Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 023

Thursday, October 26 2000

• RE: four categories of legislation (was Re: Timers and bishul)
• Metaphor on Angels and the Torah
• Re: Metaphor on Angels and the Torah
• Shmini Atzeres as Regel Bifnei Atzmo
• RE: Metaphor on Angels and the Torah
• Re: Metaphor on Angels and the Torah
• RE: Metaphor on Angels and the Torah
• RE: Sukkah on Shemini Atseres
• Re: Shmini Atzeres as Regel Bifnei Atzmo
• comments
• Re: Shmini Atzeres as Regel Bifnei Atzmo
• Re: kareis
• Re: kareis
• Kareis, OhB, and a prior isuue: The Various "Seforim"
• Correct version of my post on Gehinnom
• Hakofos
• kaddish
• RE: kaddish
• RE: Hakofos
• AJL review.... Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966
• Re: four categories of legislation (was Re: Timers and bishul)

On 25 Oct 2000, at 13:29, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:

> <SNIP>
> >> 4. P'sak. A Rabbinic Ruling.. A p'sak can only be over ruled by another
> >>    body which is both larger in number, and greater in "chochmah"....
> 
> -CB
> >The same apples to a din. Only (acc. to Rambam) is a seyag excluded
> >from being overturned.
> <snip>
> 
> I am aware that a gezeira has a rquirement of gadol bechachma uv'minyan,
> where is the source for a Psak needing Gadol Behcachma uv'minyan to overrule
> it?
> 
> Or just what is meant by "Psak"?  It does not seem unusual for poskim to
> overule earlier poskim...

AIUI the only time a "psak" can be overruled at all is when there is 
a Beis Din which is gadol b'chachma ub'minyan unless there is a 
clear taus. For example, if Rabbi x paskens that a chicken is 
assur, Rabbi y cannot overrule him unless Rabbi x made a clear 
taus, or Rabbi y is greater b'chochma u'b'minyan.

IIRC, R. Akiva Miller and I had a lengthy discussion about this a bit 
over a year ago.

-- 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.

There is a Midrash that Moshe Rabbinic had to struggle with the angels in
order to bring the Torah down to earth.  Moshe wins the argument because
after all angles cannot perform physical Mitzvos

Yesterday, it occurred to me that perhaps this is a metaphor and that
metaphorically speaking: Angels=Scholars/Academics
Now we can see that this Midrash is showing us that "lo bashamyim hi" even
in the realm of the earthly, that Torah is not the exclusive province of
scholars or academics that it must be  performed BY all and therefore be
accessible TO all.  Moshe's role is to bring the lofty ideals of the Torah
down to earth, down to the people, the Amcha.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:08:38PM -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Yesterday, it occurred to me that perhaps this is a metaphor and that
: metaphorically speaking: Angels=Scholars/Academics
: Now we can see that this Midrash is showing us that "lo bashamyim hi" even
: in the realm of the earthly, that Torah is not the exclusive province of
: scholars or academics...

Your conclusion is inherent in your assumption, the whole thing begs the
question. IOW, justifying the validity of your peirush of the medrash is
the same question as justifying the concept you are trying to use the
medrash to prove.

-mi

Are there any sources that present us with a definitive guideline re:just
how independent is Shmini Ateres {SA} from Sukkos?

Some items that suggestion continuity or one long Chag
1) Re: Re'iya and Chagigah,  it is considered one aliyas regerl
2A) AFAIK no one left Yerushlayim on Hoshan Rabbo in order to return for
Shmini Atzeres
2B) Shalosh P'amim Bashana seems to indicate that The Regel of Sukkos and SA
is one...
3) The name Shmini inidicates an eight day.  Eight day of What?  If Atzeres
were TRULY bfinei Atzmo it should be the FIRST day of Atzeres. Shmini is of
course Shmini to the first day of Sukkos
4) Re: Koheles, we read it on either Shabbos Chol Hamoed. when there is no
Shabbos ChhM we read it on Shabbos SA and not the First Shabbos (Shabbos of
Sukkos). Lich'orah it is treating it as one long chag.
5A) Yizkor on SA seems to presuppose one long Chag  
5B) Similarly the krias haTorah of SA is same as 8th day Pesach and 2nd Day
Shavuos.  Indicating a reading that is part of the Sukkos cyle.  Not to
mention that parshas Re'ei omits SA completely


Some Items suggesting a new start:
1) Shehecheyanu
2) No sukkah on SA
3) re: Aveilus, although there is no hefsek between ChhM Sukkos and SA, SA
gets treated as 7 full days of Aveilus.
4) Although Zman Simchaseinu is contiued, the name of the Chag in Kiddush
and Amidah is changed. 

