Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 191

Monday, August 30 1999

• lower criticism
• Re: Avodah V3 #189
• Re: cheit as ratzon Hashem
• Re:historical revisionism
• Re: Midgets criticising giants
• Re:historical revisionism
• Re: cheit as ratzon Hashem
• Shmiros - Some Questions, Observations & Citations
• Criticism of Gedolim/Askonim
• Shmiros - Correction
• Re: Avodah V3 #190
• Re: Avodah V3 #190
• historical revisionism
• Toward a Definition of Psak (was: of Chumra)
• Re: historical revisionism
• Re: historical revisionism
• Re: historical revisionism
• [none]

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

I'm confused. There are several issues here: 1) What really happened? What
was Moshe told to write?

2) What defines a valid sefer Torah, and why?
With respect to #2, you can say Elu va-Elu. With respect to #1, only one
possibility is correct.

3) Are certain positions with respect to #1 beyond the pale, so that we
ought not to entertain them? Here one may hold that a specific view is
wrong, but that it doesn't matter all that much.

From the viewpoint of pshat in Humash, there is another
fundamental question. Is the orthographic similarity between dalet & resh
significant? One might hold that the similarity between Deuel and Reuel is
accidental, or that it is due to phonetic similarity (like Gerry and Jerry
and Gerald). If one holds thus, no question arises. If, however, one says
that the double names result from confusion between similarly *written*
texts, then you have a problem. At that point one may adopt the position
of the lower critics, but only if one regards that position as
halakhically legitimate for Torah or Nakh respectively. To make such
assumptions about the original Torah text is highly problematic, to put
it mildly. The alternative is to assume that orthographic confusion led to
the existence of two parallel names before mattan Torah. In that case,
either name would be "correct."

On this question see further Radak to Breshit 10:4 (on dodanim/rodanim).

In a message dated 8/29/99 9:58:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Chaimwass@aol.com writes:

<< But in the translated Artscroll edition "The Festivals in Halachah" p. 294 
 the words "with the emergence of the State of Israel (Fortunate are we for 
 having merited this)" aredeleted without any explanation as to why and 
 without any hint to the reader as to the fact that a deletion from the 
 original was made. Now, this being the case, and in the absence of any 
 further clarification from the publishers it is a safe assumption that we 
are 
 dealing with historical revisionism.
  >>

Inasmuch as these translations were done in my dorm room at Brovenders, I 
think I am in a safe position to say that these deletions took place in NY. 
Turns out we had the only working typewriter on campus.

Jordan

>>>Why is this any more difficult than the asra of R' Eliezer versus the rest
of the halachic world vis a vis korsim eitzim la'asos pechamim...? <<<

You refer to a case where there is a disagreement among chachamim as to what 
the ratzon Hashem is, where being a minority is not equivalent with 
illegitimacy. 

R' Tzaddok is writing that where it is very clear what the ratzon Hashem is, 
e.g. not to eat chazir today at 1:00 in NJ, if ex post facto one has violated 
that and done tshuvah we now say eating chazir by the same person today at 
1:00 in NJ was a kiyum of ratzon Hashem.

- Chaim

>>>So, we are left with the question, what serves the greater purpose of
Avodas Hashem - to publish hMbH with the line that will not educate the
UNMS of the right, but, more likely, turn them off and casue them to
repudiate RSYZ and his works, or to publish the 99.99999999% of the work
that will educate them, open them up to RSYZ's ge'onus and tzidkus, and,
perhaps, lead some to expand their horizon in the works of RSYZ, this and
others, till graudally they are open to assimilating more and more of
RSYZ's perspectives.<<<

So IOW, in order to cater to what you define as a fringe minority we must 
sacrifice truth to gain political acceptance.  I guess the chachamim could 
have done the same and left out that little law of nizikin of a shor of an 
Akum when they taught Torah to the non-Jews who inquired, but somehow Chazal 
didn't think that was the right perspective.  

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> For example, a typical person who wants to know the real story of what
> went on with secular studies in Volozhin -- Who will he ask? Where will
> he go? Specifically: How did you come across that tidbit at age 17, and
> do you think that other 17-year-old are capable of doing the same? Or
> perhaps, being a student at a prominent Hesder yeshiva, you simply
> accepted a different piece of propaganda than is being fed to the
> students at the Agudah yeshivos? (The point I am making is that everyone
> at all yeshivos is fed the official party line, and NOT everyone has
> access to more complete versions of the stories.) 
> 

One should never accept hook, line and sinker.

