Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 378

Friday, February 18 2000

• Re: Re[2]: kaddish
• The Study of History
• Re: Question
• Re[4]: kaddish
• Biography, was: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Question
• Re: The Study of History
• Re[2]: Diyukim
• Re[2]: Question
• Re: The Study of History
• Re: Biography, was: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Re: kaddish
• Re: kaddish
• Re[2]: Biography, was: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Rashi
• Re[6]: diyukim
• diyukim
• >From Today's "Israel Line"
• Re: From Today's "Israel Line"
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:53:49 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<out of interactive response in which the khal is defacto prompting the
chazan and between the two together they co-operatively complete the
prhase.>>

	I go with this interpretation. (you see,  we can occasionally agree on
something!) 

	I think,  however, that it evolved over time rather than being a takanas
chachamim to do so.

	When I read the Torah,  people are always "completing the phrase".  Of
course,  they have their favorites-EVERYONE likes ka'eileh with the azla
geresh in the maftir of Pesach. Some like to finish off aliyos,  etc. 
(My favorite is,  when you are looking in an amud with no hefsek parshios
for the particular word to start the aliya,  they prompt you with which
word you're looking for!)

	Same story in some shuls for chazaras hashatz;  some people feel they
must tell the shatz the "coming attractions".

	These are not done by takanas chachamim;  they just evolved;  I would
guess yisborach as an ending to yehei shmei was similar.  (nir'eh li <g>)

Gershon

I find myself in a dilemma. How does one gain a true
knowledge of Historical figures?

After reading the forwarded post written by Prof.
Shapiro, I started reflecting on whether the study of
history can ever be legitimately studied.  I am a big
fan of the study of history, especially  when it
impacts the Jewish people. I devour biographies of
great figures in Jewish history whether they were
Gedolim, apostates, or just average people who were
victims of circumstance. 

But as Prof. Shapiro points out, Halacha requires us
to at times to omit negative information from "the
good guys" and does not require us do so in the bios
of  "the bad guys". In fact it probably requires us to
editorialize about just how bad the bad guys were.
This leaves it to the writer to make subjective
judgements about who is good and who is bad and which
information is bad or good. 

The Sridei Eish (SE) letters that  purportedly reflect
very negatively on the SE are a case in point.  After
all the discussion heretofore the question remains,
did the SE want letters that he wrote and therefore
obviously believed, to be published? These letters
paint a picture of the SE that we might not otherwise
have.  If he meant what he said and took the time to
write down the words then perhaps he did want people
to ultimately know his feelings.  Or was this a one
(?) time polemic written in private correspondence
which reflected a moment in his life that  did not
really reflect the essence of the man.  Furthermore,
are there other letters that would contradict, or
explain better what he meant? (I am at a real
disadvantage here because I did not read any of those
letters and therefore have to speak in generalities. 
I would very much like read them so I could write more
intelligently on the subject.)

Another example, as I have mentioned several times in
the past, the book, "My Uncle the Netziv" is a classic
case how the best of intentions about what is
appropriate information is highly subjective. An
Artscroll "approved" author/translator wrote a very
positive portrait about the Netziv only to be
condemned by his peers for publishing what they
considered negativities about him.  The book was
"pulled from the shelves".

History is a very important educational tool.  One can
and should learn a lot about how to conduct oneself
through the biography of great individuals.  But when
history is sanitized to fit someone's agenda, no
matter how noble, it takes away the true lesson and
replaces it with someone else's vision of what
appropriate behavior is.  In the case of   "My Uncle
the Netziv" , everything published was done with great
love and admiration by the author for his uncle. If
there was any behavior that the Netziv was not proud
of , it did not appear in the book. Yet, certain
individuals with great influence asserted that the
book was incorrect in quoting behavior that even the
Netziv himself wanted people to know about and
pressured for it's removal from the shelves. 

To me this is clearly wrong. One cannot learn how to
conduct oneself from historical sources if those
sources are censored in the agendized fashion
mentioned above.

But, what about mentioning the behavior of certain
role models that they are not proud of. Let us say
that a certain Rosh Hayeshiva committed adultery with
a married woman.  The story has been successfully
suppressed from public knowledge.  He is an admired
figure in Charedei circles.  Should one who has
absolute knowledge about the affair tell the story? 
Should history not record those events?  Should the
laws of Lashon Hara (LH) dictate what can be written
historically? And when is it LH? How do we define it? 
If someone was a Noef and then did Teshuva, should we
in fact tell the story and show the level of public
Teshuva that a Gadol is capable of and that Teshuva
should be sought by anyone for any Aveira?  Or, should
we not bring it up. Why tarnish  his name at all in
the eyes of his admirers? 