My conclusion is that SA as a Regel Bifnei Atzmo is either a guzma or
perhaps intended to be narrowly constructed.  What I am seeking is: are
there any insight to the parameters of this narrow construction of Regel
Bifnei Atzmo.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

Micha Berger
>: Yesterday, it occurred to me that perhaps this is a metaphor and that
>: metaphorically speaking: Angels=Scholars/Academics
>: Now we can see that this Midrash is showing us that "lo bashamyim hi" even
>: in the realm of the earthly, that Torah is not the exclusive province of
>: scholars or academics...

>                justifying the validity of your peirush of the medrash is
> the same question as justifying the concept you are trying to use the
> medrash to prove.

My conclusion was merely an articulation of my assumption.  I wanted to be
clearer than leaving the conclusions to the reader.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:>                justifying the validity of your peirush of the medrash is
:> the same question as justifying the concept you are trying to use the
:> medrash to prove.

: My conclusion was merely an articulation of my assumption.  I wanted to be
: clearer than leaving the conclusions to the reader.

But what justifies your assumption, and why does tying it to a pre-existing
medrash add anything to your statement?

-mi

Micha Berger
>: My conclusion was merely an articulation of my assumption. I wanted to be
>: clearer than leaving the conclusions to the reader.

> But what justifies your assumption, and why does tying it to a pre-existing
> medrash add anything to your statement?

It's a drush on the medrash, a homily.

That's how the insight came to me, that by Mal'achim the medsrash was
referring to people who are like mal'achim, tazddkiim or talmidei chachimim.
It's an interpretation.

Seth Mandel
> One note: I first heard of the historical sources from my Rebbi, RYBS, who,
> when discussing the issue, would often say, "Yes, the custom goes back at
> least to Rashi's time, but it was condemned even then by Rashi and all other
> authorities" (this is a poor paraphrase of my Rebbi's wonderful locutions).

Re: SA 123:1 and MB and Beir Hetiev sham

When it it comes to the phrase "Hu yaaseh Shalom Aleinu." The MB sk
5 sites "dlo keha omrim" , 'Hu yaaseh Sahlom. Aleinu v'al kol...'"

1) Just who are these sources who advocate an alternate opinion of
stopping after Shalom?

2) Furthermore, despite a befeirush artscroll that conforms to the SA
and rov poskim how come so many people reciting kaddish STILL pause
after Shalom instead of Aleinu when there is both an open mechabeir and
an open Artscroll stating to pause after Aleinu?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

> Are there any sources that present us with a definitive guideline re:
> just how independent is Shmini Ateres {SA} from Sukkos?

In two words:
    PZ"R Ksh"V (Sukkah 48)

I think the Mishnas Ya'avetz by R' B. Zolti has a discussion of the
lomdus, but I haven't seen it inside.

Just a few points to add to various issues discussed here recently:

1) My review of Marc Shapiro's book appeared in *The Association of Jewish
Libraries Newsletter* 20, no. 1 (Fall 2000).

2) Re. secular vs. Jewish names: I heard some years ago in the name of R.
S. Riskin that, based on the Ramban in p' Bo (12:2) -- concerning our
retaining use of Babylonian names for months as a testiment to the nes of
our having been redeemed from Bavel -- one making aliyah should NOT feel
compelled to Hebraicize his/her secular name, as a testiment to the glory
of the aliyah: as if saying: from There I came...

Also, as to the claim that all Biblical names (of the good guys, of
course) are acceptable, see Tsava'at R. Yehudah he-Hasid (printed in the
R. Margaliot ed. of *Sefer Hasidim* [Jerusalem 1970]), no. 51 and the
hosafot no. 2 where use of the names Yehudah, Shemuel, Avraham, Yitshak,
Yaakov and Mosheh are advised against (but see Margaliot's notes thereon). 

