Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 207

Friday, September 10 1999

• lower criticism
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Sin in the Divine Plan
• Re: Baby Wipes, b'Kitzur Nimratz
• Re: Glatt Beis Yosef
• KITVEI SIMICHA
• Hebrew term for baby wipes
• Babywipes in Israel made from non-synthetic material
• Re: Hebrew term for baby wipes
• Gedula
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Hebrew for baby wipes
• KITVEI SIMICHA
• gedolim
• shofar
• nusach question

response to esteemd listowner:
 micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) 

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.

====> Understood.  But according to the mystical model, such subsequent 
deviations might have been part of the original divine plan.  (as aopposed to 
asserting that murder iss part of the original divine plann <smile>.  I will not
touch THAT one here)

===> Also realize that I am NOT advocating that every deviation is to be 
attributed to errors, rather that errors are a POSSIBILITY, but even so the 
remez can be valid based upon what we have.  What do YOU do with Rashi and 
Chanichov?!



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.

====> Mesorah helps. Leshitosi remember that R. Chaim Brisker was not so much 
explaining the Rambam as he was mechadesh his own torah.  similarly, if Chazal 
darshan, it has indpendent value regardless of the text. This is NOT an 
either/or proposition.  There are indeed many drushos misiani and many that are 
not!  A drasho that was not Misanai is not ipso facto wrong, it is perhaps a 
chidush, etc.  The problem with both oral AND written tranmission is that 
neither is perfect; the written while more reliable is not necessarily 
error-free... 



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

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

====> ein hochi nami, it's nice to be consistent <smile>.  It's also part of my
hashkofo to attempt to reconcile apparently opoppsing hashkofox and to find a 
common denonimnator!  And do not forget, while I advocate this shito, I did NOT 
author it!  I claim it was the essential common denominator thrust of all (ok 
most <smile>) frum delvers into Chochmas Yisroel    


<smip>


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. 

====Right on!  but the halachic mandates of a possuk don't prohibit us from 
darshening in a way that would learn the possuk a bit differently.  A lot of 
parshonim read the pesukkim differntly thatn the TB does wrt to its halahci 
status.  Similarly, I can SEPCULATE that a scribal error is at play and still 
adhere to the halahcic imperatives based upon a drush, even a medrash halacho.  
IOW, I can leave my mind opne as to HOW the text got there, and rationally see 
that it derived from an error, but still follow the mandates of chazal regarless
of the origin of that specie! <smile>  Of course asserting for SURE that a givn 
possuk is a scribal error would take a LOT of proof; all I meanto advocate is 
the rational likelihood that errors are possible w/o implying it jeopardizes 
halocho or mesorah... 

<snip>


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.

===> And right you are.  And even I would concede that a bona fide Snahedrin (eg
Ezra uvis dino) would have no problem re-paskening what is correct.  I am a bit 
fuzzy about a beis din bizmaneinu. I would op t for staying with meosrah, but if
klal yisroel (Catholic Israel??? (hmmmm....)) said to follow the "correct" text,
I would go bossor rov too.  But If some Gado followed my shito he would dissent.
I suspect CI and others would be reluctatn to follow a text that did not go thru
the crucible of the halachic process.  As such, our evolved texts, as deviant as
they might be in theory, ARE the valid products of the halachic process, and 
determining the original version is important as an academic exercize but is not
a halachically based issue.  Again, leshitosi. 

===> I suspect that many academic professors ahered to this shito more or less, 
because I based it upon my impressions of what my professors were "meta" 
teaching, IOW academic inquiry was not an attempt to revise or theraten the 
halachic imperatives of the SA, etc.




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.

===> I would say that the Rambam's model was HALACHIC. And he did not roll back 
to the text that Moshe Rabbineu brought down, but to the last valid syncpoint 
taht was decided by a bona fide Beis Din.  IOW. The rambam would say, we need a 
text that is certifiably correct, and any deviations introduced from then on 
must be rolled back.... IOW this does not address the reality that Ben Asher's 
text might be idenitical to the one descended from sinai in Moshe Rabeeinu's 
arms, it does address the need to have a halachic consensu of what is kosher.

Rich W.

