Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 081

Friday, December 28 2001

• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: Halacha Methodology
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Torah Temimah
• Rambam and elitism
• Selichos
• Re: Question on names
• Re: Mi chocHom veyishmor eileh...
• Re: ikkarim
• immutability of the siddur
• (im)mutability of siddur
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: RYBS, Chazaka and mesorah
• Re: Women and mayim acharonim
• Re: ikkarim
• Re: Pelishtim & R. Soloveitchik as academic
• Rambam as elitist
• Re: Avodah V8 #80
• Re: Avodah V8 #80-Moshiach
• Re: Rambam and elitism
• Re: Moshiach

> Mishna and TB are in a sense "first among equals" - more like a Prime
> Minister than a President - or is that Precedent?

This is not uniform among rishonim. You might want to check out klalei
HaRambam in the Yad Malachi.

> Similarly: when Briskers ask a kushiya on the Rambam, are they required
> to check out the {lemahsal} Kessef Mishneh's teirutz fist or can they
> indepndenlty reaearch w/o regard to the KM?
>
> In my hashkafah they may do so in Lamdus but NOT in psak!

I get very nervous when people divorce lamdus from psak. Are you
postulating a Ran-like distinction between theoretical ideal Torah (=
lomdus) and applied contaminated Torah (=psak)? Admittedly the Drashoth
HaRan is an admirable source; nonetheless the entire notion seems
pernicious to me (I'll try to formulate why sometime soon).

David Riceman

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>I agre that Ideally psak is neutral towards chumra and kullah. I am reading 
>the Bio of R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz. There is a footnote ther that 
>troubles me a lot.. It says a doctor has rachmanus on rich people more than 
>on poor because they help him make a better living - while - a Rav takes 
>more time to pasken the she;eilah of a poor man's chicken implying it is no 
>big deal to treif up a rich man's chicken becuase after all he can afford 
>it! and the poor man cannot!

At least for Ashkenazim who follow the Rema, hefsed merubah plays a
big part in paskening Yoreh Deah she'eilos. Evidently, RSFM was of the
opinion that hefsed merubah depends on the wealth of the sho'el.

>Similarly: when Briskers ask a kushiya on the Rambam, are they required to 
>check out the {lemahsal} Kessef Mishneh's teirutz fist or can they 
>indepndenlty reaearch w/o regard to the KM?

If they didn't then they probably aren't worthy of saying a sevara in the
first place. Not that they have to, but a talmid chacham will certainly
look in certain important seforim (everyone has their own favorites)
to see if their question has already been asked and if an answer was
proposed that they had not thought of.

>IMHO this explains the GRA's trigger for reformulating the zmanim against 
>Rabbeinu Tam's psak - which was after all nispahset - was davka becasue 
>Vilna was an extreme lattitude! That explains why Southern Germans and 
>others kept more like the Magen Avraham's
>shita of Alos to Tzeis - becasue after all the lattitude in Frankfort was
>not so extreme.

The Gra did not reformulate anything. He followed the shitah of early
rishonim that was standard for centuries. The following is what Professor
Shlomo Sternberg wrote in Bar Ilan's BDD Journal 6, Winter 1998, p. 77:

"[I] do not believe that this novel theory of Rabbenu Tam was ever
practiced by anyone during the lifetime of Rabbenu Tam or for the next
several centuries. On Friday night, it is inconceivable that Rabbenu Tam
could have lit candles long after sunset... Rabbenu Tam's position, at
least as far as Friday night is concerned, did become standard practice
in Eastern Europe around the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th
century, for reasons that I hope to explain elsewhere."

I probably have my European geography wrong (I never "got it" before
the fall of the iron curtain, kal vachomer after), but Southern German
probably followed the "Magen Avraham" because they were influenced by
Hungarians who adopted Rabbeinu Tam's shitah in the 16th century.

Gil Student

On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 02:39:03PM -0500, Allen Gerstl wrote:
: See the article 'Ha-Chatimah Ha-Sifrutit' ...
: The author discusses mainly Halachic closure after creation of the Mishna
: and then after the creation of the Talmud Bavli.
: The author, IIUI, discusses several explanations commonly given as to how
: that phenomenon works: 1. A Formal Conclave of Chachamim (Rav Elchanan
: Wasserman, Z"L) and 2. A realization by Chachmai Yisrael that a major
: change has occurred in the quality of our Torah knowledge - Nitkatnu
: Ha-Dorot and 3. A wide-spread acceptance among Chachmei Yisrael (which
: may take place over an extended period) of a Halachic work.

