Avodah Mailing List
Volume 04 : Number 229
Wednesday, December 29 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 12:35:51 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Israel
On 29 Dec 99, at 0:09, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/28/99 10:37:47 PM US Central Standard Time,
> mosherudner@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << Rashi Dvarim 11:18 VISAMTEM ET DVAROY ELEH AL LIVOVCHEM: Even after you
> are
> exiled you are commanded to keep the mitzvot. Put on Tfillin and make
> Mizuzot SO THAT THESE THINGS WILL NOT BE NEW TO YOU when you return [to the
> land] - as it says: Make road markers for yourself... Yirmiyah 31:20
> >>
>
> Yes. Let's use Ramban, as R'Sherer did. To Ramban, Devarim 11:18
> distinguished the commandment of wearing tefillin from obligations that apply
> to the ground, such as heave-offerings and tithes. It's a question of
> portability. Tefillin are portable. The Chumash is portable. Kavanah is
> portable. But duties relating strictly to the land -- dare I say real estate?
> -- are not, particularly if they relate to taxation, which is a function of
> the state or other governing authority. This is common sense. I can't see
> what it has to do with the relative merits of mitzvot committed in EY versus
> golus, especially when it comes to redemption or other Holy judgment.
Because what Ramban is saying is that but for this pasuk and its
limud, I would have said that the mitzvos are not obligatory
anywhere outside Eretz Yisrael. And from where would I have
learned that? From the Avos who, according to the Ramban
(Breishis 38:8 - sorry for writing 37 the other night for anyone who
bothered to look it up), kept kol haTorah kula even before Matan
Torah BUT ONLY IN ERETZ YISRAEL. Which was why, for
example, Rachel had to die immediately upon Yaakov's entry into
Eretz Yisrael - because he could not be married to two sisters
here.
So what the Ramban is saying is that I would have thought that we
should do what the Avos did and keep the mitzvos only in Eretz
Yisrael, talmud lomar "v'samtem," that you should continue to keep
all mitzvos that are chovas haguf even in the galus, so that you
should be practiced for when you return to Eretz Yisrael which is
the ikar place where mitzvos are to be kept.
I also take issue with your characterization of trumos and maasros
as taxes, but let's save that for another time.
-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 12:35:51 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael
On 29 Dec 99, at 2:02, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/29/99 12:20:25 AM US Central Standard Time,
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
>
> << Why do
> you think that Ramban would let us live alongside the non-Jews in
> Eretz Yisrael? >>
>
> I don't know. It's just the way I read that Ramban. He seems much more
> concerned about Jews allowing themselves to be polluted by goyishe practices
> than he does about ridding EY of its occupants as a precondition to
> settlement, which he sort of dismisses out of hand. (As I mentioned, some
> commentators say Rashi sees it differently; others don't.) The Ramban's
> language is strikingly non-political on this point, as it is on various
> others. Perhaps it's the mystic strain within him.
I'd suggest you go back and re-read the Ramban on "l'sikim."
"V'achar kach 'vtzoriru eschem' (and after that they will torture you)
SHEYILOCHAMU BACHEM V'YAVEU ESCHEM BAMATZOR
(they will fight with you and place you under siege - sure sounds
like a war to me) v'ani agaleh eschem mipneihem galus shleima
(and I will exile you totally from before them). That, according to the
Ramban, is what happens if we fail to drive the seven nations out of
Eretz Yisrael. That sounds like a lot more than just that the goyim
will entice us to idol worship (which is no small thing either). It
certainly doesn't sound like he thinks it's "okay" for us to live
alongside them, let alone desired. That may not be PC, but they
didn't have PCness inthe Ramban's time.
Yes, it was possible for the nations to make peace with us (well,
other than the seven nations). But they were required to live in a
totally subservient fashion - not exactly like you live alongside your
non-Jewish neighbors in an American suburb today.
> One other point: I don't understand "Yiddishkeit" to be a
synonym for
> Judaism.
