Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 050

Friday, November 16 2001

• Re: Herzl z"l
• Re: Why can life be unpleasant - lefi haRambam
• Re: Herzl z"l
• ikkarim as halacha
• RE: ikkarim as halacha
• Re: Ikkarim as Halakha?
• Re: Lot
• R' Steinman on the Rav YBS
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• RE: Herzl and zt"l
• re Herzl zt"l
• zaddik and zechuyot
• RE: Herzl zt"l
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• Re: ikkarim as halacha
• RE: astronomy in the Jewish / religious community
• Re: Avodah V8 #49
• Re: zaddik and zechuyot

> Herzl may have precipitated good, but we know nothing of any lishma on
> his part, nothing about whether the positive ramifications are direct
> results or the byproducts of a faulty deed, and we know that generating
> good does not bestow tzaddik status.

I've been following the Herzl "zt"l vs. no zt"l" debate on Avodah pretty
closely, and remain confused by it. Frankly, I don't think there's much
room for debate. Herzl wasn't a tzaddik, obviously: He was a secular Jew
who lived his life according to secular rules, and personally had little
use for traditional Judaism as a religion. If "zt"l" is to preserved for
tzaddiks, which by custom and usage I believe it is, then Herzl doesn't
get one.

None of this has anything to do with the equally obvious fact that Herzl's
life was an immensely good fortune for the Jewish people, of which he was
a part. The lives of certain Goyim have also been of good fortune for us,
e.g., Truman and Churchill. I think we should honor all of these guys,
for what they did for us (and maybe quit whining about all the things
they didn't do for us, but that's another point for another day). Let's
just use another label after their names.

David Finch

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:41:39PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:> 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? ...

: What's the value of sitting in Gan Eden if you don't understand its 
: unsurpassable beauty? How would you understand such beauty if you don't 
: understand the struggle the underlies it? ...

My "created that way" implies being born knowing this. What you are saying
is that humans, given the way we and the universe were created, need the
learning experience. I agree with that point, that we are created so that
our reward requires struggle, and therefore the imitatio dei of deciding,
doing and creating (including self-creation).

And I understand the need for that. since G-d is the Ultimate Good,
imitatio dei is inherently the ultimate good the imitator can recieve
from G-d. Therefore creating us with lacks that we need to address
-- including the learning you speak of -- is justified.

What I do not see is how the Rambam justifies it. To him, imitatio dei
is not part of the ultimate good, passively basking in Ziv haShechinah is.
REED's whole giving-receiving thing is rejected. (Not that REED and
the Rambam see everything else eye-to-eye. <grin>)

So, while were we made to be imperfect keilim who have to struggle to
better recieve Divine Good, when He could have equally made us fit for
the task ab initio?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Rabbi Bechoffer (8:47) 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. 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.

Let me begin by summarizing my understanding of what this discussion is
about. (I must admit that I was not following the thread closely until
my esteemed friend Mechy Frankel mentioned it to me in passing.) I gather
that Dr. Shinnar used the honorific in referring to Herzl when objecting
to a proposal to rename a street in Bnei Brak in honor of Rabbi Shach
that is now named after Herzl. Rabbi Bechoffer apparently felt that
it was unacceptable to attach an honorific that would accord Herzl the
exalted status of a tzadik. In defending the application of that term
to Herzl, Dr. Shinnar referred to the beneficial consequences of Herzl's
endeavors for klal yisrael which entitle him to be viewed in a favorable
light despite the well-known shortcoming of his private conduct. Rabbi
Bechoffer responded that the beneficial consequences of one's conduct
do not entitle one to being considered a tzadik else such beneficial
consequences as may have resulted from Hitler's actions might entitle
him (chas v'shalom!!!!) to being considered a tzadik also. (Although it
is clear that Rabbi Bechoffer was merely making a conceptual point and
not drawing any comparisons between Hitler and Herzl, I am afraid that
I don't think that the juxtaposition of the two was appropriate in this
context, to phrase my opinion as mildly as I can.) Dr. Shinnar replied
citing Rabbi Kook's eulogy of Herzl to show that Rabbi Kook viewed Herzl
in a sufficiently positive way so that it was not inappropriate to use the
term tzadik in connection with Herzl. Rabbi Bechoffer demurred saying that
Dr. Shinnar had misunderstood what Rabbi Kook meant and that his praise of
Herzl could not be construed as viewing Herzl on the level of a tzadik.
I then entered the fray by citing the Dor Revi'i remark quoted above.
Rabbi Bechoffer now suggests that I have misunderstood the Dor Revi'i,
because the Dor Revi'i was not making a statement about whether Herzl
was a tzadik but only acknowledging the magnitude of Herzl's zekhuyot.
I apologize for that long-winded introduction, but I felt it necessary
to lay out my understanding of the context before responding to Rabbi
Bechoffer's understanding of the Dor Revi'i's remark about Herzl.