We have listed opinions on this subject before.

Also, they are not mutually exclusive. In general, #2 causes #3. People
tend to concur on following a seifer from the realization that the seifer
is a product of a qualitatively greater dor than theirs.

Third, different sefarim may have authority for different reasons,
and therefore different kinds of authority. For example, the Maharetz
Chayes holds that violating the mishnah is "lo sasur", but not other
sefarim. Because the mishnah is the product of #1. See RGS's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n084.shtml#11>.

And was it the CI or the CS (I confused them enough times this past week
not to rely on my memory) -- chad amar the mishnah is different in
kind because it's from the 2,000 yrs of Torah.

: He also adds that the fact that Chachamim of a later era will not override
: those of an earlier era is a generalized gross phenonmenon...

Similarly, RYBS was cited in those earlier discussions as saying that
it's not a lack of authority, but an personal acknowledgement of relative
greatness that keeps acharonim from disagreeing with rishonim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On 26 Dec 01, at 13:44, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/26/01 10:38:34am EST, Yitzchok Zlochower
> zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
>> I wonder if this sefer would arouse the same criticism if it were written
>> by a Rabbinic figure rather than a banker (R' Epstein's profession).

> Wasn't Pinchas Kahati a banker, too?

Yes, he was. AIUI he was given a leave of absence to finish writing 
his peirush. 

-- 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.

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> I wonder if this sefer would arouse the same criticism if it were written
> by a Rabbinic figure rather than a banker (R' Epstein's profession).

Whilst the TT may be imperfect in some ways, AFAIK he did most of the work
in the bank, where he did not have his sforim and definitely did not have a
Bar Ilan CD to help.

AS I tell my kanoi friends re the machaber of the Kehati Mishnayos: "Auf mir
gezogt the zchus of the thousands of hours of Torah studied through these
exceptionally 'user friendly' seforim".

SBA

<In yet another post: >Ha'me'ayein yivchar... But I continue to maintain
that the CI/REED/ >Volozhin model is a natural ramification of the
Rambam/YS philosophy.

I see RYGB's point. The Rambam says that the entire world was created
for the Chacham. Others were created to facilitate the Chacham.

This seems to directly translate into Rav Dessler's principle. So what
if the average or even above average student does not succeed to the best
of his ability? The system has facilitated the rise of the Chacham which,
according to the Rambam, is the point of everything in this world.

This elitism of the Rambam seems to be consistent throughout his earlier
and later writings. It does not mean that we have to follow it. It just
means that Rav Dessler was basing himself on the Rambam's elitism.>

To be more correct it might be based on selected parts of Rambam.
Rambam himself held that one should not be paid for learning and should
have a job to support oneself. So REED could not really be based on
Rambam. Besides I don't see anything in Rambam that consciously says that
the world should give up on all activities so that we have more chachamim.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/26/2001

In the preamble to the1966 Teshuvah Drasha available from R Nordlicht
(but not very clear) RYBS encourages everyone to reestablish the saying
of selichos.  

Leon Manel wrote on Areivim:
>Someone asked, Why do many MO even big talmedei chachamim use their english 
>names even when it is not necessitated by the circumstances. Many tlmedei 
>chachamim use their english names even in the Beis midrash and yeshiva shul 
>setting. What happened to lo shina es shmam.

What about Pinchas, which is an undeniably Egyptian name (see the letter
in the back of Torah Lodaas vol. 3 by a R. Binyamin Yosef Mandel)?
Or Moshe, which the Netziv (and historians) say is an Egyptian name
(see also the Malbim who quotes from Philo)?

Clearly, there is no chiyuv not to change one's name (or clothing or
language). We keep mitzvos which identify us as a people. In Mitzrayim,
they did not keep mitzvos. The only thing that kept them together were
the few things they did not change.

Gil Student

Aryeh Stein wrote:
>This reminds me of RSZA's nusach for Birchas Hagomel (that I recently 
>shared with R' Carl). RSZA was never comfortable with the word "kol" in 
>Birchas Hagomel ("Hagomel leChayavim tovos shegemalani *kol* tov," and the 
>listeners answer: "Mi shegemalcha *kol* tov, Hu yigmalcha kol tov selah." 
>(Because it doesn't make sense to thank Hashem for giving us "all good" 
>when we just went through an experience that obviously wasn't so good.)