We will never know what precisely happened at Volozhin, since there is a
dispute among people who were in the position to know as to what happened.

But, if one is interested in a topic, one pursues an individual that is
knowledgable or a reputable book on the topic, checks it out, seeks
confirmation, and continues to keep an open mind.

"Outsiders" can do this as well. Our forum here is a good example of a
place where "outsiders" can query "insiders" (every one of us is an
outsider in some respects and an insider in others) and get good
information. When I was researching the luach issue - a good example of an
are in which most yeshiva-educated people are outsiders - I got
information here.

YGB

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

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> So IOW, in order to cater to what you define as a fringe minority we
> must sacrifice truth to gain political acceptance.  I guess the
> chachamim could have done the same and left out that little law of
> nizikin of a shor of an Akum when they taught Torah to the non-Jews who
> inquired, but somehow Chazal didn't think that was the right
> perspective. 
>

Huh?

Am I missing something?

Chazal did not go organize public lectures to non-Jews about the laws of
our oxen goring theirs (did they?).

When asked a question, straightforwardly, they were compelled to answer
truthfully.

Witholding potentially dangerous infornmation is not the same as lying in
reponse to direct questioning.

Or, perhpas, the statements of "ein dorshin b'(fill in the blank) also,
in your mind, contradict BK 38a? 

YGB

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

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> You refer to a case where there is a disagreement among chachamim as to
> what the ratzon Hashem is, where being a minority is not equivalent with
> illegitimacy.
> 
> R' Tzaddok is writing that where it is very clear what the ratzon Hashem
> is, e.g. not to eat chazir today at 1:00 in NJ, if ex post facto one has
> violated that and done tshuvah we now say eating chazir by the same
> person today at 1:00 in NJ was a kiyum of ratzon Hashem. 
>

But, theologically, why is one more difficult? 

YGB

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

I have all but exhausted my meagre knowledge of this subject, but before I leave it entirely, I have a few questions, observations and mar'eh m'komos to share:

1. In Hilchos Mezuza [5:4], Rambam notes the common minhag of writing the divine name Shakai on the back of mezuzos and seems to generally permit inscriptions on the back of mezuzos. I have heard and read that Shakai is so inscribed because it is formed of the roshay tayvos of the phrase "shomer dalsos yisrael." So what? Does this serve any shmira function over/above the shmira afforded by the mezuza itself? Is this much different than the Lubavitch claim that a volume of Chumash, Tehilim and Tanya has a shmira value over and above any of its component texts [and other sifray kodesh] because its roshay tayvos form the word chitas used in the biblical phrase "chitas Elokim?" Does anyone know an alternate rationale for the inscription of Shakai on the back of mezuzos?

2. All the mezuzos I have ever examined have a second inscription on the backside that is not mentioned by Rambam. It is written opposite where the phrase "Havaya Elokaynu Havaya" [from the opening posuk of Shema] appears on the frontside, and consists of the shemos Hashem known as the achorayim [or ochor] of Havaya Elokaynu Havaya. These shemos consits of the letters kof-vov-zayin-vov, bays-mem-vov-kof-somech-zayin, kof-vov-zayin-vov, which are the letters immediately following those of Havaya Elokaynu Havaya in the alphabet. Does anyone know the origin and rationale of the custom to include this inscription? Is it for shmira or other purposes? Are there any groups that don't have the minhag of including this inscription?

3. I assume a mezuza that does not bear these customary inscriptions is fully kosher. Is it nevertheless obligatory to include them because of the time-honored minhag yisrael to do so? Does Russel Hendel or Saul Weinreb consider this a minhag ta'us and, if so, would either of them consider expunging them [or at least the one not mentioned by Rambam] from his mezuzos?

4. In the context of this thread on shmiros, a couple of posters have discussed or cited sources relating to refuos as well. It is important to recognize that refuos involve unique issues that are not necessarily applicable to shmiros. Failure to appreciate the distinction is at least partly to blame for the miscitation
and misinterpretation of the Rambam in Hilchos Avoda Zara [11:12]. An important source on refuos and some of the issues raised by Saul Weinreb in that connection is in Shu"t HaRashba, volume I, #413. [Russel Hendel and I have a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation of both Rambams cited above and the scope of the inferences that may validly be derived from them regarding shmiros, not to mention the methodological question of how to read a legal text. I don't think further discussion will be very fruitful and I would like respectfully to agree to disagree.]