Sure it is. But to those who lived in Europe in the pre-war period,
the only thing they knew is the shtetl you go on to describe. But
there are other forms of Jewish practice that evolved in the galus
after churban bayis sheini that are just as legitimate and have the
same pure motivation. The"Yiddishkeit" that evolved in Yemen or
Iraq or Syria is no less "Yiddishkeit" than that of Poland or
Lithuania or Ukraine. They just may (probably) have a different term
for it than "Yiddishkeit" which - at the end of the day - is a Yiddish
word.
Indeed the traditions ARE close enough together that for many
years the Sephardi elite went to Ashkenazi Yeshivos. For example,
Aryeh Deri, the one time leader of Shas, learned in Chevron, which
is very much an Ashkenazi Yeshiva in the finest Litvish tradition.
Yiddishkeit is a Yiddish or German word based on the root
"Yiddish"
> or "Yidd'n," which connotes Ashkenaz and nothing else.
Actually, the word "yid" means Jew, and the word Yiddish means
Jewish. My grandmother z"l, who always spoke to me in English,
used to always tell me that she was going to tell me an expression
"in Jewish" before she ever used a Yiddish expression. I'm not sure
I ever heard her use the word "Yiddish."
When American Jews, at
> least, talk about "Yiddishkeit," they aren't talking about Yemenite
robes and
> desert tradition. They aren't talking about "Torah," either: it's
"Toyrheh,"
> and you'll get plenty of stares if you pronounce it incorrectly.
I don't know about that. They may not be referring to Yemenite
robes, but they aren't necessarily referring solely to Eastern
European traditions either. And even if their derech is RW
Ashkenazi, that does not mean that they regard the Sephardi
tradition as any less legitimate.
> This is not a minor point. RW Judaism in America doesn't seem
to be the
> melting pot you describe it to be in Israel. From what I can see, American
> Yiddishkeit is thoughtful and dynamic, but it still yearns for the shetl (as
> Norman Rockwell would've painted it, anyhow) and the old European Jewish
> theocratic structure.
So does much of Ashkenazi RW Judaism here (except that I think
they have succeeded to a much greater extent in recreating it).
Israel, naturally, has produced is own versions of
> piety far more removed from the world Hitler destroyed. I agree with many
> that the Israeli version is more authentic, in the long view. Hopefully it
> will continue to evolve into the natural society that we hope to earn back
> from HaShem.
Amen.
-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 12:52:53 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) Jewish ? Have a Palm Pilot ?
For those who carry Palm Pilots, this site is nothing short of
incredible.
-- Carl
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:21:37 +0200
Subject: (Fwd) Jewish ? Have a Palm Pilot ?
Send reply to: sherer@actcom.co.il
Priority: normal
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:51:22 -0800
To: RabbiDoug@kosher.com, MUHLSTEIN@apple.com, Jack_Yellin@studio.disney.com,
David_Steinberg@studio.disney.com, GNXS04A@prodigy.com, Ors402@aol.com,
LadyWoolf@aol.com, cybercpa1@aol.com, IHNFI@aol.com,
jocmtv@mail.netvision.net.il, NKurnick@aol.com, rkipust@aol.com,
markaln@ix.netcom.com, weissguys3@aol.com, ravaron@aol.com,
dave@cdrla.com, Brad_Turell@warnerbros.com,
Sander_Schwartz@spe.sony.com, sarnoff@imageworks.com,
Sheldon_Rabinowitz@spe.sony.com, ARROWSALES@aol.com,
joel_grossman@spe.sony.com, ISFOREVER@aol.com,
steven_spira@warnerbros.com, james.kapenstein@disney.com,
RU4REEL7@aol.com, irving@ppmionline.com, phil@ppmionline.com,
STRUME@uscuh.hsc.usc.edu, jsrindinc@aol.com,
roberts@kellerequities.com, sherer@actcom.co.il
From: Barry Weiss <barry@imageworks.com>
Subject: Jewish ? Have a Palm Pilot ?