3) The many and varied posts re Sukkah on Shemini Atseret -- k'nein horo
-- are truly incredible. Yeyasher kokhehem le-Oraita! If I may add one
other source that I don't believe has been mentioned yet: R.M.M. Kasher's
*Shu"t Divre Menahem* vol. 4, no. 30 [p. 106-107] (Jerusalem, 1983). He
talks there be-kitsur nimrats about the various Rishonim who mention the
custom, the problem with many of the "ve-hilkhata" gemaras (as pointed out
by numerous rishonim), as well as the varying girsa'ot in manuscripts of
the gemara. He cites many mareh mekomot that lead to further sources. 
I myself have seen a manuscript of the gemara [Oxford Heb. e. 51] that
lacks the "ve-hilkhata meitav yatvinan.." line (perhaps this is the one
Dr. Leiman had referred to?). 

Further, Mekhon Yerushalayim's *Otsar Mefarshe ha-Talmud* (Jerusalem,
1989) on those lines has no fewer than 12 columns of source material.

4) As to the source of the story "about Yisrael, Yishma'el and ge'ulah", I
have not located it but see Zohar I:119a [No. 281 in p' Va-Yera in the
Sulam ed.] and Zohar II:32a [no. 200-205 in p' Va-Ere in the Sulam ed.]
for starters.

5) Finally, Simhat Torah I davened in R. Victor Vorhand's shteibel and the
Rebbe of course introduced each hakafah [i.e. said the opening
Hoshana..etc] and added, at the end of each, Shema Yisrael... and H'
Melekh, H' Malakh, H' Yimlokh le-olam va'ed which we repeated after him.
First, no one in shul could tell me the purpose of the custom; even the
Rebbe's son, R. Moshe, was not aware of the source/purpose. I assumed,
though, thanks to discussion on this forum, that he was being "meyahed
Shem be-farhesia." (Why? has still not been answered, correct?) However,
he said H' Melekh etc twice (!), not once or three times as one might have
expected. Any comments?

Shomer Yisrael, shemor she'erit Yisrael ve-al yovad Yisrael ha-meyahadim
Shimkha,

Yisrael Dubitsky

On 25 Oct 00, at 16:49, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:

> 4) Re: Koheles, we read it on either Shabbos Chol Hamoed. when there is no
> Shabbos ChhM we read it on Shabbos SA and not the First Shabbos (Shabbos of
> Sukkos). Lich'orah it is treating it as one long chag.

In Eretz Yisrael, we read Koheles on the first day of Succos when 
it falls on Shabbos (as it did this year).

> 5B) Similarly the krias haTorah of SA is same as 8th day Pesach and 2nd Day
> Shavuos.  Indicating a reading that is part of the Sukkos cyle.  Not to
> mention that parshas Re'ei omits SA completely

In Eretz Yisrael (obviously), we read v'Zos haBracha on Shmini 
Atzeres (the same kriya you read on Simchas Torah, with the 
difference that when it falls on Shabbos - as it did this year - we 
split v'Zos haBracha into seven aliyas the first time through by 
stopping at "yisa mi'dabroseicha" at the beginning, and by reading 
from "me'ona" until the end of the perek for Shvii.

-- Carl

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

R' YGB wrote:

> Kareis is not a loss of OhB. It is a severance of the lower regions of the 
> neshomo from the higher regions thereof, reducing a person's access to 
> kedusha and hashp'o'o and rendering teshuva difficult.

> Gehinnom is mechapper for Chayavei Kerisus.

R' Yitzi Oratz responded:

>The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 8:1 disagrees. He writes "Shelo yizku lichaim 
>alu (reffering to Olam haBa) . . . ela nichras birisho veavad kibihayma." And 
>the Ramban in Sha'ar Hagmul agrees that this is the case for some, but not 
>all, Chayavei Kerisus.

R' YGB then wrote:

>It is evident that the Rambam is talking about Ovdei AZ - not "run of the 
>mill" chayavei kerisus such as, say, ochlei cheilev.

>It is precisely such Chayavei Kerisus (such as the Arba Melachim) that DR 
>say do reach OhB.

R' Gil Student also commented:

>See R. Yosef Kafih's comments to this Rambam (I think he is ma'arich at the
>end of the chapter as well).  He disagrees with the Ramban and understands the 
>Rambam as RYGB did.

