Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 194

Tuesday, August 31 1999

• What is a Ba'al Teshuva?
• Re: Historical Perspectives
• Re: Rabbi Soloveitchik and Maimonides school
• Re: Historical Perspectives
• Re: Elite transmissions:Loss is good
• Re: Historical Perspectives
• Mistaken transmission
• World of the Yeshiva
• Re: Historical Perspectives
• re: mental health
• Eit Sheker Sofrim and Dr. Birnbaum
• Cheit as ratzon Hashem
• Re: Eit Sheker Sofrim and Dr. Birnbaum
• Re: Lower Criticism
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants

Dear Moshe + Sharon,
Attached is a letter I sent to the Avodah mailing list a few weeks ago.
I'd appreciate your thoughts and also ask that you give a copy to Julie. If Rabbi B. responds, I'll send you a copy.
Kol Tuv and ksiva vchasima Tova. Love. David

___________________________________________________________________ Subject:  Ba'al Teshuva - Definition; Dr. Birnbaum
Author:   David Nadoff
Date:     8/15/99 7:55 AM


As a newcomer to the list, I spent some time in the Avodah archives and other AishDas web pages to get a better sense of what its all about. I was pleased to learn that AishDas
and this list (or at least a segment of it) promotes (or is at least sympathetic to) the
program and aspirations of Dr. Nathan Birnbaum ("NB") for the elevation of Torah Judaism. A few more mouse-clicks into AishDas brought me to an article on NB by Rabbi Bechhofer, apparently a leading contributor to this list, entitled "Der Aufstieg..."
from The Jewish Observer (Sivan 5757). 

It happens that I had a bit of a disagreement with Rabbi Bechhofer concerning that article in
an exchange with him that appeared in TJO (Kislev 5758). I found the exchange less than satisfying because, among other reasons, I was denied an opportunity to respond to Rabbi Bechhofer's rejoinder (by no fault of his, of course), and some issues that I consider important were left unresolved. Given this group's apparent interest in NB and the timeliness, with Elul upon us, of teshuva-related subjects, I'd like to reopen the discussion.

The gist of my letter to TJO: Rabbi Bechhofer's otherwise fine essay is mistaken in stating that NB was not a ba'al teshuva ("BT") in the sense in which "we generally define a
[BT]" and, even more so, in stating that NB "never succumbed to yetzarim," all of which
is inconsistent with NB's own account in "From Freethnker to Believer." On the contrary, NB is an outstanding example of a BT for our age.

The gist of Rabbi Bechhofer's response: His contention is based upon a statement attributed
to Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan that "[NB] is not a [BT]. He is like Avraham Avinu in that he came to recognize his creator," and related remarks of Rabbi Tzvi Kaplan in MiMa'ayanei Kedem, in both of which the term BT is used in its "classic sense," as opposed to the "modern, generic (and inaccurate) usage" that I employed.  The "classic definition" is based upon cases such as that of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya,
"an archetypical paridigm of teshuva," while in "modern usage" the term BT includes
"all types of persons who come to emuna after a period of distance."  (Note the shift from
the original essay, in which Rabbi Bechhofer based his claim on the way "we generally
define a [BT]," not on a "classic definition.") 

So much for history.  Now, to get on with it, I beg to differ for the following reasons:
I.  The purported "classic definition" does not capture the breadth of traditional usage. Chazal offer Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya not as a defining "paradigm," but as an
exceptional case of such extreme depravity that his teshuva necessarily entailed death.
Avoda Zara 17a. For paradigms of teshuva, see Avoda Zara 4b-5a and Menoras HaMaor,
pp.  598-602 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition. The term BT is not reserved only for
the penitent who was a willful or habitual sinner or who committed particularly serious
sins.  The classical authorities reject such limitations and also apply the term with respect to the casual and occasional sinner and the perpetrator of common and seemingly minor transgressions. Orchos Tzadikim, p. 193 in the Eshkol edition; Shnay Luchos HaBris, p. 242-3 in volume 3 of the Oz Vehodor edition; Beur HaGra, Orach Chayim 53:5. In its most basic sense, the concept does not even entail the occurrence of an antecedent
sin. Shem MiShmuel, Shmos volume 1, p. 78; Siduro shel Shabbos, Drush 3:3:5-6.

