Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 047

Wednesday, November 14 2001

• Re: Why can life be unpleasant - lefi haRambam
• Re: Why can life be unpleasant - lefi haRambam
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• re: Q on Chaye Sarah
• Re: Q on Chaye Sarah
• a gutten erev Shabbos - another peirush
• physicality of God
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• Re: Herzl not zt"l
• be-khol levavkha
• Re: a gutten erev Shabbos - another peirush
• RE: Herzl zt"l
• A guten Erev Shabbos
• Q on Chaye Sarah
• RE: Herzl not zt"l
• RE: Herzl zt"l
• RE:Herzl and zt"l
• yesharim vs tzadikim
• RE: Herzl and zt"l
• RE: Herzl and zt"l
• Re: Talmud and science
• Re: Talmud and science
• astronomy in the Jewish / religious community
• Re: astronomy in the Jewish / religious community
• RE: Herzl not zt"l
• Ikkarim as Halakha?

[Micha Berger:]
> So, why did Hashem create misery? Why were we created with lack? In his
> terms, could not man have been created with sufficient yedias Hashem to
> "make it" without any chance of failure or having to work for it?

I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with this explanation. You're
analogizing misery to sin, i.e., a failure of the free will to comprehend
and pursue halacha. Sin is in that sense a categorical absolute: it's
always the flip side of what mitzvah is at issue. Misery, however, is
not always -- maybe not even mostly -- the flip side of happiness. It
is a state of mind and body, and it works differently among different
people. One man's misery is another man's delight; even the severest
torture and deprivation can bring man closer to HaShem, and thus provide
the ultimate delight. Sin is a denial of HaShem, but misery is an integral
part of man's dialogue with HaShem. (See Iyov.)

Can HaShem be miserable? I think not. HaShem has no expectations that
He has no power to fulfill. Misery is what happens when you think you
know more than you really do, when you start thinking in terms of what
HaShem owes you as His part of the bargain. There is no bargain. HaShem
has given us everything, but He owes us nothing. Understanding that is
the first step to overcoming misery.

David Finch

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:24:21PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:> So, why did Hashem create misery? Why were we created with lack? In his
:> terms, could not man have been created with sufficient yedias Hashem to
:> "make it" without any chance of failure or having to work for it?

: I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with this explanation. You're
: analogizing misery to sin, i.e., a failure of the free will to comprehend
: and pursue halacha....

No, I am identifying misery with lack.

In the thought I was developing, the ultimate reward is innately bound
with man's ability to be creative, to give to others and to himself. This
ability is what it means to be in the image of G-d -- and what greater
good exists than Hashem Himself?

As I noted, this is consistant with the Ramban, since the Ramban defines
the ultimate reward as being post techiyas hameisim.

The Rambam, OTOH, says that any joy while corporeal has to be less
than the pure unfiltered reward of the non-physical existance. To him,
olam haba is the non-physical afterlife. The Rambam identifies the
ideal happiness as that of recieving Divine Goodness, Ziv haShechinah;
a purely recieving phenomenon.

So then why were we not created that way? Why have this notion of life
and struggle, of the need to do mitzvos, to self-perfect, to provide for
others, to build a relationship with HQBH? If HQBH created the world in
order to have beings to whom He can bestow goodness, why did He not create
us perfectly ready to sit in gan eden? (Again, according to the Rambam
who defines that, rather than the struggle, the dialogue you refer to,
as the ultimate good.)

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> As for my own thoughts, I think that using zt"l for Herzl cheapens
> the notion of tzaddiq. And an affront to our real tzaddiqim, who do
> not deserve being compared to him. He was who he was -- he did some
> incredible positive things, and lived a life committed to ahavas yisrael,
> but a tzaddiq he was not.

I agree. But real tzaddikim probably wouldn't be bothered by the comparison. 
Holiness is not a jealous state. 

David Finch

Rabbi Bechoffer wrote:
>> 1) If one adopts the viewpoint of the eulogy of Rav Kook for Herzl
>> (from memory) , I don't see the problem (zt"l is surely acceptable for
>> mashiach ben yosef) ...

> If you think that RAYHK meant what you think he meant, then you 
> misunderstood him.