5. For an anti-kamia source that may be of interest, see Sefer Chasidim ##469-470, 1114 and 1172. See also Chida's commentary Bris Olam to Sefer Chasidim #1114, which adopts a limiting interpretation of this negative view. It is interesting to note that in the well- known conflict between R. Yaakov Emden and R. Yonasan Eibshutz, the propriety of writing and using kamios was never in issue, only the alleged Sabbatean content of those written by RYE. All of the direct and indirect parties to the dispute, and the rabbinic authorities consulted regarding its resolution, seem to have taken for granted the propriety and efficacy of kamios in general.


6. On how kamios function, see R. Tzadok Hakohen, Tzidkas HaTzadik #119.

7. In an earlier posting, I may have been too hasty in agreeing with Michha Berger and Yosef Bechhofer that the display of a shmira alone, without writing it or reading it b'kavana, has no legitimate purpose. While I still agree that it may not function as a shmira per se if it is not written or read b'kavana, I do feel that the display of shmira texts, even of the photo offset variety and even if they are not read but only noticed in passing, may nevertheless fulfill a legitimate spiritual purpose. For example, merely seeing a wall display of mizmor 67 may cause one to think of the pasuk "ki shemesh u'magen Hashem etc.," reflect on the content of that mizmor or appreciate the faith with which Dovid Hamelech went into battle. Seeing a photo offset "Shiviti" plaque, with its shiluv Havaya b'Adnus, might lead one to think of the pasuk "migdal oz shem Hashem bo yarutz tzadik v'nisgav," or inspire one to fulfill the mitzvos t'midios or cause one to reflect on the formula "adon hak!
ol; haya, hoveh v'yihyeh" [according to most poskim other than the Vilna Gaon, a required kavana every time we recite a bracha]. I see no reason to frown upon or discourage the display of shmiros or other sacred texts that are not written or read b'kavana if they have a spiritual effect on the viewer of the type described. [One might even argue that a person who does not experience such a positive spiritual effect upon viewing such displays is spiritually insensitive.]

> 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.


Ashrei hador shehanosi sheloy meyvi korben al shigegosoy . And see Zohar
parshas vayakheyl on 'asher nosi yekhto'.

But it must be emphasised that a large part of what is being discussed
here is not of misdemeanours but rather of perfectly legitimate acts
that certain circles have decided that 'es past nisht'.


The game though was given away when RDE differentiated between the
'masses' and 'insiders'. Without focusing on what constitutes an insider
and an outsider the difference to me is that the insider has been taught
to think that a wrongdoing purportedly carried out by his hero should
have no effect on his evaluation of him, or, worse but far more common,
the insider does not at all evaluate the evidence as if the rebbe/godel
lives in an outer space environment where the outcome of moral and
ethical dilemmas does not gravitate in any direction. But then im eyn
das havdole minayin? (cf. sheep mentality discussion)

mimo nafshekh: If there is loshen hore involved than there is no excuse
for insiders to discuss it. If, on the other hand, insiders for whom
"the stories are understood in context" (RDE's words) have an insider's
view from which the masses must be shielded perhaps they should provide
the facts with a gloss of how pshat in the story is to be learned. Or
are the masses too stupid to understand? Daas Torah vs. Daas Baalei
Batim, eh. And so why does Artscroll not produce an expurgated Torah for
the masses where Yitschok doesn't like Eysov, Aharon doesn't make the
eygel, Moshe doesn't hit the stone and Bilom doesn't bless the Bnei
Yisroel.

It was probably this kind of reasoning that Soviet apparatchiks used
when
shielding the proletariat from all that had to be done in order to
create a worker's paradise. (cf. 1984)

And then there is the question of who is a godel? This question is
perhaps more relevant to chasidic rebes than to litvishe gedoylim as
gedoylim mostly have to work their way up to immortality while rebes
inherit it from their fathers. As a result there have been not a few
charlatans be'itstele derabonon though I suppose they occasionally come
dressed up in 'fracks' too. If we are not provided with the facts who is
to decide. Perhaps the 'insiders' think it better for the masses to
believe in a couple of neviei sheker and not rock the boat than to
expose the godel industry to scrutiny. mihu godel would make mihu yehudi
seem k'ner bifney maglite.

