Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 188

Thursday, August 26 1999

• Lower Criticism
• Loshon Horo
• Re: Avodah V3 #187-objectivity in history
• Re: Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Re: Avodah V3 #187-objectivity in history
• Military Exemptions in Mishpotim
• Re: A woman can't speak before a man
• Re: Loshon Horo
• Re: Avodah V3 #187-objectivity in history
• Re: Electric Fans on Shabbos and Y"T
• History and Lashon Hara
• Re: Avodah V3 #187-objectivity in history
• Re: Avodah V3 #182: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication: KEEP IT QUIET, PLEASE
• Re: Lower criticism and revel redux

FWIW, I essentially concur with Professor Carmy's latest posting.  Recall that 
unlike he, I am NOT a scholar in that field at all, and that I am only reporting
what I learned from scholars 20+ years ago... and errors creep in even in that 
relatively short span of time...

Rich Wolpoe

I would like to share an insight from R. S. Schwab...

re: Avos 2:15, u'Lchishoson Lchishas Sorof

Mah maotzinu, a Sorof has no hano'oh when it bites, similarly when a Talmid 
chochom is mochiach or is being critical he should derive no hano'oh...

Lich'ora the same goes with "loshon horo".  If a report re: a "meis" is in order
to win points, defame, degrade, etc. it is intrinsically "wrong" in that one is 
getting han'oh from that "evil report"; however, if the point being made is not 
being done fo the sake of hano'oh, but rather to determine the "emes" perhaps it
is no longer "loshon horo".  I still would hesitate in paskening that it is ok, 
but at least from a hashkofo level it is qualitatively different.

Rich Wolpoe 

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <csherer@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> 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).
> > > > >>
[Moshe:]
> > The flow of the gemara Brachot 18-19 does not accord with your
> > assertion.  
> [Carl:]
> The flow of the Gemara may not accord with my assertion, but the 
> Shulchan Aruch certainly does. See YD 367:2-3 (or 3-4 depending 
> on what counts as the first s'if). In any event, if you look at the
Ein 
> Mishpat, the part of the Gemara which is actually cited l'halacha
is 
> further up on 18a, whereas the part that you are citing starts 
> towards the bottom. 

I am mystified as to your reasoning.

I had originally written:
<<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.
>>

Clearly we pasken (YD 367:2-3) that one should not show his tzitzit
openly in a cemetery because of lo'aig larash.  That accords with
*both* the middle of 18a and the opinion of R. Chiya on the bottom of
18a (disputed by R. Yonatan, who claims that the dead do not know
what happens on this world; the gemara later says that R. Yonatan
reversed his position).  You claim that this psak is irreconciliable
with the gemarah on the top of 19a, which states, "Rabbi Yitzchok
said, 'Whoever speaks disparagingly about someone after his death is
as if he spoke about a stone.' Some say [1] because the deceased is
not aware [of the comment] while others explain [2] it is because the
deceased is aware but doesn't care."  I agree with you that position
#1 cannot be reconciled with the psak in YD, but why can't #2? 
Perhaps a dead person doesn't mind when people speak disparagingly
about him (knowing the unimportance of what goes on in Olam Hazeh)
but nevertheless feels bad when reminded that he can no longer
perform mitzvot and thereby elevate his neshama.

[Carl:]
> Second, I could argue exactly the opposite. When a person is 
> niftar, all he has left is his reputation. If the dead know
> anything, 
> the fact that someone is maligning them could be the worst thing.

Certainly, you could make that argument.  However, the gemara doesn't
say anything to necessitate that argument.  My argument, in contrast,
reconciles two gemarot (which are not overtly contradictory, and--to
my knowledge--no one until the Zera Chaim, living in the 20th
century, ever asserted that they were).  We have a klal that wherever
possible, we don't create contradictions between gemarot.

> 
> Third, the Mordechai refers to "motzi laaz." It's not clear to me
> that 
> means the same thing as "motzi shem ra."
> 
There are 2 Mordechais.  The Mordechai dealing with the cherem says
motzi shem ra.

In any case, motzi laaz implies falsehood, not truth.

> Finally, if what you are arguing that it is permitted to speak
> lashon 
> hara about the dead so long as it is true, I would caution you that
> the Chafetz Chaim in many, many places discusses how even 
> when it is true, we mere mortals tend to twist things and 
> exaggerate things, even when we do not intend to do so.