I take note of the many stories in the Gemmarah about
certain of Chazal who were tempted by Aveirah or who
actually did Aveiros.  The Gemmarah does not shy away
from the truth.  Why did the Gemmorah have to tell us
about the Cherem that R. Elazar was put in after the
Maaseh with Tanur Achnai.  Surely we did not need to
know that a Tanna was put in Cherem. But a lesson was
to be learned about the severity of going against the
Rov (majority opinion) and "Lo Bashomayim He" even if
one had a Bas Kol (heavenly dictate) on his side.  

So lessons are important.  And the Gemmorah seems to
indicate that negative stories can be told about even
Gedolim if one can learn something positive.

The question arises, when do we know what to include?
If one has an Agenda such as an Agudanik or a TuM
adherent, and one believes strongly in it's ultimate
Emes, as opposed to other opposing philosophies,
should one seek to emphasize his point of view through
selective editing of his material?  The Agudah would
probably say emphatically, YES.  But so would any true
believer in his own Deios.

This makes history almost impossible to know. 
Halachic restriction combined with competing
philosophies about which Hashkafa to emphasize will
make a study of history almost impossible to know. 
And as I've previously indicated one's striving for
objectivity simply does not always work.

This is why I like to read bios written by authors
with varying viewpoints, and try to glean those
elements that the books do not dispute, as truth, or
as near truth as is humanly possible. Having an agenda
of my own I probably read with my own bias and take
from my readings what suits my own agenda.  I do not
do this on purpose but no doubt I do so at an
unconscious level. 

So, history is important. As someone famous once said,
If one does not learn from history, he is doomed to
repeat it.

Sorry about my rambling. I often do that in order to
sort out my own opinions. I offer it to the list for
your perusal or deletion, which ever works best.

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

In a message dated 2/18/00 10:13:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
daniel2121_99@yahoo.com writes:

<< I recently attended part of a session of a regional
 Aguda convention.  The only speaker I heard, a
 well-known rabbi and pedagogue, brought out a
 forcefull dvar Torah, based on "Ephraim umenashe
 cereuven vshimon yihyu li." His theme was how we must
 be just like our ancestors, i.e., there should be no
 "yeridas hadoros." He then triumphantly proclaimed, at
 length, that this is what Aguda stands for.
 
 Question: The unstated implication is that Aguda
 stands for this proposition to the exclusion of other
 groups.  Is this the case?
  >>
I can't speak to the unstated implication but, if your formulation is 
correct, I note 2 interesting (at least to me) points

1.I always thought that yeridat hadorot(much like entropy) was a phenomenon 
which we can not stem (or else why did it happen in all the earlier, more 
glorious [If we are like men they are like angels] generations)

2.Menashe and Ephraim were the first Jews raised outside the home of the 
avot. The Rav(JBSolovetchik) pointed out that the machloket between Joseph 
and the brothers was how to best structure their lives for the new era!

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

I think that in Ahkenaz it evolved over time to have a LOT fo responsive 
readings.

EG when I first davened in a German Minhag on Yomim Noraim, I noticed how 
prvasie were the repsonsive readings.  My congregation (COS) has even more than 
does KAJ which says many of them silently.

Now even in responsive readings there are differnt minhagim

EG, most yeshivas say tehillim with the Shatz being REPEATED by the khal

In German shuls, the Khal goes to the next possuk.  And this is how lechu 
neranneno is recited in German communites, responsively alternating. 

this is apparently an OLD minhag

There was a gadol aoubt 200+ years ago who objected to responsive alternating 
and said that everyone should recite every line, both chazan and khal; iow he 
did not rely upon a co-operative completionig of the text rather he required 
each sector to do so independently.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: kaddish 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 10:55 AM


On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:53:49 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<out of interactive response in which the khal is defacto prompting the 
chazan and between the two together they co-operatively complete the 
prhase.>>

	I go with this interpretation. (you see,  we can occasionally agree on 
something!) 

	I think,  however, that it evolved over time rather than being a takanas 
chachamim to do so.

	When I read the Torah,  people are always "completing the phrase".  Of 
course,  they have their favorites-EVERYONE likes ka'eileh with the azla 
geresh in the maftir of Pesach. Some like to finish off aliyos,  etc. 
(My favorite is,  when you are looking in an amud with no hefsek parshios 
for the particular word to start the aliya,  they prompt you with which 
word you're looking for!)

	Same story in some shuls for chazaras hashatz;  some people feel they 
must tell the shatz the "coming attractions".

	These are not done by takanas chachamim;  they just evolved;  I would 
guess yisborach as an ending to yehei shmei was similar.  (nir'eh li <g>)

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:48:48 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta3

<<Irony. Inconsistency. Paradox. The infinite complexity of human
emotions when pitted against the challenges of seeking Holiness. Loss.
Pain. Spiritual confusion. Despair.>>

	Ba hakasuv hashlishi vihichriya beineihem:  If you define Mussar
broadly,  then biography for the purpose of Mussar fits right in to your
description.  Any help from the ba'alei mussar here?