Just to provide additional information relevant to forming an inference
about what RAYHK meant when he eulogized Herzl, I would offer the
following remark made by RAYHK's dear friend and colleague, the Dor
Revi'i, a remark for which the Dor Revi'i was duly reviled and villified.
Certainly Rabbi Bechoffer is free to join the revilers and villifiers
(though I am quite sure he would never do so). The point is that there
is ample precedent among g'dolei yisrael (and I have no doubt that the
list of gedolim would include others besides RAYHK and the Dor Revi'i).

What the Dor Revi'i said about Herzl was that he hoped that it in the olam
ha-emet he (the Dor Revi'i) would be worthy of being Herzl's footstool.
Given this remark, I don't see how one could say that Dr. Shinnar is out
of bounds in attaching the honorific zt"l to Herzl's name. k'var horah
zakein. Case closed.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

>Rashi makes a big point that Sarah's age is written as "100 years and 20
>years and 7 years"; similarly with Avraham "100 years and 70 years and 5
>years."

>But not a word is said that Yishmael is described as "100 years and 30
>years and 5 years".

I believe that the Ramban there says that since he died as a tzadik
("vayigva...") the torah says his age as it does for tzadikim.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 05:09:20PM -0500, Sender Baruch wrote:
:> But not a word is said that Yishmael is described as "100 years and 30
:> years and 5 years".

: I believe that the Ramban there says that since he died as a tzadik
: ("vayigva...") the torah says his age as it does for tzadikim.

Perhaps we can add to this by suggesting that Yishmael's teshuvah was
mei'ahavah. Therefore, his aveiros were converted to zechuyos, and at
the time of his petirah, all of his years were equally meritorious.

-mi

Perhaps another peirush can be given in line with the comments of
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky z"l, along the lines of ' while in America,
b"H there is shemiras Shabbos now, the erev Shabbos of amohl fehlt
(the erev Shabbos of the stereotypical European shtetel is missing -
e.g. people stopping work early, getting ready for Shabbos staying
shir hashirim)'. So 'a gutten erev Shabbos' can also be a wish that
one should have a good erev Shabbos and not rush into Shabbos at last
possible minute in a harried and pressured way, etc.

Mordechai

 From a  Sicha from R' Amital of Yeshivat Har Etzion
    The alternate viewpoint is an attractive one. For many years,
    there were Jews who tried to attach physicality to God, until
    the Rambam rooted that out of mainstream belief. The Rambam says
    that all of Judaism is a fight against avoda zara (idolatry).
    Many say that today, when there is no avoda zara, emuna (faith) is
    irrelevant. However, I believe that there are many types of avoda
    zara today, just in different forms

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:28:36PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: I agree. But real tzaddikim probably wouldn't be bothered by the comparison. 
: Holiness is not a jealous state. 

However, we, as aspiring students of tzadiqim, should be clear on who
is a role model and who is not.

-mi

At 06:06 PM 11/13/01 -0500, David Glasner wrote:
>What the Dor Revi'i said about Herzl was that he hoped that it in the olam
>ha-emet he (the Dor Revi'i) would be worthy of being Herzl's footstool.
>Given this remark, I don't see how one could say that Dr. Shinnar is out
>of bounds in attaching the honorific zt"l to Herzl's name. k'var horah
>zakein. Case closed.

I regret that you misunderstood your great grandfather. What he meant was
that although Herzl was *not* a tzaddik, not by a long shot (let us avoid
precise definitions, but see the end of Chagiga, please), nevertheless,
the DR perceived him as having great zechuyos. Concomitantly with that,
the DR, as a gadol, possessed the midda of anavah and humbly suggested
that his zechuyos were not of similar grand proportions as those he,
again, with the charitability of a gadol, imparted to Herzl.

That, I am confident, is precisely what the DR meant, and RAYHK (and,
for that matter, my hero RAEK) held.

I cannot speak for the Hungarians (as to who they hold to be emes'er
tzaddikim), but I guarantee you that RAYHK and RAEK held that Herzl was
less that Kelipas ha'Shum l'umas the CC or R' Yisroel Salanter.

The thought of any equation by applying "tzaddik" to H would have
horrified them, as it does me, as a mockery of Darchei Avodah. To conflate
zechus with tziddkus is an error.