Then check out
http://www.pilotyid.com/
an AMAZING collection of downloads for the
Orthodox and not so orthodox Palm Piloyt user.
Everything from daily prayers to calendars
to databases of kosher restaurants for the Jew on the go !
Barry
***********************************************
Barry Weiss
Senior Vice President Animation Production
Sony Pictures Imageworks
9050 W. Washington Blvd. Voice: (310) 840-8300
Room 2206 Fax: (310) 840-8330
Culver City, CA. 90232 Pager: (310) 998-3625
E-Mail: barry@imageworks.com
***********************************************
------- End of forwarded message -------
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.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
------- End of forwarded message -------
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 07:47:09 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 11:10:45PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I believe we might propose that Moshe Rabbeinu's lack of bechira was like
: that of Adam kodem ha'chet, ie.e, he could choose intellectually to take a
: certain path that would prove wrong, as a result either of enticement or a
: mistake, but he had no internal yetzer ho'ra.
This is Adam kodem hacheit lefi haRambam. R' Eliahu Dessler talks about the
pre-cheit Adam having bechirah, but the yitzrei hara vatov were external to
his Self. I suggested in the past that perhaps hainu hach -- because deciding
between external desires without being clouded by internal ones boils down to
deciding truth. But that's my own 2 cents, and isn't necessarily what RED
means.
There's also the chiluk between lack of bechirah as per the Rambam's
explanation of why mal'achim lack bechirah vs that of the Or Samei'ach (OS).
We've already discussed this machlokes a while back, when discussing if
mal'achim have bechirah when down in Olam haZeh (OhZ). In short: the
Rambam holds that mal'achim are automata, because they are by definition
the intersection of Ratzon haBorei and His beri'ah. According to the OS,
they have bechirah in principle, but their havanah is so clear there are no
decisions to be made.
Perhaps the Meshech Chachmah intendes the latter kind of bechira-lessness. That
Moshe reached the level where there would be no choices left -- if one could
determine the real situation. But OhZ isn't Olam ha'Emes.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 28-Dec-99: Shelishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:24:23 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Moshe Rabbeinu and Klal Yisrael
The gemora in Brachot(9:) mentions that HKB"H asked Moshe to have klal
Yisrael ask the mitzrim for the silver and gold utensils so that his promise
to avraham of yetzu brchush gadol would be kept. The gemora in Sota(13.)
lauds Moshe(kama chavivot mitzvot al Moshe rabbenu) for being mitasek in
mitzvot(collecting the atzmot yosef) while the rest of klal Yisrael were busy
with biza.
I suppose one could miyashev these by saying that klal yisrael could have
done biza at another time or that the "mitzva" of biza was a communal one
that someone else could have done but I'm wondering if anyone has heard
anything on these - especially since it was clearly a greater kavod for Yosef
to have Moshe be mitasek(see gemora sota for more detail)
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
PS Does anyone know of a source which explains why Nach was written in such a
way that if one studied it without the talmudic explanations one might
misinterpret many of the characters basic motivations
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:42:28 -0500
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Bes Din
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 7:49 PM
Subject: Bes Din
> > Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:40:49 -0500
> > From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> > Subject: Re: Bes Din
>
> << Indeed it would seem that way. This poster however ignores the
> awesome responsibilty placed on dayanim. When that responsibility is
> abused, even in one instance, the entire inwitution becomes
> contaminated.>>
>
> Let's see. One lawyer is dishonest. One doctor commits malpractice.
> One nursing home owner cheats Medicare. One right wing Israeli shoots
> Yitzchak Rabin. Even if you replace the "one" with any number you like,
> you have no right to drag *all* botei din through the mud for the
> misdeeds of the one, ten or a hundred. To make a statement that all are
> corrupt or contaminated is hotza'as shem rah and, certainly,
> counterproductive.
