Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 368

Tuesday, February 15 2000

• Re: Kumatz Cuff Lamed vs.Cuff Cholom Lamed
• diyukim
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: diyukim
• Re: Avodah V4 #366
• Re: Avodah V4 #366
• RE: What moral qualms?
• Rav Yehudah Gershuni zatsa"l: Sheloshim
• No Subject
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim

>Does anyone know what the difference is between Kumatz Cuff Lamed and Cuff
>Cholom Lamed?

I have always thought that:

kol with kamats is an adjective: mi-kol ha-amim.

kol with cholom is a noun: borey et ha-kol, ha-kol maaminim.

I think it is a similar pattern to rov (noun, with cholom) and rav
(adjective, with patach).  But I can't explain why kol (adj.) has a kamats
instead of a patach.

Kol tuv,
Arnie

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:41:56 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: diyukim

<<As I noted, the rational that "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish" is a paraphrase
applies ONLY to those two words. There's no reason to assume any of the
other hitpa'el words of kaddish are in Hebrew. Therefore "tiskabal".>>

	Why,  aside from the pasuk specified (in M"B-brought from??),  should
yisgadel be more Hebrew than yisborech?  Yispo'er? Yisromem? Tiskabel?  I
can think of psukim offhand for most of these,  which would prove their
Hebrew origin.  Do you know how to conjugate these verbs in Aramaic?

	My Aramaic grammar is second only to my Hebrew grammar,  but I never did
understand this.

Gershon

In a message dated 2/14/00 10:13:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MIKE38CT@aol.com writes:

> And while we are on the subject of this recitation, if we believe that a 
>  father is responsible for the sins of a pre-Bat Mitzvah girl, why doesn't 
he  
>  recite this bracha when his daughter reaches the age of mitzvot?
>  
>  Finally, is there any reason why a mother (as well as a father) can't 
recite  
>  this prayer together once their son reaches the age of mitzvot?  If a Bar 
>  Mitzvah boy's father has died, can a mother then recite the bracha?  Can a 
>  stepfather say this recitation?
>  

The following is taken from Halichos Bas Yisroel (Rav Y. Y. Fuchs Targum 
Press) 11:3
It is not customary for a father to recite the blessing Barukh shep'tarani 
mei'onsho shel zeh (5) on the occasion of his daughters bath mitzvah, (6) 
even though some authorities permit it. (7)
A mother does not recite the blessing for a daughter or for a son. (8)

(5) "who has relieved me from this ones punishment." The father recites this 
blessing on the occasion of his son's bar mitzvah.  Its source is not found 
in the Talmud but in the Midrash Rabbah, Parshath Toledoth.  For this reason, 
the Remah, Orach Chayim 225:2, advises that Shem and Malkuth be omitted.  The 
Kaf HaChayim 225:16 reports that omission is also the Sephardic practice.  
The Mishne Berurah 225:8, however, points out that both the Vilna Gaon and 
the Maharil include Shem and Malkuth, The Chaye Adam concludes that a father 
who recites the blessing with Shem and Malkuth has done nothing wrong.  
[Minhag Chabad is to omit Shem and Malkuth YZ].

(6) This issue is first discussed by the Pri Megadim in Eshel Avraham 225:80. 
 He explains that a father recites this blessing when his son reaches bar 
mitzvah to mark the fact that he no longer bears the heavy responsibility for 
educating his son.  The Pri Megadim postulates that the dispute over a 
father's responsibility for his daughter's education is the reason it has 
become customary to omit the blessing at her bath mitzvah.
The Kaf HaChayim discusses the Levush's explanation of the reason for this 
blessing.  The Levush cites Chazal's statement that a young child may be 
subject to punishment for his fathers sins.  From the day of his bar mitzvah, 
however, the child may only be punished for his own sins.  The father recites 
the blessing to G-d for freeing him from such a heavy responsibility.  A 
girl's destiny, explains the Kaf HaChayim, is primarily shaped by the 
spiritual level of her future husband, who has been selected by Divine 
Providence, not by her father's actions.  She is less likely to experience 
the consequences of her father's actions, and the blessing does not apply to 
her.