II.  There is no justification for the charge of inaccuracy as to modern usage. Historically, the BT  is a committed member of a Torah community who, having sinned, subdues the active force of the yetzer hara that incited him to stray.  In contrast to this historical model, the contemporary BT is often a Torah-deprived product of assimilation, a tinok shenishba whose errant lifestyle is not the work of the yetzer hara, but whose return requires that he overcome the yetzer of indolence and inertia that resists all positive change.
(On the inertial force of the yetzer hara, see Noson MiBreslov, Likutay Halkhos, Tefilin 5:6 and Rosh Hodesh 7:17; Tzadok HaKohen, Sefer Pri Tzadik/Roshay Hodoshim, p. 246 of the Jerusalem edition of 5754.)

Recognizing the distinct character of this contemporary model, we shouldn't lose sight of
the common features that justify the use of the the term BT as to each model, the most important of which is the repair or elimination of a breach, whether great or slight, voluntary or involuntary, of ones bond with Hashem and His Torah, the spiritual life-source of Klal Yisrael and each Jew. Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 7:6-7; Or HaChayim,
Vayikra 19:9. Any Jew who recovers his/her grasp of the Aytz HaChaYim is definitely a BT. See Zohar, Mishpatim 106b.

Also, within the historical model of teshuva we find a phenomenon, call it the hybrid
model, partaking of key elements of the contemporary model, in which sustained yetzer-
driven deviation from Torah behavior results in habituation and compromises the volitional element in ones misconduct. See Meshekh Hokhma, Vayikra 5:11; Maharal, Nesivos Olam, vol. 2, p. 155; Peleh Yoetz, erech Yetzer; Pituchay Chosam, Vayishlach 36:21. This can occur to such an extent that the position of a Torah-observant Jew, the starting point of the historical model, becomes analogous to that of a tinok shenishba, the starting point of the contemporary model, in terms of diminished responsibility (not necessarily accountability), non-operation of the active force of the yetzer hora and dominance of the inertial force of the yetzer hara. All of these models are within the inclusive scope of the term BT in its proper sense.

III.  NB was a BT of the traditional variety, exemplifying the hybrid model, not only in
some "modern, generic" sense. In "From Freethinker to Believer" (in L. Dawidowicz, ed., The Golden Tradition, pp. 213-220), NB describes his upbringing by Eastern European parents in Vienna "with concepts, and amidst the practice, of traditional Judaism;"
his gradual transition from "a believing youth, eager to practice Judaism" to abandonment of mitzva observance; and his subsequent intellectual conversion to atheistic materialism and his sustained action on those heretical convictions to the point that his will was "imprisoned and suppressed" and "the voice of my people was ... silent within me."  He also tells of the inclinations to change that stirred in him during the 20 years of his estrangement and of his powerful resistance, which he eventually overcame only with special syata dishmaya. 

In this account, all the classic elements of the hybrid model of the traditional variety of teshuva are discernable: (1) the characteristic stratagem by which the yetzer hara progressively incites a committed Jew to transgressions of increasing severity, beginning with the seemingly minor, until it finally draws him into heresy (Shabbos 105b; Nidah 13b; Reshis Hokhma pp. 393-4, 500 in volume 2 of the Or Hamusar edition); (2) the volitional paralysis that results from sustained deviation; and (3) the operation of the inertial force of the yetzer hara in resisting positive change.

IV.  Finally, as will soon become clear, it is unhealthy to perpetuate the idea that NB was not a BT.  Apart from the statements of the Rabbis Kaplan, to whose authority Rabbi Bechhofer appeals, we can add that a rather cryptic pronouncement has been attributed to NB himself in which he dissociates somewhat from BT status, stating that the title BT does not apply to him with all appropriate precision because he was not a chotay umachti es harabim.  A. Shurin, Shiltay Giborim, volume 1, p. 25. To understand these statements,
note that NB did not become a docile, unassuming member of the Torah community, but, as he writes in "From Freethinker to Believer," took his place as a vocal critic of Orthodox Jewry
and a demanding advocate of sweeping change.  According to Rabbi Chaim Nussbaum, who knew NB and witnessed these events, "many felt that a [BT] ought not criticize
contemporary Torah-observant Jews, much less suggest changes in Torah life," and NB's proposals received a cool reception in certain quarters. C. Nussbaum, The Essence of Teshuva, p. 71.