A couple of point: 1) While it may be evident that the Rambam is talking
solely about ovdei az, that is not what the Ramban is talking about,
at least in toto. In Sha'ar HaGemul, Inyan Sugei Ohnesh HaKareis, he
writes that there are three types of kareis - physical, spiritual, and
both. These are referred to by the different lashonos used in the Torah
in regards to kareis, of which he gives examples. They depend on 1) The
person who committed the sin - i.e., whether he was generally a tzadik,
whose yetzer got the best of him, or even a ba'al achas m'chayavei koreis,
or a rasha. And 2) What the isser kareis was that the person was oiver:
1) If a person's merits are greater than his sins, then if he commits a
sin the punishment of which is kareis (other than those enumerated in
the third category - see below), he will die before the age of fifty,
and go straight to Gan Eden, for his death will be me'chapeir for him,
and he won't have to suffer Gehinnom. In this category, the Ramban notes
a Sifri that equates misa with kareis (BaMidbar, Chukas 125:19:3). 2)
If his sins are greater than his merits, then he may live his life out
fully, but he will be punished with kareis after his death. This means
that after suffering in Gehinnom for twelve months, his soul will then
be burned to powder, which will be tread on by the righteous - in other
words, complete dissolution of his consciousness, the ultimate death, as
he totally ceases to exist. Included in this category is "avone poshei
umos h'olam b'gufan." Aside from these, it would seem that he means if
the person was a rasha, then this is so even if he didn't commit one
of the chiuvei kareis enumerated in the third category. 3) One who will
die young, also experience Gehinnom for 12 monthes, and then go through
dissolution. Included in this category are ovdei az, kofrim, apikorsim
(what's the difference between these last 2?), and a few others.

	Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but who is R' Yosef Kafih?
And even if he disagrees with the Ramban, the best we can say is there
is a machlokis - i.e., even if R' Kafih is also a rishon, this does not
negate the chashivus of the Ramban's opinion. Moreover, for at least
the Ramban's first category, he brings a rai'ya from the Sifri - and
it's hard to argue on that.

Eli Linas 

Eli Linas wrote:

> Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but who is R' Yosef Kafih?  And even if he 
> disagrees with the Ramban, the best we can say is there is a machlokis - i.e.,
> even if R' Kafih is also a rishon, this does not negate the chashivus of the 
> Ramban's opinion. Moreover, for at least the Ramban's first category, he 
> brings a rai'ya from the Sifri - and it's hard to argue on that.
     
R. Kafih is a recently deceased scholar and talmid chacham who published many, 
many sifrei rishonim based on manuscripts and retranslations from the Arabic.  
He published an edition of Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayos, Moreh Nevuchim, Igros, 
and Mishneh Torah.  His footnotes to the Mishneh Torah are excellent because 
they include long quotes from many meforshei haRambam.  He also has a very 
peshat oriented derech and his peirushim are extremely helpful.  I can fax you 
the pages, but it may take me a few days.

Gil Student

[I have a feeling Eli would have recognized the name had you used the
more common mis-nikud, R' Kapach. As Arabic doesn't have a /p/ sound,
it would take Ashkenazim to mangle his name this way -- but we did. -mi]

At 12:25 AM 10/26/00 +0200, Eli Linas wrote:

>If his sins are greater than his merits, then he may live his life out
>fully, but he will be punished with kareis after his death. This means
>that after suffering in Gehinnom for twelve months, his soul will then
>be burned to powder, which will be tread on by the righteous - in other
>words, complete dissolution of his consciousness, the ultimate death, as
>he totally ceases to exist. Included in this category is "avone poshei
>umos h'olam b'gufan." Aside from these, it would seem that he means if
>the person was a rasha, then this is so even if he didn't commit one
>of the chiuvei kareis enumerated in the third category.

I think here is the core of our issue.

To me, this fate is defined as a cheilek in OhB (I think there is an 
explanation of REED in MME somewhere of this process*), not as "the 
ultimate death."

*OK, I actually got out of my chair to find the reference. It is in vol. 1 
pp. 298-300, where he also gives the pshat in Kareis that I mentioned earlier.

En passant, I note that in vol. 4 p. 92 he discusses the "seforim" issue 
that I believe RSBA raised some time ago, ayain sham.

[The first part of this email is a resend,  as there was an error in the
earlier version of the post. I took the liberty of deleting the question
about R' Kafih ("Kapach") as it was answered before this resend.    -mi]

R' YGB wrote:

> Kareis is not a loss of OhB. It is a severance of the lower regions of the 
> neshomo from the higher regions thereof, reducing a person's access to 
> kedusha and hashp'o'o and rendering teshuva difficult.