And my response is simply this. The original question was whether it was
in some way an affront to the memory of all the tzadikim bi-yeshivah shel
ma'alah to attach the term tzadik to Herzl. I personally in the normal
course of daily conversation would not refer to Herzl as a tzadik, nor
I gather would Dr. Shinnar. His use of the term was in arguing against
a course of action whose, possibly unintended, but I think more likely
intended, effect would be to denigrate and minimize the memory of Herzl.
In that context, I think it was entirely appropriate for Dr. Shinnar to
emphasize our obligation to revere his memory by using the TZ word in
reference to his memory. The point of the Dor Revi'i's remark was not to
say that Herzl was a tzadik. He was trying to tell the Hungarian Jews of
his time that Herzl's achievement in his lifetime, which was to revive
the idea that the Jewish people could reestablish their national life in
the land of their forefathers, had such transcendent merit that despite
being, in Rabbi Kook's description, gadol ha-dor b'torah, b'hokhmah,
bi'z'khut avot, u-v'midot terumiot, his own merit paled in comparison
to Herzl's. Herzl's gadlut, at least in the opinion of the Dor Revi'i,
transcended the merit of a tzadik. To refer to Herzl, as a tzadik, cannot
therefore be understood as in any way a p'giah in the kavod tzadikim.
At any rate that is the opinion of the Dor Revi'i. Now one may disagree,
but again, unless one is prepared to join the tormentors who were motzi
la'az upon him (in his life and to this very day) in the most offensive
terms, one cannot say that he does not provide an adequate basis for
applying the term tzadik to Herzl, whether or not he himself would have
described Herzl using that particular term.

It seems to me almost irrelevant to do so, but I cannot resist citing
the following words of the Rambam (T'shuvah 3:1).

kol ehad v'ehad mi-b'nei ha-adam yeish lo z'khuyot v'avonot.
mi she-zekhuyotav y'teirot al avonotav tzadiq.

I forbear from any further characertizations of where the case now stands
and apologize for having done so previously.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

> 2) I asked him how we pasken bzman hazeh in regards to what is an ikkar
> and he said although he is not a poseik he feels that it is clear from
> the siddur (yigdal) that we pasken like the Rambam.

Since when is the siddur a sefer psak?
Is there a difference between sefardim and ashkenazim, temanim?
Also yigdal itself is very controversial. If I remember the Ari was against
saying yigdal.

On Rosh Hashana we have the famous prayer that hashem will determine
in the coming year who will live who will die, who in his time etc.
Rambam and others feel that Hashem intervenes only for special tzaddikim.
Does this mean the siddur paskens against Rambam?

There is the old fight whether one can say prayers that speak to angels.
The fact that it is in the siddur/machzor is a psak that we can?

> L'chorah this line of reasoning should apply to any rishon who argues on
> the Rambam. Since they are a bar plugtah with the Rambam they could argue.
> However, if one would assume that we pasken like the Rambam then one
> would be an apikorus if one doesn't believe in any of the 13 Ikkarim.