NB's background was thus used as a pretext for dismissing his message. The perception of him by some as an uppity BT constituted an obstacle to the acceptance of his ideas. It is only natural that, with the purest of motives, NB and his admirers would downplay this aspect of his past, lest petty prejudice impede the ascent of Klal Yisrael for which he strove.  Most likely, Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan and NB were doing just that in the statements attributed to them, intending them only as rhetorical expedients to combat the smug dismissiveness that NB encountered as a BT. 

We've progressed beyond the prejudice that Rabbi Nussbaum describes and don't need of the fiction that NB was not a BT to cleanse his ideas of some supposed taint.  I'm not suggesting that Rabbi Bechhofer harbors any such prejudice. I'm confident that he doesn't. Nevertheles, contemporary BTs deserve the elimination of any vestigial remains of this historical prejudice, including the once-useful fiction that NB was not a BT.  Today's returnees shouldn't be deprived by definitional sleight of hand of the honorable title of BT that Chazal bestowed.  The example of NB should move us to recognize and take full advantage of the unique breadth of enlightened perspective that BTs bring to our communities. See Tzadok HaKohen, Machshovos Harutz, p. 44. 

Ksiva Vchasima Tova
David Nadoff                                                           

As regards the danger of revisionsism, one need look no furhter than the
revisions of the famous drasha of the Belzer Rebbe's brother R. Mordechai in
1944 in Budapest.  R. Mordechai justified the Rebbe's flight from Hungary by
stating that the Rebbe truly yearned for Eretz Yisrael, and was no just
"saving his own neck" (Assuming that later was the true motivation, coming
from a family of survivors, I would have a hard time blaming the Rebbe for
his actions.  That period of history defied all reason, and it would be
unfair in the extreme to apply conventional understandings of the
responsibilities of leadership to that time).  After the war the drasha was
revised for obvious reasons and simply said that R. Mordechai talked about
the beauty of E"Y.  It was well know before and during the war that the
Belzer Rebbe opposed any sort of emigration from Europe to unknown and
possibly irrelegious territory.  That was his view.   He promised  that G-d
won't allow Hungarian Jewry to be destroyed (In my opinion he was wrong and
his view casued the deaths of many people. But that is an issue for G-d to
deal with not I).  After the war a revission of that view was prmulgatd that
the Rebbe in fact warned the people to  flee but his warning was not heeded.
<sigh>  Why not just admit that the Rebbe was no as extraordinary as the
times in which he found himself?
----- Original Message -----
From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Perspectives


> In a message dated 8/30/99 9:59:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:
>
> <<  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. >>
>
> R' Zlatowitz and R' Sherman are indeed Torah Jews of the highest order.
That
> does not exempt them from criticism.
>
> Jordan
>

With respect to the question of Rabbi Soloveitchik and Maimonides being
co-ed, I had several discussions about this with the Bostoner Rebbe in
Boston, who living there when Maimonides was founded, and had some insight
into what was going on due to the heavy involvement of a Bostoner Mispallel,
Mr. Marx Spitz.  According to the Rebbe, Maimonides was originally founded
as a boys-only school, but after two years, with only ten boys or so, it was
in danger of closing.  It was suggested that girls be admitted to increase
the enrollment and make the school viable.  At the time Reb Elchonnon
Wasserman was visiting Boston, and Rabbi Soloveitchik asked his advice.  Reb
Elchonnon advised that mixed classes were okay until third grade; after that
they should be separate. Upon that advice, Maimonides became co-ed.  Why it
stayed co-ed after third grade remains a question, but one of Rabbi
Soloveitchik's students told me that RJBS was queried as to why he allowed
coeducation at Maimonides when he was so adamantly opposed to it at YU in
New York, he replied "Boston is not New York."

Joelirich wrote: <<< 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) >>>

RYGB asked <<< How is this point relevant to the issue we are discussing?
>>>

and later on he pointed out: <<< Notice how much of the Avos' lives and
careers are omitted! Notice that Ma'aseh Bilha is written
euphemistically. Notice, most importantly, that Ma'aseh Yehuda v'Tamar is
*read but not translated* :-) ! >>>

Notice also, that the stories which NOT omitted! And others as well:
Moshe at the rock, Miriam's lashon hara, etc etc. RYGB points out that
these stories are whitewashed to a certain degree, but they are not
categorically omitted either!

How are these points relevant? Because the Torah did not pretend these
people were perfect. They are shown to be fallible humans. Indeed, they
are shown to be far greater than us, but still, something short of
perfect. Their mistakes are shown to us, so that we can learn from them,
and apply those lessons to our own lives.