Case closed. :-)

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

RMB:
>the same two-veis levav that we have in Shema, which Chazal interpret
>"bishnei yitzrecha".

When learning the Sifre with Dr Elazar Hurvitz, he explained the
"bi-shenei yitsrekha" as a limud on the word khol (as in be-khol),
as kol le-rabot ba (nothing to do with two vetin).

Yisrael Dubitsky

In a message dated 11/13/2001 6:21:38pm EST, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
<< erhaps another peirush can be given in line with the comments of
 Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky z"l, along the lines of ' while in America,
 b"H there is shemiras Shabbos now, the erev Shabbos of amohl fehlt
 (the erev Shabbos of the stereotypical European shtetel is missing -
 e.g. people stopping work early, getting ready for Shabbos staying
 shir hashirim)'. S >>

I heard this general theme in the name of R'YBS

KT
Joel

On Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:29 PM, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
>> As for my own thoughts, I think that using zt"l for Herzl cheapens
>> the notion of tzaddiq. And an affront to our real tzaddiqim, who do
>> not deserve being compared to him. He was who he was -- he did some
>> incredible positive things, and lived a life committed to ahavas yisrael,
>> but a tzaddiq he was not.

> I agree. But real tzaddikim probably wouldn't be bothered by the comparison.
> Holiness is not a jealous state.

The issue is not whether or not the tzaddikim mind. The issue is whether or 
not real tzaddikim are diminished in our eyes by the use of the term for 
Herzl.

Being that people objected so fiercely it is obvious that our respect for 
tzaddikim is still very much intact.

kt
sk

another reason why we say it all day friday is the Shir shel Yom for
Friday is explicitly chosen because it is the last day of the week before
Shabbos where "Hashem is King", etc. Additionally, many minhagim of
Friday are done on friday because it is Erev Shabbos -- Chumash Targum,
staying up late learning thursday night, the minhag of some to recite
the entire Tehillim or Tikun Chatzos leil Shishi, the minhag of some to
omit Tachanun Friday morning, etc.

From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
> Rashi makes a big point that Sarah's age is written as "100 years and
> 20 years and 7 years"; similarly with Avraham "100 years and 70 years
> and 5 years."
> But not a word is said that Yishmael is described as "100 years and 30
> years and 5 years".

R Eric, pat yourself on the back. The Ramban asks this question on Rashi
and, as a consequence, learns that the derasha that all her years were
equally good comes from the repeated phrase, "shnei chayei Sarah" rather
than from the 100, then 20, then 7 style.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:11 PM, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. 
Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> At 06:06 PM 11/13/01 -0500, David Glasner wrote:
>> What the Dor Revi'i said about Herzl was that he hoped that it in the olam
>> ha-emet he (the Dor Revi'i) would be worthy of being Herzl's footstool.
>> Given this remark, I don't see how one could say that Dr. Shinnar is out
>> of bounds in attaching the honorific zt"l to Herzl's name....

> I regret that you misunderstood your great grandfather. What he meant was
> that although Herzl was *not* a tzaddik, not by a long shot (let us avoid
> precise definitions, but see the end of Chagiga, please), nevertheless,
> the DR perceived him as having great zechuyos. Concomitantly with that,
> the DR, as a gadol, possessed the midda of anavah and humbly suggested
> that his zechuyos were not of similar grand proportions as those he,
> again, with the charitability of a gadol, imparted to Herzl.

While I am firmly in R' YGB's camp on this issue (in that I would not
personally refer to Herzl as 'zt"l' by any stretch of the imagination)
I believe we head down a very steep slope when we start assigning meanings
other than the apparent one to the words of anyone.

I have seen this done more often and more blatantly to the Igros Moshe
more than anyone else. I find it unacceptable when it is 'my ox being
gored' and so I must object when it isn't.

kt
sk

> The issue is not whether or not the tzaddikim mind. The issue is whether or 
> not real tzaddikim are diminished in our eyes by the use of the term for 
> Herzl.

> Being that people objected so fiercely it is obvious that our respect for 
> tzaddikim is still very much intact.