A Contrere amaci caro (to the contrary my dear friend). The
professionals listed above are not specificaly enjoined by Chazal to be
punctilious in their porfessional pursuits as are daynim. Remember the
pasuk "Tzedek tzedek tirdof?" Or statement like "chachamim hizharu
bedivreichem. . . ." or any of the other ethical instructions to dayanim
sttaed in Avot? The rest of us merely have a general obligation to be
honest and shun dishonesty; but there is no specific injunction for doctors
or lawyers like there is for dayanim. That is the difference. The world
expects more from the judiciary and confidence in it is only as good as the
worst judge.
>
> <<That can be accomplished only if both the entire Jewish community
> demands it>>
>
> Which cannot happen until the Jewish community is aware of it; your
> pronouncements notwithstanding. Facts are required for that to happen
> and we've seen precious few here.
Indeed a catch 22. But, this list does not exist in a vacume. We are
all members of the Jewish community and with a small bit of independant
research can come to know a great deal about this issue.
>
> <<The "dragging all batei din trough the mud" maybe can be understood as
> two things: 1. An expression of intense frustration with the status quo
> and>>
>
> This may certainly be understandable; that doesn't make it right.
>
> <<2. A sucker punch to the batei din to improve.>>
>
> Without the "entire Jewish community" demanding it? You said yourself
> it won't work.
>
> Gershon
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:39:29 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Mah Shimo?
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:25:01 -0600 (CST)
> From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
> Subject: Mah Shimo?
<<IOW, he couldn't clearly pronounce these letters. (Assuming that HKBH
wasn't talking "mitoch gerono" yet.)>>
mitoch gerono wouldn't help for pronunciation of letters requiring the
lips (I'm not sure if I'm being serious or not).
Seriously, I have heard this analysis related to the mesora that the
go'el would come and tell them "pakod pakadti".
Gershon
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:15:21 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject: re: Rav Dessler's Shita on Kollel
Carl Sherer understands the Michtav Me'Eliyahu as saying <<< better
someone should go off the derech than that we should miss the chance to
produce a talmid chacham. >>>
Can someone explain to me why this does not consititute an issur d'oraisa
of Michshol? (or at least m'sayea, since there are other ways to get off
the derech?)
Why does anyone think that "the chance to produce a talmid chacham" is
important enough to risk pushing someone "off the derech"?
As I understand it, our responsibility is to learn Torah to the best of
our abilities. There is no mitzvah to produce talmidei chachamim. That's
HaShem's job, not ours. If the community merits a talmid chacham, then
HaShem will make sure that the community gets one. And if not, then not.
Sounds to me like someone's got their priorities mixed up. Maybe it's me.
Any comments?
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:53:51 +0100
From: "salomon ouaknine" <s_ouaknine@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
In Avodah 228, C.SHERER wrote
I think what you mean to say is that they have no nostalgia for EASTERN
EUROPEAN Yiddishkeit and that is true. They didn't live it. But the
Sphardim are much stronger than are the Ashkenazim at keeping their own
minhagim, partly because they never had the Chasidic - Misnagdic schism
that the Ashkenazim had. In fact, I had a friend in the alter heim
who was the son of Iranians who went and asked a shaila and became an
Ashkenazi in his minhagim. He once told me that if you tell the average
(non-religious) Sphardi that it is assur al pi din to marry a shiksa,
he won't listen to you, but if you tell him that it's a minhag not to
marry a shiksa he will listen to you. Probably an exaggeration, but the
point is well taken.
In fact, this message is at least an error or a hard mistake. To say that
an average Sphardi is non-religious is Lashon Hara.
Secondly, to say that a Shpardi prefer the custom to the low is very very
exagered.
In our times, with the struggle between frum vs. frei, between Orthodox and
Conservatives/Reform, I think thta our duty is to be without tensions and
without any "false" pride. Maran HaRav Shakh was always in his articles and
shiurim vetu sever to such considerations.
Now, there are not Ashkenaz or Sfarad, Litvishe or Chassid. There is only
one camp: the Torah and the Guedolim.
Kol Tuv, Shlomo Ouaknine, Paris - FRANCE
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:11:07 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
And who was the chief architect of the security settlements in the West Bank
circa early 1970's?