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:12:42 -0800 (PST)
> From: Daniel Levine <daniel2121_99@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Question


<<Question: The unstated implication is that Aguda stands for this
proposition to the exclusion of other groups.  Is this the case?>>

	That limud haTorah and shmiras hamitzvos should be maintained at as high
a level possible even in our dor?  

	Is there anyone who is against this?  

	Or are you saying that Agudah is saying (sorry!) that they are the only
ones in favor of this?  If the last, the answer is definitely no.

Gershon

In a message dated 2/18/00 9:57:08 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< But as Prof. Shapiro points out, Halacha requires us
 to at times to omit negative information from "the
 good guys" and does not require us do so in the bios
 of  "the bad guys". In fact it probably requires us to
 editorialize about just how bad the bad guys were.
   >>

HM and Marc Shapiro make this point. RYGB assumes the point as a premise so 
obvious that it need not even be stated. 

I still don't understand why it is true, however. Is the sole basis of this 
"halacha" the prohibition against Lashon Hara? Are there other reasons why 
Torah requires us to edit out the indisputable truth about the "good guys," 
even when such truth would human, enhance, and ultimate validate the 
biographer's conclusion of the good guy was a good guy in the first place?

I'm genuinely confused about what Torah teaches us about this subject. I'd be 
grateful if someone would explain it to me.

David Finch

fwiw I posted this same idea many tinmes to show my objections to the MB's 
style! 

I was taught to take a stand.  See RYBS kullos nad chumros legabei sefiro

good Shabbos
RW

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 10:55 AM


On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:49:14 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Bottom line, if RYBS said to say both, did he mean at the same time or 
alternating?>>
	
	It was not RYBS's style, AFAIK,   to do things to be yotze lechol 
hadei'os. He decided what was right and went with it.

Gershon

The gemor says yiphtach bedoro kishmuel bedoro. Since Yiphtach came first was he
the greater of the 2 and is this what is implied?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


1.I always thought that yeridat hadorot(much like entropy) was a phenomenon 
which we can not stem (or else why did it happen in all the earlier, more 
glorious [If we are like men they are like angels] generations)

Joel Rich

Lich'orah the best way to tell history via LESSONS w/o picking on inidivudals is
historical fiction, in which figures can be idealized or criticized w/o loshon 
horo.

According to the Man d'amor Job was a moshol, perhaps that is the point, to make
a point w/o using real live humans in the hope of circumenventing loshon horo

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 2/18/00 10:20:06 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< If you define Mussar
 broadly,  then biography for the purpose of Mussar fits right in to your
 description. >>

One might argue that biography should have no purpose other than to expose 
the complexities of life for the reader's own judgment. The exposition itself 
provides the writer with the chance to be truly insightful, scholarly, and 
creative. If biography has Mussar as it's purpose, the purpose shouldn't be 
the writer's -- it should be the reader's, when he grafts the writer's 
insights into the reader's own sense of truth and obligation.

As I understand Mussar, everything leads to Mussar.

David Finch

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:


> And at Spanish Portuguese they say the following
> Yeshi shmai rabbo mevorach.
> Lalam ulolmei almayo yitbarach.
> 
> in a manner  as to make it rhyme
> 
> Was the rhyme popularized despite ignorance
> 
> OR
> 
> Was it intentionally engineered to rhyme despite its awkward phrasing?


I believe the "awkward phrasing" is in accordance with da'at Maran,
though I haven't looked. I have the Ben Ish Hai with me, though, who
says it's so. He then quotes himself from Rav Pe'alim (vol 2, Orah Haiim
38) "That it is explicit in Sha'ar hakavannot that if the person
answering kaddish finishes da'amiran be'alma before the shaliah zibbur
says 'shemeh dekudsha berich hu', he should answer amen. So, if he does
not finish da'amiran be'alma, he should not interrupt to say amen.
Therefore it is correct that the shaliah zibbur take a little longer to
say that part of kaddish."
(BI"H 1, Vayehi #3)

I've seen in many Sefardi siddurim instructions not to pause between the
two words almaya and yitbarach. Most likely in accordance with the S"A
noted by the BI"H.

The rhyme probably followed from the phrasing.


---sam

The (ashkenazi) nushach (melody) for the kadish after krias hatorah and
shabbos morning (which in some kehillos is also used friday night after
"veshamru", and in yet other shuls is used (mistakenly according to others)
before musaf on shabbos) also has the yisbarach attached to y'hei shemei.

The (ashkenazi) nusach for the kadish pre musaf on RH/YK also includes
yisbarach with yhei shmei.

This probably comes from the mechaber (i do not have a SA with me) who says
that those who answer only up to almaya are mistaken.  Some interpret this
to mean that we should say the word yisbarach as well.  (Similar to the emes
after KS).