One of the alter bachurim in YU got engaged over the summer and was
then in a car accident, escaping harm. He bentched gomel that Shabbos in
Morasha Kollel. R. Mordechai Willig quoted the above comment from RSZA
and suggested that the "kol tov" refers to the many chasadim that Hashem
does for us that were not assigned a beracha. The "kol tov" refers to
the specific incident (being saved from injury in a car crash) and other
things that do not have a beracha (finally getting engaged). [Heard from
R. Daniel Z. Feldman]

Gil Student

In a message dated 12/21/01 12:26:08pm EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Back when that thread was active, somebody mentioned rav Bleich's article
> where he squoted the 'Hatam Sofer that ikkarei emunah can be paskened upon
> just like other areas of halakhah and some of them have been paskened
> upon....
> According to him, the notion of deot being inappropriate as psakable
> material is not true, because we are paskening on the consequences,
> not on the actual truths. He finds little or no reluctance to use psak
> in deot matters.

> However, he also told me that a psak in deot should not prevent somebody
> from investigating shitot de'huyot and even finding them true...

I agree essentially with his points. I would add that aisi over time we
HAVE arrived at a consensus i.e. the Rambams Ikkarim have set the agenda
and there are soem gray areas that are quibbled upon.

IOW it is OK to re-interpret one of the Rambam's ikkarim, but it is not
OK to reject them outright.

Lemashal if you were to say there is NOT mitavah of Tzitzis you are a
mumar for that mitzvah

BUT

If you insist that Tzitizs requires Davka techieles and we have none
today so therefore I do not wear Tzitzis - you might be wrong but you
are NOT a mumar for that mitzvah.

So subscription to the Program of 13 IS an Ikkar. Agreeing with all the
details is not an ikkar.

This is kina like accepint the Shulchan Aruch. Most yiddn when they
say they accept the authority of the SA they do NOT necessarily mean
they pasken like mehaber rema or even like the main nos'ei keilim in
every case.

This goes back to process vs. text - or more alliteratively as process vs.
product.

The Rambam put out a product, but what was nispashet was a process within
his product.

This explains Tosafos at times. When Tosafos does not seem to pasken
like the makskanna of the Gmara it is often because he is applying
hisown Talmudic process to the product. Tosafos at times seems to have
accepted Shas as more than a fixed document, but more of a fixed agenda
upon which we can continue to proceed.

This seems to concur with what Micha metioned to me off-list. In the era
of Rishonim Sephardim were more into texts and codes, ashkenazim ore into
peirush. Perhaps the Rambam would be flabbergasted as to how his Ikkarim
have evolved, but that reminds me of the Midrash re: Moshe Rabbineu in R.
Akiva's Shiur where the baffled Moseh Rabbeinu is dis-oriented until
R. Akiva dsecrbies it all as emanating from Moshe Rabbeinu.

Creators of Programming languages can understand this. You set up a
language and a set of rules of syntax, but the human creator of a language
cannot possibly foresee all the algorithms that will for formulated in
that language. Chess is simliar. You have fixed pieces and fixed rules
but virtually no game is predictable.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> I will get back on this topic, but I remeber seeing that early 
> Ashkenaz rishonim were very adamant that the nussa'h is fixed, and 
> even showed how important the fixed nature is, by counting words in 
> various tefillot and showing how that count is the correct count. 
> Thus, keriat shemah has [248 -mi] words...               I believe 
> that rav Elazar ba'al haRokea'h was involved in this. ...

I was confused by this argument. Rokeach and other chasidei ashkenaz
who used these arguments were attacking the French rishonim i.e.
baale tosaphot who did not hold of these nuschaot. Since, Ashkenaz Jewry
usually poskim like tosaphot and not chasidei ashkenaz we do not stress
the counting of words which is a more kabbalistic approach

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/27/2001

As indicated in a previous post, here are some references that show that
Ashkenaz was already in times of the rishonim very concerned with the
immutability of the tefillah texts (I avoid siddur, because I am not
sure they would be against adding tefilot, or just against changing
existing ones.)

Rav Elazar haRokea'h writes in his intro to Pirushei haTefillah laRokea'h,
(Jerusalem 5752, v1 pg 1 par 2) "Va-anakhnu nefaresh kol e'had vae'had [of
the 100 brakhot] lehodi'a livnei adam biur kol e'had, <emphasis!>vekamah
teivot bekhol e'had, beli ligro'a ubli lehosif</emphasis>, kefi asher
kibalnu meavoteinu."

