Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 149

Monday, November 22 1999

• Agunah
• Chabad and Shinas Chinam
• paper plates
• Re: Simplicity
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin
• Re: Agunah
• Bitachon
• Re: Avelus
• Retraction, etc.
• Re: Any Orthodox Critiques of Documentary Theory?
• Re: Brisker Kulos
• Avos (was Retraction)
• Re: Kol Kevudah
• [none]
• Bitachon
• Re: Macho'o
• Re: Bitachon
• Tzelem Elokim and Women
• Re: Tzelem Elokim and Women
• shvatim
• Re: Any Orthodox Critiques of Documentary Theory?

B"H

In his book "One Man's Judaism" (p. 241) Rabbi Emanuel Rackman maintains
that a simple and straightforward solution exists to the agunah
problem.  He attributes to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein the chidush that since
as a bride, the woman would never have consented to a marriage with
someone who would refuse to give a get out of malice, therefore the
marriage was never valid in the first place, and can be annulled.  Rabbi
Rackman expresses the hope that this approach will be endorsed by the
halachic authorities, and also confesses  his fear that it will be
disregarded.
How has it happened that R' Rackman's worst fears were realized, rather
than his hopes?  My understanding is that R' Rackman himself will offer
solace to these needy women (presumably based upon R' Feinstein's
approach), but this does little good if her future offspring are
considered mamzerim by everyone except R' Rackman.
Everybody says that the agunah problem is something which needs to be
solved.  Why does R' Rackman have such little support in his efforts?

Moshe Nugiel

> 
> What kind of garbage is being spouted on the list these days? If a Jew
> belives (whatever the problems with this belief that one can find in
> Chazal) that the Lubavitcher Rebber Zt'lwill arise in the process of
> Techiyas Hamesim (an ikar of belief) and be Moshiach (another Ikar) -
> This belief (even if it is mistaken) makes him/her an Ovaid Avodah Zara
> and you question their Kashrus (which is known for it's Tachlis Hahidur)
> R"L?
> 
> How can any torah observant Jew (and a member of this list) be silent
> when Jews who keep Torah and Mitzvos Be'hiddur - (far more behiddur than
> their detractors!) are being besmirched in such a disgusting fashion?
> 
> It seems that that we have reached a point of being mehader R"L to engage
> in gross Sinas Chinam so as to make sure that Moshiach doesn't have a
> CHANCE of getting here soon!


Its a known fact that wherever you have kedusha you will also find
tumah trying to interfere.

So with Chabad and the Rebbe zachuto yagan aleinu - they are spreading
kedusha and being makarev the Moshiach so it is not surprising that the
sitra achra is using many seemingly yirei shamayim to spread hatred in
order to counter the positive influences,

I am not a Chabadnik but don't think that one has to be in order to be
amazed at how self definbed "frum" Jews can attack other Jews with such
glee and simcha.

You do really think that your motives are pure and that HKB"H is having
naches ruach from your hatred posts (can I eat in a restaurant where the
maschiach is a Lubavitcher who may or may not have beliefs that the Rebbe
was ,is or will be moschach?- b'emet is this really "frumkeit"?)

Yasher Koach to SDY who expressed his pain and gave me the push to express
mine

Reuven Miller

> Subject: Simplicity
> 
> >I think this is a great idea.  From now on we chould
> >only use paper plates and plasticware for all our simchas.
> 
I have heard opinions that on shabbat one should use paper plates
(assuming no dishwasher) so that life is easier for those that wash
dishes. It is not fair to have expensive dishes to the disadvantage
of the dishwasher.


In terms of reducing ones cost, i have a simple solution:
Move to israel

though costs are going up a nice MO wedding is still under $20000
and split by the two sides. A Charedi wedding is typically much less.
One custom of haredi weddings that I particularly like is that the
friends of the young couple are not invited to the dinner.
Instead only close relatives are invited and there is a minimum of dancing
for the old folks. After sheva berachot the relatives leave and the friends
join with only a vieneese table served (not NY style).
Of course this only works if the friends live nearby, eg Jerusalem, Bnei Brak.
Bar mitzvahs are stiller smaller scale than NY though American influences
are invading. However, I dont recall ever having been at a superfancy sheva
berachot.

