Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 369

Tuesday, February 15 2000

• Re: No Subject
• Re: No Subject
• Re: Why I Want To Buy Dr. Shapiro's Book
• Re: diyukim
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: Why I Want To Buy Dr. Shapiro's Book
• re: Diyukim
• re: r'tzai
• Re: Diyukim
• Re: Torah Journals (was: Rav Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg zt"l)
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re[2]: Why I Want To Buy Dr. Shapiro's Book
• kaddish
• Re: kaddish
• Re: r'tzai
• Re: "tomid...l'olam vo'ed" (was "diyukim")
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: r'tzai
• Review of Rakeffet's The Rav
• Re: v'anu v'amru
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: diyukim
• FW: diyukim
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re[2]: v'anu v'amru

I am not sure where I questioned your integrity. I only said that I do not
trust your excerpting of letters. I have not yet read your book, and
therefore cannot critique and have not done so. Perhaps you are confusing
me with others.

As to why I do not trust your excerpting, it is not because I believe you
consciously would distort history, but, rather, as I have had expereince
with your emunos v'dei'os, I feel that you approach history from a bias,
as all historians do, yes, which you may not be able to conquer.

Thus, just as a Ba'al Mussar, a Brisker, and a Maskil would all write very
different biographies of R' Yisroel Salanter, you would provide very
different excerpts of letters than your reporter for the Yated.

I do not see that as casting aspersions on your attempts at integrity. I
see it as an intellectual critique of your capacity to bias free. I am
sorry if you take that personally.

As to me, I do not claim to be a historain, although I appreciate history.
I would hope to do my part, in essays such as that about RAEK, to be
marbeh kavod shomayim, ahavas Hashem and Yiras Hashem. As I have noted
previously on Avodah, sometimes that requires not distortion c"v, but
omission. It is to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gedolei Yisroel
whose mission was similar - on a far greater plane than I can ever
achieve - would want the essays on them to be directed towards that goal.

YGB

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

One peripheral point more:

I do not think any of us dispute that the SE was an adherent of TIDE. To
many of us on Avodah, myself included, that is a badge of honor. I do not
see how the letters contributed a whit more to that positive assessment,
which could be made - readily - without their publication.

YGB

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

In a message dated 2/15/00 6:49:28 AM US Central Standard Time, 
Maylocks1@aol.com writes:

<< If this is the level of debate that takes place on the internet, maybe 
 the gedolim in Eretz Yisrael are correct to ban it. 
  >>

I'm quite puzzled by Dr. Shapiro's reaction to the Avodah discussion on the 
SE, the SE's letters, and Dr. Shapiro's book. I'm particularly puzzled by his 
dissatisfaction with the "level of debate" on these subjects.

The participants in this debate covered all the bases, analytically speaking. 
Some of the viewpoints were expressed, shall we say, emphatically. Maybe 
emphatically to the point of being impolite. So what? In this sense Avodah is 
no different than any other forum where participants are encouraged to 
challenge each other directly. In fact, Avodah is far less cynical and 
self-involved than academia. Surely Dr. Shapiro has witnessed scholars 
backbite each other to the bone while supposedly engaging in "constructive" 
peer review. While an undergraduate at Cornell, I saw a couple a faculty 
types, one a poet and the other a reknown classics scholar, entertain a group 
of graduate students by summarily chewing up the works and reputations of a 
half-dozen or so living scholars. Blood was all over the floor. I was 
informed that this was a typical entertainment on cold winter afternoons, 
when no one had anything better to do.

I do have a complaint of my own: an English version of Dr. Shapiro's book, 
"Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy," is scheduled to be 
published as part of the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in May 2000. 
It has not yet been officially released. Barnes and Noble has offered to take 
my $49.50 for the book, but cannot tell me when I will receive it. I am 
extremely eager to buy the book and read it, particularly in view of the 
intellectual stature of those who've recommended the book on the Avodah line.

Dr. Shapiro: Do you have any ideas on how I might purchase the book before 
the weather turns warm?

David Finch

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:19:26AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: 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?

Minus the absolute element, yes. IOW, to the extent that X's gedulah in da'as
Torah exceeds the humble student's his statement carries more weight.

Research is the accumulation of knowledge. Da'as Torah is about how one
thinks, not only what one thinks about. In order for new halachah to be
in concert with Torah as a whole it has to be the produce of da'as Torah,
not just yedias HaTorah.

: 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?

Without the absolutes, your objection evaporates. Birnbaum's and de Sola
Pool's opinions carry far more weight than my own, but I wouldn't recommend
that a community ammend their nusach to follow either.

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

Ask someone who understands DT mystically. I do not. I understand it as being
a way of thinking developed by learning Torah lishmah.