- -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

------------------------------

Moshe Feldman writes:
:                                                  Clearly there are
: differences deriving from the fact that Torah is dvar Hashem and that
: we believe that tzidkut & siyata dishmaya play a part in a person's
: gadlut in Torah.  Nevertheless, there is no reason that those factors
: too cannot be part of the linear relationship.

I would say there's a non-linear relationship because of the concept of
(relative) da'as Torah. Part of learning isn't just knowing, but also
developing a particular mode of thought. Which is true for any discpline,
but even more so in one which is about improving the self, including the mind.

I thought of a metaphor to better explain one of the two issues where I differ
with Daniel Eidensohn.

To Daniel, being a gadol means being on a pedestal. Either you are on it, or
you aren't -- creating two classes of people and playing down the means to
rise from one to the other.

OTOH, I'd put my gedolei hador at the same height, but at the top of a ramp.
This gives me where to put all the people between me and them, allows me to
aspire to some da'as Torah even if I will never acquire the quantities that
they have, etc... It also means that all these people at the middle altitudes
rise above their footnotes, if not to the same extent as some other people may.

I'm also convinced that the Yeshiva Velt's gedolim themselves see the ramp,
not the pedistal. That the model held by the hamon am isn't the one used by
its leadership.

(The other issue is that gedulah and the authority it generates ought not be
limited to those who are great in halachah. It also has a tendency to be
under-recognized if the gadol isn't a Rosh Yeshiva. Being in the right family
either by birth or by marriage also helps society notice the budding gadol
and accept his in-potentia authority. But these are more societal issues than
hashkafic ones.)

I appologize for using the expression "the Yeshiva Velt has this very wrong".
What I meant is closer to "the hamon am of the Yeshiva Velt hold a position
that I, from my perspective, can not accept, and can be connected to several
negative consequences in that community". I'm not sure you'll find that much
better. Of course, no community is perfect and the other communities that I
have some association with have issues that arise from being too far in the
other direction. Sh'vil hazahav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Sep-99: Chamishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 35b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 21

After having looked at the R' Tzadok citations, I'm still confused as to
what he holds.

FWIW, when I said that cheit is Ratzon Hashem I meant that Hashem wants man
to have the ability to do chata'im, not that a particular instance of chillul
Shabbos was found desirable by Him. However, there's no way to give man the
ability to make the wrong choice without letting him actually make particular
chata'im, pesha'im, aveiros and avonos. (Is that the complete list of near-
synonyms?)

IOW, I was trying to say "cheit exists because Ratzon Hashem", not "a cheit
exists because Ratzon Hashem". Neil Armstrong well knows the difference. <grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Sep-99: Chamishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 35b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 21

Sorry, I said I do not wish to get involved in long discussions here and
now. Idach zil g'mor!

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Could you please give me mar'ei mekomot for these poskim?
> 
> Doesn't the din that a tinok is a choleh she'ein bo sakanah apply only
> when you are doing something for his health?  Here, you are just helping
> yourself (by avoiding using your hands & water to clean the baby's
> bottom).  I agree that your argument might have validity in the case of
> a diaper rash where the recommended treatment was using a wet wipe;
> however, from a practical perspective, my experience is that in those
> cases you should avoid wipes (which cause friction) and instead wash the
> baby in the sink. 
> 

YGB

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

Standard kosher: there may be loose tissue but no holes (Yore Deah Hilchot
Treifot Siman 39:13 and 39:18): REMA paskens it's kosher, the BET YOSEF rules
it's treif.

Glatt (REMA): bumps in lung which seem to be loose tissue but are ruled *smooth*
Glatt (BET YOSEF): no questions at all (no bumps, no loose tissue)

There are many butcher stores in Yerushalayim that sell Glatt Bet Yosef.

KTVCT

Josh

Fellow Rabbanim,
My son is undertaking a project in his class.
He is undertaking a comparison of differenent nusachot of kitvei simichot
He would appreciate if you would kindly send him a copy of your smicha, or
any interesting ktav smicha, indicating which rav/and or yeshiva granted it.

kindly either scan, ZIP and send the file to:
eveyatar@earthling.net
or to
Eveyatar HaCohen
p.o.b. 24367
jerusalem 91243
israel

kvct
shana tova
chaim

The Hebrew term for babywipes is MIMCHATOT LACHOT (I just got this straight
from the horses mouth: my cousin who is the nurse at Massuot Yitzchak, the
religious moshav whose factory manufactures baby wipes).