Education is also usually cheaper than the US. Charedi yeshivot (post 8th grade)
tend to be free. I sent my kids to Bnei Akivah high schools (+Shaalavim)
and in my day the cost was under $3000 including dormitory. Israeli professional
salaries (eg computer experts) have risen and so I think that much of
the phenomena that Twersky talks about is lower in Israel.

On the other hand the big expense in Israel is buying an apratment for
the couple. While not minimizing the problem at least one gets an apartment
at the end while the money for a wedding "goes to waste".

Eli Turkel

Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Now the latter is REALLY a case in point. I'm making an upsherin in a week
> -- and it isn't even my minhag! It's just de riguer amongst much of the
local
> community, and I'm the shepsileh who doesn't want to take on his wife to
> violate that convention.
>
> Although we're talking hundreds, not thousands, of dollars,

Charming minhag.  Let's see-  a few sets of arba kanfos- (the more the
merrier, they are possulled pretty fast at that age),  a few kipot..
Cake and salad dips can be prepared by family members and neighbours, a
spacious enough salon  for the simcha I assume you have..  Fresh juice from
concentrate... some honey.. Sorry , I didn't get to fifty dollars yet.. am I
missing something?

I do agree that one doesn't want to be a grinch, esp. about the sleepaway
camp if absolutely everyone else is doing it, or about simchas and other
expenses.  It's a real problem.
If we moved to the U.S. (apart from the delight that would cause my mother
in law) we'd make quite a bit more money, but we'd also be expected to spend
more too. Income is low here, but tuition and general Jewish living is much
less expensive here, so it's a tradeoff.  Inexpensive clothing does not have
to be shabby by the way, esp with so many excellent  clothes gemachim
around.
Summer camp, even day camp, adds up to a lot for us, so last summer we just
bought two tents, hired a van and went camping.  We had sleepaway and a
family experience at a fraction of the cost of sending half a dozen kids
away to different camps-  and the tents are still usable for next time. .

I'm so glad we don't live in the U.S....

To expect most or all of our boys to make their parnasa as businessmen is
NOT a solution. You don't have to be an expert in economics to realise that
is not going to work.  Many businesses will simply not make it due to the
competition and the fact that many personality types are just not suited to
that line of work -  and consumerism of all kinds will only mushroom. Isn't
it bad enough as it is?
Yes, Judaism promotes healthy capitalism, but within reason.

  Mrs. G. A.

>
> While the Rambam seems to define being good bein adam lachaveiro and
laMakom
> as a necessary part of acheiving that yedi'ah, I believe the more common
> opinion is that such yedi'ah is a part -- albeit a/the central part -- of
> being good.
>
> -mi
>
According to Rebbe Nachman of Breslov. Da'as is chiefly attained through
purity  of the seven orifices of the head.  The vast majority of mankind has
been granted with a remarkable sechel- we need to learn to use it with
maximal effectiveness.  Purity simply involves care over the input and
output of our eyes, mouths, ears, nostrils.  E.g. by avoiding loshon hara,
movies which violate tzniut, etc etc,  we make ourselves into clean vessels
to achieve yedias Hashem.  This purity is within reach of people of
relatively weak intellect, such as a person with D.S. and similar , and in
fact, they are proportionately less corruptible.  Therefore, their yedias
Hashem will be much less in degree of sophistication, but also far less
contaminated.  We are not all going to be gedolim or authors of seforim, but
we all have potential access to divinity.

There was a nice pair of essays in Techumin a few years ago. Perhaps someone
with a set readily accessible can give you the reference. In my opinion,
Rabbi Sherman, the DT advocate, won the debate, although his adversary
scored an important point with an intriguing Tanya about not coming to him
(the Ba'al HaTanya) for matererial eitzos.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: OUAKNINE Salomon <salomon.ouaknine@etam.fr>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:33 AM
Subject: Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin


> Shalom,
>
> As a regular contributor in a frum magazine in France, we choose to
> publicize an issue on Emunas Chochomin and Da'as Torah.
>
> Can you, plese, give me some sources for this issue, as articles in
English
> or in Hebrew ?
>
> Thank you for all.
>
> Shlomo Ouaknine, Paris  - France
> salomon.ouaknine@etam.fr
>