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

We're really back into the territory of why people with greater gedulah
in da'as Torah (i.e. "gedolim") can produce piskei halachah of greater
weight. I'm not talking about your own research and your own tephillos. We're
discussing what's right for a community. And communal nusach shouldn't be
overturned by just anyone.

-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.         

See also R. Mordechai Willig's article on this subject in his Am Mordechai.

On 15 Feb 00, at 10:22, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> I do have a complaint of my own: an English version of Dr. Shapiro's book, 
> "Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy," is scheduled to be 
> published as part of the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in May 2000. 
> It has not yet been officially released. Barnes and Noble has offered to take 
> my $49.50 for the book, but cannot tell me when I will receive it. I am 
> extremely eager to buy the book and read it, particularly in view of the 
> intellectual stature of those who've recommended the book on the Avodah line.
> 
> Dr. Shapiro: Do you have any ideas on how I might purchase the book before 
> the weather turns warm?

I understand through off list correspondence that it is available at 
the SOY book sale at a substantial discount. Since that book sale 
does not allow anything other than in-person purchases you (and I 
if I were to decide to buy it) would need to find someone in New 
York who would be willing to make the purchase and arrange to get 
the book to us.

-- 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.

Another observation: the phrase "v'hisgadalti v'hiskadashti"  in 
Yehezkel is not in the past tense, but in the future tense. 
The vav is a vav hipuch and the two words are pronounced
mil'ra.   So "yisgadel v'yiskadesh" is a *very* close paraphrase
-- more like a third person echo of the first person phrase in 
Yehezkel.

KT,
Shlomo Godick 

Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote: <<
Rashi would also seem to support this
reading of lumping eishei yisrael and prayer. In Berachot 11b and Yoma 68b
he
offers his rendition of the bracha as it existed in Temple times when
there was no need to prayer for a restoration of sacrifices and
the blessing includes a request that God accept eishei yisrael and
the prayers of Israel. A problem with this is that it is strange
today to be asking God to accept the eishei yisrael when there are
none.  >>

I don't follow. 

"Avoda" is a generic term that includes sacrifices and t'fila.  So 
the bracha reads nicely: "Return the avoda to the Beis Ha-Mikdash"
-- and then what will be the result? - "and You will accept with love and
favor [after the return of the avoda] Israel's fire-offerings and prayer."
A nice parallelism, with the second half breaking down the concept
of "avoda" into its component parts.  Note that it says "t'kabel" (the
future: You shall accept) not "kabel" (the imperative: [please] accept).
If we were asking HaShem to accept *now* our sacrifices, then we would
say "kabel", as we say "hasheiv" (and not "tashiv").   While modern Hebrew
is lax in using the future voice when it intends the imperative, such is
generally not the case in the siddur.   So the Taz's punctuation does not
seem to imply the anachronism you suggest.

I think the grammatical objections to shitas ha-Gra (as cited in your
post) are overwhelming, and would appreciate if anyone could take a
stab at answering them.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

In the Adon Olam, the phrase "asher malach b'terem kol y'tzir nivra" should
be said as one unit, meaning: "Who ruled before any creature was created".

Often, "b'terem kol y'tzir nivra"  is sung as a separate unit,  with a
comma between "kol" and "y'tzir", giving rise to the following k'fira: 
"Before everything, a creature was created".   (By the way, this is
another example of the difference between kol in the smichut form
with a kametz  katan and kol in the absolute form with a cholam.)

KT,
Shlomo Godick

--- Kenneth Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder what the rationale is for these
> subscription-only journals. One
> reason is probably simply to avoid the hassle of
> distribution to stores,
> what to do with returns, etc.

My best guess for the lack of wider distribution is
that scholarly magazines such as "Tradition" would not
be successfully received by most perusers of
bookstores and the like.  Magazines such as this are
geared to a highly select group of people with
specific interests who are most likely to subscribe
(akin to JAMA for doctors). The typical bookstore
would hardly sell enough copies to justify carying
such magazines.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

How about "restoring" nusach?  Correcting printer and scribal errors?
Is that limited to being a "gadol"?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
We're really back into the territory of why people with greater gedulah 
in da'as Torah (i.e. "gedolim") can produce piskei halachah of greater
weight. I'm not talking about your own research and your own tephillos. We're 
discussing what's right for a community. And communal nusach shouldn't be 
overturned by just anyone.

-mi

And I've been told - unofficially - that SOY is sold out.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Why I Want To Buy Dr. Shapiro's Book 


I understand through off list correspondence that it is available at 
the SOY book sale at a substantial discount. Since that book sale 
does not allow anything other than in-person purchases you (and I 
if I were to decide to buy it) would need to find someone in New 
York who would be willing to make the purchase and arrange to get 
the book to us.

