Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 192

Monday, August 30 1999

• changing pictures
• violence
• Re: historical revisionism
• mental health
• Re: violence
• Re: Toward a Definition of Psak
• Re: historical revisionism, avodah/aishdas
• Re: Midgets criticising giants:Insiders vs Outsiders
• R. Zevin censorship
• Historical Perspectives
• Re: historical revisionism, avodah/aishdas
• Re: Historical Perspectives
• Lower criticism (redux)**2
• Cheit as Ratzon Hashem
• Revisionism

> Do you own the Artscroll biography of R. Moshe Feinstein? Which 
> edition? Which edition, you might ask? What a silly question! 
> Actually, it isn't a silly question. Open the book to Page 141. In the 
> first edition, there is picture of R. Moshe shaking hands with R. 
> Aaron Kotler, with R. Yosef Dov Soloveichik sitting between them. 
> The caption reads (I own the first edition), "Greeting Rabbi Aharon 
> Kotler at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner; in the center is YIVLAC"H 
> Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Rabbi 
> Yitzchak Elchonon." In the later editions, you will not find Rav 
> Soloveichik - his picture has been cropped out.
> 
I was recently that that the cover page of the Artscroll on R. Kaminetsky
from Torah Umesorah was changed. In the original picture he was wearing
a bowtie and colored shirt. However, for the book Artscroll decided
that a white shirt and regular tie was more fitting and so changed
it on the book. The story is that it was done without consulting the
family.

Eli Turkel

> 
> A few years ago - I participated in a conference of frum
> psychotherapists which > was addressed by a well known talmid chachom. 

I thank RDE for the masterful job he has done in explaining the passage
of knowledge in some yeshivot. However, my my perspective this is the minor
problem. Whether every bochur in some yeshiva knows or should know the
truth about the metziv or Rav Moshe etc is a relatively minor issue.

The more important issues are what i would call social issues like
violence, psychologists and related issues. While gedolim are aware of
the problem it is hidden from the average yeshiva student. Israeli
papers are full of stories of violence in the family. It rarely appears
in haredi newspapers except to attack the secularists. While, I
certainly hope that family violence is lower in religious circles it
certainly exists. The result is that the problem is usually swept under
the carpet. Many rabbis are more worried about such news leaking out than
about the woman. Religious psychologists that I have spoken to told me
that they are severely restricted in what they can suggest and not just
by halacha.

There is a rumor that Rav Eliyashiv is against psychologists. I would
imagine that RDE would qualify that. However, just the existence of such
statements does harm. A haredi psychologist/rav in New York told me a
story that he once tried to talk a severely depressed person to get
counseling. The answer he received was that rav Eliyashiv was against it.
I have no doubt this person never asked Rav Eliashiv but that is the
impression given to the man in the street even though the elite may know
better.

A few days ago i received a phone call from a haredi relative in Jerusalem
who is trying to set up a hotline for young cancer patients. It seems
that some families that suspect that children may have cancer don't do
anything out of fear that it will affect the marriage prospects of older 
children. This hotline is meant to guarantee information in complete
secrecy. Similarly, I have heard from respected rabbis of problems with
infants with problems being abandonded  because it will affect shidduchim.

The rabbis are working to eliminate these  problems but they are very
limited because everything has to be done in secret. No rabbi can pubically
mount a campaign against these problems since officially these problems
don't exist. I understand that in the US some of these problems have
been addressed but at least in my limited knowledge it has not reached Israel.

Thus, while different levels of populace for knowledge about secular
studies of some gadol is acceptable, however in other areas this
differentiation of who has access to the real facts can lead to tragedy.

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 8/30/99 2:14:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 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
  >>
I think there's a difference between acting on specific ideas and integrating 
them into the lev shel tora that each of us tries to build.  For example, it 
is possible that a "right winger" having read the full statement of R' Zevin 
might be not quite as quick to "disrespect" the siren wailing when the rest 
of the country pays tribute to its war dead, even if they personally believe 
that there are better ways to show the respect (I assume that this is their 
reason).  In much the same way a "left winger" might still say Hallel on Yom 
Haatzmaut but recognize that there may be some who recognize the Yad Hashem 
in the shivat tzion of our times but don't say hallel on that date.

KVCT,
Joel Rich

I just saw an ad in the Jerusalem Post for the Nefesh conference on
Torah Values and Mental Health in Baltimore
with speakers, rabbis Dovid Cohen, Abraham Twerski, Frand, Tzvi Hersch Weinreb.