(7) Noam, Vol. 7, p. 4, and Vol. 8, p. 272; Yabiah Omer, Vol. 6, Orach 
Chayim, No. 29.  Yabiah Omer points out that the Sephardic practice is never 
to recite this blessing with Shem and Malkuth anyway, so there is nothing 
wrong with a father reciting it.  It appears that even those who follow the 
Vilna Gaon, and normally recite this blessing with Shem and Malkuth, should 
omit Shem and Malkuth for a daughter.

(8) Pri Megadim, ibid.  Since a mother may not be halakhically obligate in 
the mitzvah of chinukh (See Chapter 10, paragraph 1. [of Halichos Bas 
Yisroel]) she does not recite the blessing, which, in the Pri Megadim's view, 
marks the end of this obligation.  It would also seem that a child is not 
punished on account of his mother's sins (it is written that G-d "visits the 
sins of the FATHERS on the children".) so even according to the Levush, a 
mother would not recite the blessing at her son's bar mitzvah.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:02:38 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< 1) Baer (seder Avoda Yisroel) maintains that Tomid and l'olom vo'ed
are redundant.  Therefore Tomid should be in the 1st phrase. >>

	What is his girsa in birchas hamazon,  2nd bracha,  "yisbarach Shimcha
befi kol chai.............?

<<2)  yep so says the Gra and I do not recall the source. yisgadal ends
with di vro;  then ki'r'usei v'yamlich malchuseih begiens a new phrase. 
>>

	Why the vov of veyamlich?  I would really like a source on this one.

<<See Birnbaum on uva letziyon legaei sorosO V'laasos,>>

	Lost you here.

Gershon

R. Eli Clark writes
> R. Melech Press notes:
>
> >One is hard pressed to believe that Dr. Shapiro's picture is or was
> >intended to be a "complete portrait."  He writes in his book "It is
true
> >that I have not had access to some important collections of letters
> >written to leaders of the yeshiva world, which might have led me to
> >re-evaluate some of my conclusions, but on the whole I believe that
the
> >picture presented here will not be substantially altered by any
future
> >revelations."  This appears to imply substantial intellectual
> >dishonesty - how can one entertain "beliefs" about what

> I confess I do not understand this stricture.  On the one hand, we
have
> RYGB's clear position that one is not permitted to read any of these
> letters; on the other hand, we have RMP triumphantly noting that
> Professor Shapiro's years of study of the Seridei Esh, poring over his
> writings in Hebrew, Yiddish, and German, interviewing his talmidim and
> so on, do not qualify him to make some evaluation of the Gadol because
> there are some letters that he did not see.  What is interesting is
that
> RMP deems these unseen letters "important evidence" and opines (based
on
> I am not sure what) that they are likely to contradict Shapiro's
primary
> theses.

I don't understand why Eli ascribes the "importance" of these letters to
me.  I was quoting Dr. Shapiro, who says they are important.  Nor am I
sure why I am "triumphantly noting" ; Eli, how would you know my
emotional state at the time.  I was pointing out that if these letters
are important, it is surely intellectually dishonest to assume that you
know what is in them without having seen them.  Is it not conceivable
that these letters, which Dr. Shapiro himself calls important, might
contain substantial evidence about R. Weinberg's "true" feelings?  More
likely, is it not possible that they will provide evidence for a gadol
psychologically more complex than either RYGB or Dr. Shapiro seem to
acknowledge?  Is it impossible to imagine that the letters might make
clear that Dr. Shapiro operated from an ideological bias?  (I am not
asserting that he did, but it would surely be extraordinarily naive to
be certain that he did not.  After all, most modern historiographers
assert that it is impossible to write unbiased history or biography.)

Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Touro College
mpress@ix.netcom.com or melechp@touro.edu

R. Eli Clark wrote

> RYGB writes:
>
> >interesting work, I found that in th last essay, a highly ambivalent
> >"hesped" on RYY Reines, the SE comes out explicitly and strenuously
against
> >"Mizug [Synthesis] Torah v'Haskala Kelalis" as practiced in RYY
Reines'
> >prototypical TuM yeshiva (called "Torah Vo'Da'as" for that reason -
the TvD
>
> >Since I do not have the Shapiro book, could you please cite for me
the
> >explicit reference where he reneges on earlier opposition. If it is
not in a
> >widely available source, could you - or one of other several perusers
of
> >Shapiro's work, quote it, please?
>
> See pp. 115-20, the opening lecture given to the Seminary in 1934.  Or
> read listmember R. Shalom Carmy's article in Tradition (Summer 1989).