BTW the SEFER REFUAT HASHABBAT (guidelines for the frum doctor) 38:35
mentions that the issur sechita is for cotton or lignin and recommends for
a choleh she'ein bo sakana to use synthetic materials. He does quote the
Tzitz Eliezer (Chelek Chet 17 oht 33) that in the case of a choleh she'yesh
bo sakana, one can rip apart cotton wadding, soak it in alcohol, and dab it
on the area to be cleaned. The Nishmat Avraham OC 320 oht aleph recommends
to place the alcohol on the area and then use cotton to clean as this is
"sechita kil'achar yad" and his kavana is to wipe and not squeeze out. he
quotes the Eglei tal Melechet Dahsh s'if 11 and the Shevitat Hashabbat Dahsh
41 that anything whcih isn't gidulei karka is patur on sechita (also quotes
SHU"T Rabeinu ben harambam 23). See also Tzitz Eliezer 15 s"k 11.

I will phone the moshav (Massuot Yiztchak) if their babywipes are from a
synthetic material.

Josh

I just phoned the Moshav (Massuot Yitzchak) the only manufacturers in Israel
of baby wipes. The material is *not* synthetic: its' made from wood pulp. So
it would fall in the category of paper (see: Iggrot Moshe OC Chelek Bet 70;
Har Tzvi OC Chelek Aleph 190; Tzitz Eliezer Chelek Chet 15 Perek 14 s"k 11).

Josh

Josh wrote:

> 
> The Hebrew term for babywipes is MIMCHATOT LACHOT (I just got this straight
> from the horses mouth: my cousin who is the nurse at Massuot Yitzchak, the
> religious moshav whose factory manufactures baby wipes).
> 
> BTW the SEFER REFUAT HASHABBAT (guidelines for the frum doctor) 38:35
> mentions that the issur sechita is for cotton or lignin and recommends for
> a choleh she'ein bo sakana to use synthetic materials.




I'm looking at Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulhan Aruch) Siman Shin-Chaf #38 (I
grabbed it on the way out this morning hoping for sources for the
abridging he does here), and it says "Mutar l'kanah tinok b'mimtahah laha
k'shehu oseh ken b'nahat. V'chen ha-din b'mi she-kanah atzmo b'ni'ar
toilet l'ahar sh'hartivo b'mayim, she'im oseh ken b'nahat yesh lo al mah
se'yismoch l'hakel".

Unfortunately, the source (usually from Yalkut Yosef, where his real
sources are listed) is left out for this halacha. Which was the real
reason I grabbed this sefer. I've still not found the other sefer I was
looking for. We learned from it b'haburah last year with only one copy
between us, and the haver who had it is away for Rosh Hashana.

Don't know if I'll be e-mailing tomorrow with so much to do. K'tivah
v'hatimah tovah to all.


---sam

> Also, we should realize that gedulah is multidimensional. R' Mosheh had
major gedulah in halachah.

<snip>

> Tell me the truth, when you picture "a gadol", don't you picture a rosh
yeshiva with incredible powers of p'sak? Aren't there other models of
greatness we can aspire to?
	Bem'chilas kavod many roshei yeshiva,  their power is usually   **not** 
 in psak.  Rav Moshe developed his gadlus in halacha,  by his own
description,  as a rov in Russia.  Most modern roshei yeshiva who have no
background in rabbonus do not attain any discernible expertise in
halacha.  I daresay that few list members would go to a rosh yeshiva,  as
opposed to a rov,  for a psak lema'aseh.  To be dan lekaf zechus,  the
zchus of the tzibur may be a factor in enabling rabbonim to pasken
lema'aseh.  So where does that leave us vis-a-vis daas Torah?  I don't
know.