Is there anything comparable in Israel?

Also I assume that RDEs comments on knowledge in yeshivot reflects the
situation mainly in Israel and not in the US.
i.e. is Lakewood like what was described?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> The more important issues are what i would call social issues like
> violence, psychologists and related issues. While gedolim are aware of
> the problem it is hidden from the average yeshiva student. Israeli
> papers are full of stories of violence in the family. It rarely appears
> in haredi newspapers except to attack the secularists. While, I
> certainly hope that family violence is lower in religious circles it
> certainly exists. The result is that the problem is usually swept under
> the carpet. Many rabbis are more worried about such news leaking out
> than about the woman. Religious psychologists that I have spoken to told
> me that they are severely restricted in what they can suggest and not
> just by halacha. 
> 

I think the situation is different in Chu"l. The JO regularly carries
essays by psychologists, and, perhaps more importantly, ads for
psychotherapists, and will be devoting an issue this Fall to problem
children within the community. While there are reactionaries,
organizations like Nefesh and Shalva enjoy substantial support from the
Right.

YGB

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

Last night, I posted an explanation of why I think the idea of being
"stuck" with a p'sak does not apply in the absence of a Sanhedrin or
similar Beis Din. I neglected to point out that this works in both the
l'chumra and l'kula directions.

As I wrote, if a person gets an unexpectedly machmir p'sak, he is not
"stuck" to it in the sense that the posek was kovea the halacha to be
that way. Rather, the person must seriously consider the posek's opinion
in light of all other relevant factors, and is then personally
responsible to do what Hashem wants him to do. Since the posek knows more
Torah than the questioner, he is well advised to follow the posek's
proscription. But he should realize that the posek does not *establish*
the halacha for him, and that the real halacha for him might lie in
opinions other than what that posek had suggested.

What is less obvious is that the above paragraph may be read in the
opposite direction as well:

if a person gets an unexpectedly *maykil* p'sak, he is not "stuck" to it
in the sense that the posek was kovea the halacha to be that way. Rather,
the person must seriously consider the posek's opinion in light of all
other relevant factors, and is then personally responsible to do what
Hashem wants him to do. Since the posek knows more Torah than the
questioner, he may be quite entitled to rely on the p'sak. But he should
not do so blindly. If he feels more comfortable with stricter opinions,
he must not say "I am stuck with this p'sak", because that p'sak is not
The Word Of G-d, but is merely advice from a Talmid Chacham.

It goes in both directions. There is no free lunch.

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 Mon, 30 Aug 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> I think there's a difference between acting on specific ideas and
> integrating them into the lev shel tora that each of us tries to build. 
> For example, it is possible that a "right winger" having read the full
> statement of R' Zevin might be not quite as quick to "disrespect" the
> siren wailing when the rest of the country pays tribute to its war dead,
> even if they personally believe that there are better ways to show the
> respect (I assume that this is their reason).  In much the same way a
> "left winger" might still say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut but recognize that
> there may be some who recognize the Yad Hashem in the shivat tzion of
> our times but don't say hallel on that date. 
>

We are all (at least you and I) striving towards the same goal. But we
differ as to how it can be achieved. I believe that gradual exposure,
piquing interest, generating thought, is the best approach, not the
baseball bat over the head. For the UNMS, a line like that omitted from R'
Zevin might be the equivalent of the baseball bat on the head.

But I am somewhat disturbed by yout comment:

> "left winger" might still say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut but recognize that
> there may be some who recognize the Yad Hashem in the shivat tzion of
> our times but don't say hallel on that date. 

Suppose you find someone that holds Shivas Tzion is Ma'aseh Satan but is
Oved Hashem with great sincerity in all other matters?

How would you like a person of that camp to approac someone who says
Hallel with a brocho and Haftoro on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut but is Oved Hashem
with great sincerity in all other matters?

Out purpose here in Avodah/Aishdas, I believe, is to gather together as
many disparate elements of Torah Yahadus as we can and despite vehement
disagreements respect the sincere attempts at Avodas Hashem of each other
and learn from each other. Here, bing the pinnacle of the SBM
intellegentzia of the Orthodox world, we must adhere to that standard,
even if in the "outside world" people do not. 

