Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 189

Saturday, August 28 1999

• Midgets criticising giants
• objectivity in history
• Re: Midgets criticising giants
• Lower Criticism - Different Angles
• My Whereabouts
• Re: objectivity in history/Artscrollian Translations

YGB writes:

>I do not think further conversation is of extraordiary benefit, but
>Ibelieve that you are slicing off an "elite" that is not so removed or
>cloistered as you think. I think you, being in tht isolated island overthere
>(and, while this may not be PC, being a woman to boot) are at
>adisadvantage. The distinctions between the males in the US and EY
>who areor were in Ponovitch and those who are or were in other
>institutions arevery fuzzy at best, and information - of the type Marc
>Shapiro alluded to- - travels quite well. 

I agree that I am a consumate outsider (I rather relish that position,
actually, because an insider is beholden to whatever he or she is
inside, whereas an outsider, an "other" is, by definition, not.  Somebody
I know made a comment about the Benei Banim - that he "calls them as
he sees them", and he attributed that to the fact that he learnt only from
his grandfather, and hence is not beholden to any yeshiva system.  I
suspect there is probably a lot of truth to that.   I tend to think that being
a certain kind of outsider actually gives one a vantage point to view
proceedings "the watcher on the caste iron balcony" if you like,  which
an insider does not have, but be that as it may).

But in terms of the subject under discussion, I think you are confusing
knowledge itself with its mechanism for transmission.   What if I, as the
consumate outsider (isolated in England and a woman to boot) also
know such information, and not from Marc Shapiro or historical
documentation and research.  What does that mean?  According to you
it would seem to mean that I am a male from Ponavitch or one of the
other yeshivas in EY/US (what other alternative is there?)

I am suggesting differently  - that is, knowledge itself does not
demonstrate anything one way or the other.  The question is, how was
that knowledge acquired?  Remember, in R' Daniel's son's world, the
"average"  yeshiva bochur/kollelnik (regardless of yeshiva) does not
have access to such information.  It is only the select elite within the
yeshiva who do.  Therefore, such information ought not to be "traveling"
anywhere (it is not necessarily expected to get as far as the shtender
further down the bench - maybe nobody has made the assessment as
to whether that individual can handle the information, or do you think
that in Ponavitch *everybody* is "going somewhere in Torah"?)

The fact that in your yeshivas such information flow existed (and I
would warrant between peers as well - you certainly include all males
in such a yeshiva, while R' Danel emphatically does not)  indicates to me
that such yeshiva is operating on a different information flow model
(and one that has a greater risk of a leak to outsiders - if leak it could be
called, the model is just different).   My impression is that, rather than
this sort of information travelling from the right wing of the Yeshiva
world, such as Ponavitch, such information is more likely to travel from
the left (and I don't mean the academic or political left) (it just sheds its
source as it goes). 

In any event, as I previously mentioned, the only person on this list who
could tell us with any kind of certainty of the view from Ponavitch is R'
Daniel  via his son, and he appears to have clammed up for the moment.

>YGB

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Reb Josh writes, "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."

I am not a great defender of artscroll, but to make this claim requires
more concrete examples.  I am tantalized by your suggestions and I would
love to have another example of historical revisionism in the "right-wing"
publishing camp, but I can't accept this without verification.
Shaul Weinreb

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I agree that I am a consumate outsider (I rather relish that position,
> actually, because an insider is beholden to whatever he or she is
> inside, whereas an outsider, an "other" is, by definition, not. 
> Somebody I know made a comment about the Benei Banim - that he "calls
> them as he sees them", and he attributed that to the fact that he learnt
> only from his grandfather, and hence is not beholden to any yeshiva
> system.  I suspect there is probably a lot of truth to that.  I tend to
> think that being a certain kind of outsider actually gives one a vantage
> point to view proceedings "the watcher on the caste iron balcony" if you
> like, which an insider does not have, but be that as it may). 
> 

Ah, but let us not forget one of the reasons "My Uncle the Netziv" was
"banned"! Because the Netziv says the Rambam made mistakes because he
wrote in isolation, without "peer review". V'dai l'chakima.