Without commenting on the case at hand, I often wonder why we aren't as
concerned for the kavod of Yesharim - see Rashi's pshat in the gemora on
"or zarua latzadik ulyishrai lev simcha" that yesharim are at a higher
level than tzadikim and the Heemek Davar's identification of the avot
as being role models of yesharim for their interactions with all fellow
human beings.

Question-does anyone have mekorot defining in more detail tzaddikim
and yesharim? I'm particularly interested in whether anyone defines
yesharim as a subset of tzaddikim or does anyone categorize yeshorim as
including some who may not be considered tzaddikim.

KT
Joel Rich

With regard to Herztl (hopefully, one last try)

I had suggested that because Herzl did an act of trascendent goodness
(trying to save millions of am yisrael), he could be classified as a
tzaddik, in spite of his utter lack of personal observance. This clearly
pushed some emotional buttons. However, I still find RYGB's answers
strange, as rather than being a reductio ad absurdum, they are absurd
as applied.

To refute my position, he cites cases where individuals do great evil,
and the question is whether some attendant good to the evil that they
do excuses the evil. To wit, in some logical order

1) Baruch Goldstein and Osama - do evil in the name of doing good
(?how relevant)

2) Pnina and Satan - do evil hoping that good will come out of it (again,
not relevant)

3) Finally, and most controversially, Haman and (a real stretch) Hitler
- have no intention of doing good, intend purely to do evil, but some
unintended good arises

These cases are in no way related to my position - over someone who
intentionally does great good - not someone who does evil to which there
may be some positive aspect, unless RYGB wishes to posit that Zionism
itself was a great evil, with which I would take isue. I never claimed
that merely because there is some inherent good, it justifies the action.

(By the way, RYGB's argument does relate to a related issue - how do we
judge those who told people to stay behind in Europe or opposed Zionism,
which might have led to a political haven. clearly, like Baruch and Osama,
they meant it leshem shamayim, but great evil resulted, although I doubt
RYGB would want to proceed with this argument)

Micha argues a different argument (which I think is at the heart of
RYGB's objection too) - that the term zaddik needs to be reserved, and
that Herzl's personal foibles and lack of personal observance make him
unsuitable I wonder the textual basis for this, although I understand
the emotional basis.

First, the citation from the Dor Revii by R David Glasner would suggest
that this appreciation of Herzl is not quite so outre as RMB and RYGB
would think, and that an editorial board might need to take greater care
before "explaining why they are not acceptable normative positions for
The Aishdas Society." (in RYGB's phrase)( I would add that I did not
invent the reference to Herzl by zt"l, although I could not find last
night my sources - od hazon lemoed.)

However, it goes to a different issue - the very notion of a zaddik.

RMB brings as the paradigmatic zaddik R Aryeh Levin (with which I
wholeheartedly agree), and says that Herzl can not be placed in the same
madrega (something that I am not completely sure that R Aryeh z"tl would
have agreed with). Clearly, Herzl reflects very different spiritual values
and accomplishments than R Aryeh. However, that does not mean that the
term zaddik is necessarily limited to that represented by R Aryeh. In
the hesped of Herzl by RAYK, he raises the issue of two separate streams
necessary - the national/material redemption and the purely spiritual one,
and that mashiach ben yosef represents the national/material aspect which
is necessary. There are zaddikim elyonim who incorporate both aspects, but
most people only can incorporate one. (R Aryeh may well have incorporated
both). I don't think it is unreasonable by this approach to use the term
zaddik for those who incorporate only one aspect, whether that aspect be
the purely spiritual or the more material. I would add that in a previous
go round on the har habayit issue, RYGB had the shitta of minimizing
the importance of nationalistic issues - something over which we disagree.

What makes this whole discussion far more vexing, is that while one might
choose to reserve the term zaddik for pure zaddikim such as R Aryeh levin,
the whole notion of zt"l has been cheapened by popular use to apply to
almost any religious functionary. As such, the recognition of the positive
aspects of Herzl's accomplishments would seem far less controversial.

Lastly, we do have the notion that one particular action can redeem an
individual - koneh olamo bsha'a echat. Furthermore, when we have the
discussion of those martyred al kiddush hashem, we refer to them as
kdoshim without investigating their whole lifestyle or indeed, if the
martyrdom was purely leshem shamayim or forced upon them. While one can
find differences, still, it seems that the hypersensitivity displayed
is misplaced.