You are, I assume, relatively new to Aovdah. We have discussed R' Rackman's
approach herein the past. One of our number (R' Michael Broyde) has written
a halachic treatise rejecting R' Rackman's approach, and the general
consensus here is that R' Rackman is wrong, very wrong. We have debated
peripheral issues around the Agunah problem and R' Rackman in general, but
the above point, about his error, is axiomatic here. I think we may return
to the other issues, but the a priori assumption among the scholars on our
Highlevel Torah List, is that is Mekach Ta'us approach is a Ta'us.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Moshe and davida Nugiel <friars@aquanet.co.il>
To: Avodah Submission <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 2:06 AM
Subject: Agunah


> B"H
>
> In his book "One Man's Judaism" (p. 241) Rabbi Emanuel Rackman maintains
> that a simple and straightforward solution exists to the agunah
> problem.  He attributes to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein the chidush that since
> as a bride, the woman would never have consented to a marriage with
> someone who would refuse to give a get out of malice, therefore the
> marriage was never valid in the first place, and can be annulled.  Rabbi
> Rackman expresses the hope that this approach will be endorsed by the
> halachic authorities, and also confesses  his fear that it will be
> disregarded.

I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna u'Bitachon". At
the beginning of the second perek he makes an interesting point, that, in
his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of Bitachon, that everything that happens
to an individual is good, is incorrect. Rather, things happen that may not
be good. Bitachon means one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah can be
effective in reaching out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in
overriding the bad happenstance.

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

I eye-witnessed this at a Breuer wedding.  And for thsoe who know, the KAJ 
community is very makpid on aveilus

Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

A Heter for aveilim to attend a simcha - by being photographers?? 
Could we have a source or name of Posek approving of this?

SBA

Or perhaps he wante to make the theory PLAUSIBLE.

I often will defend havo aminos in an attempt to make alternate theories sound 
plausible before rejecting them.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



The fact that he mentioned Avraham and Sarah being Elderly, and the 
increased chance of elderly parents having DS children, shows he DID mean to 
draw that conclusion, at least tangentially.

Akiva

The Hertz Chumash contains many articles attempting to refute the 
documentary theory.  I have heard that there is much parshanut work being 
done in Israel explaining the various "discrepancies" noticed by critics.  
In fact, RA Lichtenstein noted that this was a benefit of Torah Umadda - 
seeing extra layers of meaning in Tanach that critics pointed out.

They can also be found at the back of the first volume of the Brisker 
haggadah [for those of us who were not able to get My Uncle The Netziv 
before it was pulled from shelves].

Indeed these are competing hashkofos.

#1) Avos are viewd as feslh-and-blood people.  The stories are not to praise 
them but to learn from them.  Settnign up Avos as straw men is merely an 
extension of this, any worthwhile lesson, even at their expense is "fair game.

#2) the Avos are paradigms of virture. An denigration of their gadlus will 
undermine the Troah, the mesora, etc.  The Avos are not to be confused with 
tyhpcial people, they lived on a vastly differnt madgreigo

Frankly, I prefer, I hold somewhere in the middle
#3)  The avos are always given the beneift of the doubt.  Nevertheless they were
human and not mal'ochim.  And whil I obejct to 'bashing" avos, it doesnt' mean 
one cannot teach lessons at their expense.

EG RSR Hisrch's harsh criticism of Yitzchok in his upgbringing of Eisav.  I 
don't think Hirsch intended any slight of Yitzchok, rather he intended to 
illustrate waht can go wrong with the education of amn-of-the-field such as 
Eisava - and did so at Yitachok's expense.

Note the Ramban taught us that Avrhom Ovinu was chotei - albeit beshoggeg - by 
doing down to Egypt.  Frankly, WADR to the Ramban, I don't see leaving EY during
a famine as a Cheit, but understanding the Ramban's shito wrt to EY I see how HE
thought it was a cheit.   I'd rather give Avrohom the benefit of the doubt here.
 But I DO apprecaite the Ramban's point nevertheless.  Just as I appercate 
Hirsch's point re: chinuch

It is very fair to come to Yitachok ovinu's defense, etc. I don't think it was 
necessary to do so at the expense of R. Avi Weiss, if for not other reason tahn 
he was simply making a point about Down's syndrom and had no intention of 
bashing Yitzchok.  The fact taht Yitachok's diginity might have been diminished 
is a valid point, but it was tangential to the lesson.