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.

Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> RDE has posted a number of responses along the lines of the following:  <An
> interested outsider can also acquire some esoteric knowledge but is more
> like to being given the run around or simply not have the opportunity to
> talk with someone who knows. Sometimes the insider gets his information from
> an academic source or newspaper but he than has a chance of clarifying it
> with sources within the yeshiva. Again my point was that the existence of
> Artscroll biographies and laws of lashon harah does not meant that those who
> have need to know are denied the information ..>
>
> While I believe there is a great deal in what RDE says about the
> availability of "true' information within the "elite' circles of the
> yeshivoh velt, I'm afraid there is much to be taken with at least a few
> grains of salt- at least insofar as the impression is conveyed that this -
> let's call it closely held, and generally oral - mechanism of preservation
> and transmission , is either capable of sustaining a detailed picture of
> events over many generations, or even wants to.

Thanks for the grains of salt - no major disagreement with what you have added.
One of the advantages of the Oral transmission is in fact that much material
gets lost over time and this allows for creativity -( See Rav Hutner's Pachad
Yitzchok to Chanuka regarding the benefits of forgetting.) We - unfortunately -
are swamped with material. Just look at the footnotes in RJJS defense of his
position. In the olden days - a posek didn't have to be concerned with 500
shitos and didn't have people with CD roms to check everything he said. He
didn't worry that his words would be immediately broadcast over the internet and
would have to defend himself from criticisms from all over the world within 15
minutes of his drasha. He was thus fairly free to state his own mind. The
Maharal in fact states that machlokes is largely a result of universal
education. If there were in fact a very large gap between the elite and the
masses - the masses  wouldn't open their mouths. Today - everybody has an
opinion about everything - and doesn't hesitate to publish it. That is another
reason for Artscroll's conduct. If they become too controversial they can not
function.

                                Daniel Eidensohn

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/30/99 9:59:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:
>
> <<  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. >>
>
> R' Zlatowitz and R' Sherman are indeed Torah Jews of the highest order. That
> does not exempt them from criticism.
>
> Jordan

I thought I made the same point. I was not saying they shouldn't be criticized
but that one should not spout out fantasies as to why they did - what everyone
agrees that they did. They are not narrow minded ignoramuses who are trying to
perform lobotomies on Clall Yisroel. Which is the impression I got from some of
the anti-Artscroll comments.

Sorry. I just realized that in forwarding to an off-list party
a copy of a prior posting, I mistakenly re-posted it. Please excuse my blunder.

Mechy Frankel writes:

> Postcript:  I believe World of the Yeshiva was written not by Samulel
> Heilman - unless he too published a book by that title- but by Willy
> Helmreich, another of my old Washington Heights londsmen who used to be
> quite  a boy wonder chazan back in R. Weinberg's shul on 161st.   I also
> think that RDE is dismissing Willy's book a little too hastily.  it was a
> sociological study of the yeshivoh - by focusing on a single unnamed NYC
> yeshivoh, not ponovitch - and fairly illuminating for its limited scope.

Interesting. I was always led to understand that the actual Yeshiva 
in the book was outside of New York City.

-- Carl


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

Ksiva vaChasima Tova (or Ktiva vaChatima Tova, depending
on your preference). May you be inscribed and sealed in 
the books of life, health and happiness.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

True, true, but still fail to see how this is relevant to omitting the
passage in hMbH!

I think my point IS relevant: Not everything need be translated!

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> Joelirich wrote: <<< 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) >>>
> 
> RYGB asked <<< How is this point relevant to the issue we are discussing?
> >>>
> 
> and later on he pointed out: <<< Notice how much of the Avos' lives and
> careers are omitted! Notice that Ma'aseh Bilha is written
> euphemistically. Notice, most importantly, that Ma'aseh Yehuda v'Tamar is
> *read but not translated* :-) ! >>>
> 
> Notice also, that the stories which NOT omitted! And others as well:
> Moshe at the rock, Miriam's lashon hara, etc etc. RYGB points out that
> these stories are whitewashed to a certain degree, but they are not
> categorically omitted either!
> 
> How are these points relevant? Because the Torah did not pretend these
> people were perfect. They are shown to be fallible humans. Indeed, they
> are shown to be far greater than us, but still, something short of
> perfect. Their mistakes are shown to us, so that we can learn from them,
> and apply those lessons to our own lives.
> 
> 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.
> 

YGB

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

I thought some listmembers might find the following article from today's 
Newark(NJ) Star Ledger of interest. It's a topic I think we've touched on in 
the past.

