Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 185

Tuesday, August 24 1999

• Re: Sleeping on the left side
• sun & moon
• criticizing gedolim
• Over the Edge?
• More on Using Chumras for Social Means
• Re: Avodah V3 #184
• Re: Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Re: Lashon Hara about the dead--CORRECTED VERSION
• Re: Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are tod...
• [Fwd: Orthodox historians and Lashon Hara]
• Re: [Fwd: Orthodox historians and Lashon Hara]
• Re: permission to speak
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• Lower criticism and revel redux

The source is in the Rambam Hilchot De'ot 4:5 ("lo yishan ..... bitchilat
halayla al tzad smohl; u'besof halayla al tzad yemin..").

After reading Khoury's paper in the American Journal of Gastroenterology,
**I** got heartburn :-) Our group had done the vast majority of research
in the field (lateral decubitus position and autonomic activity) and we
weren't even quoted. No wonder the author didn't give our SVARA as to the
*real* reason there is increased acid reflux in the right lateral decubitus
position. Right increases vagal tone and hence, increased acid reflux.

Incidentally, I once posted on MAIL JEWISH as to the reason for HASIVA at the
Seder and *why* leaning to the left actually *does* engender CHERUT via
activation of the left brain hemisphere. You do become more extraverted and
*free* this way (as per the Rambam Hilchot Chametz U'Matza 7:7).

Josh

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes
> 
> >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.
> 
> Not having read or heard of Rav Schach's statements I
> won't try to defend them. But considering the readiness to
> disagree with other statements of Rav Schach by members of
> Ponevezh - I don't think your conclusion is valid. Ponevezh is
> not composed of a mass of robots (sometimes to its detriment) -
> as the secular press has delighted in pointing out.

"Whence did Hazal know that the earth was 42 times larger than the moon,
and that the sun was approximately one hundred and seventy times larger
than the earth, if not from thr power of the Torah?
Rav E.M. Schakh quoted in Roda'ah 48 (nisan 5752) p2
Translation by Rav Lichtenstein, "legitimization of Modernity"
in Engaging Modernity, edited by Moshe Sokol, Aronson, 1997, p21.
> 
> >Does this mean we can criticize only some gedolim and not
> >others based on which gedolim are more "kanai" than others?
> 
> If Rav Soleveitchik was not ready to denounce others - why are
> his talmidim not striving to emulate him? I cited Rav Moshe
> Feinstein that halacha governs this area also. Did Rav
> Soleveitchik ever encourage his students to criticize gedolim?
> Did Rav Litchtenstein tell any of you that he thought your
> criticism was appropriate? If you don't have a role mode to
> imitate in criticizing gedolim - don't you have poskim that you
> can cite? If you have neither - than I fail to see what your
> basis of justification is - other than the secular academic
> attitude expressed by Marc Shapiro.
> 
There is no purpose in criticizing anyone for the sake of criticsm.
My point was that we should be aware that there have been major
fights in the past within the Jewish community and this has done great
damage. This should teach us about future behavior. To simply deny
the level of trouble caused by the R. Eibschutz/R. Embden fight is 
burying ones head in the sand. Similarly, the burning of the Talmud
in Paris should teach us about the dangers of going to the goyim
with our complaints against other Jews. Certainly this applies to
the all the Admorim who went to jail on false charges of either mitnagdim
or other chasidim.

According to some of the arguments presented on this list, discussing 
these issues is loshan harah. Perhaps accusing the Jews of the days of
the churban of sinat chinom is also lashon hara?
The letters of R. Schach and the Steipler rav were put out by their
families. Does that make it legitimate to argue with statements that
appear there? Some of the letters of the Steipler rav and Chazon Ish
appeared after their death. Does the family have the right to make these
letters public?

I am still left with the feeling that talmidim in Ponovezh have the
right to criticize R J.B. Soloveitchik or R. Aaron Soloveitchik
or Rav Goren or Rav Steinsaltz etc. because R. Schach and others have
criticized them. However, it is not legitimate to reciprocate since
non of these gedolim have responded to the attacks (I am not sure
about Rav Goren).