(v2, pg 630 par 5) "Elokeinu vElokei avoteinu, 'hadesh 'aleinu et
ha'hodesh hazeh <commentary deleted> letovah velivrakhah lesason
ulesim'hah liyeshu'ah ulene'hamah lefarnassah ulekhalkalah le'hayim
[without "tovim"!] uleshalom, lime'hilat 'het velisli'hat avon, harei 12
devarim, keneged 12 'hodashim, ve12 sha'ot beyom ve12 sha'ot balaylah,
ve12 mazalot, ve12 shvatim, zekhutan yagen 'aleinu."

I would assume that, upon investigating the Avudraham, I might find more
references. I will check BEH and should post the findings. Is anybody
on the list aware of such statements by Sefardi sources?

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

David Riceman:
> I get very nervous when people divorce lamdus from psak. Are you
> postulating a Ran-like distinction between theoretical ideal Torah (=
> lomdus) and applied contaminated Torah (=psak)? Admittedly the Drashoth
> HaRan is an admirable source; nonetheless the entire notion seems
> pernicious to me (I'll try to formulate why sometime soon).

I think we discussed a similar idea wrt R' Halivni and interpretation
of the talmud (or maybe it was somewhere else). AIUI according to
the Wissenschaft approach, the stam of the gemora interprets previous
statements and one might strip the stam away and interpret the original
statements differently (and perhaps closer to what was actually meant)
based on other girsaot/evidence etc. yet one might say that while this
is an interesting theoretical approach, the halachik mesora remains
unchanged.

KT
Joel Rich

Listen to the 1972 or 1973 shiur re Korach. very similar critique and
methodology re concept of Baalei Hamesorah.

Also, check out a piece in Igros HaGrid in which most of the shiur
addressed to the Rabbinic Alumni is found in a shiur in Hilchos Melachim
or Mamrim.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

R. Seth Mandel wrote:
>A separate issue arose with the Vilner Gaon, who held 'al pi halokho that 
>the original taqqono of mayim acharonim could not be botel. This view never 
>penetrated beyong his followers,
>although it created some confusion in that people who were washing the 
>Ashk'naz mayim acharonim als chumro thought that
>they were washing 'al pi halokho. If they were, of course, they would 
>follow the halokhos of mayim acharonim as brought
>by the rishonim and even by the Tur (before he notes that people don't do 
>it, a practice he similarly does in the similar
>case of the issur of mashqim m'gullim): a r'vi'is of water and
>the same part of the hand as for mayim rishonim.

I know it's a mistake to challenge R. Mandel on rishonim, but Torah hi...

The Beis Yosef (OC 181) quotes the Rashba, Rabbeinu Bachya (ben Asher),
Kol Bo, and Mordechai as being lenient on mayim acharonim regarding the
shiur, the amount of hand needed to be washed, and whether it requires
drying.

To what rishonim are you referring?

Gil Student

Quoting RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> IOW it is OK to re-interpret one of the Rambam's ikkarim, but it is not
> OK to reject them outright.
<snip>
> This is kina like accepint the Shulchan Aruch. Most yiddn when they say
> they accept the authority of the SA they do NOT necessarily mean they pasken
> like mehaber rema or even like the main nos'ei keilim in every case.  
<snip>
> This seems to concur with what Micha metioned to me off-list.  In the
> era of Rishonim Sephardim were more into texts and codes, ashkenazim ore into
> peirush.  Perhaps the Rambam would be flabbergasted as to how his
> Ikkarim have evolved, but that reminds me of the Midrash re: Moshe Rabbineu in
> R. Akiva's Shiur where the baffled Moseh Rabbeinu is dis-oriented until R.
> Akiva dsecrbies it all as emanating from Moshe Rabbeinu.

I will reinforce the analogy with the midrash. There is an
(apocryphal?) story that RAK once gave a shiur klali based upon a
Rambam. After the shiur, a ba'hur came over to him and told him that
there is a problem: the Rambam has a teshuvah that disagrees with RAK's
interpretation of Rambam! Upon which rav Aharon replied "der Rambam zogt
azei (I assume he spoke a Litvishe Yiddish, so I'll put my Galitzianer
tendencies asside), und/ober ikh zog andisht". The story enjoys a wide
circulation in Lakewood, and some interpret it as RAK's license for
original thought; he took an idea from Rambam and went elsewhere than
Rambam with it. The parallel with the midrash is striking!