KVCT,
Joel Rich



Helping devout keep the faith 

08/30/99

By Steve Chambers
STAFF WRITER

Rachel was 13 when she began having persistent thoughts of blasphemy. 


As an Orthodox Jew living in a Hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn, the urges 
ran so contrary to her beliefs they nearly drove her insane. Any visit to 
temple triggered a panic attack. Eventually, Rachel stopped attending worship 
services. Only after two decades of silent suffering and several months of 
professional help did she return to her faith. 


Therapists who specialize in treating obsessive-compulsive disorders say they 
often find religion to be the focus of their patients' behavior, a 
lesser-known symptom of the disorder than repetitive hand washing, for 
example. The condition is so common that professionals have a name for it -- 
scrupulosity. 


"Scrupulosity is an extreme version of what is normally moral and devout," 
said Allen Weg, a North Brunswick psychologist who is vice president of the 
New Jersey affiliate of the Obsessive-Compulsive Foundation. "These people 
are always concerned they are doing the wrong thing or are evil in God's 
eyes." 


Many who act compulsively repeat prayers over and over, concerned they have 
failed to say them correctly and fearful they'll be punished. 


"I would have to say my prayers in a perfect way and a certain number of 
times over and over," said Jane, a 40-year-old Catholic from New Jersey who 
suffered for decades before entering psychotherapy. "At confession, I always 
had a hard time determining whether I had committed a sin or just imagined 
it. You feel like you're nuts." 


Those who have obsessive-compulsive disorder -- a condition experts say 
afflicts more than 6 million Americans -- often involve their pastors or 
rabbis in their actions. Experts said clergy of all faiths are plagued by 
congregants who return for assurance on seemingly innocuous moral questions. 


"The rabbi may think of this person as a pain in the neck or a religious 
extremist, but it's not that," said Steven J. Brodsky, a psychotherapist at 
the Center for Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy in New York. "It's really 
mental illness." 


As the High Holy Days approach -- Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown Sept. 10 -- 
Jewish sufferers may find their guilt and insecurity at a peak, but members 
of all faiths are equally susceptible, Brodsky said. An Orthodox Jew, Brodsky 
is helping patients like Jane sort through the difference between normal 
devotion and her obsession. (Both Rachel and Jane asked that their surnames 
not be published.) 


When she was still a little girl, Jane said, she began to have haunting 
thoughts about sin. If she spilled a glass of water, she'd assume it was an 
intentional plot to make a family member fall and die. She was quick to 
confess these imagined sins to her priest. 


"Through therapy I have become much better able to discern what is coming 
from God and what is not," she said. "Most of my faith is a great comfort and 
joy, but when it gets weird or burdensome, that's a good sign that it's OCD." 


Most therapists agree the best treatment for the disorder is behavioral 
therapy, literally forcing sufferers to face their fears. Those with 
religious obsessions might keep a diary to focus on what trips the obsession. 
Therapists then purposely expose the patients to it while the patients try to 
maintain control. 


What separates anxiety disorders from more serious mental illnesses, such as 
schizophrenia, is that sufferers recognize the extreme nature of their 
behavior. They feel shame and tend to hide it. 


The condition often goes unrecognized in churches, mosques and synagogues 
because repetitive ritual is such an important part of faith. Experts said 
those living in the most devout religious communities may be the most 
susceptible to such manifestations. 


It is not a modern phenomenon. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism 
and, according to some therapists, a probable OCD sufferer, returned 
repeatedly to the confession booth during his lengthy crisis of faith. 


"If you are brought up in a devout family, you put a lot more weight on those 
thoughts," said Ian Osborn, a Pennsylvania psychiatrist and author of the 
1998 book "Tormenting Thoughts and Secret Rituals." 


"The obsessive-compulsive personality is guilt-prone and looking for answers, 
so if they find an answer in religion, they get into it more deeply," he 
said. 


The difference between OCD and normal devout expression is a state of mind. 
Sufferers of the disorder never experience the sense of well-being normal 
worshippers feel. Instead, they are spurred by irrational fears of 
punishment. Untreated, the disorder can lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, 
depression, insanity or even suicide. 