From my viewpoint the key issue returns to Daat Torah. Since, I don't
accept that viewpoint I am free to accept R. Schach as a gadol
without agreeing with his views on many issues. However, one who
accepts daat Torah is forced to concede that if Rav Soloveitchik was
a gadol then his views carry great weight. Hence, the reaction is
either to deny that he (or Rav Kook, R. Hirsh etc.) was a gadol or
else to deny that statements or actions were made or at least to deny
that he really believed in what he said (which comes back to the
article of R. J.J. Schacter).

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

Saw this on the internet in a completly different context

<< You learn in Business 101 to watch the mistakes others
     make to avoid repeating them >>
Eli Turkel

Chana Luntz writes:

> In message <Pine.HPP.3.93.990823180331.9137B-
> 100000@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
> >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
> >
> >> I am aware of this attitude but I rather suspect that you are telling
> >> tales out of school - or in other words, while this is the reality, it
> >> is another piece of information that would be regarded as too harmful to
> >> reach the masses. On the other hand, given that anybody on this list, by
> >> definition, is so far over the edge of the world of the yeshivishe velt,
> >> it probably does not matter. 
> >
> >What do you mean by "over the edge"?
> 
> Beyond the perview of.  Think of a (flat) earth.  There are those people
> who are over the edge of that earth, and therefore cannot be seen, and
> hence are beyond consideration.  That is not necessarily perjorative,
> they are just beyond the line of sight and hence of consideration.
> Anybody with an internet account is likely to fall within this category
> (unless you are BT and being weaned off it, in which case you may be on
> the edge, but you may be visible).

I think that's a little harsh; I don't believe that the Yeshiva world 
looks with such disdain on anyone who has an internet account. 
What they have said (at least in the epistle I saw in shul this week) 
is that if they could ban computers they would, and that one should 
be careful that one's children do not become addicted to them 
because it will ruin their Torah studies, but they also said that they 
cannot ban them because they understand that people need them 
for parnassa (this was said over in the name of the Rav of the 
Ramat Elchanan neighborhood in Bnei Brak, and forgive me but it 
slips my mind if he is Rav Elyashiv's or Rav Wozner's son in law). 
Note - I barely skimmed the thing before it was taken down from 
the shul's bulletin board (I don't know why) so I may not be 
reporting it 100% accurately. I am sure it appeared in Yated, but I 
don't get Yated....

I don't think that the Yeshivishe velt would look down upon people 
on this list who (or when) they are having high level halachic 
discussions which happen to be conducted over the internet. I think 
what they are more concerned about is that most people, at least 
some of the time, use the internet for batala (shelo ledaber about 
other things that one can stumble upon on the net accidentally or 
on purpose). Like many other instruments of modern society, it is 
much easier to tell the masses not to use them than it is to try to 
teach them to use them properly.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Russell Hendel writes:

> But there are two other questions left which Carl has
> not answered.
> 
> 1) Should I CREATE a chumrah to achieve my goal

I don't think I ever raised the possibility of CREATING a chumra. 
What I mentioned was using harchokos which are already existent 
in halacha, and which are required by some poskim albeit not by 
the consensus, to strengthen a couple that wants to do the right 
thing.

> 2) Should I do so WITHOUT telling the couple.

If I tell the couple (and I think I put it this way two or three letters 
ago to Chana), "You have been nichshal and you feel badly about it 
and I want to help you to make sure it doesn't happen again so I 
am going to tell you to [choose your harchaka here] so that you 
will have another reminder, and you will not fail again," what haven't 
I told them? That this isn't required mei'ikar hadin? Why do I have 
to stress that to them? I haven't told them it IS halachically 
required; I have told them that I am trying to strengthen their 
resolve. What's wrong with that?