YGB

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

Daniel Eidensohn writes: <<< The outsider is ignored or labeled as a
troublemaker or apikorus for even thinking to ask for certain types of
information. >>>

I suppose the insiders are justified in this, for fear of what the
incompentent outsider might do with that information, if he had it.

However, the outsider views *himself* as just another Jew trying to
understand Hashem's Torah, and I think that he is fully justified in
resenting the doors which are closed in his face, and his chiyuv of
Talmud Torah requires him to continue pursuing of the answers.

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.

> << 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.

This matter was aired in the letters to the editor column in Tradition,
some time in the early 1980's. As I recall, the representative of
ArtScroll claimed that the deletions were made at the request of R.
Zevin's widow, communicating his wishes. Why R. Zevin himself kept
silent edition after edition, and why he told his wife to insist on the 
deletions only in English translations prepared after his death, remains a
mystery.

Saul Weinreb wrote:

>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" 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 mipneiHaShalom, but
>I think this hetter has been stretched way beyond what chazal had in mind.
>
>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.

Before you publicly trash a respected organization (which has been a
tremendous positive influence on Orthodoxy) - you should have a
stronger basis than your suspicions "that they didn't have such
lofty thoughts in mind" or that you know better than them what "Chazal
had in mind". I do not claim that Artscroll has the status of a gadol
b'Torah - but they are highly regarded frum Jews - and they have every
right to be judged according to the accepted standards for public
criticism. That which is obvious - such as an alteration of the text
between the Hebrew and English - can be readily accepted as facts.
However, the interpretation that is placed on these facts requires
more sensitivity and research.

Regarding the deletion of Rav Zevin's phrase praising the founding of
the State - I believe that in the introduction to the English edition
there is a statement that certain modifications were made based on the
advice of a gadol. My information is that that gadol was Rav Yaakov
Kaminetsky. Are claiming that you have a superior understanding of
Torah and reality than Reb Yaakov?!

As Rabbi Schwab pointed out - there is a major difference between
stating a fact that you know to be untrue and deleting statements
which you feel are 1) harmful to the reputation of people 2) undermine
the respect for various institutions 3) likely to reflect an opinion
which was based on faulty information. Fabricating facts is
problematic, deleting information is permitted sometimes. Alterations
involve value judgments about which rational and responsible adults
can legitimately disagree. Both Rabbi Zlatowitz and Rabbi Sherman are
intelligent, knowledgeable individuals who are well aware of the
issues you raise. So are the gedolim with whom they consult.

I can accept that there is a possibility that being more forthcoming
with information can have a positive effect [as Rabbi Schwab
acknowledged in his article on Jewish chronology]. I can also accept
the fact that certain material can be read by mature adults but not by
children or those who lead very sheltered lives. There is no Torah or
Rabbinic law that says only Artscroll can produce biographies of
gedolim or translations. Where are the competitors to Artscroll who
produce biographies and translations that you find acceptable? As far
as I know, Orthodox publishers and authors [except perhaps for Rabbi
J.J. Schacter] are just as reticent about publishing "all the
information" as Artscroll - and for the same reason.

                                     Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 8/30/99 9:28:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 But I am somewhat disturbed by yout comment:
 
 > "left winger" might still say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut but recognize that
 > there may be some who recognize the Yad Hashem in the shivat tzion of
 > our times but don't say hallel on that date. 
 
 Suppose you find someone that holds Shivas Tzion is Ma'aseh Satan but is
 Oved Hashem with great sincerity in all other matters?
 
 How would you like a person of that camp to approac someone who says
 Hallel with a brocho and Haftoro on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut but is Oved Hashem
 with great sincerity in all other matters?
 -----------------
As I understand it, the satan is still subservient to HKBH, but in any event, 
my statement was not meant to be exclusionary. Oft times people are more 
disturbed by minor deviations of those closest to them (eg some on the 
"right" are more disturbed by MO than reform)
---------------
 Out purpose here in Avodah/Aishdas, I believe, is to gather together as
 many disparate elements of Torah Yahadus as we can and despite vehement
 disagreements respect the sincere attempts at Avodas Hashem of each other
 and learn from each other. Here, bing the pinnacle of the SBM
 intellegentzia of the Orthodox world, we must adhere to that standard,
 even if in the "outside world" people do not. 
---------
Agreed - KVCT
Joel Rich 
____--
 YGB >>

In a message dated 8/30/99 9:59:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< 
 Regarding the deletion of Rav Zevin's phrase praising the founding of
 the State - I believe that in the introduction to the English edition
 there is a statement that certain modifications were made based on the
 advice of a gadol. My information is that that gadol was Rav Yaakov
 Kaminetsky. Are claiming that you have a superior understanding of
 Torah and reality than Reb Yaakov?!
 