The opening lecture has nothing whatever to do with RYGB's question.
The lecture argues for the addition of  some modern techniques of Talmud
study to the traditional ones; it says nothing about the introduction of
secular studies into the traditional yeshiva curriculum.  RYGB's
question still requires an answer.

Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Touro College
mpress@ix.netcom.com or melechp@touro.edu

How is a goy who accepts sheva mitzvot bnei noach "unenlightened"?

>>
at least a little "enlightened" by its own terms. These three jokes explain
my point:

See what I mean?
<<

I think I'm missing the point with these jokes.

Akiva Atwood

Rav Yehudah Gershuni:  Sheloshim
by: Jonathan Chipman <yonarand@internet-zahav.net>

Just one month ago Rav Yehudah Gershuni (or “Reb Yudel Grodner,” as he
was affectionately called), passed way, at the age of 92.  I would like
to say a few words about this unusual personality, to whom I owe a debt
of personal gratitude as the Rav who awarded me semikha (Rabbinic
ordination).   Rav Gershuni belonged to the last generation of old-time
Lithuanian lamdanim, who were still trained on European soil. His entire
world was encompassed in the milhamtah shel Torah (the “battle of
Torah”), the exciting, dynamic, often noisy and contentious struggle to
understand and clarify the Torah.  His generation was most alive in the
shakla vetarya, the arguing in the Beit Hamidrash or in the discourse of
talmidei hakhamim to interpret, understand, and apply the Torah and the
halakhah.
     Over and beyond thorough knowledge, he demanded of his students the
ability to think creatively in Torah.  In his halakhic studies and
collected responsa—Kol Tzofayikh, Kol Yehudah, Sha’arei Tzedek and
Hokhmat Gershon—he dealt with the full gamut of contemporary problems.
His interests focused upon two or three main areas. First and foremost,
as a religious Zionist thinker and posek, he addressed himself to the
full range of issues, both theoretical and practical, ensuing from the
existence of a Jewish state in the modern world:  the nature and status
of a secular Jewish state;  issues of warfare and army;  the possibility
of renewal of the Sanhedrin;  whether a government may jeopardize its
soldiers to release hostages or POW’s;  whether a spy may/should commit
suicide to avoid betraying state secrets;  the morality of arms sales;
extradition abroad of Jewish criminals;  problems relating to
archeology;  the Brother Daniel case (of an ethnic Jew who had converted
to Christianity, become a monk, and as such wished to claim Israeli
citizenship).  In this respect, he was very much a pioneer, addressing
actual issues of the day;  he went far beyond such figures as Rav Hayyim
Hirschensohn, during the early part of the century, or even of Rabbis
Herzog and Maimon (Fishman) in the early years of the State, who dealt
with these problems in an essentially theoretical way.  In addition, he
addressed the full gamut of contemporary halakhic problems generally,
including bio-medical issues such as euthanasia, abortion, and
transsexuality;  technology and kashrut; etc., etc.
    Rav Gershuni was a prime example of the “Halakhic Man” celebrated so
eloquently by Rav Soloveitchik.  He and those of his ilk were not deeply
immersed in pietism, in the quest for perfect fulfillment of the
commandments.  The mood was more one that said:  we know what the
halakhah requires of us;  it is sufficient to do that which is required
of every Jew;  we do not seek out humrot, stringent interpretations of
the law.  Indeed, the humrot which have become so popular in recent
decades were in some sense seen as a sign of religious unhealth rather
than of greater devotion.
    A telling example of this:  Rav Gershuni was once present at a sheva
brakhot, a festive meal in honor of a newly-wed couple, together with a
distinguished Jerusalemite Hasidic figure.  The latter was dressed in
his Sabbath finery, with long, brocaded black robe, fur shtreimel, face
framed by beard and payot.   Rav Gershuni was clean-shaven;  he wore a
white summer suit, and a cream hat:  to all external appearances, he
looked like any ordinary Jew from Flatbush or Coney island.  During the
meal, the two engaged in a discussion of some point, which rapidly
became a heated argument.  Rav Gershuni quoted source after source:
Bavli, Yerushalmi, rishonim and aharonim—early and late authorities.  As
the discussion progressed the hasid, who had never met Rav Gershuni
before and was not introduced, seemed more and more puzzled:  who was
this man, where did he come from, and how was it that a person of such
obvious learning paraded none of the external signs of Rabbinic piety?
After the meal, when I told him who Rav Gershuni was, he say: “Oy, you
should have told me earlier!”
    In addition to his personal qualities, it should perhaps be
mentioned that Rav Gershuni, who was 92 years old at his death, was a
living link with the legendary Torah giants of two and three generations
ago.  Born in Grodna, Lithuania, he studied in his youth with Rav Shimon
Shkopf and Baruch Ber Leibovitz;  he then came to Eretz Yisrael where,
in the late ‘20’s and early ‘30’s, he was privileged to study with the
old Rav Kook.  (He later moved to America, where he raised his family
and taught in a small yeshivah he ran in Bensonhurst and in Flatbush;
in his later years, he returned to Jerusalem, where he continued to
teach and write until old age).  He may thus aptly be described as one
of peleitat beit sofreihim, “the remnant of their scribes.”   May his
memory be a blessing.