Gershon

Micha Berger wrote:

>I hope this explained my position. This post doesn't add much that I didn't
>try to say before. And, as this discussion has become more of heat than light,
>I'm not going to invest anything else in perpetuating it.

Sorry that you feel that there is more heat than light in this discussion. I think the
exchange has helped sharpened and clarify the issue of authority. Furthermore I am not
so sure that we are really that far apart. We both acknowledge that there is such a
thing a gedolim and different degrees of Daas Torah.  I think what we are disagreeing
about is the nature of the authority that is associated with these levels.

One possible resolution is an idea discussed in an interesting volume *Between
Authority and Autonomy in Jewish Tradition* edited by Sagi and Safrai. There are
number of sources for authority. 1) Power to reward and punish 2) inherent authority
such as divine right of kings/Sanhedrin/Navi.

Today authority tends to be 3) a function of knowledge. This is what you seem to be
describing as relative gedulah. Thus if I know where the Mishna Berura says something
and you don't that gives me superior authority and greater daas Torah for that issue.
Of course if you know what the consensus of modern poskim is and I don't than you are
the superior authority and daas Torah for that aspect. Thus there is no reason why a
person can't change his status by learning more or finding someone who knows less than
he or she knows. Accordingly if daas Torah is extended not only to the knowledge of
facts but also of the processes that generate these facts - there can be a similar
multidimensional nature of authority. Thus if Rabbi Kaplan can cite and synthesize all
the known sources of hashkofa etc. and I can't  - his pronouncements are authoritative
because he knows and I don't. This type of authority is directly tied down to actual
knowledge. Thus if I find that he incorrectly cites information or he doesn't express
a view which is consistent with what is known he is simply rejected.

There however is an another type of authority which seems more dependent upon how the
person is perceived by others rather than a simple measure of his knowledge. This is
described as charismatic authority. The charismatic authority is perceived as being a
living embodiment of that which defines the system. For example in baseball - Babe
Ruth might be described as *the* ball player - even though some modern athletes have
better statistics. Mozart is *the* composer - even though others might write music
that is technically superior. In every field of endeavor - there are individuals who
are stars - who are perceived to epitomize that field - independent of objective
measures. Even though there are others who seem objectively superior.


> Tell me the truth, when you picture "a gadol", don't you picture a
> rosh yeshiva with incredible powers of p'sak? Aren't there other models
> of greatness we can aspire to?

Of course there are other models of greatness.  I agree with you that there are
different areas that a person can be a gadol. The Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
gadol in psak or learning but in tzidkas. The Chazon Ish was viewed primarily as a
gadol in learning not as a posek. Rav Dessler was a gadol in Musar. The Ramchal was
not viewed as a posek. Rav Hutner was a gadol in machshova. If you list all those that
were viewed as gedolim you will find many who were not poskim.  What they all share is
that they embodied Torah and that their pronouncements transcended their citations.
They were greater than an apparent objective measure of their knowledge and they
themselves were viewed as living Sifrei Torah. This is also the point developed by Rav
Schachter in Nefesh HaRav chapter on Mesorah. The Baalei Mesora are Torah not just
transmitters of information. A gadol is one of the baalei mesorah and not a "scholar".

Thus it is not impossible to find talmidei chachomim whose learning and halachic
reasoning was superior to Rav Moshe Feinstein - yet nevertheless were not considered
gedolim. There are secular scholars such as Moshe Idel who can articulate the nature
of a kabbalistic idea better than Rabbi Kaplan - yet are not relevant to Torah
scholarship. Arthur Green has a mastery of Rav Nachmans writing that is probably
superior to most Breslavers - but he is a non entity as far defining Breslav Hashkofa

How do I know whether a person has achieved the status of ba'al mesora? Simply by
observing whether he is quoted as authoritative only because of his knowledge or
because he is viewed as living Torah.  Rav Moshe's pronouncements on hashkofa are not
as articulate and erudite as Rabbi Kaplan but they are Daas Torah because Rav Moshe
said them which is not true of Rabbi Kaplan's pronouncements. In this I don't see a
difference between the Yeshiva Velt and the Modern Orthodox. The articulation of the
nature of baalei  Mesorah found in Nefesh HaRav would feel at home in Ponevesh or Meah
Shearim. As Rav Chaim Shmuelevtiz noted - Yehoshua did not become Moshe Rabbeinu's
heir because he was the greatest lomdan or posek - but rather because he was most
capable of expressing Torah to his generation.