As RGD already pointed out, others read the mechaber differently, in a way
that adresses RRW issue.

<Tangent>
Are melodies reliable?

There are some melodies which cause the tzibbur to violate halakha, like the
amain in the yontef shmoneh esreh, the melody causes people to answer an an
amain chatufa (hamevarech es amo yisrael ba SHA...OMEIN).  Can anyone think
of any others?  Is there a limud zchus?
</Tangent>

Moshe

From Gershon Dubin:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:26:41 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
>
><<And at Spanish Portuguese they say the following 
> Yeshi shmai rabbo mevorach.
>Lalam ulolmei almayo yitbarach.>>

>	Others have the custom to say yisborach veyishtabach...as part of
the 
>Yehei shmei,  all the way up to brich hu.  This makes more sense than 
>stopping at yisborach,  as,  I believe,  the Mishna Brura points out.

>Gershon

Isn't there an aggedito in Shas that life itself or the world itself  is {the 
best} teacher?

Does anyone recall the source? 

I recall that the TB said if not for the torah we could learn tzinus from a cat,
etc.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

As I understand Mussar, everything leads to Mussar.

David Finch

DFinch wrote (V4#377)
"If biography of that quality is good enough for Scripture, 
why isn't it good enough for the life stories of Gedolim?"

Perhaps because we cannot know what is and isn't 
appropriate to tell over.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

I have heard off list from 2 people regarding Rashi on Chumash:

1) Rashi always is saying peshat 

2) Rashi is always saying peshat except when he notes otherwise.

Any Klalei Rashi or articles or other sources that speak to these assumptions?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Can a mal'ach tell us to change from one minhag to another?  

If you get a psak can a mal'ach over-ride it, annul it, etc.?

Lich'ora, a Bas Kol cannot.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[4]: diyukim  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/17/2000 10:53 AM


In a message dated 2/17/00 9:03:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Isn't this the path to a "personality" cult?  

Doesn't the Gemara say and brought in Rambam (Hil. T"T 4:1) that Im Horav 
Domeh Lmalach Hashem...

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:26:20 -0500
> From: perzvi@juno.com
> Subject: dykuk

<< In fact one reason why the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zatzal spoke out very
clearly on Jews not moving out of particular neighborhoods in the 1960's
and 1970's was the potential that yidden would be forced to daven in
shuls with a different nusach and different minhagim than their own. >>

	I never heard that.  I had heard that he was concerned about the loss of
money involved and the inability of many people to move,  with the
attendant potential of harm to them.  Did he really say that davening in
a shul with a different nusach was a factor?

Gershon

SHAS TO OPEN ULTRA-ORTHODOX COLLEGE

Shas' Council of Torah Sages approved this week the establishment of Orian
College, an institution of higher education that will enable students to
earn fully-accredited degrees in an ultra-Orthodox environment, THE
JERUSALEM POST reported. The college is slated to open in October, 2001.
  The chairman of Orian's development team, Gabi Abitbul said, "we are
building an organized program with the full cooperation of the Council for
Higher Education for a college with two campuses, in Jerusalem and Bnei
Brak."
  Orian will offer instruction in computers, social work, paramedic
training, business and finances to men and women separately.
  Knesset Education Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev (NRP) said that he
supports the opening of an ultra-Orthodox college as it will allow Shas
supporters to join society rather than "remain in a spiritual ghetto."

Is this "Maddah?"
shabbat shalom
steve

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:

> SHAS TO OPEN ULTRA-ORTHODOX COLLEGE
>
> Shas' Council of Torah Sages approved this week the establishment of Orian
> College, an institution of higher education that will enable students to
> earn fully-accredited degrees in an ultra-Orthodox environment, THE
> JERUSALEM POST reported. The college is slated to open in October, 2001.
>   The chairman of Orian's development team, Gabi Abitbul said, "we are
> building an organized program with the full cooperation of the Council for
> Higher Education for a college with two campuses, in Jerusalem and Bnei
> Brak."
>   Orian will offer instruction in computers, social work, paramedic
> training, business and finances to men and women separately.
>   Knesset Education Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev (NRP) said that he
> supports the opening of an ultra-Orthodox college as it will allow Shas
> supporters to join society rather than "remain in a spiritual ghetto."

In a message dated 2/18/00 12:18:03 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM writes:

<< "If biography of that quality is good enough for Scripture, 
 why isn't it good enough for the life stories of Gedolim?"
 
 Perhaps because we cannot know what is and isn't 
 appropriate to tell over.
  >>

In the Book of Job, *everything* was told over, including Job's heated 
arguments with G-d. It's hard to imagine any detail of Job's despair that was 
withheld from the narrative. It's also hard to imagine that the narrative 
would have retained its extraordinary power and coherence had such details 
been omitted.

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]