> Gehinnom is mechapper for Chayavei Kerisus.

R' Yitzi Oratz responded:

>The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 8:1 disagrees. He writes "Shelo yizku lichaim 
>alu (reffering to Olam haBa) . . . ela nichras birisho veavad kibihayma." And 
>the Ramban in Sha'ar Hagmul agrees that this is the case for some, but not 
>all, Chayavei Kerisus.

R' YGB then wrote:

>It is evident that the Rambam is talking about Ovdei AZ - not "run of the 
>mill" chayavei kerisus such as, say, ochlei cheilev.

>It is precisely such Chayavei Kerisus (such as the Arba Melachim) that DR 
>say do reach OhB.

R' Gil Student also commented:
     
>See R. Yosef Kafih's comments to this Rambam (I think he is ma'arich at the
>end of the chapter as well). He disagrees with the Ramban and understands the 
>Rambam as RYGB did.

While it may be evident that the Rambam is talking solely about ovdei az,
that is not what the Ramban is talking about, at least not in toto. In
Sha'ar HaGemul, Inyan Sugei Ohnesh HaKareis, he writes that there are
three types of kareis - physical, spiritual, and both. These are referred
to by the different lashonos used in the Torah in regards to kareis, of
which he gives examples. They depend on 1) The person who committed the
sin - i.e., whether he was generally a tzadik, whose yetzer got the best
of him, or even a ba'al achas m'chayavei koreis, or a rasha. And 2) What
the isser kareis was that the person was oiver: 1) If a person's merits
are greater than his sins, then if he commits a sin the punishment of
which is kareis (other than those enumerated in the third category - see
below), he will die before the age of fifty, and go straight to Gan Eden,
for his death will be me'chapeir for him, and he won't have to suffer
Gehinnom. In this category, the Ramban notes a Sifri that equates misa
with kareis (BaMidbar, Chukas 125:19:3). 2) If his sins are greater than
his merits, then he may live his life out fully, but he will be punished
with kareis after his death. This means that he will have to experience
Gehinnom for twelve months, and then his soul will be "burned to powder,
which will be tread on by the righteous." This does not mean dissolution
of his consciousness. Rather, it means that he will have awareness, but
will not be able to partake of and enjoy any pleasure whatsoever in the
life of the World to Come. Included in this category is "avone poshei
umos h'olam b'gufan." Aside from these, it would seem that he means if
the person was a rasha, then this is so even if he didn't commit one of
the chiuvei kareis enumerated in the third category. 3) One who will die
young, also experience Gehinnom for 12 monthes, and then have their souls
"burned and pulverized." Included in this category are ovdei az, kofrim,
apikorsim (what's the difference between these last 2?), and a few others.


[A second email, addressing a comment RYGB made on the uncorrected version.
-mi]

R' YGB responded:

>To me, this fate is defined as a cheilek in OhB (I think there is an 
>explanation of REED in MME somewhere of this process*), not as "the 
>ultimate death."

>*OK, I actually got out of my chair to find the reference. It is in vol. 1 
>pp. 298-300, where he also gives the pshat in Kareis that I mentioned earlier.

>En passant, I note that in vol. 4 p. 92 he discusses the "seforim" issue 
>that I believe RSBA raised some time ago, ayain sham.

I made a mistake in the post, which I accidentally sent off before
correcting. I just sent Micha the corrected one, and assume it will appear
in the digest. The mistake I made, and caught when seeing the Ramban inside
again is that it is not dissolution. Rather, it has awareness, but is not
allowed/unable to to partake of any pleasure in the World to Come. In any
event, my point is that what you said in your post is not muchrach, and
that others have very differnent p'shatim. A question I have is, according
to the Ramban, complete dissolution is literally impossible. If so, and
going with your understanding that this constitutes a cheilik in Olam Haba,
what exactly is the punishement of those kitot that don't have a cheilik?
Eternal Gehinnom?

Kol Tuv, Eli

Yisrael Dubitsky
>5) Finally, Simhat Torah I davened in R. Victor Vorhand's shteibel and the
>Rebbe of course introduced each hakafah [i.e. said the opening
>Hoshana..etc] and added, at the end of each, Shema Yisrael... and H'
>Melekh, H' Malakh, H' Yimlokh le-olam va'ed which we repeated after him.