Again only if we pasken like the Rambam, so we are in a vicious circle.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
>>Since when is the siddur a sefer psak?
>>Is there a difference between sefardim and ashkenazim, temanim?
>>Also yigdal itself is very controversial. If I remember the Ari was against
>>saying yigdal.

I'm just quoting what he said. If you have any disagreement take it up with
Rav Stern. 

>>Again only if we pasken like the Rambam, so we are in a vicious circle.

Ein hachi nami

In a message dated 11/14/01 5:35:20pm EST, CMarkowitz@scor.com writes:
> ...I recently heard a shiur from Rav Meir Stern in which he made the
> following points....

> 3)Rav Elchanan brings the "famous" statement of Rav Chaim that
> "nebech an apikorus is still an apikorus". To this Rav Elchanan asks
> several kashes. One is from a gemara in Cheilek in which R' Hillel
> felt moshiach came already in the form of Chizkiyahu Hamelech. Acc. to
> Rav Chaim, why isn't R' Hillel an apikorus? To this Rav Stern answered
> that since R' Hillel was a bar plugtah with the other Amoraim, he had
> a right to argue. However, once the halacha was paskened not like R'
> Hillel, subsequent generations can't argue. Rav Stern compared this to
> any machlokes in halacha....

> L'chorah this line of reasoning should apply to any rishon who argues on
> the Rambam. Since they are a bar plugtah with the Rambam they could argue....

ZGG

IOW, while there is a machlokes, while the matter is in flux it is OK
to dissent.

BUT once the matter has been paskened, dissent is no longer OK.

Psak evolves chronologically. Just Because RT wore RT Tefilin does
not necessarliy mean we are yotzei today with RT Tefillin.

OTOH some things have never been paskened finally. Zmanei Hayyom and
the issue of davening Maariv after Plag are still in flux.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

At 02:26 PM 11/15/2001 EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote: 
> In a message dated 11/15/01 11:34:29am EST, erics@radix.net writes: Note
>>                  .... The thought is that Terach's zchus was not fully
>> passed to Avraham, but also to his brothers. Some of that was reflected
>> in Lot, and when it is reunited (via Rus and Boaz), we can start the
>> line of Moshiach.

>> (This is a two sentence summary of a 7 page d'var torah by R Yitz 
>> EtShalom, available upon request). 

> Aha, this is the source of my statement re: Eile Toldos. I think I 
> attributed this to R. Menachem Liebtag, but it is possible it was from R.
> Y. Etshalom instead - or in addition, to {too?} 

Whoops, incomplete information on my part.

The analysis of "Eilah Toldos" does inded come from R Meneachim Liebtag.
The idea that Terach has zchus that was partially split between Lot and
Avraham, and needed to be reunited for Moshiach comes from R Y Etshalom.
(Doing a quick survey, I'm not sure who drew the the connection between
the two . . . I suppose it might be my chiddush, but I'm quite hesitant
to give myself that credit, or maybe it's my misunderstanding).

Sorry for my incomplete attributions.

-- Eric

[FWIW, I also find their two styles to be similar enough that I rapidly
forget who said what. -mi]

R' Steinman wrote (is he the one who was sick recently?):
> The New York Times eulogized the Rav as the greatest Jewish theologian
> of the century, whose teachings will be remembered in a thousand years.
> Similar views were expressed in Time magazine. These publications
> substantiate the prestige the Rav enjoyed on the general cultural
> scene. Since the Rambam there has perhaps not been a figure who combined,
> on such levels of excellence, both Torah and Maddah and achieved such
> a recognition in both worlds.

Which I find an interesting characterization. The Rav was many things,
but I would not have called him a theologian. R' AJ Heschel was a
theologian, writing extensively about God and man (God in search of Man
(Jewish theology), I Asked for Wonder (misc. essays), Man's Quest for God
(tefillah), Man is Not Alone (existence of God), etc.) The Rav, OTOH,
allegedly cherished his "childlike", simple belief in God, and didn't
probe for details.