OTOH, when doing such developments, we must not claim that that is Rambam,
rather it is my/your/his REinterpretation of Rambam. This is an important
sindenote to the methodology of halakhah thread: just because a rishon
thought something is in Shas does not mean it really is there. It means
that that rishon thinks so, and if there is ground for disagreement, the
psak will not be anymore binding than that rishon's propensity to bind.

Arie Folger 

> With the passage of time, that line, and
> with it the saying of s'lichos, was eliminated--not because of s'vara.
> RYBS was machazir atarah l'yoshnah. I don't know what basis was used
> for the specific ones said, but I suspect it was those of a specific
> k'hillah with which he was familiar. In any event, it represents not
> the overriding, but rather the restoration of m'sorah.

The shuls in Teaneck that say Slichos, which I believe include Rinat, Beth 
Aaron, and perhaps Beth Abraham as well, took the Slichos from the ones YU 
says, also obviously at the insistence of RYBS. Perhaps someone on this list 
knows how those choices were made at the time in YU.  I cannot offhand think 
of any other community that says them, perhaps others have as well?

Jordan 

Don't forget that two of the Rambam's three major works were specifically
aimed at the masses, the Peirush HaMishnayoth was written in Arabic
so that even someone who didn't know Hebrew could learn Torah, and the
Mishneh Torah was written at least partly so that towns without scholars
could nonetheless adjudicate disputes al pi Torah.

Even the Moreh Nebuchim, which is the Rambam's elitist work, was written
in the vernacular. I don't know how successfully, but in the early
modern era it was used as an introduction to philosophy (against the
Rambam's advice).

My recollection is that the Rambam uses the theory you've developed only
in the context of revealing esoteric doctrines to those who may be harmed
by them, not in the context of falsely encouraging people.

David Riceman

The difference between the "explication," "interpretation," and 
"modification" of text is pretty elusive, particularly in reference to a 
linguistic genius like Rashi. I am sure that Rashi found many things obvious 
that lesser poskim found vexing or opaque. Rashi's technique required little 
of the "latitude" displayed by the strenuous mental gymnastics of Tosafos. 
That doesn't mean Rashi was any less creative or profound. He just didn't 
sweat as much.

David Finch

rav Ahron soloveichek zt'l told the story of r.Chaim of Volozhin, in
whose day there was excitement over a certain person who was believed
to be moshiach. People were selling their property, etc. A minister in
the rusian gov., alarmed over the potential los o revenue, asked R.Chaim
if he believed this fellow was the moshiach.He answered with a guestion:
"Do YOU believe he is the moshiach?" The minister answered,"No, of course
not." R.Chaim then said that when moshiach comes, even the czar will
know it and acknowledge it.R.Ahron went on to say that this is what we
should tell Lubavitch chasidim when they say that the rtebbe is moshiach.

At 05:16 PM 12/26/01 -0800, Eli Turkel wrote:
...
>This elitism of the Rambam seems to be consistent throughout his earlier
>and later writings. It does not mean that we have to follow it. It just
>means that Rav Dessler was basing himself on the Rambam's elitism.>

>To be more correct it might be based on selected parts of Rambam.
>Rambam himself held that one should not be paid for learning and should
>have a job to support oneself. So REED could not really be based on
>Rambam. Besides I don't see anything in Rambam that consciously says that
>the world should give up on all activities so that we have more chachamim.

Agreed!

KT,
YGB

[A number of emails forwarded by RYGB. -mi]