Meir Shinnar

> Question-does anyone have mekorot defining in more detail tzaddikim
> and yesharim? I'm particularly interested in whether anyone defines
> yesharim as a subset of tzaddikim or does anyone categorize yeshorim as
> including some who may not be considered tzaddikim.

Malbim Mishlei 11:3

Emes L'Yaakov (Bereishis 14:14) notes that according to Shulchan Aruch there
was no basis for saving Lot. However since Avraham was a mentsh (Yoshor) he
saved him anyway.


                                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:19 AM, Shinnar, Meir
<Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> Micha argues a different argument (which I think is at the heart of
> RYGB's objection too) - that the term zaddik needs to be reserved, and
> that Herzl's personal foibles and lack of personal observance make him
> unsuitable I wonder the textual basis for this, although I understand
> the emotional basis.

In line with this reasoning, and in recognition that Herzl, although
by no means a shomer mitzvot, did earn schar for what he tried (and to
some extant did) accomplish, we should use zy"a (zichuso yogain alainu)
after his name.

Let G-d decide how much haganah we are due in his merit.

Sounds like we are headed off into Areivim territory on this one. Let's
not.

kt
sk

> (By the way, RYGB's argument does relate to a related issue - how do we
> judge those who told people to stay behind in Europe or opposed Zionism,
> which might have led to a political haven. clearly, like Baruch and Osama,
> they meant it leshem shamayim, but great evil resulted,

First off -- I find putting Baruch Goldsein and Osama together offensive
and unjustifiable. It reeks of PC (and I suspect it's probably assur too).

that said:

The case of the Gedolim is in no way like Baruch -- in that the "act"
Baruch Goldstein did *was* the "evil". In the case of the Gedolim, their
"act" in and of itself was *not* evil.

Akiva

In a message dated 11/5/2001 9:30:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, Bereshis ch. 2 no. 16) says that
> evolution is untenable within the Torah hashkafah because of the midrash
> (Chullin 60a; Rosh Hashanah 11a) that all of the animals were created
> bekomasan, beda'atan, and betzivyonam. I'm not sure why he assumes that
> everyone agrees to this midrash.

Q: According to his shita - how do they deal with breading such as dogs,
horses, etc.?

Here is a quick hashkafic answer:
Anytime when a Midrash or Aggedita apparently flies in the face of
reality, then "punt" and presume that there is a moral, metaphoric,
or allegorical meaning instead. <smile>.

Illustration:
In the case of Rava and R. Zeira and the Schechita on Purim I undrestand
that there is a peshat that Rava represents the "Great" and R. Zeira the
"Small" and the entire story is allegorical. I heard this besheim the
Late Lubavicher Rebbe perhaps RYZ can confirm and fill in the details.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>Q: According to his shita - how  do they deal with breading such as
>dogs, horses, etc.?

I think he means that at the initial time of creation all of the animals 
were created fully grown and developed.  Therefore, they could not have 
evolved from lower organisms.  This does not negate the possibility of 
FUTURE evolution, not that crossbreeding is evolution.

>Illustration:
>In the case of Rava and R. Zeira and the Schechita on Purim I
>undrestand that there is a peshat that Rava represents the "Great"
>and R. Zeira the "Small" and the entire story is allegorical.

R. Avraham ben HaRambam suggests that "shachteih" means that Rabbah injured 
R. Zeirah and "achyeih" means that R. Zeira's wound healed.

Not allegorical, but not a seemingly mythical story either.

Gil Student

I wrote this a while ago, but it may be timely to post it now, in wake
of my post earlier today (on areivim) on the meteor shower coming on
the approaching motzei Shabbos, iy"H.

In light of the importance of astronomy in the Jewish religion, I am
curious, if anyone knows of any efforts to combat the dismal situation
in much of the Jewish and religous world at present in the area of
knowledge of Astronomy (total ignorance of or low level of knowledge)
? Do any Yeshivas have instruction in the subject?

To clarify, I don't mean learning hilchos kiddush hachodesh, e.g., and
including, by necessity, bidochek, some basic astronomy (which I suspect,
often in such cases, is quite flimsy, low-level and perhaps antiquated /
obsolete by latest scientific standards / discoveries) - rather a more
comprehensive and up to date focus on astronomy.