> But in terms of the subject under discussion, I think you are confusing
> knowledge itself with its mechanism for transmission.  What if I, as the
> consumate outsider (isolated in England and a woman to boot) also know
> such information, and not from Marc Shapiro or historical documentation
> and research.  What does that mean?  According to you it would seem to
> mean that I am a male from Ponavitch or one of the other yeshivas in
> EY/US (what other alternative is there?) 
> 

It means, that there is no separate elite!

> I am suggesting differently - that is, knowledge itself does not
> demonstrate anything one way or the other.  The question is, how was
> that knowledge acquired?  Remember, in R' Daniel's son's world, the
> "average"  yeshiva bochur/kollelnik (regardless of yeshiva) does not
> have access to such information.  It is only the select elite within the
> yeshiva who do.  Therefore, such information ought not to be "traveling" 
> anywhere (it is not necessarily expected to get as far as the shtender
> further down the bench - maybe nobody has made the assessment as to
> whether that individual can handle the information, or do you think that
> in Ponavitch *everybody* is "going somewhere in Torah"?) 
> 
> The fact that in your yeshivas such information flow existed (and I
> would warrant between peers as well - you certainly include all males in
> such a yeshiva, while R' Danel emphatically does not)  indicates to me
> that such yeshiva is operating on a different information flow model
> (and one that has a greater risk of a leak to outsiders - if leak it
> could be called, the model is just different).  My impression is that,
> rather than this sort of information travelling from the right wing of
> the Yeshiva world, such as Ponavitch, such information is more likely to
> travel from the left (and I don't mean the academic or political left)
> (it just sheds its source as it goes). 
> 

Sheesh! you make it sound like "The Protocols of the Elders of Ponavitch"!

It simply does not work that way.

With the exception, perhaps, of a few "royal" families (who are,
generally, not part of the collective Yeshiva world in the complete sense
of that term - being dynasties that are clos knit, like the Chassidic
Rebbes or the Israel Branch of the Soloveitchiks), the yeshiva world does
not have concentric circles of access. Information flows to those
interested, and those interested flow to the sources of information. Thus,
for example, already at the age of 17 in Sha'alvim I knew that R' Meir Bar
Ilan said that the Netziv did introduce secular studies in Volozhin. I did
not have to wait for RJJS's big "find" much later. Yet, I wager, many
people who were at the same discussion where the Rosh Yeshiva talked about
this interesting historical tidbit immediately forgot it - because most
people couldn't care less! The elite is defined, therefore, by those who
want to know - they seek out the information, and, more importantly,
retain it.

In all yeshivas, as any other learning institution that is also a social
one, there are indeed concentric circles - but they are generated by the
desire to know, not by some selection or predestination.

The same, BTW, is true of lomdus. I am an ardent fan of R' Shimon Shkop
and the Rogatchover. In the modern system, these modes of learning are
discouraged (implicitly, nor explicitly) because, unfortunately from my
perspective, the Brisker derech ("vos") thrives and the Telzer derech
("fahr vos") died. Most of my Rabbeim were of the Brisk offshoot variety.
Yet, I sought out Sha'arei Yosher and Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach on my own. There
was no conspiracy of closing information - it just needed to be found by
someone with interest - and, lo and behold - there it was!

And machoshovo as well. but another time...

YGB

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

Consider the following a mere hypothetical illustration:

Given that Elyosof is ben De'uel and also ben Re'uel, how do we understand and 
explain that discrepancy?

Analytical/Critical/Rational:  We might posit that the Daled became a Reish via 
scribal error.  And we might research for suporting evidence from scrolls or 
fragments.  This might engage us in the lower criticism world, where assumptions
of human error are taken for granted, and are proven whenever possible by 
research into documents.