1. the comments re limiting Gd are altogether incomprehensible. WE limit G-d?
GD said that He will reward etc., so that is HIS commitment, not our
limitation. And insofar that maggid devarav leYaakov etc., He is "bound" to
keep His word (like the shve'vu'ot by G-d).
By swearing re geza Yishai you are simply affirming G-d's word, not limiting
Him. By swearing it is (or is not) the Rebbe you are affirming your personal
opinion which may or may not be correct as we do not know G-d's intent, i.e.,
whom He chooses/chose. So that would indeed be shtuss and worse.
2. In view of Ari and Or Hachayim they were not just the Mashiach hador. If
their generations had been worthy they would have been Mashiach in person.
This does not exclude being Mashiach later on, personally or by ibbur
haneshamot.
3. Indeed, to reject the possibility of the Rebbe becoming (!!) Mashiach
vadai is just as arbitrary as to affirm it. Again, who knows Gd's intent???
4. The resurrection of the tzadikim is definitely prior to Mashiach as
explained in the sources on the basis of kol hamitavel al Yerushalayim zocheh
vero'eh benechemata: zocheh vero'eh, they explain, means to see and witness
the whole procedure and development of the ge'ulah, for that is the true and
ultimate nechamah, and not just to come to the shulchan aruch to see Israel
in its ultimate glory ex post facto. This has nothing to do with the debate
as to when the "regular" techiyah will occur.
5. The way I read the Rambam it means that we may feel assured of the one
with chezkat Mashiach that it is happening now, a process has been set into
motion. Thus when you see that he died and the Messianic prophecies have not
been fulfilled, then you KNOW that this wasn't the redemptive process and
chakeh lo. That does not exclude the possibility of a renewed chezkat
Mashiach when the actual time will come, i.e., that Gd may choose one of the
resurrected tzadikim. Indeed, that is the only way to interpret the
concept of demin meitaya, which, though indeed an unusual view, still remains
a valid possibility. And as Rambam etc. state, in such matters (esp. hilcheta
limeshicha) one cannot rule who is right or wrong as it does not affect
halachah lema'aseh.

[Email #2. -mi]

>>On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:42:19PM -0500, RYGB forwarded from RIS:
>>: 1. Your corresp. is obviously unaware of the meaning of Divine
>>: omnipotence, i.e., that it does not relate to logical absurdities (see
>>: Emunos Vedeos, Moreh, Ikkorim etc.)

>>OTOH, see Derech Hashem. The Ramchal argues that logic itself is a beryah,
>>so how could HQBH be limited by it?

and of course Ramchal uses logic to prove the relativity of logic.... Rest 
my case.

>>This does not speak to the real objection. I just wanted to point out
>>that it's subject to machlokes.

It is indeed seemingly subject to machlokes, not on those grounds but with 
view of Teshuvos Harashbo who speaks of G in terms of nimna hanimno'os. 
Chassidic teachings follow this view. Some texts try to explain this 
direct "denial" of what ALL chokrei Yisroel say, by distinguishing between 
difering bechinos in Elokus, but ein kan hamokom leha'arich.

>>: 2. Just what is wrong with possibility of immaculate conception??? Is
>>: that our beef with Chr.? Do we object to that in principle?

>>Not the conception, but the concept of man-god certainly.

But that is not what he was talking about

>>What if someone would say r"l that Hashem did something unjust or
>>downright evil. Would you except his argument that you must either agree
>>with him or be limiting H's omnipotence?

This example is even worse than the proverbial rock so heavy that G can't 
pick it up. The rock we can at least conceive of. Can you conceive of G 
doing something unjust or evil when HE is the definition of just and 
good???? In any case, it's back to the absurdity of whether you limit G by 
saying He "can't do" the logically impossible, and already dealt with by 
R. Saadia Gaon.

>>Similarly, one cann not invoke the idea of "omnipotence" to support the
>>claim that there was a man-god, or that some given eschatology can't
>>be kefirah.

Interesting. That is precisely the argument (of kol yochol) used to defend 
the shito of the Gra (and those who held it already before him) of the 
logical absurdity of tzimtzum kipshuto, esp. in context of the Rashbo.

>>: 3. Resurrected Moshiach is no shtus at all (or are you accusing Chazal
>>: etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid,
>>: Doniel etc.?!). Limiting it to one individual exclusively, and saying
>>: that Gd is restricted to the appointment of one individual, THAT is shtus.

>>So then you concur -- the meshichist position is shetus. What's this whole
>>argument about, then?

I am not arguing, just explicating. By the same token, the absolutist 
rejection in principle of the meshichist's view as a possibility is shtuss 
no less. That's all I am saying.

>>: 8. "We all know about techiyas hameissim." From the way he writes -
>>: obviously not. Just what is his problem or difficulty with what I
>>: wrote? He offers a typical example of mixing chitim and se'orim (in his
>>: vernacular: apples and oranges).

>>Now /you/ are equating apples an oranges: equating his rejection of a
>>pareticular suggestion about techiyas hameisim with rejecting ThM bichlal.