To the credit of her clergy, no priest ever took Jane's supposed sins 
seriously. They tried to softly convince her that the thoughts were imagined. 
Experts said such compassionate expressions are less likely to reinforce the 
thoughts. 


Condemning such thoughts merely increases the sufferer's guilt and makes it 
more difficult to banish those thoughts, the therapists said. The harder a 
sufferer of OCD tries to fight the impulse, the more difficult it becomes. 


If clergy members find congregants returning repeatedly for advice on 
seemingly innocuous moral questions, experts said, they should refer them to 
mental health professionals. And seminary officials said they are becoming 
more sophisticated about teaching students to recognize the disorder. 


"This is definitely on our radar screen," said Herbert Nieburg, a professor 
of pastoral psychiatry at Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. "What I 
tell rabbis to do is support the person by saying, 'I understand,' but also 
to know when a case requires referral to mental health professionals." 


Monsignor Francis J. Maniscalco, a spokesman for the U.S. Catholic 
Conference, agreed that referral is often the best solution. 


"Over the years, most priests run into people like this," he said. "You need 
to be available to these people, but, in the end, this is a psychological 
problem. We tell them, 'Trust in God, but go to your therapist.'" 

On 30 Aug 1999 13:58:27 -0500 (CDT), Rabbi Bechhofer wrote the following on the
subject of Eit sheqer sofirim: The lying pens of scribes:

>There is, I believe, a significant difference between shev ve'al ta'aseh
>and kum va'aseh. To publish something onerous is a grave avla. To refrain
>from translating is simply not similar.

>Now, perhaps I am not making myself clear. I love Rav Zevin's seforim
>(particularly La'Torah v'La'Moadim). I would love everyone to think like
>Rav Zevin. The world would be a much better place. Artscroll aside, it is
>now, let us say it were up to me to decide how I can get everyone to read
>as much Rav Zevin as they possibly can. How do I go about doing this,
>while not engagin, c"v, in sheker.

>I was faced with a similar problem with the writing of an essay concerning
>my personal hero. At the end of one of R' Avrohom Elya Kaplan's essay, he
>has a line:

>"U'k'chol she'gadla shayachusi l'Elokim gadla shayachusi la'Tziiyonut."

>I do not know if RAEK maintained that position later or not, but I do know
>that while in the 1910's it would be acceptable, in the 1990's, if I want
>to expose a new generation to RAEK, I cannot include that line. Indeed,
>to do so would be a grave disservice to RAEK, because the UNMS would
>immediately either dismiss him as a "Tzionishe", or, just as bad from my
>perspective, embrace him solely on the basis of his being "Dati Leumi".

>So, there is no essay - and I have written many - on RAEK that includes
>this line. To date, R' Zvi Kaplan, his son, has not protested this
>omission, despite the fact that in Ha'Ma'ayan I quote from that essay (on
>Herzl) right up to that point, and then stop. I think we both know why he
>does not protest: We are all interested in getting RAEK's character,
>depth, and learning, to touch as many people as possible, and not have
>people who are still in the UNMS turned off. This way, they, inspired,
>will study more of RAEK, eventually hit that line, understand it in
>context, and be much more likely to then sit back and ponder how things
>were eighty years ago, how things have changed, etc.

Does this explain why you publicly maintain that another one of your heroes, Dr. Nathan Birnbaum, was not a ba'al  teshuva, when clearly he was?  I.e., to make his views more
palatable to those who would otherwise be put off by his "outsider," ba'al teshuva
status and therefore dismiss him, as a significant segment of the Orthodox world did during his lifetime? (See my posting on the subject in V3#164.)  If so, isn't that kum va'aseh?  Or do you seriously believe, against the evidence of his
own testimony, that
he is not a ba'al teshuva in the proper sense?

Ksiva vchasima tova
David

As to why R' Tzaddok's view presents a conundrum:  I think it is simple to 
see why there is no contradiction between saying:

(a) the Divine Will for Shamai is X
(b) the Divine Will for Hillel is Y

Can you explain, however, how to reconcile the following statements:

(a) murder is a violation of Divine Will for all, at all times, in all places
(b) Ploni who commits murder has fufilled the Divine Will

The problem is one of logic, as well as ethics (conclusion b is repulsive).

I forget who posted the marei mekomos, but having looked at some of them I 
still plead ignorance as to how to resolve the problem.