Isn't that mentioned in the Otzar ha'Tefillos siddur (where there are 
beautiful tefillos for after each Hakofo and at there end and a Hadran for 
Chamisha Chumshei Torah - all of which I say and derive great his'alus from.)

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Rich Wolpoe
> 2) Furthermore, despite a befeirush artscroll that conforms to the SA
> and rov poskim how come so many people reciting kaddish STILL pause
> after Shalom instead of Aleinu when there is both an open mechabeir and
> an open Artscroll stating to pause after Aleinu?

It's also a bferush Artscroll(I think) that the punctuation is "balma
di vra chiruteh, vyamlich malchuteh bchayechon ...."Yet it's almost
universally said with the comma after malchuteh. Does anyone know sources
for the alternative readings? One individual I asked about this said to
say it all in one breath so as not to worry about it-but that doesn't
help if you're trying to think about what you are saying. Also does
anyone know of the sources for the parenthesis in kaddish derabanan
(vara,tovim,brachamv)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Rich, Joel
>                                                     Yet it's almost
> universally said with the comma after malchuteh. Does anyone know sources
> for the alternative readings?

Baer Avodas Yisrael p. 129. A period after chiruseih in the text
In his notes Baer discusses other phrasing, ayein sham

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
>>5) Finally, Simhat Torah I davened in R. Victor Vorhand's shteibel and the
>>Rebbe of course introduced each hakafah [i.e. said the opening
>>Hoshana..etc] and added, at the end of each, Shema Yisrael... and H'
>>Melekh, H' Malakh, H' Yimlokh le-olam va'ed which we repeated after him.

> Isn't that mentioned in the Otzar ha'Tefillos siddur (where there are 
> beautiful tefillos for after each Hakofo and at there end and a Hadran for 
> Chamisha Chumshei Torah - all of which I say and derive great his'alus
> from.)

FWIW, the Dumbrov Shtibel in Wash. Heights also does this.  I thought this
was standard Chassidishe Nusach sfard...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

I strongly disagree with the enthusiastic review of Prof Shapiro's book that
was written by Mr. Dubitzky of the Conservative Theological Seminary.

The book - as accurate biography - is seriously flawed. This is in addition
to the halachic issue of the revisionist picture of Rav Weinberg that Prof
Shapiro seems intent in creating  as well as the legitimacy of the use of
personal letters. Furthermore Prof Shapiro himself acknowledges that the
letters present strongly conflicting attitudes depending upon the person he
was writing to. Prof Shapiro simply discounts evidence that doesn't fit into
his own view of Rav Weinberg - claiming he knows which represent the "true"
attitude.

The review I wish I had written, recently appeared in the Fall edition of
Jewish Action. It was written by the Rabbi Berel Berkovitz (a nephew of
Rabbi Dr. Eliezar Berkovitz - talmid muvhak of Rav Weinberg). After praising
the tremendous effort Prof Shapiro spent producing his biography "This is
without doubt, an impressive book, reflecting meticulous study and careful
research" - he raises a number of important issues. A few of them are:

1) "...despite its comprehensiveness, the book fails to depict the true
Rabbi Weinberg. A biography of an ish ha'eshkolot such as Rabbi Weinberg
must do more than give factual information; it must accurately assess and
evaluate his personality, and his enduring contribution. And it is here that
the book is both unconvincing and disappointing."

2) "....[the defects] seem to arise out of the inability of one who has not
himself been totally immersed in the world of Torah learning to understand
or appreciate that world, let alone to evaluate its strengths and
weaknesses.

3) "Prof Shapiro's failure to depict the true Rabbi Weinberg breaks
down...into 3 distinct areas. ...[a] who Rabbi Weinberg was: a harmonious
whole, or a conflicted and convoluted personality?...The impression one
gets..from the book is that he was essentially - and remained throughout his
life a split personality...[b] there is the question of the nature of Rabbi
Weinberg's halachic output...Prof Shapiro...seeks to analyze...the nature of
... the halachic process itself...he reaches conclusions which are
unsupported by the evidence but which radically misrepresent the halachic
process as it ought to be, and which greatly demean - perhaps even defame -
a man who was characterized by a passion for truth (as noted by the Chazon
Ish).  [c] Prof Shapiro evidently believes...that Rabbi Weinberg either
bridged or alternatively was ineluctably pulled between the two worlds of
the Lithuanian yeshivah and of Modern Orthodoxy. Once again, however, this
conclusion is not supported by the evidence; at best it remains a subjective
and dubious proposition."