Two postings from this list have been forwarded to me and I must respond to 
them. I don't wish to get involved in the substantive debate, as I haven't 
been following it, but when my scholarly integrity is challenged, I feel I 
must respond.
    I note, right at the beginning of my book, that I have not had access to 
all the letters R. Weinberg wrote. This description of sources, I was led to 
believe from my teachers, is what intellectual honesty is all about, i. e., 
to let the readers know exactly what your sources are. Now I see I am accused 
of intellectual dishonesty for admitting that I haven't seen every letter!!!
    Obviously, it is impossible for any biographer to see every letter, but 
does that mean you don't write biographies? If you need to see everything a 
man ever wrote or said you can never write anything. 
    I know the Seride Esh intimately, having spent 10 years of my life with 
him, learning everything I can about him. This certainly entitles me to say 
that I don't believe that future letters will cause me to revise my portrait 
substantially. What is my crime? Am I not allowed to have an opinion? I tell 
the reader exactly what I have based my book on. If the reader wants to 
believe that the future letters will change the portrait, be my guest. But 
are people not to write history because of what documents might emerge after 
their book is complete? 
    I am not now going to go into the details of why I feel that future 
letters won't cause me to revise my portrait. Let me just say this: if R. 
Weinberg comes off as more "right-wing" in a letter to a rosh yeshiva, I 
don't believe that this wipes out what he writes in letters to members of the 
Torah im Derekh Eretz community. I don't believe he was an inveterate liar!! 
He certainly emphasizes different points depending on whom he writes to, but 
when he says that he believes Torah im Derekh Eretz is the proper path, he 
means it. If you don't think he means it than you basically believe he was a 
complete charlatan for the last 40 years of his life, telling all of his 
students one thing even though he didn't believe it himself. This is not a 
gadol, but a fraud, and I wouldn't have spent one third of my life studying 
such a man.
    As for Rabbi Bechhoffer's judgment that I am not to be relied upon in 
reporting what's in the letters, I don't understand what he is talking about. 
And as for discussions years ago on MJ about the literalness of the flood 
story, what does that have to do with scholarly integrity? I think he should 
go back to the archives as he is confusing me with someone else. In those 
discussions he got into long debates about how to interpret Maimonides and 
other sources and accused other people of falsifying the record. I never 
engaged him in this fashion or disputed specific points of interpretation 
with him. I said my piece, based on logic and history, and let it be. So from 
where comes is the assumption that I am lacking scholarly integrity?!!! (I 
might not have a lot to be proud of, but I will go to my grave with my 
scholarly integrity intact).
    I think R. Bechhoffer assumes that everyone writes with an angle, with an 
agenda. To be sure, I don't believe that people can be entirely objective, 
but that doesn't excuse us from trying, and from presenting all the sources 
so that others can draw different conclusions if they choose, and point out 
where our preconceived notions have led us astray. That's all that is 
expected from an honest writer. 
    Since R. Bechhoffer believes that I  have an agenda, therefore he feels 
that I can't be trusted. All I can say is that there is no agenda here. It is 
scholarship pure and simple -- and if I had an agenda, R. Bechhoffer would be 
correct in wondering  what I might have left out. (But I must ask, What kind 
of man would spend 10 years of his life -- living with R. Weinberg day in and 
day out -- and then purposely distort the truth about him?). In the book, 
everything is presented and I let the chips fall where they may. The only 
thing I have omitted are some of his negative comments about individuals that 
have no relevance to the larger story or to understanding who was R. Weinberg 
was. Others can disagree with my evaluations, but to challenge my integrity, 
to challenge the honesty of the facts reported, to assume I have written a 
work of propaganda, like I am a columnist for Yated Neeman (a former teacher 
at BMT, now editor of Yated, Bezalel Rapoport, told me that "Yated is like 
Pravda" -- an exact quote -- in that not all the truth gets in), is that what 
I am to be reduced to. I have written a Harvard dissertation under Professor 
Twersky of blessed memory, and this book is now a finalist for the National 
Jewish Book Award, and in front of the world I am being accused of not being 
honest with the reader?!!! 
    Had R. Weinberg on his death bed become a Satmar hasid, and no one but 
myself know about it, do you think I would have covered it up?!!
    If you think that, then I  you have a lot to learn about how real 
historians work. Let's not forget, that It is you, R. Bechhoffer, who wrote 
an entire article about R. Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan and never discussed his 
Zionism!!! And you presume to say that I would distort, that I would cover up 
"uncomfortable" aspects of the life of a man I've devoted myself to studying. 
Just because you feel it's ok to omit relevant facts because of a larger 
agenda (which I assume is that you don't want the yeshiva world to be turned 
off to R. Kaplan -- and which I might agree is kosher in a magazine like JO 
[but not Hamaayan!]) why do you assume I also have an agenda? Who do you 
think I am, some hack, some yes-man for a Modern Orthodox or Torah u-Madda 
agenda. I couldn't care less about what these groups think. If I found 
letters of R. Weinberg blasting these groups I would have discussed them, and 
if that would have meant that they would have lost their gadol (one of MO's 
few gedolim) then so be it.
        How is it that a respected talmid hakham such as R. Bechhoffer, whose 
articles I have enjoyed and learnt from, instead of sticking to the issues 
engages now in personal assaults? (Please read my book, dispute my 
interpretations, attack it if you want -- but to be honest, I don't see what 
there is to attack. Many haredim have read it and enjoyed it very much. A 
dayan from the London Bet Din who read the earlier dissertation complimented 
me and R. Berel Wein recently sent me an e-mail telling me how much he was 
enjoying it, so why the assumption that you must attack, before even reading?)
    If this is the level of debate that takes place on the internet, maybe 
the gedolim in Eretz Yisrael are correct to ban it. 