-- Carl

>Why,  aside from the pasuk specified (in M"B-brought from??),  should
>yisgadel be more Hebrew than yisborech? 

Chabad agrees with this agrument, actually.  (They say 'yisgadal' but say
'yisboreich').  If I recall correctly, the view was that since 'yisbareich'
is Hebrew and not Aramaic, the Hebrew vowels should be used.  

Supporting or contrary arguments to this?

Trying to learn the issues,

-- Eric

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:08:26AM -0500, Eric Simon wrote:
: Chabad agrees with this agrument, actually.  (They say 'yisgadal' but say
: 'yisboreich').  If I recall correctly, the view was that since 'yisbareich'
: is Hebrew and not Aramaic, the Hebrew vowels should be used.  

I think you misunderstood their position. /b-r-k/ is a shoresh in either
language (c.f. Hakadosh Baruch Hu vs Kudsha B'rich Hu). "Yisbarach" would
be exact Aramaic translation of "yisbareich" -- the choice of nikud IS the
choice of language.

BTW, when Chazan, I prefer saying "shmei diKudsha B'rich Hu" rather than
"shmei diKudshah, b'rich Hu" -- IOW, acknowledging that Kudsha B'rich Hu
is an idiom, even though Ashekanzim have the kahal reply "B'rich Hu" alone.

-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.         

Your translation is exactly how I think Rashi would read it.
The alternative is placing the eishei yisrael with the returning of the avoda
to the Beis Ha-Mikdash.
All I am suggesting is that Rashi could not have held that since he includes
the eishei yisrael in the prayer said in Temple times. At that time the whole
tfilla was for acceptance of the fire-offerings and prayer, not for any
restoration.

Shlomo Godick wrote:

> Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote: <<
> Rashi would also seem to support this
> reading of lumping eishei yisrael and prayer. In Berachot 11b and Yoma 68b
> he
> offers his rendition of the bracha as it existed in Temple times when
> there was no need to prayer for a restoration of sacrifices and
> the blessing includes a request that God accept eishei yisrael and
> the prayers of Israel.  >>
>
> I don't follow.
>
> "Avoda" is a generic term that includes sacrifices and t'fila.  So
> the bracha reads nicely: "Return the avoda to the Beis Ha-Mikdash"
> -- and then what will be the result? - "and You will accept with love and
> favor [after the return of the avoda] Israel's fire-offerings and prayer."
> A nice parallelism, with the second half breaking down the concept
> of "avoda" into its component parts.
>
> Kol tuv,
> Shlomo Godick

In Avodah 4#367, Rabbi EMTeiz replied:
> (1) With respect to "keil chai v'kayom," the combination of "tamid" and
"l'olam vaed" appears in birchat hamazon in a manner that does not allow
the type of division proposed for ma'ariv: "yisborach shimcha b'fi kol chai
tamid l'olam vaed." V'nilmad sasum min ham'forash. <
Please explain further: the birchas haMozon example, as well as birchas
ho'do'oh in the Amidah, list "tomid l'olam voed" (i.e. no interposing
words); the examples that Baer discusses, in birchas ha'Ma'ariv and "boruch
Hashaim l'olam," list "tomid yimloch alainu l'olam vo'ed."  Your point
would be well-taken if "tomid" came *after* "yimloch alainu" in those
latter examples, but Baer would probably not then have written what he
wrote!

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> 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. <
Based on this explanation, shouldn't the L'vush hold that the *son* say the
b'rocho?

                                         Michael

Just a small note to the list (w/ AZZivotofsky's permission) -- re my two
questions, he replied:
< In answer to your two questions (poor answers):
a) it is probably left over from early research when I thought that was the
"right" custom.
b) I don't recall anyone commenting on it from the other side. >

--Michael

Y'all might be interested in Moshe Sokolow's review of Aharon Rakeffet's
"The Rav":

<http://www.jrep.com/Books/Article-2.html>

If you want my opinion, R' Sokolow has somewhat missed the point.  he
berates R' Rakeffet for bringing "stories told by the Rav" rather than
a full intellectual biography.  WADR, R' Rakeffet has been talking
about writing a "stories told by the Rav" book since the Rav's petirah,
to explore the Rav's human side.  There will be enough "explorations 
of the thought of the Rav" (e.g. R' Genack, R' Angel's anthologies).
This is hardly being presented as the sum total of the Rav's personality.
I don't think it reflects as much "diminshment" of the Rav as R' Sokolow
sees, rather a concentration on otherwise neglected aspects of the Rav's
character, and how he tried to develop his students' character.