 As Rabbi Schwab pointed out - there is a major difference between
 stating a fact that you know to be untrue and deleting statements
 which you feel are 1) harmful to the reputation of people 2) undermine
 the respect for various institutions 3) likely to reflect an opinion
 which was based on faulty information. Fabricating facts is
 problematic, deleting information is permitted sometimes. Alterations
 involve value judgments about which rational and responsible adults
 can legitimately disagree. Both Rabbi Zlatowitz and Rabbi Sherman are
 intelligent, knowledgeable individuals who are well aware of the
 issues you raise. So are the gedolim with whom they consult.
  >>
Just a practical point, when one acknowledges the above theory in their 
publications, it undermines the credibility of everything they publish. 
Interestingly (to me at least) is that HKBH seems to have taken a different 
tack in chumash by raising apparent shortcomings in the avot(at whatever 
level we understand those shortcomings as per our previous discussions)

KVCT
Joel Rich

RRW's comments (below) indicate that he is responding to a skewed
understanding of my remarks - perhaps i was not sufficiently clear in their
articulation - and thus we have been, in part, talking past each other. i'll
make a last try before abandoning the field (i know i said that before too).
RRW writes: 
<Or IOW, are you categorically stating that: 
1) Our contemporary texts of Talmud are w/o deviation from the original? 
2) Same for Mishno?
3) Same for Nach
4) Same for Chumash?
Didn't the Gro, Bach and Rashi engage in restoring the proper Girso? Didn't
the Gemoro assert that at least a passage or 2 in Tanach did not transpire
as our text says it did (EG Zayin Av)?>

I am not "categorically stating' anything of the kind. The first serious
misconception is to identify my personal views with my description of - what
i believe - is the common prevailing perspective across the populations
which these days people our frum educational establishments re the integrity
of the torah text (more on this later - i want to propose an experiment).
There is a lot more that could be said about the talmud's appreciation of
the existence of a single authoritative girsoh vs the reality of individual
scrolls with scribal errors - we would start by discussing the three temple
scrolls and proceed to an examination of the difficult to unravel
descriptions of the ma'asei ha'sofirim - but oad chozone lamoeid.  As well,
my remarks re the gimoroh's treatment of textual problems (generally to
interpret them, not amend them) was just that - a description of a
prevailing reality.  I nowhere offered my personal appreciation of these
issues, nor do i do so now.  Indeed, as someone who has spent as much time
as I have in the oriental library of the British Museum inspecting medieval
tanachic codices, remarks along the lines of your question.. <Or would you
claim that every Kosher Torah scroll that ever was matches ours?  That there
never ever was a text that deviated from what we now have?> .. comes across
a bit oddly and all questions addressed to me which seem premised as the
above, rather miss the mark.

Now to substance. part of the problem lies in what I view as RRW's - let's
call it non-standard - understanding of what is encapsulated by "lower
criticism".  Thus RRW deems it a "quibble" when it is suggested that lower
criticism speaks to the accumulation of textual errors during the temporally
lengthy train of scribal transmissions along with the belief that we may
readily identify specific errors, (not just that deviations in general are
known to exist) as opposed to the gemoroh's willingness, in his words, <to
see the text as other than written.  If it's not lower criticism than what
is it?>.  well this is not a quibble.  this is the whole iqqor.  a
willingness to see text as "other than written" is more usually classified
as torah she'bi'al peh, not lower criticism.  else one is arguing about
apples and oranges. this distinction alone is surely responsible for some of
the talking past each other which has been going on. 

to return to the first quotation - whose personal imputation i rejected
above - RRW, after stringing together questions of talmudic as well as
tanach texts, asked <Didn't the Gro, Bach and Rashi engage in restoring the
proper Girso?>
Well, no. their work on hagohos focused on talmud, not the tanach, and is
thus quite beside the point (btw - I would have added maharshal to that
list). it is surprising that one must even emphasize that there is an
extraordinary theological divide between the two. there is nobody - in the
frum community or without - who has ever suggested that that preservation of
precise orthography or even words which did not affect pishat in the talmud
was all that important, nor was there ever a masoretic enterprise devoted to
recordation and 'fossilization' of a single "uncorrupted" talmudic text. to
raise it in conjunction with tanach severely confuses the whole issue of
"lower criticism" as applied to tanach. one may as well ask one's opinion of
lower criticism of Homer and the bible.   acceptance of the former by some
group hardly compels their acceptance of the latter. 

