very valid point. Regardless of
> whether or
> not heterim can be found, it is the purpose of history from our
> perspective that is in question. The philosophy, not the halacha.
> 
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure that this is true.  The heter of "b'apei tlat" 
> > [information repeated in front of 3 people may be spread further]
> as
> > understood by the Rambam (which I presume that a historian--and
> every
> > newspaper reader--relies upon, and I myself believe to be
> correct, as I
> > wrote in a post on May 24) relies on the phenomenon that news
> tends to
> > spread.  Three people are not that many, and not always does news
> spread
> > like wildfire.  So if the historical item was well-known in its
> time, I
> > doubt it is less known today than knowledge told to 3 people
> (after all,
> > presumably there are at least 2 other Marc Schapiro-like
> individuals in
> > the world!). 
> > 
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 

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

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


[ 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         ]