>>One can believe in ThM without believing in gilgulim. Not all
>>reincarnation is ThM. Belief in techiyas hameisim does not mean that one
>>believes that a particular individual -- or anyone -- wil be resurrected
>>/before/ yemos hamoshiach.

>>Or even during. It could be after, as per the Ramban, who sets "olam
>>haba" to be the period /after/ Yemos haMoshiach, when people will be
>>living eternal post-ThM lives.

>>But whether ThM /could/ be understood as being before mashiach, and in
>>fact providing mashiach, the belief is without backing in mesorah. To
>>protest this gilui panim baTorah does not mean denying an ikkar.

Now you are really mixing apples and oranges. All you write here has 
absolutely nothing to do with the earlier discussion. There is the 
normative TH (which is the one normally spoken about) and the special one 
for tzadikim PRIOR to Moshiach. Neither have to do with gilgul or ibbur, 
but are literal. Gilgul or ibbur enters in the discussion of nishmas 
Moshiach which is a compound neshomoh. A resurrected tzadik can be 
Moshiach literally, in person, or retain his individuality and still have 
by gilgul or ibbur "part" of his neshomoh in Moshiach (as, e.g., re Mosheh 
and Dovid, as stated by Ari and Or Hachayim), or may not be Moshiach at all.

[Email #3. -mi]

This is going from bad to worse, in an incredible way

>>Is Dr. Schochet saying that imacculate conception is a logical
>>absurdity?

No, it is definitely not a logocal absurdity!
Or is he saying the opposite, that we don't object to

>>immaculate conception in principle? IIUC the question "Do we object
>>to that in principle?" sounds rhetorical ... and that we really don't
>>object to it at all. Is that true? If so, I find it incredible that he
>>so easily accepts one of the basic tennents of Christian doctrine which
>>they cite as one of the proofs of Jesus's divinity.

a) No, we do not object to it in principle! I don't mind at all whethetr 
it is or is not true. Either way it isd totally irrelevant. It proves 
nothing except for a miraculous birth, just as the alleged resurrection of 
JC proves absolutekly nothing except that he came alive again. You need 
some elementary courses in critical thinking and theology, my friend. I do 
not accept their beliefs or tenets, but even if I were to accept all their 
alleged miracles, not one of them proves any of their doctrines! Remember 
the chartumei Mitzrayim, and what the rishonim say about miracles.


>>> 3. Resurrected Moshiach is no shtus at all (or are you accusing Chazal
>>> etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid,
>>> Doniel etc.?!).

>>No, I'm not accusing Chazal etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who
>>suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid, Doniel.

>>It's the "etc.?!)" part of his statement to which I object. This "etc"
>>which he adds to the Gemmarah over there is being used by him to validate
>>the possibility of someone other than "Doniel" as being Moshiach.
>>IIRC the Gemmarah was very clear. If the Moshiach is from the living,
>>it is...(I don't recall who the Gemmarah mentioins over there) if from
>>the dead it is Doniel. DONIEL, NOT THE REBBE! There was no etc.

Next time, before you answer, look up the sources first. The Gemoroh does 
not say Doneil davka, but kegon Doniel!! That is a very big etc. In fact 
my etc. referred to others that are mentioned in sources.

>>> Limiting it to one individual
>>> exclusively, and saying that Gd is restricted to the appointment of one
>>> individual, THAT is shtus.

>>That IS shtus but that is not all that is Shtus.

Quite right, and you proved it, along with others and their arguments.

>>> 4. He falls into Berger's (and certain roshei yeshivos') trap by feeling
>>> constrained to distance himself from Chr. beliefs. What about their belief
>>> in G-d, the Bible, the concept of Moshiach, the prophetic values etc. -
>>> will we now have to distance ourselves from these as well? We are defined
>>> by our truth and not by the differences between us and them.

>>Yes we are defined by our truth but it is not so much how we are
>>defined that is the issue here. It is about the absurdity of the above
>>statement comparing Christian doctrine favorably with Torah. Is Dr.
>>Schochet inclined to closer identification with Christian doctrine? If
>>so he is doing a fine job by defending one of the cardinal tenents of
>>Christianity, that of the ressurection of Christ.

You and your friends are the ones who make these comparisons. I never did. 
And since you are so erudite in Chr., anything that calls to your mind 
similarity to Chr. doctrines, you automatically reject it because of this. 
Thus you are to'eh bidvar Mishnah - Avodah Zara 44b! I identify with truth 
only, and I don't care whether that truth appears in other places or not.