Finally, there is the askonim business. While there may occasionally be
circumstances with a true odom godel where kvod alokim hasteyr dovor the
same is not true with askonim. The term has been expanded so that it is
a kind of euphemism for the ever growing army of busy bodies,
do-gooders, lobbyists, opportunists, exploiters, wannabes, politicians
and their ilk who of course are all in it l'shem shomayim. The genuinely
good men and women of whom there are many too are in the unenviable
position that they must share their description with the above lot.
Hatsad hashove shebohen, however, is that they are all beyond reproach
and their deeds are never questioned. They also play a leading role in
advising gedoylim on what daas toyre ought to be and so their role is
not only in social and political spheres but in ecclesiastical ones too.

Yet how are the crooked ones to be weeded out. Can all and sundry shield
themselves behind the frack buttons of the Chofets Chayim? Are the
hilkhos loshen hore a crook's charter? These questions are not
theoretical. As the Chareidim increase their power there is no
corresponding scrutiny and accountability taking hold. Who knows perhaps
accountability is a goyishe concept though 'tsedoko nigvis bishtayim
umiskhalekes bishloyshe' suggests otherwise.

sof dovor hakoyl nishmo and so if the insiders are anyway aware of
certain tidbits then in my opinion it should be made available to
everyone. Furthermore by omitting certain information the authors of the
books are either admitting that gedoylim can engage in un-godoyl-like
activities which means that either gedoylim are not perfect which is the
very opposite of the main thesis of most of the books or that the godel
in question was not perfect and so by definition not a godel and so
there should not be a book in the first place.

v'im timtse loymer that he was a godel and so he was perfect then this
omitted act must have been part of his perfection too so why omit it?
vtsorikh iyun!


Dovid Herskovic

PS With my tongue firmly in cheek may I ask RYGB whether 120 years hence
when his biography is written, as it surely will be, he wishes his
shabes in Kalispell, Montana to be mentioned. I must warn him that while
publication will leave the 'reasonable' half of his epithet bimkoymo
oymedes the chareidi half will be called sharply into question. Though
with some luck and depending on the thinking that will be in vogue in
those days he may well be described as being ahead of his time. But then
don't all Artscroll biographies say that.

In a posting earlier today, I wrote:

"6. On how kamios function, see R. Tzadok Hakohen, Tzidkas HaTzadik
#119."

That is incorrect. The correct cite is #219.

David Eidensohn wrote:
<< There have been/are  a number of talmidei chachomim/poskim who are not 
highly respected because they are viewed as outsiders who don't have mesorah 
of any recognizable group.  >>

[1] May I ask that he list tqwo or three such individuals. [2] And if they do 
not have the recognizable group behind them or with them, how does that 
effecct the mesorah of the search for halachic truth and validity?

chaim wasserman

In a message dated 8/29/99 10:21:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Chaimwass@aol.com writes:

<< David Eidensohn wrote:
 << There have been/are  a number of talmidei chachomim/poskim who are not 
 highly respected because they are viewed as outsiders who don't have mesorah 
 of any recognizable group.  >>
 
 [1] May I ask that he list tqwo or three such individuals. [2] And if they 
do 
 not have the recognizable group behind them or with them, how does that 
 effecct the mesorah of the search for halachic truth and validity?
 
 chaim wasserman
  >>
As I understood it, this was referring to R' Adin Steinsaltz.