                    Sincerely,

                    Marc Shapiro  

correction the Hypothetical extra  vov is between yiroso/yiroto and v'laasos.  
See Artsrcoll p. 156

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 10:20 PM


richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:


> 
> re: uva litzion
> this is the girso in most siddurim:
> hu yiftach libeinu besoroso, v'laasos retzonon blevivov shaleim 
> 
> Birnbaum hochi garsinon:
> 
> hu yiftach libeinu besoroso laasos retzonon bleivov shaleim 
> 
> IOW removing the v' in front of laasos maks it one smooth phrase. 
> 
> Q: what gives Brinbaum the "right" to remove that vov? Is it based upon 
> manusrcipts?



Apparently. I have "Hu liftah libenu betorato, ve'yasim belibenu ahavato 
ve'yirato la'asot retzono u'le'auvdo velevav shalem".

No vav. I'm not sure that paragraph is quoted from anywhere. I've seen 
three different girsot, each more interesting than the others. If you 
get a chance, have a look at an Italian siddur.


---sam

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:40:40PM -0500, Gershon Dubin quoted me and wrote:
: <<As I noted, the rational that "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish" is a paraphrase
: applies ONLY to those two words. There's no reason to assume any of the
: other hitpa'el words of kaddish are in Hebrew. Therefore "tiskabal".>>

: 	Why,  aside from the pasuk specified (in M"B-brought from??),  should
: yisgadel be more Hebrew than yisborech?  Yispo'er? Yisromem? Tiskabel?  I
: can think of psukim offhand for most of these,  which would prove their
: Hebrew origin.  Do you know how to conjugate these verbs in Aramaic?

Last vowel would be patach in all those cases. And, while the words appear
in hitpa'el in Tanach (or at least, I'll agree they probably do), they don't
as an idiom. "Vihisgadilti vihiskadishti" appears in Yechezkel 38:23 as a
expression describing the very era we pray for in Kaddish. It therefore makes
sense to assert that "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish" is a reference to the pasuk,
whle "yispa'ar" (for example) is not.