Absolutely!  (See the Be'er Mayim Chayim at the beginning of the
sefer, on the lo ta'aseh of "lo tisa shema shav," comparing lashon
hara with providing one-sided testimony to a judge.)  Nevertheless,
where one is doing his best to write an accurate history of the
person involved, presumably (hopefully) he will do his best to avoid
any exaggerations.

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

The Artscrol biography series has a volume on R.Sonnenfeld'Guardian of OOur 
Heritage,an abridged translation of 'HaIsh Al HaChomah) which includes 
innacurate-and I believe slandarous- statements about Rav Kook. When the book 
first came out a student at Gush Etzion wrote to them to complain, and after 
repeated complaints and a hiint of going to a beis din over it, Artscroll 
relented and noted in its revised edition that what was said about Rav Kook 
was a false report.However the book still included, without further comment, 
a separate slandarous rumor that has been shown to be false . The details of 
what was included and what was changed are mentioned briefly in an editor's 
note to a review/article I wrote for Jewish Action in Winter 1991. Although I 
have not seen the lettter the fellow from Gush received from Artscroll (and I 
don't know which person from  Artscroll wrote it), I've been told by someone 
who did see it that it included the statement "accuracy in history is not an 
attribute." Perhaps the editorial board there feels the idea is an extension 
of Chazal's heter to 'lie'  (i.e.whether being meshaneh=lying depends on how 
you understand the sugya) for the purposes of Shalom,and the term  'Shalom' 
is being used in a loose way? 

R. Yitz Etsholom posed the following question to his list of subscribers:

THE QUESTION:

In Parashat Shof'tim, we are told about the declaration/warning 
presented to the soldiers just prior to battle:

<snip>

There are four exemptions here: Someone who has built a house but not 
dedicated it, someone who has planted a vineyard but not eaten of it, 
someone who has betrothed a woman but not yet married her and a frightened 
soldier.

The first three are clearly a series, as can be seen by the common 
expressions - "lest another man come..." and the common theme.

There is something positively puzzling about these exemptions. Why are we 
more concerned about someone who is betrothed, for instance, than an 
already married man. Wouldn't we prefer to have a wedding never take place 
than to see more widows and orphans in Israel? The same question, albeit 
less emotionally phrased, could be posed about the "house" and "vineyard" 
exemptions - shouldn't we be more concerned with an already successful 
vintner dying in battle, rather than someone who is barely started?


My response:
Perhaps the Torah was afraid that people facing war would hesitate from building
up society, IOW they would fatalistically refrain from starting new projects 
such as marrying, planting or building.

So the Torah exempts those people for a year so that they at least can be 
guaranteed SOME hano'o from their efforts, and this would in effect prevent 
people from giving up on life in the face of war, invasion etc. 

Rich Wolpoe

Russell Hendel wrote:

<<<
"A women can't speak before a man"

David Glasner asked for a comment on the above Rashi.

The motto on my email list is Rashi Is Simple. The above Rashi CLEARLY
refers to COURT PROCEEDINGS (where women cannot be witnesses
or judges). Furthermore the Talmud EXPLICITLY advocates taking women's
opinions on matters of "this world". 
>>>

That's a good answer, maybe even a correct one.  But here's my problem,
if the comment only applies to court proceedings why not say something like

"ein r'shut l'isha l'daber b'fnei (lifnei?) beit din."

That the Talmud explicitly advocates taking women's opinions on matters
of "this world" proves nothing unless we know whether women are allowed
to volunteer their opinion or have to wait until they are called upon.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

P.S.  Russel, I don't mean to sound hostile or anything, but were you by any
chance afraid that I might not have gotten the point if you didn't capitalize the 
key words in your response?  I think I would have gotten it, thank you, without 
the added emphasis, which some of us, at least, find mildly annoying, say, like 
the sound of a fingernail scratching a blackboard.
..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

In a message dated 8/26/99 9:14:39 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Mah maotzinu, a Sorof has no hano'oh when it bites, similarly when a Talmid 
>  chochom is mochiach or is being critical he should derive no hano'oh...
>  
This same Teitch is used for Kol Talmid Chochom Sheinoi Nokem Vnoteir 
Knochosh..

As an aside the Gemara says that Both Mochichim and receivers of Tochocho 
were Bottul.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

JoshHoff@aol.com wrote:

>  Perhaps the editorial board there feels the idea is an extension
> of Chazal's heter to 'lie'  (i.e.whether being meshaneh=lying depends on how
> you understand the sugya) for the purposes of Shalom,and the term  'Shalom'
> is being used in a loose way?