Let's give an example. R. Moshe held that a couple during the 
wife's state of nidus should not share a can of soda, even if the can 
of soda was poured into two separate glasses. AFAIK no other 
poskim held that way. Suppose Rabbi Posek tells the couple, "you 
were nichshal shortly after wife finished husband's can of soda. 
From now on, you should not share cans of soda when the wife is 
a nida, even if you are sitting in a restaurant and the waiter pours 
them into two separate glasses for you. I think that will help you to 
remember that wife is a nida and that there are supposed to be 
certain barriers between you." What's wrong with that?

> This goes back to my question about Genayvath Daas

How am I committing Gnayvas Daas here?

> It also goes back to my question ala Rabbi Akiva that
> there are several issues in eg marital separation---avoidance
> of sin and maintaining the marriage. 
> 
> Yes I know, Carl answered my question---keeping attractive
> and having Chumroth are not the same. But is it the Rabbis
> job to judge or the couples? 

To some extent it's both. Otherwise there wouldn't be ANY 
harchokos. But at some level the Rabbis have determined, for 
example, that a wife pouring a cup of wine for her husband is 
something that is intimate and when she is a nida she should not 
do that. Are you trying to argue that if a couple decides that they 
don't think that the wife pouring a cup of wine for the husband is 
intimate, they don't have to keep that?

And should this be done behind
> their back? Isn't the whole point of being married that you
> bring the totality of all your experiences to bear on your
> continual striving for attraction and sin avoidance. How can
> anybody (even a posayk) possibly know you so well that
> they can think for you and behind your back.

I don't agree that it's behind their back (see above). Keep in mind 
that we're not talking about a couple that is coming for a premarital 
consultation. We are talking about a couple who are coming to talk 
to THEIR posek and saying "we were nichshal." 

> Finally let me supply the proofs for the serpent-chava 
> incident. It explicitly says in Gen 2:17 that DEATH 
> would result from eating of the tree while when Chava
> repeats this prohibition to the serpent she  mentions
> TOUCHING the tree as causing death Gen 3:3. Hence
> I conclude that a component of Chava's sin was Adam
> being too Machmir.

Look at Rashi over there (I don't have it in front of me, but I looked it 
up and forgot to mention it yesterday). Rashi says that Chava 
herself added that element of chumra. The snake came to her and 
started talking to her, and Chava herself said, "we can't touch the 
eitz hadaas." That makes it sound more like an argument for a 
couple not deciding to be machmir on themselves rather than a 
posek deciding to be machmir on a couple, if you want to take the 
analogy to its logical conclusion.

> I might also add that the Tzdokim and Baithothim sinned
> because of a Chumrah (their rebbe told them not to do
> mitzvoth in order to receive reward and this led them to
> rebel--their Rebbe's position to do mitzvoth for their
> own sake was a chumrah which led to their sin)

Where is your source for this one? I don't see how doing mitzvos 
for their own sake is a chumra. The Gemara says in many, many 
places that doing mitzvos for their own sake rather than for the 
sake of reward is a better way to do them. I don't see how that 
translates into doing mitzvos for their own sake being a "chumra." 

Maybe our problem is that we do not have a definition of chumra. 
Anyone want to take a shot at that?

--- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

R. Daniel Eidensohn  writes
> 
> In addition it is probably suicidal to encourage a highly
> critical and skeptical attitude towards all knowledge for
> everyone. It is not likely that such a society would survive
> (Remember Plato also made such an assertion?). For those who
> disagree with my point of view, the Israeli government is
> performing an experiment in this area. They have decided to do
> away with the myths connected with the Jewish state in the
> secular (but not religious schools). It is doing away with the
> the "myth" that Jews were a hard pressed minority when they
> fought the war of Independence. 