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Are you personally acquainted with Barak? With all due respect, I
suspect the above may be a regurgitation of some Newsweek article.
Personally. I don't think it is helpful to reduce this whole discussion
to a black-and-white, Barak/Sharon dichotomy. There are a lot
more impressive players out there, and the issues are a lot more complex.
(By the way, Barak and Sharon happen to be personal friends, and have
conducted (as reported by the media) a fair number of off-the-record
discussions on security issues in the past months -- confusing the picture
even more!)
>>
<snip>
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:31:39 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: Beis Din
w/o agreeing or dis-agreeing with this thesis...
Would Zavlo botei dinim circumvent this?
Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
SAdly, since the most batei din not emply full time dayanim, and use
member rabbis and members of the batei din, the possibility for corruption
exists in all batei din. Beth Din litigation has become little more than a
contest of procuring influence and ability to "speak the truth carelessly"
>
> Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:23:10 -0500
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Beis Din
Zablo does not circumvent it at all. It merely a different costume for the
dayanim to wear
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:31 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Beis Din
> w/o agreeing or dis-agreeing with this thesis...
>
> Would Zavlo botei dinim circumvent this?
>
> Rich Wolpoe
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>
> SAdly, since the most batei din not emply full time dayanim, and use
> member rabbis and members of the batei din, the possibility for corruption
> exists in all batei din. Beth Din litigation has become little more than
a
> contest of procuring influence and ability to "speak the truth carelessly"
> >
> > Akiva Miller
>
>
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 18:38:46 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
On 29 Dec 99, at 13:53, salomon ouaknine wrote:
> In Avodah 228, C.SHERER wrote
>
> I think what you mean to say is that they have no nostalgia for EASTERN
> EUROPEAN Yiddishkeit and that is true. They didn't live it. But the
> Sphardim are much stronger than are the Ashkenazim at keeping their own
> minhagim, partly because they never had the Chasidic - Misnagdic schism
> that the Ashkenazim had. In fact, I had a friend in the alter heim
> who was the son of Iranians who went and asked a shaila and became an
> Ashkenazi in his minhagim. He once told me that if you tell the average
> (non-religious) Sphardi that it is assur al pi din to marry a shiksa,
> he won't listen to you, but if you tell him that it's a minhag not to
> marry a shiksa he will listen to you. Probably an exaggeration, but the
> point is well taken.
>
> In fact, this message is at least an error or a hard mistake. To say that
> an average Sphardi is non-religious is Lashon Hara.
Not my intention at all. I probably should not have put the
paretheses in there. IOW, "if you tell the average non-religious
Sephardi...."
> Secondly, to say that a Shpardi prefer the custom to the low is very very
> exagered.
I admitted that may well be the case. The point that I think WAS
well taken (and I have found it to be true as well), is that as a
group, Sephardim seem to place a lot more importance on Minhag
than do most Ashkenazi communities (the Yekke's being a notable
exception).
I am sorry that the post was not clearer.
-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:21:06 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[6]: Kollel support (was problem kids)
Dear HM,
I really DO agree with your sentiments. In fact, I would venture to guess that
FEW gedolim are conventional, most are probably highly creative and march to the
beat of a different drummer.
In reality I made no reference to having "apprentice Gedolim" pasken under the
supervision of a master poseik
What I was shooting at was the possibilty that obstacles, adversity, and other
forms of "hard knocks" might be the real prerequsite in eveolving a great
leader.
By way of analogy, think of the how the Marine corps creates an elite fighting
force...
Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Though don't we all agree that the best soldiers are
> those tested in battle?
Yes but this is not exactly what I meant. Your analogy
implies that Poskim should be tested by Paskining
Shailos for real, while they are still learning to be
Poskim. That's OK as long as they are monitered by
their mentors. OTOH that wouldn't be "testing them in
battle". Or would it? I'm not sure.
What I was reffering to was that the road to greatness
may not always be the "straight and narrow" path.
Sometimes the troublemakers are the ones to succeed.