Or is "theologian" the only way the secular media can describe someone
whose life was Torah, who wrote extensively about Man's relationship
to Torah? Even the "homo religiosus" of Halachik Man has a fairly
simple faith (which is contrasted with the "what do I do now" of the
Ish haHalacha himself).

Even his metaphysical writings, on sanctity, time, etc. were approached
from a this-worldly position, very Litvish. As RRW quantified the
difference between the Breslover presentation on kedushah at the last
NY Edah con- ference, and R' Berman's keynote speech: the Chasid wants
to draw kedushah down from above into the world, the Misnaged creates
kedushah in this world to dedicate the world to He who is Above.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On 15 Nov 2001, at 10:44, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Since when is the siddur a sefer psak?
> Is there a difference between sefardim and ashkenazim, temanim?

FWIW, in my Shver's (former) Persian shul, they added two verses to
Yigdal which do not appear in the Ashkenazic version: "Eleh Shlosh Esrei
Ikarim, Hen Hen Yesod Dath Kel v'Toratho. Torath Moshe Emeth u'Nvuatho,
Baruch Adei Ad Shem Tehillatho." (I am sure I have the first one correct;
I may be mistaken regarding the second).

> On Rosh Hashana we have the famous prayer that hashem will determine
> in the coming year who will live who will die, who in his time etc.
> Rambam and others feel that Hashem intervenes only for special tzaddikim.
> Does this mean the siddur paskens against Rambam?

I believe R. Amnon of Mainz, who wrote that tfilla, lived after the
Rambam.

> There is the old fight whether one can say prayers that speak to angels.
> The fact that it is in the siddur/machzor is a psak that we can?

I think we have debated many times here the tfilla of Machnisei Rachamim
which raises this issue.

I'm not sure that one could pasken by the Siddur, but OTOH the siddur
is likely a reflection of normative psak.

-- Carl

>> On Rosh Hashana we have the famous prayer that hashem will determine
>> in the coming year who will live who will die, who in his time etc.
>> Rambam and others feel that Hashem intervenes only for special tzaddikim.
>> Does this mean the siddur paskens against Rambam?

> I believe R. Amnon of Mainz, who wrote that tfilla, lived after the
> Rambam.

No he actually was before Rashi and certainly before Rambam.

BTW Nesanei Tokef is from R. Amnon.
Immediately afterwards we say berosh hashana Is that also from R. Amnon?

>> There is the old fight whether one can say prayers that speak to angels.
>> The fact that it is in the siddur/machzor is a psak that we can?

> I think we have debated many times here the tfilla of Machnisei
> Rachamim which raises this issue.

My point was not whether is right or wrong just simply the fact that it is
the siddur does not make it normative. I believe that Chatam Sofer
did not say shalom aleichem

Eli Turkel

>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....

Oy, vey, I'm not quite sure where to start. There is NO question that
Moshiach ben Yosef and l'havdil Herzl have no relationship one to the
other. On the idea of Moshiach ben Yosef, there are several sources that
you should look into to see why your understanding is not the correct
one in this case:

* The medrash Yalkut Shimoni [tav tzadi tes samech] on Yeshayahu says
that MBY [Moshiach ben Yosef] will suffer for klal Yisrael terribly, be
shackled in iron chains due to the sins of klal Yisrael, and that his
light is under the kisai hakavod, which seems to preclude mechallelei
Shabbos, and he will conquer the MhaM and throw him and all the sarim
of the nations into gehinnom.

* For an even better source, Kol HaTor says that MBY will wipe out Amalek
and reveal razei Torah [neither of which Herzl ever came close to], and
further says that a basic tafkid of MBY is that he will be machzir Am
Yisrael b'tshuva [believe me, Herzl had no intention of doing that and
actually worked to do the opposite]. Kol HaTor also explains that in the
time of Moshiach ben Yosef, the physical and spiritual will come together.

* The chumash in parshas Nitzavim - where it says "all these things will
happen to you..." saying there that *First* you will do tshuva and *then*
Hashem will return you.