First, I fully agree that not everything can be said everywhere.
I spend my summers in Newport News, Virginia which is a small town
very different from New York. Occasionally, I act as temporrary rabbi
there when the local rabbi is out of town and give speeches in shul.
I would not dream of discussing there the topics that we discuss on Avodah.
The people would not understand it and it would only cause confusion.
My assumption is that people have joined this list because they are
interested in more intelectual discussions and are more well read in
Jewish topics or at least are interested in becoming more knowledgable.

As to the "myths" of the modern leftist historians, in addition to your complaints
I (and many others more knowledgable than I) do not agree with their "facts".

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <csherer@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> > 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).
> > >>

The flow of the gemara Brachot 18-19 does not accord with your
assertion.  First, the gemara, after more than an amud of discussing
whether dead people know of what goes on this world, states (bottom
of 18b): "And even R. Yonatan [who had first asserted that the dead
do not know] retracted his position."  Then, on the top of 19a, the
gemara states "R. Yitzchak says 'anyone who talks derogatorily about
a dead person it is as if he had talked about a stone.'"  The gemara
did not bring this as a proof ("ta shema") or as a contradiction
("ainee"), which would have fit into the previous gemara.  Rather, it
sounds like this is an independent (albeit related) statement.

Moreover, there is no clear contradiction between the statement of R.
Yitzchak and the position that one may not drag his tzitzit over the
graves of the dead because that makes them feel bad (i.e., the dead
know what goes on in this world).  The gemara explains R. Yitzchak's
position that *either* (1) the dead do not know, or (2) the dead know
but it does not bother them (lo ichpat l'hoo).  The second position
can be reconciled with the case of tzitzit--the dead know in both
cases, but are bothered by their inability to perform mitzvot anymore
but are not bothered when people talk derogatorily about them (ala
"sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt
me"); it would make sense that the dead are particularly perturbed
what flesh and blood think about them.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <csherer@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> > 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).
> > >>

The flow of the gemara Brachot 18-19 does not accord with your
assertion.  First, the gemara, after more than an amud of discussing
whether dead people know of what goes on this world, states (bottom
of 18b): "And even R. Yonatan [who had first asserted that the dead
do not know] retracted his position."  Then, on the top of 19a, the
gemara states "R. Yitzchak says 'anyone who talks derogatorily about
a dead person it is as if he had talked about a stone.'"  The gemara
did not bring this as a proof ("ta shema") or as a contradiction
("ainee"), which would have fit into the previous gemara.  Rather, it
sounds like this is an independent (albeit related) statement.

Moreover, there is no clear contradiction between the statement of R.
Yitzchak and the position that one may not drag his tzitzit over the
graves of the dead because that makes them feel bad (i.e., the dead
know what goes on in this world).  The gemara explains R. Yitzchak's
position that *either* (1) the dead do not know, or (2) the dead know
but it does not bother them (lo ichpat l'hoo).  The second position
can be reconciled with the case of tzitzit--the dead know in both
cases and are bothered by their inability to perform mitzvot anymore
but are not bothered when people talk derogatorily about them (ala
"sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt
me"); it would make sense that the dead are not particularly
perturbed
as to what flesh and blood think about them.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


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

In a message dated 8/23/99 6:59:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 > 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: 
 > 
 
 Since Marc is not a member of the list, it is of little issue, right now,
 whether this was his issue or not. It is,nas of now, mine, and you may
 address it as such.
  >>

So tell me, just what is the philosophical reasoning behind studying history? 
Is it to learn from the past how not to fall into the mistakes of our 
ancestors? Or is it part of the natural human imperative to come to grips 
with who we are? I have always felt, Santayana notwithstanding, that the 
study of History was the ultimate existential quest, a means of knowledge of 
self, individually and collectively. How does this not jive with Torah 
principles? We study Jewish History to know who we are. Should anything be 
off-limits from that study from a philosophical point of view? Nothing about 
it contradicts philosophical principles of Judaism. 
But specific halachik issues, as raised by Prof. Schapiro,  are something we 
can quantify in a realistic way. 