-Chaim

P.S.  The same problem is similar to Kierkegaard's discussion in Fear and 
Trembling of the contradiction between the universal prohibition of murder 
and the particular command of akeidah.  

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:

> Does this explain why you publicly maintain that another one of your
> heroes, Dr. Nathan Birnbaum, was not a ba'al teshuva, when clearly he
> was?  I.e., to make his views more palatable to those who would
> otherwise be put off by his "outsider," ba'al teshuva status and
> therefore dismiss him, as a significant segment of the Orthodox world
> did during his lifetime? (See my posting on the subject in V3#164.)  If
> so, isn't that kum va'aseh?  Or do you seriously believe, against the
> evidence of his own testimony, that he is not a ba'al teshuva in the
> proper sense? 
>

I am sorry you have decided to fixate on this minor point in one essay I
have written. It is a good example of the problem that one line can cause,
in that it can cause some reader or another to dismiss an entire essay,
perhaps even an entire book, because the line is so distasteful to him.

Nevertheless, the quote that Dr. Birnbaum "was not a ba'al teshuva" was
not a statement that I crafted or thought of, but is a direct quote from
R' Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan, cited by his son R' Tzvi Kaplan, if I recall
correctly, in "Me'ma'ayanei Kedem". We may speculate as to why RAEK,
eighty or so years ago, expressed himself in that fashion (and I do not
believe your interpretation is the closet one to correct), but that is not
material right now to the question you asked me. If it is a "kum va'aseh"
distortion, then lo alai telunascha ki im al RAEK. In an essay about Dr.
Birnbaum, it is legitimate to quote what others said about him,
especially if they meant it in a laudatory manner.

YGB

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

In v3n187, RRW <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: Illustration:  I might speculate based upon lower critical techniques that 
: Numbers 2:14 should read ben Deuel instead of ben Reuel and that the Daled 
: became a Reish via scribal error.

The biggest problem I have with critical techniques is that they are based
on the presumption that d'rashah and remez were not given simulataneously
with the text.

IOW, how are we to know which are scribal errors which since became the
halachic text, and which are intentional anomolies put there by HKBH for
Torah sheba'al peh purposes? Non-Orthodox critics will always assume the
former.

: Halahcially today only Reuel is kosher.  The above spculation is merely 
: academic.

Lishitascha, which divorces halachic process and p'sak from physical reality.

: OK Mechy how would you deal with an hypothetical Bayis sheini Torah that was 
: unearthed and had devaitions from our halachically accepted version?

Actually, between the days of the Shoftim and the fall of Bayis Sheini there
were few periods in which the religion of the majority of Jews was Judaism.
The odds of finding a Perushi Seifer Torah is minimal.

I thought of another way of understanding R' Yosi's position that a- we
aren't beki'im in malei and chaseir and yet b- malei v'chaseir (MvC) are
me'akvos. (Before I suggested the lack of beki'us was in making
d'rashos/remazim out of MvC, not in identifying them.)

Halachically, once something is resolved al pi rov, it is as mandatory as a
vada'us. Therefore, even without being able to identify every case of MvC,
if we can establish either a ruba di'isa likaman (rov sifrei Torah with a
chezkas kashrus say X) or a ruba dileisa likaman (text X is more probable)
we have a halachic standard to maintain. 

(I invite comments on my definitions of ruba di'isa likaman and di'leisa
likaman. But please change the "Subject" line.)

In short, and as part of our general argument about what to do when p'sak is
based on a mistaken view of reality, I would say that if it were provable that
a given version of a pasuk was the one given on Har Sinai, and not some error
or a sectarian variant, we would be forced to switch. Until such proof comes,
we follow rov.

The problem I have with RRW's position is that the Rambam, for example, clearly
rolled back the then-current text to that of Ben Asher. He clearly held that
there was a "right text" that can be different than that accepted by Adas
Yisrael.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 16

First, speaking as listowner, I don't think bashing ArtScroll any further
is productive. The point has been made, and the horse is beaten to death.

More useful would be to keep the discussion to: a- Is it ever right to give
the truth, but not the whole truth? b- Does something need to be done in
Orthodox society in order to address the issues raised in exploring (a)?

Tangentially, in v3n188 Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
: I have it on good authority that Rav Hutner was quite the opera buff.

What was R' Hutner's position WRT kol ishah? Did he only listen to operatic
recordings, and not live performances?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 16

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


[ 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         ]