           Kesiva v'chasima Tova

             Daniel Eidensohn

In response to Rabbi Bechofer's inquiry, the commonly used term, which is
probably a brand name, is "magvonim."

___________________________________________________________________
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.

Fellow Rabbanim,
My son is undertaking a project in his class.
He is undertaking a comparison of differenent nusachot of kitvei simichot
He would appreciate if you would kindly send him a copy of your smicha, or
any interesting ktav smicha, indicating which rav/and or yeshiva granted it.

kindly either scan, ZIP and send the file to:
eveyatar@earthling.net
or to
Eveyatar HaCohen
p.o.b. 24367
jerusalem 91243
israel

kvct
shana tova
chaim

>  But as the Amshinover Rebbe told a friend of mine "The Moreh
>  D'Asrah disappeared with the telephone and fax machine."  A Rav can not 
> compete with the Igros Moshe or even with Rav Shimon Eider or Artscroll. 

On the other hand when Chatam Sofer visited a town he would refuse to
answer questions from individuals and would refer them to the rav of
the city.
The gemara quotes many amoraim who appear only once or twice in shas.
Not only were the words of roshei yeshiva like Rava and Abaye important
but also the teachings of "lesser" rabbis.

I once read a historical piece that claimed that the geonic era produced
relatively little works over many years because it was highly centralized
with only the head of the yeshiva having any importance. In fact much
of the writings of the geonic era were produced by outsiders like
Rav Sherira Gaon.

I sometimes fear that todays concentration of powers in certain gedolim
can lead to another decrease in the general output of the generation.
We already are becoming a generation of quoting previous works rather
than new chiddushim.

As to the definition of a gadol we have been through this before.
The yeshiva velt labels as gedolim those who fit their mold and
"outsiders" (eg zionists, sefardim many chassidim etc) are automatically
left out.
Rav Goren and Rav Eliyashiv sat together on the same bet din.
I am certainly not qualified to compare them but they are(were) both
brilliant and knew shas/poskim. The yeshiva velt decided that Rav
Eliyashiv was a gadol and ignored Rav Goren. From my vantage that is
more a political decision than otherwise. Similarly for many other
rabbis.

In my personal experience two of the influential books of our era
was Shemirat Shabbat and the Kahati commentary to Mishna. Neither of
the aiuthors were/are gedolim in the class of Rav Auerbach (who
was connected with much of shemirat Shabbat). Nevertheless, these
authors had the gift to explain things clearly. 
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan had an enormous range of knowledge that probably
surpassed many gedolim. As one small example, if one is interested 
in meditation there are not too many other religious sources one can
turn to.

In early generations I might put Meiri. Very few would compare him
to his contemporary, the Rashba. Nevertheless, his sefer is a major
asset to the yeshiva community.
I don't know if others would classify Ibn Ezra or Radak as "gedolim".
That in no way reduces their contribution to Jewish learning.

In summary, I find that we spend too much time labeling who is a gadol
rather than looking at the contribution. Rav feinstein stresses that
his work should be judged on the basis of their merit. He would not
be happy with people who relied on it simply because he said it.

In the heat of debates many things have been said. I value the
contributions of others and have learned during this year. As such
I request mechila from anyone who may have thought that I slighted them
in any way.

KVCT
Eli Turkel

Its a little late, but a quick shofar question.
I remember hearing that there was some sort of question regarding the very large shofrot
used by some Yemenites. All I can find is one article by a member of the Yerushalayim
Badatz who raises the possibility that they are from a non-kosher species (they aren't,
they are from the kudu) and then analyzes that issue. Does anyone know of any other
information regarding the large shofrot?

Ari

This also is a little late but I may be davening mincha on shabbat Rosh Hashana
as the shaliach tzibur.  To what extent, if any, is the nusach of shabbat mincha
used in place of the nusach for Rosh Hashana?

//Avi
Avram Sacks
Chicago, IL

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


[ 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         ]