Frum people knowledgeable in astronomy - where are you?

To be milameid zchus on frum people, I must say that the fact that most of
them live in big cities / metropolitan areas like NYC, makes it hard to
get too much into astronomy - it is difficult to see too much up there
when you are in a very lit up big city. Nevertheless, some things can
still be seen. How many frum people can identify constellations, etc.,
in the sky?

Mordechai

Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
>To clarify, I don't mean learning hilchos kiddush hachodesh, e.g., and
>including, by necessity, bidochek, some basic astronomy (which I suspect,
>often in such cases, is quite flimsy, low-level and perhaps antiquated /
>obsolete by latest scientific standards / discoveries) - rather a more
>comprehensive and up to date focus on astronomy.

>How many frum people can identify constellations, etc., in the sky?

Forget about identifying constellations -- how many frum people understand
basic aleph beis like the analemma (the reason why sunset reaches its
earliest at the beginning of December, while sunrise keeps getting
later until the first week in January)? How many people understand
the astronomical backdrop to the shitos about tzeis hakokhavim?
The rishonim agree that astronomy is part of basic Jewish education,
but almost no one I have ever explained these things to has ever learned
even basic material. Part is the US educational system. Nothing more
than rudimentary astronomy is required in public schools, and the
yeshivas certainly won't give any more than that. But they should.
Basic astronomy does not have to be a full year course and talk about
quasars and neutron stars and black holes, although all of that is
good for a Jew to know. But an hour a week for a couple of months is
all it would take to get yir'ei haShem to look hashomaymo and say mo
rabbu ma'asekha.

I try to do my part: in my shiurim, about every 18 months, I bring up
some basic subject in astronomy and explain the Torah connected to it.
But Jewish educators should also do something about it, and not consider
it still tome' because of the haskolo, which was a problem 200 years
ago but not now.

Seth Mandel

At 09:34 AM 11/14/01 -0500, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
>I have seen this done more often and more blatantly to the Igros Moshe
>more than anyone else. I find it unacceptable when it is 'my ox being
>gored' and so I must object when it isn't.

I am startled.

Did you see the term "tzaddik" in that remark by the DR?!

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

Hi. Recently there was a major discussion of the Rambam's Ikkarim on
this list. A major point of contention was whether issues of dogma are
included in halakha, specifically: can they be "paskened" like halakha
in general, e.g. through a consensus of posekim, by popular acceptance
(minhag), or other means.

The tide of the discussion seemed to go with those who argued that Ikkarim
and their interpretations are quite clearly issues that do indeed need
to be paskened, since they have practical "nafka minah"s in certain
areas of halakha. I don't think that the other side was convinced,
by the first view seems to have won the day through consistent and
confident repetition.

I'm ashamed to admit it to the active participants on this list, but I
find it very difficult to keep current on e-mail debates, even when I find
them both fascinating and well argued, as I did the debate on Ikkarim.
So while I read with interest, I was afraid to join in. Yesterday,
however, I was reminded yet again of the debate and of my interest in
it when Gil Student posted the following on mail-jewish:

>How is the definition of a heretic not halakhic?  I have to know if I
>can eat from your shechitah, drink from wine you touched, etc.

In other words, this exact debate is spreading to other lists too.
Which is absolutely fine, but it goaded me to finally post a query on it.

The following is my problem: Something about the assumption that Ikkarim
and their interpretations can, and indeed must, be paskened in a way
analogous to the way we decide the kashrut of chicken soup really bugs me.
I have a strong gut feeling that there is something fundamentally flawed
in the analogy. Nevertheless, my strong gut feelings have been wrong
at times in the past, and I'm ready to try to look at the evidence openly.

So my request is the following: I'd appreciate it very much if the
people who hold the "ikkarim as part of halakha" position would take
the time write up a careful list of halakhic areas where ikkarim seem to
be relevant, preferably with references to sources in Shas and posekim.
(It would be especially interesting to see how much of a role the Rambam
himself plays in the examples of this phenomenon.)

Thanks,
Seth (Avi) Kadish

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


[ 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         ]