Jordan

Message-ID: <37C2C358.41B0@idt.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:07:52 -0400
From: Rabbi Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net>
Reply-To: yblau@idt.net
Organization: YBE
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IDT-v5  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avodah@aishdos.org
Subject: Orthodox historians and Lashon Hara
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The debate about the constraints placed by the prohibition of  lashon
hara on writing an accurate biography of a gadol has been expressed in
black or white terms.  Judgment and taste, which apply to the secular
historian as well, are often more significant than the formal restraint
of lashon hara.  Similarly, when asked about a shidduch where halachicly
there is great flexibility, the critical criterion is using good
judgment in revealing information.
In our desire to see all of halacha in objective terms we fail to
acknowledge that not every situation can be decided by applying formal
rules.  The process of Peshara, used by battei din instead of din,
reflects this awareness.  Realizing that mishpat (law) has to be
balanced with shalom (peace) and tzedaka ( charity or justice) the
Talmud in Sanhedrin 6B recommends peshara over din.
It is also important to admit that a gadol may have made an inaccurate
assessment of a historical reality and that he retains his being a
gadol.  In Gittin 56B Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zaccai's request to save Yavneh
and its wise men is criticized by either Rabbi Akiva or the amora Rav
Yosef.  The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11;3 states that Rabbi Akiva
mistakenly thought that Bar Kochba was mashiach.  Does the stature of
either Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zaccai or Rabbi Akiva become diminished
because they may have erred?
Sincerely yours,
Yosef Blau

In a message dated 8/24/99 11:16:16 AM EST, yblau@idt.net writes:

>  The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11;3 states that Rabbi Akiva
>  mistakenly thought that Bar Kochba was mashiach. 

I have heard and seen this line many times, IMHO the wording is not precise 
on 2 issues.

1) According to the "Rambam" it was not only Rabi Akiva, but also "*V'chol* 
Chachmei Doiroi" (and hence)
2) The Rambam wants to bring out that there is a Halachik value of Chezkas 
Moshiach, even if ultimately he will not be Moshiach Bvaday. The Rambam 
brings that Moshiach is not obligated to do Oisois Umofsim (proof Rabi Akiva 
V'chol Chachmei Doiroi), the way to test him is thru the Simonim given, 
(which the Ravad actually differs on and holds that "morach V'doin was 
tested), which can lead to a person who later is not Vaday, (either in the 
case of Bar Kuziva when a (later) event verifies that he was not worthy, or 
where he is a Tzadik but HKB"H wants to test the Yidden).  But Lpoeil Rabi 
Akiva and the other sages acted according to the dictates of Halacha, IOW 
based on the evidence they had to consider him (BChezkas) Moshiach.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In last week's parashah in the section on motzi shem ra, Rashi, quoting
the Sifri, comments on the verse "v'amar avi ha-na'arah el ha-z'kenim" as
follows:

mikan she'ein r'shut l'isha l'daber bifnei ha'ish

Anyone care to comment on that comment?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> Beyond the perview of.  Think of a (flat) earth.  There are those people
> who are over the edge of that earth, and therefore cannot be seen, and
> hence are beyond consideration.  That is not necessarily perjorative,
> they are just beyond the line of sight and hence of consideration. 
> Anybody with an internet account is likely to fall within this category
> (unless you are BT and being weaned off it, in which case you may be on
> the edge, but you may be visible). 
> 
> When anybody in Ponavich makes a statement, any statement, he will have
> his world in mind.  He *might* have the secular Israeli world in mind
> (that is another planet, but it is visible, like a baleful moon), but
> people like on this list are just not within view. 
>

Oh no, I think you are quite mistaken. E-mail is de riguer in many
circles nowadays, and the proclomations against the Internet tell you how
prevalent its use has become within the yeshiva world!

In any event, the participants of this list, right or left, are very much
shaped by the strong forces of the yeshiva world, whether they like to
admit it or not :-).