Is it not true that when shalom and emes are in conflict we follow emess?steve
katz

Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> writes:
: Opinion: It sounds to me like a spark from someone's cell phone caused an
: explosion at a gas station somewhere. Maybe these sparks are *not* any
: different than pre-electricity. The shiur for aysh is a mashehu.

Or even sparkplugs.

I'm still not sure it's aish, just because it can start a fire. I can start
a fire with a magnifying glass, but solar cooking isn't the same as cooking on
a stove.

Even so, it's still not the same thing as a smith's spark, which is a tiny
fragment of glowing metal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Aug-99: Chamishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 28b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 13

In a message dated 8/24/99 12:16:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yblau@idt.net
writes:

<<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.>>

I am reminded of a statement of (I believe it was) Rabbi Nachman:

Der velt hot a taos. Az a tzaddik mact a taos --- oder iz er nisht kein
tzaddik, oder iz es nisht kein taos. Nisht azoy! Tzaddik bleibt tzaddik, un
taos bleibt taos.

[A common misconception. If a tzaddik makes a mistake --- either its not a
mistake, or he's not a tzaddik. No! The tzaddik remains a tzaddik, and the
mistake remains a mistake.]

Why don't you give us some details so we can judge the matter for
ourselves? It seems to be a matter of public record already.

On the other hand, while I have no vested interest in defending Artscroll,
without having seen the letter how can you critique them so severely for
what, after all, was translation on their part?

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 JoshHoff@aol.com wrote:

> The Artscrol biography series has a volume on R.Sonnenfeld'Guardian of
> OOur Heritage,an abridged translation of 'HaIsh Al HaChomah) which
> includes innacurate-and I believe slandarous- statements about Rav Kook.
> When the book first came out a student at Gush Etzion wrote to them to
> complain, and after repeated complaints and a hiint of going to a beis
> din over it, Artscroll relented and noted in its revised edition that
> what was said about Rav Kook was a false report.However the book still
> included, without further comment, a separate slandarous rumor that has
> been shown to be false . The details of what was included and what was
> changed are mentioned briefly in an editor's note to a review/article I
> wrote for Jewish Action in Winter 1991. Although I have not seen the
> lettter the fellow from Gush received from Artscroll (and I don't know
> which person from Artscroll wrote it), I've been told by someone who did
> see it that it included the statement "accuracy in history is not an
> attribute." Perhaps the editorial board there feels the idea is an
> extension of Chazal's heter to 'lie' (i.e.whether being meshaneh=lying
> depends on how you understand the sugya) for the purposes of Shalom,and
> the term 'Shalom' is being used in a loose way?
> 

YGB

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

--- Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> I have been told by one of the "older" (i.e.,
> pre-revisionist) talmidim
> from Yeshivat Chaim Berlin, that Rav Hutner
> suggested that the talmidim of
> the Yeshiva to read the New York Times on a regular
> basis and listen to
> WQXR Radio (the classical music station of the NY
> Times, for you non-New
> Yorkers).
> 
> hg

I have it on good authority that Rav Hutner was quite the opera buff. 

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

Mechy Frankel <Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil> writes:
:                                                                The lack of
: biqiyus is only expressed by R. Yosi ...                   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).

I had a different resolution of R' Yosi's opinion. Yeser & chaseir refers
to two things: the actual presence or absence of semivowels in the text;
and the d'rashos/ramazim one draws from them. I would think from M'nachos
that R' Yosi holds that we do know the former. Therefore, I take R' Akiva in
Kiddushin to talk about a lack of beki'us in how to associate these spellings
with conclusions.

A simple resolution of the second problem is to note that R' Meir preceeded R'
Yosi by quite a bit. His rebbe is R' Akiva, who found piles of halachos in
tagim. It's unsurprising he had beki'us in this as well that later generations
lacked.


I didn't notice if anyone mentioned the Abarbanel's hakdamah to Yeshia. He
quotes the Radak's position on k'siv vs k'ri, that after galus Bavel they had to
reconstruct the texts, and in cases where there was some doubt as to the
conclusion, the runner-up was marked in the margin. (Which one was the runner up
would probably depend on yeish eim limikra or limisores.)

The Abarbanel questions this (and the author of the Eifod) because we hold like
R' Yosi in Kiddushin. So how can we say there are doubts in the text of the
Chumash?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Aug-99: Chamishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 28b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 13

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


[ 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         ]