It would be a FAR different case if some Critic got up and said (chas v'shalom)
How foolish of you Jews to respect someone as naive as a Yitachok. Then I would 
be in the forefront of the zealots bearing the cudgels, too! that kind of 
gratuitous attack should be seen as such.

R. Avi Weiss used a technique that has been used before to make a wortwhile 
point. Certainly it would be fair to label it as careless, or even reckless, but
I think the overraction was as off-base in its way as any thing he might have 
said.

Furthermoer, since I have warm feelings towards acquaintancs wh ohave Down 
Syndrome, I found that to be far-less "denigrating" than is the Ramban's point 
wrt to Avrhom and Hircsh's point wrt Yitachok.  And it leads me to believe that 
a 2nd strartificaiton is at play:

1) Ramban is a Rishon he can critizce Avrohom
2) RSR Hirsch is a Gaodl of the 19th century he can criticse Yitzchok
3) R. Avi Weiss is a MO rabbi and he has the chutzpa even to tangentially 
suggest that Yitachok Ovinu has the slightest defect in his mental acuit, he 
ought to be attacked.

Then again one can paradoxially make a case that the big slights against the 
Avos need no defense, that the mild, slight sneaky ones are all the more 
insiduous and dangerous!  And there is truth to that too. 

Anyway, I do think it's ok to surgically remove Avi Weiss's assertion with a 
scalpel leaving the thrust of his point intact, (IOW a "DS"-otomy) and not smash
it the cudgels or "totally appalling" etc.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Retraction, etc. 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/22/1999 2:06 AM


> ben-beno shel kal-vachomer) the Avos ha-kedoshim) CANNOT be viewed or 
> discussed by the likes of us "in human terms".
>

The problem with that approach is that we therefore CANNOT learn anything 
from the Avos that is relevant to our lives.

Akiva

I wasn't involved in the thread at all, but I came across this gem
yesterday while going over hilchot Hanukah.

From Moed L'kol Hai, by R' Haiim Pilaggi (the author of the Kaf HaHaiim),
siman 27, #5:

"Habitu u'ru divchol 12 hodshei hashana lo timza dehanashim yoz'ot lashuk
kedei levaker likroveihen vechayozei kemo bahanukah, deyoze'ot rov
hanashim berov hayamim, ve'ezel kol pinah yimaz'un sham si'at nashim,
u'vchen min hara'ui hu dechol ehad yazhir le'ishto u'vito ve'ahoto, delo
teizei ishah bechol yom, vegam bameh ishah yoz'ah, lo mekushetet harbeh,
u'vevigdei hamudot, ki kol kevudah vat melech penimah mish'bezot zahav
levushah, vegam she'tihiyeh mechusah heitev ba'halichatah bizni'ut gadol,
ve'einehah lematah ba'arez, shelo tisa eineha ba'ovrim veshavim shelo
yeh'te'u ba, v'nikah ha'ish me'avon ha'ishah ha'hi."


Hmmm...



---sam

RM Berger wrote:

>>While the Rambam seems to define being good bein adam lachaveiro and laMakom 
as a necessary part of acheiving that yedi'ah, I believe the more common opinion
is that such yedi'ah is a part -- albeit a/the central part -- of being good.>>

The Alter of Slabodka adopts what you call the Rambam's approach - that mitzvos 
bein adam lechaveiro are a necessary part of reaching yedi'as Hashem.  See Or 
HaTzafun vol. 1 pp. 7-8.

Question: Cannot  Bad Events (eg gzeiras Homon) be seen as  ultimately good in 
that they brought about Teshuva?

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna u'Bitachon". At 
the beginning of the second perek he makes an interesting point, that, in 
his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of Bitachon, that everything that happens 
to an individual is good, is incorrect. Rather, things happen that may not 
be good. Bitachon means one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah can be 
effective in reaching out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in 
overriding the bad happenstance.

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

The issue, as I see it, is what it says about the 20th century Jew.