---Rena

1. R. Akiva thought Bar-Kochba was the moshiach, but it didn't help him.

2. As of right now in history, it seems that as a result of Herzl, Jews
have a safe haven. But he might have instead just created the largest
and easiest setup for the eradication of the same (I live here, and I
see the full circle of Zionism making its close from supposed "ithchalta
d'geula" to "sof hachurban"—and davka Ben-Gurion's spiritual children
are bringing it on as fast as possible) Hashem Y'rachem!
Will he still have a tremendous z'chus and/or be a tzaddik?

3. "Ki lo yidach mimenu nidach" I won't be surprised to see Elisha Acher
in Olam Habo either. But how long in the Kah Hakela do you think he will
need to be? And granting this, maybe the Dor REvii was talking b'anivus
. . .

4. Did the Dor Revii himself place the appelation "zt"l" after Herzl's
name, and if not what right did anyone have to be m'chadesh al da'as
atzmom something so ridiculous? If he didn't, and Rav Kook didn't etc.,
don't you think maybe there was a reason?

5. And ending on the note I started, the Kitzur S'mag was believed by
many Gedolim not only to be the work of a talmid chacham, but written
by R. Moshe miCoucy himself. I'm sure the Gra ZT"L was shocked when he
got to the Olam haemes to find out it was written by a priest to slur
the Jews . . . (is the priest also going to Olam Habo? . . . maybe the
Gra will be his footstool? . . . )

Sof davar, a horse by any other name is still a horse.

Shlomoh

Some Further comments:
1) RYGB wishes to be mechalek between zechuyot and zidkut.  

With regard to the definition of a zaddik, I know of only one halachic
definition of a zaddik Rambam, Mishe Torah hilkhot tshuva 3:1 Kol echad
veechad mibne ha'adam yesh lo zchuyot va'avonot. Mi shezechuyotav
merubot al avonotav, zaddik

Of further interest to this discussion, hilkhot tshuva 3:3 veshikul ze
eno lefi minyan hazechuyot veha'avonot, ela lefi godlan.... veeyn shoklin
ela beda'ato shel kel deot..

Clearly, by the pshat in the rambam, there is an inherent, clear
relationship between being a zaddik and zechuyot (although we may not
always properly appreciate zechuyot)

I am aware that there are other approaches to a definition of a zaddik
expecially in hasidic sefarim, which would suggest that a zaddik is an
ontological state (I think that that is in R Zaddok's Zidkat Hazaddik,
but will stand corrected by those more knowledgable in Rav Zaddok), but
I fail to see the violent objections to equatiing zechuyot and being a
zaddik, given such a clear rambam.

2) RYGB keeps insisting that Herzl's actions weren't leshem shamayim,
his analogies are valid. I confess that I am truly puzzled by his logic.
However, to summarize his remarks

Herzl may have precipitated good, but we know nothing of any lishma on
his part, nothing about whether the positive ramifications are direct
results or the byproducts of a faulty deed, and we know that generating
good does not bestow tzaddik status.

Rather than focusing on zaddik (with its emotionally laden connotations),
I will focus on zechuyot, as the initial discussion was precisely whether
Herzl gets credit for his actions, and (as above), I for one am willing
to equate zechuyot and zaddik.

In general, we hold that mitzvot eyn tzrichot kavana or to be leshem
shamayim. What we may require is that they are not mitasek - that
the person be aware of what he is doing, and in general be trying
to accomplish the physical action involved( that he knows that he is
eating matza, or that it is a lulav he is picking up). Clearly, that
is true in Herzl's sake. He had the kavana to save Jewish lives (very
clear from his writings) and begin a Jewish homeland I don't think he
said a leshem yichud before convening the Congress, but that is not the
kavana required.) One can argue about what being leshem shamayim is,
and that the schar of a miztva without proper kavana may be less,
but it is still a zchut.