KVCT
Joel Rich

Rav YGB writes: "So, we are left with the question, what serves the greater
purpose of
Avodas Hashem - to publish hMbH with the line that will not educate the
UNMS of the right, but, more likely, turn them off and casue them to
repudiate RSYZ and his works, or to publish the 99.99999999% of the work
that will educate them, open them up to RSYZ's ge'onus and tzidkus, and,
perhaps, lead some to expand their horizon in the works of RSYZ, this and
others, till graudally they are open to assimilating more and more of
RSYZ's perspectives."
I don't think that it is the job of an editor to make these cheshbonos.
Despite all of the fancy "what ifs" and "Might thinks" and "what would
happen whens" of all of those terrible things we might chas ashalom write
when we say the emes, I have not been convinced by any of these arguments.
YEs, maybe there is a makom in halachah to be meshaneh mipnei HaShalom, but
I think this hetter has been stretched way beyond what chazal had in mind.
We all define Shalom, and redefine it twenty times until we see a world
that conforms to what we would like to be real, and then we say that we
could consciously bend the facts because the truth is not really such an
important value.
Personally, I think that if we based our hashkafos on the emes, rather then
base the emes on our hashkafos, we would come much closer to fulfilling the
true Ratzon Hashem.  I could agree or disagree with Rav Zevin's "zionist"
views, but what can be so terrible from learning from someone that I
disagree with.  Even the UNMS of the right should recognize that later
chassidim quoted the GRA all of the time, even though they obviously did
not endorse all of his views they still realised that he had what to teach
them.  I haven't heard anyone argue that we should sensor out these quotes
because the UNMS of the chassidim would get "turned off" by this to the
entire sefer.
I also don't think that artscroll had any such lofty thoughts in mind as
you attribute to them.  I think they just couldn't admit that such a gaon
could actually hold such "heretical" (chas v'shalom) views, and rather then
deal with the fact that he did feel this way, they just deleted it.
Shaul Weinreb

While Russell Hendel and Carl Sherer are discussing what a Chumra is
(Avodah 3:187), I've been trying to figure out what a P'sak is.

Russell Hendel writes <<< a chumrah is a prohibition that some but not
all poskim hold >>>

Carl Sherer objects, pointing out that <<< if MY posek is machmir, I am
"stuck" with that; I can't go psak shopping. >>>

This comment moves me to raise an issue which I have been working on for
quite some time. This view, that one is "stuck" with the p'sak of one's
posek, is very widely held, but I am beginning to suspect that it is not
true. Can anyone cite a source for it?

The closest I have found to such a source is the Rama YD 242:31. But as I
read that se'if, it says that if Chacham #1 has already ruled on
something, then Chacham #2 should not rule on it, except under specific
circumstances.

The context of that portion of Shulchan Aruch concerns Kavod Harav, that
the chachamim should respect each other, and not overturn each other's
opinion. It does not seem to speak about the asker's  responsibilities at
all.

If a person has asked a shaalah, and then asks someone else, then PERHAPS
he is violating Kavod Harav. But I propose that he is NOT violating some
kind of "stuck"ness which was established when he got the first p'sak.

Let's go further. Suppose the asker never asked a second posek. Rather,
in the course of time his learning increased, and other ideas and shitos
appealed to him, and he came to disagree with the p'sak he was given. Or
maybe he attended a shiur at which a respected chacham voices a view
which differs from the p'sak which he was given. Is there really anything
wrong with choosing to follow the new opinion?

Most people seem to believe that when a person asks a shaalah, and
recieves a psak halacha, some kind of real change occurs. If he follows
the halacha as the posek told him, Hashem will reward him, but if he goes
against the words of the posek, he is clearly violating the halacha and
will be punished.

That is what CS meant by being "stuck" with a p'sak, in contrast to a
person who does *not* ask a shaalah, but relies on the the Torah which he
learned to come up with a personal decision on how to act. We all do this
many times in a typical day, in situations ranging the gamut from what
b'racha to say on a new food, to whether a certain discussion constitutes
lashon hara, and many other areas. In such situations, one has the
illusion of being free to choose which course of action to take. In
actuality, it is only an illusion, because there is only one correct
decision in Hashem's eyes, and the individual is gambling that his
decision will be the correct one.

It is for this reason that Pirkei Avos says to "get yourself a rabbi, and
remove yourself from doubt," because when one asks the shaalah and gets a
p'sak, there is no gamble any more, because the halacha which had been
unclear is now very clear. He must do what the posek paskened. Perhaps
the halacha is even *too* clear, because he is "stuck" with that p'sak
even if he does not like it for some reason.

I am reasonably certain that the above accurately describes how many
people understand the action of asking for a p'sak halacha. Support for
it can be found in the practice of some people of INDIRECTLY asking for a
p'sak. People who are hoping for answer A, and fear that they'll be
unable to follow answer B, will sometimes deliberately avoid asking the
rav "What should I do?" Rather, they ask "How do you hold?" or "My friend
has this problem; what should *he* do?" In this manner, if the answer is
A, they follow that action with a clear conscience. But if the rabbi
answers with B, they can rationalize, "I know that there are other shitos
and I am relying on them."