Furthermore, the reality is that most of the "finds" that people like RJJS
publicize, including the Volozhin and Netziv stuff, is well known to all
of us, as to all members of the Yeshiva world. Stuff like R' dessler
reading secular material, while the specific tract might not have been
known, was generally known, and, that Agudah Gedolim used ot paricipate in
Mizrachi events is also old hat.

So, in fact, I think most of the participants (and an even greater number
of the lurkers!)  are well within the edge.

YGB

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

RRWolpoe writes:
<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 ...
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?>

hokay. in response to RRW's question i'll give it another shot.
1. lower criticism incorporates a good deal more than the few "difficulties"
recorded in the talmud (BTW that includes yerushalmi as well as bavli).
However, I don't think you should ask for explicit statements as evidence
for rejection of lower criticism, since it generally was ignored as beyond
the pale and not worthy of commenting. The answer to 1) above is thus simply
everybody.  perhaps a very early version of this non-response response was
R. yehudai gaon who declined to elaborate his brief dismissal of an inquiry
which asked about the discrepency between r. aqivoh's aggadic story (sotoh
3) about shimshon who refers to the twenty two years he was a judge vs
shofitim's twenty years. R. Chaim Heller, as R. Carmy noted, was a notable
exception since he is amongst the  very few (known anyway) gidolim in this
century to address such matters directly and mi'ayein in a "professional"
way - though he was not taken seriously as a scholar in these matters by the
professional scholars who thought he was not sufficiently knowledgeable with
the amassed materials and that he was grinding a purely apologetic axe.
(considering some of the recent exchanges re publishing letters, I'll stop
there. vehamaskil yovin)  

2.  Indeed, to respond to comment 3) above, the examples cited in the
gimoroh should not be taken as instances of lower criticism at all, as the
gemoroh invariably concludes that there was but a single girsoh - with the
exception of moleih /choseir which i'll return to - which for one reason or
another was recorded as we see it in spite of its problematic nature, not
that there was any scribal error in its' transmission. I'm unaware of any
unambiguous assertion in the gimoroh to the contrary. (there are however,
some ambiguous chazalic era formulations such as the one relating to Ezra's
purpose in the placement of the masoretic 'dots" on tops of certain letters
-occurs on total of ten or eleven words in the chumosh - which certainly
could, and has been interpreted as Ezra's acknowledgment of the uncertainty
in those texts and his willingness to have them corrected in the future with
additional information. Such editorial dotting is, after all, a well known
scribal device indicating girsoh doubt in syriac texts and other non-jewish
but chazal-contemporary textual activities.  Gidolim, i think R. Moshe was
one who commented on this but will have to check later for the citations,
have energetically disputed this "simple pishat" understanding of the
maimra, i.e. the closest you'll probably come to an explicit rejection of
lower criticism.  there is also ambiguity in the understanding of such terms
as tiqqunei sofirim, itturei sofirim, etc. As for the case of ma'virom vs
ma-avirim in shabbos there is also ambiguity whether this was anything other
than an individual mistake or even that it meant to refer to different
girso'os at all. see r. Margolis on this last).  When, for example, the
yerushalmi sotoh, pereq 1, points to an alleged contradiction between two
pisuqim which describe the length of shimshon's job tenure as either twenty
years or fourty years (quoted in tos on shabbos 55a, which catalyzed the
famous gilyon hashas gloss loc cit recounting other places where chazal's
text seems to differ from "ours" since we in fact don't have such a
contradiction) - they "resolve" the problem by a diroshoh (that he "judged'
israel for twenty years but there were another twenty years where "fear" of
shimshon was operative).  The gimoroh would not entertain the thought that a
scribe may have inaccurately transmitted the text.  similarly, the problems
associated with recording the date of the churbon in yirmiyoh, which RRW
referenced elsewhere, with the truly radical pishat offered that an initial
"mistake' had actually been incorporated into the text itself by the scribe,
also does not question in the slightest the subsequent faithful transmission
of the text as it was originally set down. Your comment elsewhere, that
acceptance of such a pishat (about the novih's state of mind during the
original recordation) by chazal leads willy nilly to a qal vechomer that
they would indeed have also acceped such a "transmission errors' on the part
of subsequent scribes simply (imho of course) does not follow.  