The other actions described in the gmara are not the question of lack
of knowledge or an incidentally faulty deed. All the cases discussed
where the deed done was clearly evil, and the question was whether
the good somehow inherent in the deed could excuse it. Unless you are
suggesting that Herzl was guilty of a great evil in his zionut, (which
I think that you rejected when I objected to the equation of Herzl and
Hitler) I fail to see the analogy.

Meir Shinnar

RYGB wrote
> Not the case at all. Aderaba - Dr. Shinnar and I (and he knows that I know
> that he knows this) are not at all arguing pro- or anti-Herzl. That is
> certainly not the case in point. The issue is defining the term "Tzaddik"
> and how to categorize someone as one, or not.

WADR, I respectfully disagree. I was actually very surprised at the
vehemence of the argument, over the use of an honorific that is so widely
used that it has virtually lost all meaning. As RDG astutely noted,
the zt"l was a minor point in a mecha'a over a tirade.

I think that it has evolved into a different discussion, but quite
clearly the motivation of the initial discussion was not a theoretical
one over the definition of a zaddik, but relates to Herzl's legacy.
If I would have applied the term zt"l to a nebbichel with a black hat,
this discussion would not have occured.

Herzl is in some ways a pure test case, so that it does make for an
interesting discussion - in terms of classical religious observance he
can legitimately be considered a tinok shenishba, rather than a rasha
(relating to a previous discussion about the status of tinok shenishba,
where, as far as I recall, the discussion ended with my posting of some
shut that were never refuted), who personally did not have the anti
religious (nor the pro religious) agenda of many of the later zionists,
who fought purely for a Jewish state for the sake of Jewish survival,
and was ultimately successful. The question of his being a zaddik clearly
cuts to the heart of whether we can recognize different models of zidkut
- something that many here have a difficult time accepting, but seems
pashut in RAYK, the Dor Revii, and the Rambam.

Meir Shinnar (my Dr is irrelevant to avoda, unless people have questions
about Lie groups or hearts)

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:44:48AM -0800, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On Rosh Hashana we have the famous prayer that hashem will determine
: in the coming year who will live who will die, who in his time etc.
: Rambam and others feel that Hashem intervenes only for special tzaddikim.
: Does this mean the siddur paskens against Rambam?

No -- but only because this is not a matter for pesaq.

Unlike the ikkarei emunah, the subject of who HQBH judges when has no
halachic impact, and therefore the rules of pesaq would not apply.

In any case, you would at most have shown that the siddur does not follow
the Rambam in a somewhat unrelated machlokes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On 15 Nov 2001, at 13:38, Eli Turkel wrote:
> BTW Nesanei Tokef is from R. Amnon.
> Immediately afterwards we say berosh hashana Is that also from R. Amnon?

AIUI at least until "maavirin es roah ha'gzeira" is from R. Amnon.

>> I think we have debated many times here the tfilla of Machnisei
>> Rachamim which raises this issue.

> My point was not whether is right or wrong just simply the fact that it is
> the siddur does not make it normative. I believe that Chatam Sofer
> did not say shalom aleichem

Source?

-- Carl

> 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)? 

http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html

Akiva

> There is no way to dismiss the terrible crisis in the world of Torah
> caused by the emergence of a sophisticated very impressive secular
> culture and science....

> Rav Soloveitchik observed all these phenomena. He wanted to revitalize
> Torah learning and restore its diminished glory.... The Rav himself 
> distinguished
> his outlook from that of Rav Hirsch. He used, in one of his drashot, the
> name "Ramatayim Tzofim" (See Shmuel I 1:1) symbolizing the dichotomy of
> Torah UMaddah. There are twin peaks -- one of Torah, the other of Maddah,
> which remain forever asunder. No synthesis exists

Thanks much for a terrific discussion of RYBS! This was a really good
post.