RYBS, and I presume that the Gaon as well, would therefore use a segol as
the final vowel only for these two (as per Hebrew) and a patach for the
Aramaic hitpa'al (not hitpa'eil!) words.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I think this gets back to WHO says it vs. WHAT is said.

The Gro speculates a change, that's ok.

Birnbaum - whose major opus is after his siddur/machzor - speculates a change 
it's not ok.  Taht is despite the fact that this was his fild of expertise.

Sounds arbitrary to me.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 11:12 PM


On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:41:18 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Of course while Birnbaum is not the Gra, however the limited field of 
the siddur he was an expert.>>

	Not an expert in the league of the Gra,  he was not.  Please.

Gershon

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:35:31AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: The Gro speculates a change, that's ok.

The Gra speculates from within the system we call Torah -- i.e. he uses da'as
Torah. His change is therefore imposed from within and is okay.

: Birnbaum - whose major opus is after his siddur/machzor - speculates a change 
: it's not ok.  That is despite the fact that this was his field of expertise.

Birnbaum, and I assume this is not a contravercial statement, was not in
posession of the kind of da'as Torah the Gra was. His expertise in the siddur
was from a scholarly stance, a position of intentional objectivity. As I've
said here before, learning Torah isn't scholarship. The intent is to develop
a subjective viewpoint in line with the Torah -- which is how I'm defining
da'as Torah.

"It, not about it."

So yes, it makes a difference who says something because it changes entirely
why it was said.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

It's a nice chiluk, 

Are you saying that if gadol X comes up with a sevoro to make a chidush in how 
we daven, and some humble student reads let's say 20 teshuvos to the contrary, 
that his research is somehow lackiong because he lacks Da'as Torah?

Is research the SA, shut then reserved to Gedolim who possess da'as torah, and 
objective researchinto documents and writings is insufficient to make 
emendations or corrections?

How do I not know that Da'as Torah is not mystically behind popular phrasings?

Are you saying that looking at parllels in Tanach are insufficeint to see taht 
onu goes with v'omru?



Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 


On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:35:31AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote: 
: The Gro speculates a change, that's ok.

The Gra speculates from within the system we call Torah -- i.e. he uses da'as 
Torah. His change is therefore imposed from within and is okay.

: Birnbaum - whose major opus is after his siddur/machzor - speculates a change 
: it's not ok.  That is despite the fact that this was his field of expertise.

Birnbaum, and I assume this is not a contravercial statement, was not in 
posession of the kind of da'as Torah the Gra was. His expertise in the siddur 
was from a scholarly stance, a position of intentional objectivity. As I've 
said here before, learning Torah isn't scholarship. The intent is to develop 
a subjective viewpoint in line with the Torah -- which is how I'm defining 
da'as Torah.

"It, not about it."

So yes, it makes a difference who says something because it changes entirely 
why it was said.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b 
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:19:26 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Are you saying that if gadol X comes up with a sevoro to make a chidush
in how we daven, and some humble student reads let's say 20 teshuvos to
the contrary, that his research is somehow lackiong because he lacks
Da'as Torah?>>

	The godol's chidush is not,  pardon the expression, a papal bull.  The
talmid,  any talmid,  has the right and obligation to go to the godol and
say,  respectfully,  yelamdenu rabenu.  Any one who has set foot into a
bais medrash knows that often the answer is "yodati bni yodati":    I
know what you know,  and I know more,  and here is the explanation.

<<Is research the SA, shut then reserved to Gedolim who possess da'as
torah>>

	No,  as above.  Research in SA or Gemara or any area of Torah is open to
all.

<<and objective researchinto documents and writings is insufficient to
make emendations or corrections?>>

	This is not open to just anyone.  The Torah Temima did it often and got
blasted for it.  One needs broad knowledge, broad shoulders,  and a
healthy dose of yiras shomayim.  So no, emendations are not open to just
anyone.

<<How do I not know that Da'as Torah is not mystically behind popular
phrasings?>>

	??.  Lost you again

Gershon

On 15 Feb 00, at 9:45, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> <<and objective researchinto documents and writings is insufficient to
> make emendations or corrections?>>
> 
> 	This is not open to just anyone.  The Torah Temima did it often and got
> blasted for it.  

Please explain.

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]