Yes, there probably should be a full intellectual biography of the Rav,
as R' Shimon Deutsch has tried to write about the late Lubavitcher Rebbe,
as R' Samuel Dresner has written about R' A.J. Heschel, as R' Marc Shapiro
has written about the Seridei Eish (or so I hear from my colleague who is
reading it; I tried to pick it up at the YU Seforim Sale, but they were
out of it), but "The Rav" isn't it, and isn't trying to be so.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
  New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

In v4n362, Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote:
: Far more the latter than the former, yes.  I like Baer's approach of
: examining all the available manuscripts in order to determine what the
: variant nus'cha'os were getting at...and the result may mean an awkward
: flow of translation to our ears.

I don't understand what you're describing. For a case like "anu vi'amru"
vs "potzu feh vi'amru" you can show that "anu" NEED not refer to the previous
clause. But you can't show that it does not. The machlokes between the nusachos
could include the change in phraseology. In this case, perhaps we're goreis
"anu" so that "Zeh Kaili" can have a verb.

To put it more tritely: When analyzing various differences in nusachos, how
do you know when to compare and when to contrast?

In v3n363 he comments on REM Teitz's comments and adds:
: My point, in far less concise a fashion (as I tried to explain my thought
: process), when I privately replied to Micha last Friday ... it does suggest
: more of a stop after "v'o'm'ru" than after "Kaili," as I was still
: basically thinking in terms of grouping "onu v'o'm'ru" with "zeh Kaili,"
: but that part of the message was ancillary to defending the togetherness of
: "onu v'o'm'ru").

Actually, I've thought about it and think it's defendable without even the
faintest hint of a comma. And, unlike REMT, I'm suggesting a structure we
do use in English as well.

Compare:
    "Go to your room", I yelled at my kids, "and clean it up!"

Here, there could be a single quote, albeit with ellipses in the middle:
    "This is My G-d", they declared and said, "... G-d will rule until the
    end of the universe."

-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.         

Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote in v4n364:
: If someone is faced with a shaalah on a halacha l'maaseh, and wishes to
: use the below-cited Shoalin Vedorshin as a source, then he should
: investigate the degree of shituf in the religion in question.

I think what makes most Christian religions complex to analyze in this regard
is that they embrace a paradox, refusing to deal with the contradiction
inherent in 3 = 1 by considering it beyond human reason. Depending upon which
of the conflicting beliefs you're looking at, you'll get different answers
about shittuf.

On a different note, would the Rambam hold that belief a god that had human
form is shutfus? What I really want to know is, does his issur of this belief
include only Jews? Similarly, New Age "Qabalists" who think the Eitz Chaim
is the form of the deity or some such warping of Kabbalah.

-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.         

Micha berger said:

:On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:34:37PM -0500, sambo wrote:
:: Do you know why he wanted those two words to be in Hebrew?  As I said, I
:: haven't seen the Gra inside, only heard it referenced.

:Because in Yechezkeil it reads "Hisgadalti vihiskadashti" -- albeit in
first
:"Person", not second. The first two words of kaddish are the paraphrase of
:a pasuk. Saying it in Hebrew makes it a closer paraphrase

Isn't it "hisgadilti" and "hiskadishti" (see rav breurs nach on those
pesukim).

Moshe

> Anyone care to take a stab a translating Mimkomcha from kedusha of
> shacharis
> of shabbos?
> 
> Particularly where does the word "tishkon" fit in.
> 
> After your attempt, see the nusach of the rambam's mimkomcha.
> 
> Moshe
> 
> 
> 
> 

In a message dated 2/15/00 12:48:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

> > 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. <
>  Based on this explanation, shouldn't the L'vush hold that the *son* say the
>  b'rocho?
>  
The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off, (As 
an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

IOW - even if you say were to say Baer was {relatively speaking} a midget, he 
stood on the shoulder of giants....

fwiw we had a similar discussion at Ner Yisroel re: R. Rudemran and R. Moshe F.

No doubt R. Moshe F.'s lomdus was head and shoulders above his fellow poskim

BUT (claimed the Ner Yisroelites)

Since R. Ruderman was a big boki in shu"t, he therefore had the weight of many 
poskim and precedent upon which to make a decision.

As I see it, Baer and Birnbaum become important as a function of their research 
into texts, which also serve also as precedents, similar to shu"t.  So it's not 
a function of syaing how can you even think of comparing X with the Gra? The 
point is that X had more sources available...And while a gaon can be mechadeish,
a researcher can bring forth the wight of many generrations and many communities
and many rabbonim to bear. <pun>

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: v'anu v'amru 


In v4n362, Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote:
: Far more the latter than the former, yes.  I like Baer's approach of
: examining all the available manuscripts in order to determine what the : 
variant nus'cha'os were getting at...
-mi

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


[ 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         ]