But I have strayed from my point, which is to suggest that the above
description is WRONG.

It seems to me that without a Sanhedrin or other duly-authorized Beis Din
to resolve questions of halacha, the concept of psak halacha does not
exist. (I am not discussing the ability of a community to choose a
scholar to lead them in the ways of Hashem; that can be considered a
political position.) I am talking about the ability of a person to say
"Hashem does not want you to do that." He can say it, and he might be
right, but the act of saying so does not *make* it so.

I think that a person who asks for a "p'sak" is NOT "stuck" and obligated
to follow it. I propose that a "p'sak" from a source other than a
Sanhedrin or similar Beis Din is not The Word Of G-d, but is sage advice,
which must be seriously considered by the individual in question. In all
likelihood, the p'sak is correct, inasmuch as the posek is more learned
than the person who is asking, and so the person is taking quite a risk
if he disobeys the posek. But it is only a risk, not a certainty.

Above, I quoted Pirkei Avos as saying to "get yourself a rabbi, and
remove yourself from doubt." I propose that this is not because the rabbi
is *kovea* halacha for a person, but because he can *teach* the halacha
to a person. Even the greatest of gedolim is not perfect, and he does not
have the authority to say "This is what Hashem wants you to do." The most
he can say is "This is what I believe Hashem wants you to do."

I look forward to posters who can either confirm or disprove these ideas.
Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy post.

Akiva Miller


___________________________________________________________________
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.

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Saul Weinreb wrote:

> Rav YGB writes: "So, we are left with the question, what serves the
> greater purpose of Avodas Hashem - to publish hMbH with the line that
> will not educate the UNMS of the right, but, more likely, turn them off
> and casue them to repudiate RSYZ and his works, or to publish the
> 99.99999999% of the work that will educate them, open them up to RSYZ's
> ge'onus and tzidkus, and, perhaps, lead some to expand their horizon in
> the works of RSYZ, this and others, till graudally they are open to
> assimilating more and more of RSYZ's perspectives."  I don't think that
> it is the job of an editor to make these cheshbonos.  Despite all of the
> fancy "what ifs" and "Might thinks" and "what would happen whens" of all
> of those terrible things we might chas ashalom write when we say the
> emes, I have not been convinced by any of these arguments.  YEs, maybe

It is your perogative, and, I assume, the perogative that will be
exercised by many members of our distinguished forum, not to be convinced
by my arguments. Nevertheless, the issue of who should make these
cheshbonos does not necessarily undermine the conceptual basis for making
such a cheshbon. It is interesting to speculate, in the absence of the
author, who is entitled to omit passages that may do more harm than good.
Yet, again, that speculatiion is wholly distiinct from the idea.

> there is a makom in halachah to be meshaneh mipnei HaShalom, but I think
> this hetter has been stretched way beyond what chazal had in mind.  We
> all define Shalom, and redefine it twenty times until we see a world
> that conforms to what we would like to be real, and then we say that we
> could consciously bend the facts because the truth is not really such an
> important value.  Personally, I think that if we based our hashkafos on
> the emes, rather then base the emes on our hashkafos, we would come much
> closer to fulfilling the true Ratzon Hashem.  I could agree or disagree
> with Rav Zevin's "zionist"  views, but what can be so terrible from
> learning from someone that I disagree with.  Even the UNMS of the right
> should recognize that later chassidim quoted the GRA all of the time,
> even though they obviously did not endorse all of his views they still
> realised that he had what to teach them.  I haven't heard anyone argue
> that we should sensor out these quotes because the UNMS of the chassidim
> would get "turned off" by this to the entire sefer.  I also don't think

Well, to be sure, we have come a long way since the early feuds, but I am
not so sure that what you are saying would apply to that period. I would
wager that at that time not just the UNMS of each camp would have had
antibodies towards anything the other camp said, but even some members of
the sophisticated broad minded segments (SBMS) of each respective camp
would have an aversion to deploying the wonderful ideal of "kabel ha'emes
me'me she'amaro" when the "amaro" was from an opposing camp.