I suspect the reason might be that those
"troublemakers' are often very bright, and often cause
trouble because they are bored or because they want to
be accepted by peers of lesser capability. Sometimes
their brilliance makes them a little "odd" so they try
and fit in a little too much. Sometimes the home
environment produces rebellion. Sometimes it's a bad
teacher. When these individuals are guided back to
the right track by the right person or persons, they
then sort of "see the light" at some point in their
learning career, and very often outshine others who
have gone the straight and narrow.
I know a few people like this.
HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:55:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
R. D. Finch writes:
>>Why do so many observant Jews shun modern scholarly works on Jewish
religiosity? I'm thinking of Isadore Twersky, Marvin Fox, Menachem
Kellner,
Gershom Scholem, Benzion Netanyahu, etc., all of whom understand and
accept
Orthodoxy. (I'm not thinking of Jacob Neusner, although personally I'd
include
him in that group.)>>
>>Nothing in these books really undermines frumkeit. The intellectual
challenges
they pose are quite exciting. Is it because these authors assume the
reader is
somewhat knowledgeable about history, secular and X-tian philosophy,
etc.?>>
R. G. Student responds:
>I don't know that Scholem should be in that list.
and then:
>First of all, they freely introduce Christian and kefirah-dik concepts which
are
>assur for most people to learn. See the back-and-forth between Rabbi Yehudah
>Parnes and Rabbi David Berger in the first few issues of the Torah U'Madda
>journal. Even RD Berger agrees that these topics are only mutar for yechidim
>who are prepared to handle these issues. RY Parnes assurs them entirely.
RDF
>>Is it because the authors ask too many of the wrong questions? Is it because
they compete intellectually in the secular marketplace?>>
RGS
>I recently read Menachem Kellner's book Must A Jew Believe Anything? I was
>appalled by it. <snip>
>In other words, like most secular scholars he tries to find a "new approach"
>while trampling on the traditional approaches we are supposed to respect.
Yes,
>I learned my lesson.
>In general, the authors use too much obscure terminology and references to
>appeal to the average (or above average) yeshiva bochur.
First things first. As R. Gil correctly notes, Scholem was not
observant nor, as his writings reflect, did he believe in Torah mi-Sinai
(about which more will be said). So far as I know, the same is true
regarding B. Netanyahu. I think it is also valuable to draw
distinctions between Orthodox academics who are talmidei hakhamim, such
as the late R. Isadore Twersky z.l., and those who are not (I shall not
name any). Neusner is not Orthodox and never has been. He studied at
JTS. While some of his early work was highly regarded in academic
circles, he has sullied his reputation in recent years.
I think it is wrong to blithely say that academic works, whether or not
by Orthodox scholars, have nothing within them that undermines frumkeit.
Firstly, every person has a different level of resistance to
intellectual challenges to emunah and what may have no effect on one
person could be harmful to another. Second, almost all academic writing
tends to locate its subject within a broader context; when applied to
matters of Torah, this inevitably diminishes the sense of the uniqueness
of Torah. For example, Scholem (as well as Dan, Wolfson, Idel, et al)
view Kabbalah as a variety of religious mysticism and often compare
aspects of Kabbalah to non-Jewish forms of mysticism. Daniel Sperber
(Orthodox and a genuine talmid hakham), whose studies on minhag are
magnificent, often notes parallels between Jewish and non-Jewish folk
customs and superstitions. Any discussion of Jewish medieval
philosophy takes one deeply into the Moslem philosophy of the period.
Third, academic scholars, even Orthodox ones, sometimes come to
conclusions that are at odds with the mesorah or, at least, with the
traditional perspective on a particular issue. Such a divergence can
easily pose a challenge to one's emunah.
That having been said, I think (and have written here in the past) that,
properly approached, there is much to gain from the study of Jewish
academic scholarship. And I believe the R. Gil's reference to the
debate between R. Parnes and R. Berger is misplaced.