<Didn't the Gemoro and the most common understanding of it allow for a flux
in molei choseir?  Or IOW, even if one was a boki, might they not be a boki
in what was accepted then and not not necessarily the same set of molei
choser that Moshe RAbbeinu had?>

The gemoroh in qidushin (pace r. margolis) did indeed accept the uncertainty
of moleih choseir, as did the halochic codifiers. e.g. the reason adduced by
the remoh for not requiring a ba'al qoreih to restart leining from the very
beginning when a mistake is discovered during the course of leining, is
because of that very reason, i.e. one has no assurance that the backup torah
one brings out at that point is, because of this systemic uncertainty,
ultimately more 'correct" than the one it now replaces. but your IOW simply
doesn't follow. It a chidush, not an IOW, which re-defines bi'qiyus in a non
obvious way. one can't prove that it is incorrect but there is no compelling
reason to accept it. 

<Let me make a valuable distinction:
My claim to "lower criticism" in no way affects the status of what we
halachially consider to be a kosher..Let me make a 2nd distinction: The
Rambam's assetion wrt to our Torah's being the same as Moshe Rabbinu was
restricted to rjecting the minus/apikorus assertion that the Torah was
revised or tampered with. He was addressing a heretical belief re: the
origin and transmission of a valid Mesorah, he was not ruling out the
possibility of minor scribal discrepancies.>.

Your halochic distinction is agreed with, though it was never really an
issue. your characterization of the rambam is more problematic - though
perhaps this is just a matter of personal style. as well known, the rambam's
articulation of the eighth iqqor flies in the face of a reality which the
rambam had to be familiar with. All of this is extensively reviewed with
voluminous source citations in Marc Shapiro's fine 1993 TUMJ review of the
rambam's iqqorim and their place in jewish theology. but to advance beyond
the observation of the conceptual tarte disatre in divirei harambam to an
explanation of same, is to enter the realm of conjecture and sivoroh.  It is
indeed possible that what motivated the rambam is an anti-forgery agendum
-Shapiro is actually a bit more expansive suggesting a direct connection to
an active contemporaneous Muslim campaign claiming such forgeries - but
these are conjectures and ought be presented as such, not as matter of fact
assertions of uncontestable truth. mind reading someone's motive is hard to
do, especially if the fellow's been dead for the better part of a thousand
years. 

<BTW, I suspect we have a form of literalism or chumro-ism at work.  Since
the Rambam (or perhaps a predecssor) said that the Torah we have today is
the same as Moshe Rabbinu's  that we now must literally apply this to the
very last os.> 

This sounds like a gratuitous swipe at the chumro-istos, (not that i would
ordinarily object).  there is simply no logical - apparent to me anyway -
connection between a literal understanding of the rambam, or literalism in
general, and chumroh mongering.  indeed a case could often be made the other
way, that it is penumbral pishotim and inferential exegesis which has
produced many chumrohs not discernible in the plain reading of original
formulations. 

Finally:
<OK Mechy how would you deal with an hypothetical Bayis sheini Torah that
was unearthed and had devaitions from our halachically accepted version?
Would you point out that it was nignaz because of its deviations?  Or would
you claim that every Kosher Torah scroll that ever was matches ours?  That
there never ever was a text that deviated from what we now have?>
To directly address your question, the answer of course is that such bayis
sheni texts already have been dug up, and they do contain many deviations
from the masoretic text (moleih and choseir being especially out of control
but also unusual deployments of other matres lectionis as well as other
kinds of stuff.)  this includes not only nach - the yeshaya scroll being the
most famous and complete - but also snippets of chumosh (indeed snippets
from every sefer but esther and nechemyoh - though ezra and nechemyoh
originally comprised a single book and fragments of ezra have been found as
well).  of course there is zippo halochic resonance, nor would anyone ever
suggest there should be since their provenance, aside from merely being old,
is unknown. as for the circumstances of their genizoh - if that's what it
was - we are clueless, though conjectures are many. in any event the only
"quality controlled" texts we know of from bayis sheni (which we don't have)
are the three temple scrolls - not one of which by itself comprised the
officially accepted text.  i confess i am uncertain as to the halochic
resonance of suddenly acquiring one of these three.  while newly discovered
rishonim ms have a hard time getting a halochic hearing viz the meiri and
chazone ish's strictures about not having participated in the halochic
process, i do not know that this should apply to one of the three temple
scrolls which were already used in talmudic times to define the correct
girsoh. my guess is they indeed should lead to changes. unfortunately we are
unlikely to have the zichus to observe the posiqim slugging that one out
halochoh lima'aseh. in contrast it's clear that breuer's torah will not.