Alas, I'm not sure I buy all of it. At their best, RYBS's philosophical
writings, if perhaps not his psak, reveal him to be tortured man. He
might have preached that Torah and Maddah are "twin peaks which remain
forever asunder," that "no synthesis exists," but deep down I don't
think he really believed it. One of the essences of Talmud is anything
that is in any sense "true" in HaShem's world ultimately sythesizes with
everything else that is also "true," including whatever teachings can be
meaningfully gleaned from Maddah. Torah and Maddah, like Torah and Life,
are ultimately inseparable. RYBS's writings reveal that he knew that. He
couldn't deal with it, however, within the confines of the Brisker
sensibility to which he was the heir ascendant. Thus his existential
"loneliness," his constant sense of being divided from himself.

Much of the academic and scientific scholarship directed toward
Torah is irritatingly presumptuous. Much of it reflects the transient,
sometimes downright faddish, techniques secular scholars take up during
one generation and discard during the next. Some of it might even be
wrong, especially if it lacks true avodah and emunah. But I think one
has to take this scholarship in, to accept at least some of it on its
own terms. At least one has to try to understand it. That's the real
challenge of Torah U'Maddah."

David Finch 

At 12:50 PM 11/15/01 -0500, David Glasner wrote:
(deleted)
>I apologize for that long-winded introduction, but I felt it
>necessary to lay out my understanding of the context before responding
>to Rabbi Bechoffer's understanding of the Dor Revi'i's remark about Herzl.

Your understanding is accurate.

>And my response is simply this.  The original question was whether it was
>in some way an affront to the memory of all the tzadikim bi-yeshivah shel
>ma'alah to attach the term tzadik to Herzl.  I personally in the normal course
>of daily conversation would not refer to Herzl as a tzadik, nor I gather
>would Dr. Shinnar.  His use of the term was in arguing against a course of
>action whose, possibly unintended, but I think more likely intended,
>effect would be to denigrate and minimize the memory of Herzl....
>             The point of the Dor Revi'i's remark was not to say that
>Herzl was a tzadik.  He was trying to tell the Hungarian Jews of his time
>that Herzl's achievement in his lifetime, which was to revive the idea that
>the Jewish people could reestablish their national life in the land of their
>forefathers, had such transcendent merit that despite being, in Rabbi
>Kook's description, gadol ha-dor b'torah, b'hokhmah, bi'z'khut avot,
>u-v'midot terumiot, his own merit paled in comparison to Herzl's.  Herzl's
>gadlut, at least in the opinion of the Dor Revi'i, transcended the merit of
>a tzadik....

WADR to my good e-mail friend, RDG, you are still not understanding the 
DR's comment.

Let me draw the analog. If you, RDG, said that halevai you should merit 
being Herz's footstool in the Olam ho'Emes, we would not be particularly 
impressed - but, if you said that halevai your sainted great grandfather 
should merit to be Herzl's footstool, that would be very significant.

Similarly, that the DR made that statement, indicative of a positive 
attitude as it may be, it is not at all, due to the inherent anavah of any 
true Gadol, that impressive.

What would have been stunningly significant and impressive would be if the 
DR had said that halevai his sainted great grandfather (the Chasam Sofer) 
should merit to be Herzl's footstool.

But, of course, he did not. And would not.

>It seems to me almost irrelevant to do so, but I cannot resist
>citing the following words of the Rambam (T'shuvah 3:1).
>
>kol ehad v'ehad mi-b'nei ha-adam yeish lo z'khuyot v'avonot.  mi
>she-zekhuyotav y'teirot al avonotav tzadiq.

That Rambam is referring to a tzaddik b'dino, not the tzaddik of zt"l note.

[In a second email... -mi]

Dr. Shinnar, in his recent post on the topic of note in the subject line 
commits two major errors:

1. The Rambam in Hil. Teshuva is discussing a tzaddik b'dino - the Tanach 
and Shas are full of definitions of the persona of a Tzaddik as one who 
battles and conquers his YH!!!

The issue of lishma is critical to one's status in the Olam ho'Emes. See 
the last Rambam in the Peirush ha'Mishnayos in Makkos.

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

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


[ 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         ]