If people (and I exclude R Avi Weiss, who I never understood as agreeing with
the idea he cites in his article and who stated that he is NOT in this camp)
can take the Torah's archetype of gevurah and of Avodas Hashem, and all they
can see is naivite and slow intellect, Oy Lahem! Think of how disconnected
they must be from these ideas, r"l! They can't even see them in others! Where
there was yir'as Shamayim they see nothing, a vacuum, an absence of ability.
Al eileh ani bochiyah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Nov-99: Levi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 72b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I don't know. The CI would probably say that Gezeiras Homon was min
ha'Shomayim, but an individual slipping on a banana peel is not. but I have
not yet seen enough of his shitta to answer adequately.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:08 AM
Subject: Bitachon


> Question: Cannot  Bad Events (eg gzeiras Homon) be seen as  ultimately
good in
> that they brought about Teshuva?
>
> Rich Wolpoe
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>
> I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna u'Bitachon". At
> the beginning of the second perek he makes an interesting point, that, in
> his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of Bitachon, that everything that
happens
> to an individual is good, is incorrect. Rather, things happen that may not
> be good. Bitachon means one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah can be
> effective in reaching out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in
> overriding the bad happenstance.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
>
>
>

While we're on the subject of Tzelem Elokim, note Abravanel's comment on p. 
69 of Vol. 1(5724 edition).  In a nutshell:  Note the language of the verse, 
he says, "be'tzelem Elokim bara OTTO, zachar u-nekeivah bara OTAM."  Tzelem 
Elokim refers only to ADAM, the male, not Chava, the FEMALE.  He, after all, 
was the purpose (hakavanah ve-hatachlik ha-atzma-it) and the ikkar 
ha-beriyah.  Woman was created only to be an ezer ke-negdo and for 
procreative purposes and as keli tashmisho.  Question:  how do we "moderns" 
-- and not necessarily MOs-- understand and relate to this position?  And how 
does the answer to this question relate to the Down's discussion?

Mark Dratch

In a message dated 11/22/99 2:14:04 PM US Central Standard Time, 
MSDratch@aol.com writes:

<< Tzelem 
 Elokim refers only to ADAM, the male, not Chava, the FEMALE.  He, after all, 
 was the purpose (hakavanah ve-hatachlik ha-atzma-it) and the ikkar 
 ha-beriyah.  Woman was created only to be an ezer ke-negdo and for 
 procreative purposes and as keli tashmisho.  Question:  how do we "moderns" 
 -- and not necessarily MOs-- understand and relate to this position?  And 
how 
 does the answer to this question relate to the Down's discussion? >>


Several responses pop to mind:

(1)  People with Down's Syndrome are less corruptible than the rest of us, to 
thus have straighter paths to divinity. (See R'Nachman of Breslov; Ms.Gila 
Atwood). Are we then so say that women are more corruptible than men? This 
argument goes nowhere.

(2)  Tzelem Elokim requires some base-level power of rational thought. 
(Rambam.) Are we do say women lack such power? No again.

(3)   Elokim implies seichel. So women lack seichel? No matter how you cut 
the Hebrew grammar, men lack seichel compared to women, and we all know it. 
Wrong again.

(4)  The thought that women were created solely for procreative purposes and 
lesser functionary activities is nonsense, and cannot be taken seriously no 
matter how much respect we wish to accord ancient interpretations of halachic 
text. Why try to reconcile such interpretations with the obvious? RW and MO 
Judaism are both large enough intellectually to accommodate the gentler, more 
humane ideals of equalitarianism. 

David Finch 

I had a chance rather hurriedly last Shabbath to skim through part of
an article by a listmember.  I found in it a hint that the existence of
multiple minhagim is an effect of galuth, which we should not expect in
the Messianic era.  I'm not being more specific since I may not have
read the article correctly - it was a hurried glance - and I think the
idea worth investigating even if I have not attributed it correctly.
  My first reaction was to recall midrashim which imply that different
shvatim have different minhagim.  My second more measured reaction is
more confused -

1.  Aren't most of those midrashim late?
2.  Could this be related to the Tannaitic dispute of the place of the
Shvatim with respect to a mistaken psak in Horayoth?
3.  Even if the shvatim did have different minhagim, will that state
exist in the Messianic era? there is a machloketh Tannaim (in Cheilek)
about the return of the shvatim.
4.  Could this be related to the machloketh about kdusha rishona
(including shvatim) kidsha ... kdusha shnia (a unified nation) ...?