It is first in the middle ages that we have any clear expression questioning
the accuracy of the textual transmission down to the "present" (tos- dh
"ma'avirum kisiv", shabbos 55a). I believe that this has generally inspired
a - which RDEidensohn so ably defined elsewhere -  general cognitive
dissonance amongst many yeshivoh students and lomidei torah, even amongst
some of the 'elite' in RDE's usage, who finding little here consonant with
their belief structure about the integrity of the kisivei qodesh and the
halochos apparently directly dependent on such integrity, tend to walk away
from this daf, leave it as a tzorich iyun, or simply forget about it.
Amongst the average yeshivoh population, i doubt that it is even very well
known. In any event, my possibly worthless and certainly at a distance
psychologizing about other people's belief structures aside, I am unaware of
any acceptance in any frum educational environment - ranging from the
"secular' Revel to the - qal vichomer - yeshivoh veldt (presumably who
should be familiar with the shabbos 55a and gilyon hashas, or the Shaagas
Aryeh's suggestion elsewhere that perhaps there is no operative  mitzvoh to
write a sefer torah these days, or the chasam sofer's suggestion that this
is the reason that a sofer doesn't make a birochoh when writing a torah, or
the minchas chinuch's clairing of the rational for mitzvas tifilin and
mizuzih biziman hazeh , etc. etc.) who would routinely entertain the notion
of scribal errors in the transmission of text.  If RRW, or anybody else -
these days i am certainly no longer conversant with the daily haloch ruach
in yeshivos, or even in Revel - is aware of evidence to the contrary, i
would be enlightened but surprised. 

3. Thus, in light of above, RRWs remark 2) <..that 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.>  will have to remain a difference between us.  i repreat that
i would be surprisd.

4.  An addendum on moleih/choseir.  While the clear understanding by just
about everybody is also the simple pishat - that they are truly in doubt,
though with some disputes at the periphery, i.e. is the doubt applicable to
every moleih/choseir in the torah or just those few that were in traditional
doubt between the communities, or the minchas chinuch (and others')
suggestion that the doubts only apply to those instances which do not have
any halochic resonance, e.g. sucos/sucOs, (but see R. Carmy's edited volume
on this point, that it aint so - i think it was the maori article) and stuff
like that.  There is however, one interesting yotzeih min hakilol, and that
is R. reuvein margolis who emphatically rejects the notion that there was
any actual sofeiq by Chazal concerning the correct girsoh even for moleih
and choseir. Qidushin 30a is then explained by him as follows. The lack of
biqiyus is only expressed by R. Yosi, who after all was blind and, at one
point, quite ill - to the point where he forgot much of what he once knew
and had to painfully start relearning things with the help of his talmidim.
But this was a personal problem and should never have been interpreted in a
general sense that the texts are in doubt or that everybody else isn't boqi.
indeed proof for this take is to be found in the fact that it is this very
same R. Yosi who expounded the halochoh that a sefer torah that interchanged
a moelih with a choseir is posul! (Minochos 29b) which is hard to reconcile
with the usual interpretaion of R. Yosi in Qidushin 30. As well, the usual
interpretation flies in the face of the often overlooked contrary eidus
offered by R. Meier that he himself was boqi in choseir and yeser (sotoh
20a). R. margolis also offers an interesting halochic sivoroh - to wit, the
observation that we make a birochoh on aliyoh to the torah, which - he
asserts  we should not - since on a real sofeiq, i.e. if we were really in
doubt that this was a kosher torah - we should follow the principle of
sofeiq dirabbonon lihoqeil and discard the birochoh. 

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

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


[ 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         ]