In sum -the book is a great dissertation and academic biography. However, it
does not succeed in accurately portraying Rabbi Weinberg either as a person
or a talmid chachom. Despite its incredible number of citations - the
conclusions drawn often seem strained or unjustified. There are serious
halachic problems with some of the sources used as well as the nature of
some of the material presented. Finally the Jewish issues of the nature of
halacha, the relationship between Torah and secular learning and the
dynamics of various components of Orthodoxy are presented in a problematic
manner


                                    Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:06:18AM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: Minhag also requires some degree of Rabbinic authority- the Rambam
: in Mamrim ch. 2 refers to B"D 'shegazru gezeirah, hitkinu takanah,
: v'hinhigu minhag', also see Tos. Pesachim 51.

I thought that for a minhag, the order is reversed -- there is a haskamah
given to an already-existing practice. Im lav hachi, mah beinaihu?

:> Note that a "gezeira dirabanan" becomes binding only if it is accepted
:> by the community.

: And the same applies to takkanah and minhag acc to Rambam Mamrim 2:5.

Actually, 2:5 isn't so pashut.

    A Beis Din (BD) where it is apparant to them to be ligozeir gezeirah
    or lisakein takanah or lihanhig minhag, they must sit on the matter
    and first know whether rov tzibbur yachol la'amod bahen, or if they
    are not yachol la'amod.

So far, like you said. But why the seifa? To wit:

    And le'olam a BD does not gozeir gezeirah unless rov tzibbur yachol
    la'amod bah.

Apparantly if a takanah is made or minhag is approved bita'us -- BT thought
rov tzibbur yachol la'amod bah but they aren't -- they are still binding. It's
been years, I have no idea where I got this peshat from.

:> 4. P'sak. A Rabbinic Ruling.. A p'sak can only be over ruled by another
:>    body which is both larger in number, and greater in "chochmah"....

: The same apples to a din. Only (acc. to Rambam) is a seyag excluded
: from being overturned.

Worth noting in the FAQ.

:> The distinction between the second and third categories is subtle.
:> The law being violated will still be applicable in most situations...

: This is the chiddush of the Taz that we discussed on avodah in the past -
: many achronim disagree.

Please contact me offline with a reference. I tried searching the archives
but to no avail. (Chipasti vilo matzati -- it's your choice if you want to
believe me or not.)

:                                                    It seems to be based
: on the Rambam's classification into gezeiros, takkanos, and minhagim, but
: you leave out the Rambam's additional category of derashos.

An interesting point. I think I was stressing that derashos are de'Oraisa.
And therefore are part of the authority to pasken. IOW, I saw derashah is a
paskening tool.

: B"D gadol b'chachma u'minyan is not required to challenge an earlier
: B"D's derasha, it is a requirement to overturn an earlier takkanah or
: gezeirah. A 'seyag' may not be overturned either even if the new B"D is
: gadol b'chachma u'minyan once pashat issuro b'chol yisrael.

As per a p'sak halachah. See the context of the quote "gadol mimenu...", as
given in Edios 1:3. The principle comes from a machlokes in a p'sak on the
shiur (midi'Oraisa, IIUC) of mayim shi'uvin.

Are you saying that takkanah, gezeirah and seyag are three distinct things?
If so, please explain.

: One might have expanded the categories even further ...
: similar to the idea of 'lo masaro hakatuv eleh l'chachamim' by chol hamoed
: where the concept is d'oraysa but the implementation is left to Chazal.

Definitely worth inclusion in the FAQ. Probably just overlooked it because
it's so rare.

: We also discussed the Ra'avad (in Mamrim) once before who categorizes
: asmachta as more then a regular derabbanan with a mnemonic, but as a
: new category.

This, like what I said before about derashah, is a means of getting to
a conclusion, not a conclusion. Or do I misunderstand. Or are you saying
that a din diRabbanan based on an asmachta -- even according to those who
say the asmachta itself is de'Oraisa -- is different lima'aseh than other
dinim diRabbanan.

: What I find puzzeling is that it is unclear how to distinguish a seyag
: from a takkanah without a guess at Chazal's motivation - e.g. how do I
: know that basar oif b'chalav is a seyag derabbanan and not a takkanah
: which equates chicken to meat?

Where it says the word "shemah", you needn't guess, do you?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]