Avoiding kefirah is not a sufficient reason to eschew the study of
Jewish academic scholarship. For one thing, one can immerse oneself in
the writings of R. Twersky and many other scholars and encounter no
kefirah of any kind. On the other hand, the average ninth grade biology
textbook potentially poses a huge threat to emunah. This is very
similar to the general question of whether or not to seal oneself off
from the modern world and is, I think, a red herring.
Here the issue is what does the academy have to teach us about Torah.
In some cases, the answer is things that we, as ma'aminim, do not want
to hear. On the other hand, sometimes the answer is things that we need
to know. Only someone with the sophistication to distinguish between
the two should be reading the authors listed by R. David.
Moreover, an understanding of history can vastly enrich one's
understanding of Torah. For example, the famous Tosafot on Avodah Zarah
2a (s.v. asur la-set ve-latet imahem) is virtually incomprehensible
without an understanding of the historical context. And, more
importantly, there is, le-tza'arenu, a vast amount of ivut that results
from the ignorance of history among many benei Torah, e.g., the
assumption of so many yeshivaleit, that the term "yeshiva" in the Gemara
and Rishonim refers to an institution similar to Mir or Ponevez today.
In a volume edited by listmember R. Shalom Carmy, Modern Scholarship and
the Study of Torah, Prof. Sperber wrote a beguiling article
demonstrating the necessity of studying historical sources to
understand, e.g., a mishnah in Shabbat or a teshuvah of Rashi's.
Most of the Torah world utterly lacks a historical sensibility. My
rebbe, R. Lichtenstein, has suggested that this ignorance explains the
evident lack of political sophistication of the (Ashkenazi) haredi
community in Israel. I do not think that tthe remedy for this problem
is to introduce historical scholarship into the yeshivos in Brooklyn and
Bnei Brak. But I think we can and should lament the publication of
Mishnayot for children, in which the Jews in the illustrations dress
like contemporary hasidim, as if R. Akiva wore a spoddek on Shabbat!
Regarding the R. Parnes-Prof. Berger debate mentioned by R. Gil. R.
Parnes was not making a comprehensive halakhic argument. He was trying
to show that the Rambam -- who is viewed by so many as an icon of Torah
u-Madda -- would actually proscribe the study of any work that might
give raise to doubts in emunah. (For those who know him, this is
vintage R. Parnes, trying to turn an opponent's own argument against
him). Prof. Berger proposed a less crabbed reading of Rambam. But the
issue does not turn on a single passage in the Mishneh Torah. Indeed,
those who know the Rambam well understand that he placed an emphasis on
emunah that was unprecedented. Therefore, it is unsurprising that he
would keep challenging literature out of people's hands, especially, the
masses he looked down upon, It is also unlikely that most other posekim
would agree with the Rambam's
extreme position on this issue.
Actually, this point about the Rambam is a theme of the book by Prof.
Kellner that R. Gil found appalling. I admit I found the book flawed,
even disappointing (my name appears in the acknowledgements), but not
appalling. Like R. Gil, I think Kellner's reading of the mishnah in
perek helek is simply wrong. But so does Prof. L. Schiffman, another
Orthodox scholar and an expert in Jewish sects of the Bayyit Sheni
period. On the other hand, Kellner is clearly right that the Rambam
introduced an emunah element into various halakhic rules, such as gerut,
that is absent from the Gemara. Nor do I share Kellner's conclusion
think we can or should turn the clock back to a pre-Maimonidean
approach. But I am not sorry I read the book, as R. Gil apparently is.
At a minimum, the book demonstrates that the Rambam did not merely
restate the halakhah as it appeared in the Gemara, but often introduced
his own ideas. This should be evident to anyone who has read Hilkhot
De'ot and represents a major theme in R. Twersky's writings as well.
One final point. The polestar for the debate over academic scholarship
is, I think, not the colloquy between R. Parnes and Prof. Berger, but
the open mahloket between R. Hirsch and R. Hildesheimer. The latter was
viscerally opposed to academic scholarship in all of its forms, while
the latter approved and propagated it.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]