To return to the original dispute.  i claimed that to suggest that the
following perspective, in RRW's words: 
< 1. 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. ....IMHO, there is no one
right perspective, they all are valid within their own frame of reference. 
2. the Rambam's insistense that the Troah in our hands is that of Moshe
Rabbeinu. etc. refers only to the fact that neither did Moshe, nor did any
subsequent scribe intentionally alter or forg anything. However, it did not
preclude the possibility of "honest" (ie. unintentional) scribal errors. As
such, I have accepted the possiblity of "lower criticism" in many cases; but
reject "higher criticism" which is based 
3. and the TB had no hesitation to tell us to ignore the literal text
because it was in error due to a confusion. I would think it's a kal
vachomer that the TB would allow (at least in Nach) for "honest" scribal
errors, too. 
4. The Rambam's assetion wrt to our Torah's being the same as Moshe Rabbinu
was restricted to rjecting the minus/apikorus assertion that the Torah was
revised or tampered with. He was addressing a heretical belief re: the
origin and transmission of a valid Mesorah, he was not ruling out the
possibility of minor scribal discrepancies.>.

is the matter of course understanding at our educational institutions
boggles my mind - and i didn't believe it. i still don't.  My guess is that
such inyonim lie far outside the educational orbit of most jewish
educational institutions, and the implied acceptance of lower critical
approaches, which willy nilly implies our ability to identify these mistakes
as they come up, would be foreign to the weltenshang of such institutions,
even such a secular one as revel. 

But enough of my, or RRW's, conjectures and unsupported assertions. Since
this is an argument about the state of currently held beliefs in the
community (not about my personal views of these matters as I have taken some
pains to emphasize) there is no need to indulge in any additional
I-say-he-says. let us experiment. Since many of our list members seem to be
connected in one way or other to a spectrum of such institutions, ranging
from ponovitch, to chassidish yeshivos, to hesdeir, to yu, skokie,..? why
don't some of you guys (or gals) simply pose RRW's unadorned remarks (1-4 as
quoted in previous paragraph) to the first three students, or the first
three roshei yeshivos, you bump into, and see whether this elicits a yawn, a
horrified recoil (my guess), or whatever in between.  then we can discuss
facts which are at least anecdotally validated.

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

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:31:08 EDT, Chaim wrote the folowing on the
subject of Cheit as ratzon Hashem:

"M'inayana d'yoma: I have never understood R' Tzaddok's hagdara (Tzidkas HaTzaddik #40, #179) that through tshuva one can appreciate that cheit is also an expression of ratzon Hashem."

In order to understand this doctrine of R. Tzadok, you must study
very thoroughly the following related sections in Tzidkas Hatzadik:
##100-02, 228, 242, and 252. See also #49. These additional sections
on the same general theme flesh out some of the underlying thinking and sources for R. Tzadok's more limited treatment in the sections
you cite. 

Apart from R. Tzadok's original insights in this area, I believe he is also drawing on the unique treatment of the concepts
of sin and b'chira articulated by his rebbe, the Izbitzer, in May Hashiloach, as well as the Lurianic doctrine of y'dia u'bechira [which
Malbim also uses in a similar manner to explain the concept
of nisayon in his commentary on akaydas Yitzchok]. I will, b'lee neder, cite some of the relevant passages in May Hashiloach when I
can get to the sefer.

I hope this is helpful.

Ksiva v'chasima tova,
David

Just as stealing one dollar is as much g'nevah as stealing 100,000, no
matter for what the cause. So too revision of history to suit your own
purposes no matter how noble is revisionism. Emes is emes and anything
short of that is not. Apparently  the defenders of AS see this not as an
issue of black and white; but emes is just that. Rav Aharon Solovechik
has said "when emes and sholom are in conflict, we follow emes."
kvct
steve

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


[ 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         ]