Further implications:
5.  There exist different minhagim about how to pasken - see, e.g. Bedek
HaBayith on Choshen Mishpat 25 (plus or minus 2).  To what extent did
psak have to be normative throughout Israel and to what extent could it
differ by sheivet?

I'd appreciate marei mekomoth.

David Riceman

RMASinger asks:
<In academic circles, the "Documentary Theory" (ie, that the Torah is an
edited work composed of parts written by four or more human authors) appears
to be almost universally accepted, and is generally discussed as if it were
as verifiable as a physical law.  Yet to my knowledge, no evidence exists in
support of this hypothesis; it is based on textual "discrepancies" and
variant styles.  Is anyone aware of a scholarly Orthodox critique of this
hypothesis?
Thanks! Amirom Singer m-singer@uchicago.edu>

I'd look at:

1.  Toras HaTi'udos - by Umberto Cassutto, also now available in english
translation as "The Documentary Hypothesis" both published by Magnes Press
(Hebrew U.)  

Probably the best single source for what (it sounds like) you're looking
for.  A bit dated, but the thrust of Cassutto's arguments and most of the
specific examples still relevant. as for the "scholarly orthodox critique",
while i am sure there is nothing there the conventionally ortho would
disagree with, i'm also not sure that we'd identify the author with today's
conventionally ortho - in fact i'm sure we shouldn't, though he was an
italian musmokh. 

2. R. Dovid tzvi Hoffman's perush on chumosh (actually i'm not sure it was
completed) in the hebrew translation.  It is still possible to pick up these
volumes in old bookstores in jerusalem, though the second volume of
bireishis is fairly rare nowadays. (I'm not sure there even is a shimos or
bimidbor, at least i've never seen them).  While this is organized as a
running narrative perush rather than a focused critique of the documentary
approach, it was written with an agendum to refute the Wellhausnian exegesis
then current. 

3. Cassutto's other works - his (incomplete) hebrew perush on Bireishis and
Shimos, both available through Magnes Press and even more so his other work
on Biresihis recently available in hebrew (whose hebrew title i disremember,
but whose italian title, which, oddly enough since i don't speak a word of
the language, i remember, is la Questione della Genesi), contain en passant,
much relevant material. 

4.  Benno Jacob. While much is in german or manuscript his grandson (a
prominent "reform rabbi") recently published/edited some of jacob's work as
a perush on Shimos in english available from KTAV. This is definitely a
non-ortho source -jacob was a "liberal rabbi", german style - at university
he was a member of a (jewish) dueling society and fought at least one
recorded duel - not quite your garden variety frum educational matrix -
however he emphatically rejected the multi-strand documentary theory on
scholarly grounds (not that he believed in torah meshomayim either, rather
he credited the torah's editor with more professional expertise than granted
him by your standard biblical critic) and his perush on shimos contains much
relevant source material.  And while i initially hesitated citing this
source to this kind of list, i recalled that Nechama Leibowitz used to cite
benno jacob fairly extensively, and figured qal vichomer for us qitanim.

5.  R. Mordechai Breuer.   finally an unabashed and contemporary ortho
scholar generally admired across a range of our ortho sectarians , but his
actual views on documentary hypothesis seem rather complex and highly
iconoclastic (somewhat along the lines of "ee loa kosvon, osur l'omron")
These, as well as the "more ortho" response they elicited from S. Leiman are
to be found in a recent volume sponsored  by the Orthodox Forum (basically a
YU sponsored thing. i think that's the sponsoring org, i once confused this
with the Orthodox Roundtable but now can't quite remember which was which)
with a title something like Torah and Modern Scholarship, which may also
have some other entries relevant to your question, though they slip my mind
at the moment. 

Finally a note on the remark that <Yet to my knowledge, no evidence exists
in support of this hypothesis;..>   'evidence' is always in the eye of the
beholder and, ontological ruminations aside, i don't think it fair to say
there is none.  in fact there is a great deal, at least according to
commonly accepted (inferior to be sure) standards of evidence outside the
physical sciences. that's why the problem exists and why a fair minded
martian may as easily be convinced by "them' as by "us". 

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H: (3010 593-3949

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


[ 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         ]