Halachic:  Here we have today's halacha.  It is De'uel in several places and 
Re'uel in one.  Botei Dinim earlier in history might have had a different girso 
and subsequent botei dinim may have revised what they deemd to be correct. 
Therefore,  at any one time in any one community only ONE version would have 
been consdiered correct, but at different times different versions may have ben 
correct.

It is also possible that scrirbal errors were the source of the changes, but 
they had no official status until a psak was made.

Mystical:  Hashem may have handed one version over to Moshe Rabbeinu, and also 
divinely guided any subsequent evolution.  So even if all versions had De'uel at
the time of Mattan Torah, and even if a scribe through carelessness introduced a
reish where a daled SHOULD have been, Hashem anticipated this error and gave it 
HIS blessing for HIS own purposes.  So the revision itself was pre-ordained and 
forecast in the divine plan; and the Torah HAD to be one way for a certain 
period and it HAD to be another way for another period.  Both are "correct".  
Despite that no one ever had reshus to tamper with a Torah willfully, only that 
a deviation in the Torah THAT PASSED THE TEST OF TIME, was made via Hashem's 
mystical influence. Otherwise that deviation would have failed the test of time.

Traditional/Static:  Re'uel and De'uel where there day #1 at Matan Torah to 
provide alternate versions and Midrashic source material.  The fact that Reish 
resembles Daled may have to do with osiyos hamischalfos and have nothing to do 
with any revision or evolution - despite that it resembles a revision.  And 
the original girso might even have intended to resemble a revision, despite 
the fact that it never happened.

IMHO, there is no one right perspective, they all are valid within their own 
frame of reference.

Just as an aside, I recently heard that coins unearthed from Bar Cochba's era 
depicted Arba Minim in accord with R. Akivo's shito of one per min. (see Mishno 
Sukko 3:4) Perhaps in THAT era, under Bar Cochba's influence, the din followed 
R. Akivo (no surprise) but subsequent botei dinim apparently did not pasken this
way. 

BEH I will be on vacation next week.
KT,
Rich Wolpoe

No No..you haven't stumped me. My mothers birthday is
next week and my nephew is going to Israel for a post highschool
study so I will be visiting them.

When I come back I will have answers to a variety of questions
--Teological proof of Gods existence (Micah), does 1 error
spoil everything (Mechy), why Rashi used the style he did(David)
why I use the style I write it (or THREE good reasons for everyone
to use caps (David), Moshe's SOS call about when ETH gets a 
TAAM, solar hand held fans that don't have sparks (Micha)

Good Shabbos

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:59:42 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #187-objectivity in history
>
>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?
>

Artscroll has played fast and loose with at least one other translation,
besides their book on the Netziv, making revisions to suit the "truth" of
their ideology:

Artscroll's book on the rescue efforts during WW II of Rav Weissmandel,
"The Unheeded Cry" was a translation from the Hebrew of a book called
"Karati V'ein Oneh".  I know the author of the Hebrew original and am
friendly with his son.  According to the son, the father wrote (and
self-published) a very carefully documented and researched objectively
historical work on Rav Weissmandel's efforts.  He then worked with a
translator to translate the book into English, and sold the rights to the
translated manuscript to Artscroll.  They, in turn, made a variety of
"editorial" changes so that the book would conform to their ideology.  The
translator was so upset by the changes that he refused Artscroll permission
to use his name.  The author was even more upset that an organization that
portrays itself as governed by Halacha would act in such a manner, but he
had already signed away his rights for the use of his name as well the
doctored manuscript.  The experience left the author a bitter and broken
man....

....I am sure that Artscroll would say that no halacha was violated.  After
all, since when does historical objectivity and intellectual honesty have
any halachic standing, particularly when you are in possession of the
"TRUTH"??

hg



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Hershel & Susan Ginsburg               Internet: ginzy@netvision.net.il
  P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27           Phone: 972-2-993-8134
  Efrat,  90435                          FAX:  972-2-993-8122
  Israel

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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


[ 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         ]