> that artscroll had any such lofty thoughts in mind as you attribute to
> them.  I think they just couldn't admit that such a gaon could actually
> hold such "heretical" (chas v'shalom) views, and rather then deal with
> the fact that he did feel this way, they just deleted it.  Shaul Weinreb
> 

That may will be. I have no interest in defending Artscroll. Indeed, one
of our chaverim wrote earltier that Artscroll justified the deletion by
saying RSYZ had been chozer bo - which is higly improbable. I came to be
meyashev the process that many writers and translators, myself certainly
included, engage in, which would be applicalbe to this situation as well,
v'lav me'ta'ameyehu.

YGB

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

In a message dated 8/30/99 12:03:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< That may will be. I have no interest in defending Artscroll. Indeed, one
 of our chaverim wrote earltier that Artscroll justified the deletion by
 saying RSYZ had been chozer bo - which is higly improbable. I came to be
 meyashev the process that many writers and translators, myself certainly
 included, engage in, which would be applicalbe to this situation as well,
 v'lav me'ta'ameyehu.
  >>

With all  due respect, your "explanation" of Artscroll's editing is absurd. I 
agree with R' S. Weinrib that Artscroll simply couldn't handle a Gadol saying 
something so "heretical." If anything, if Artscroll was honest, they would 
have left the reference in, and allowed the right wingers to see that they 
were wrong in underestimating the importance of the resettlement of Eretz 
Yisrael with regard to certain liturgical texts. How do we form our opinions 
about issues? By predetermining what we hold, and then fitting all Shitos of 
people we respect into that? And when the shito is really uncomfortable, just 
delete it? Please! Such naarishkeit! The way we come up with a world view is 
by integrating the ideas of teachers we feel speak to us with our own ability 
to understand the Mesorah. If R' Zevin gives credence to the fruits of the 
Zionist experiment, and a right winger holds by R' Zevin, let him have the 
courage either to  find a new hero, or adjust his shito to take into account 
this unfamiliar idea.  Face it, Artscroll blew it!

Jordan

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> With all due respect, your "explanation" of Artscroll's editing is

Well, it seems from the rest of your post that you do not thiink much
respect is due! Nevertheless, sticks and stones and all that - I conceded
that Artscroll may not be a paragon of virtue here, but that the point is
immaterial to the position I maintain.

> absurd. I agree with R' S. Weinrib that Artscroll simply couldn't handle
> a Gadol saying something so "heretical." If anything, if Artscroll was
> honest, they would have left the reference in, and allowed the right
> wingers to see that they were wrong in underestimating the importance of
> the resettlement of Eretz Yisrael with regard to certain liturgical
> texts. How do we form our opinions about issues? By predetermining what
> we hold, and then fitting all Shitos of people we respect into that? And
> when the shito is really uncomfortable, just delete it? Please! Such
> naarishkeit! The way we come up with a world view is by integrating the
> ideas of teachers we feel speak to us with our own ability to understand
> the Mesorah. If R' Zevin gives credence to the fruits of the Zionist

Uh huh, sure. So, tell me, when was the last time you integrated the right
wing position just by reading that some Gadol held that way. Have you
limited your secular studies, say, because R' Boruch Ber Leibovitz was
adamantly opposed? Have you opposed co-ed schools because everyone from
RYBS and rightwards was against them? Did you stop saying Hallel on Yom
Ha'atzma'ut because everyone from RYBS and rightwards was against it?

Or rather, have you dismissed those to the Right...?

YGB

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

Subject:SE

RYGB writes

>I stress, not because of the friendship with Atlas! That was something
>well known (the SE gave him a haskomo on the Ra'ab"d on BK), and from
>which we might learn a great deal of positive for Avodas Hashem (although
>some might disagree and rule out friendship with the Reform on a personal
>level, that is a legitimate area of debate

To continue this line of reasoning I quote some words of SE himself
SE delivered a hesped about R. Chanoch Ehrentreu of Munich

"He related to everypne with understanding and with affection.
Constantly, and in every situation, he sought to find the Jewish
kernel, the Jewish spark, without distinction between trend and trend 
or between party and party. I know there are people among us who 
will not perceive an unmitigated praise of the departed in pointing 
out this fact. On the contrary, they tend to denigrate receptivity 
to everyone as a form of compromise and insistently demand of every 
brother and fellow Jew a clear and definite stand in the nature of
"are you with us ur against us"

Furthermore, as noted Atlas's work was included in the chiddushei
haraavad al baba kama. SE notes that despite the criticsm to which he had
been subjected for so doing, he did not regret including the
responsum to Atlas in SE (letter published by Atlas!)

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]