>>> 5. His suggestion that from an intellectual point of objectivity
>>> we should also have to defend the possibility of "truth" in Islam or
>>> Chr. demonstrates his unbelievable ignorance of his own roots.

>>Now that... is a cheap shot.

I didn't know that truth can be a cheap shot.

>>> It is like suggesting a defense for the possibility of a square
>>> circle.

>>I was not suggesting that at all. Religious belief is not based on
>>logical absurdities which is how he is trying to characterize Islam. No
>>one would beleieve in a square circle as it is an inherently impossble
>>definition. This is very strange as a moment ago he felt that much of
>>Christainity is OK by us but now he considers it unbelievable ignorance.

What an incredible transcendental leap. Just because certain Chr. beliefs 
are logical possibilities has nothing to do with the Chr. faith per se. 
The latter is indeed a logical absurdity, even as it is re Islam. Once you 
have established an absolute truth, anything contradicting or violating it 
is ipso facto false, thus absurd.

>>> Even a ben
>>> chomesh lemikro knows the possuk of atoh horeisso loda'as etc. which ipso
>>> facto disproves the possibility of any other religion.

>>It does? What is it about "atoh horeisso loda'as" "You have been shown
>>to know" ... Ki HaShem Hu HaElokim"... "that HaShem is G-d" "Ein Od
>>Bilvado"... "There is no one else, only He alone" ... that Christianity
>>or Islam would object to? Last time I checked Isalm beleieved that
>>there is only one G-d and even Christianity beleives that too only
>>they believe that the ressurected Messiah will be some sort of godly
>>manifestation. Christianity maintains it is monotheistic allthough we
>>consider it dualistic and some form of Shituf.

You just proved my point. You obviously don't understand this simple 
possuk. Ato horeisso - means you were SHOWN, even on level of empirical 
evidence, by mattan Torah, so that now your faith is on level of loda'as, 
and not simple belief. Whatever Chr or Islam believe - Gd, oneness of Gd, 
the Bible (though Islam not fully so, as explained by Rambam in his 
teshuvos) etc. - is irrelevant. Their religions are false and their 
prophets are false prophets. See above.

>>As a matter of fact if you consider what DR. Schochet is saying it sounds
>>as if the only real difference between Christianity and Lubavitch belief
>>in a resurrected Messiah is that the former deifies him and the latter
>>doesn't. At least MOST Lubavitchers don't.

This is not a cheap shot, but a totally ignorant one. You are telling me 
what YOU believe, but nothing about myself.

>>> 6. His definition for "belief" relates exclusively to credulity or
>>> blind faith, not to emunoh. In Judaism there is no such thing: atoh
>>> horeisso LODA'AS!

>>Emunah IS more than justy blind faith but I don't know that dependinig
>>soley on these words as being anything but blind faith

Really don't know what you are talking about.

>>> 7. Is Moshiach just a title? Let him learn the defin. of Moshiach in
>>> Hilchos Teshuvoh. Just because Moshe Rabeinu and Moshiach are the greatest
>>> prophets etc. does not mean that I have to go to them.

>>Is Dr. Schochet saying that if someone else other than the Rebbe is
>>Moshiach... he is not going?

>>That reminds me about what R. Chaim Shmulevitz said when he had heard
>>that Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe Moshiach: "Az Er Iz Moshiach... Gei
>>Ich Nit!"

Well, that goes to prove the chochom odif minovi of the Baal Hatanya (and 
others attribute it to the Kotzker as well). When asked whether Moshiach 
will be a chossid or misnaged, he answered "definitely a misnaged. For if 
he will be a chossid, the misnagdim will not want to go. We, however, will 
go regradless who Moshiach will be!"
Just for the record, personally I don't believe that RCS would or could 
say that, for alternatively .... (I leave this unwritten and unspoken, 
left to your imagiantion).

>>...
>>> 8. "We all know about techiyas hameissim." From the way he writes -
>>> obviously not. Just what is his problem or difficulty with what I
>>> wrote? He offers a typical example of mixing chitim and se'orim (in his
>>> vernacular: apples and oranges).

>>Is he saying that the Rebbe's re-incarnation will be separate and apart
>>from the general Techiyas HaMeism?

Obviously he did not read what I wrote, otherwise there is just no way in 
the world he could ask this. So zil gemor, read what I wrote.

>>> 9. "so-called gedolim" - all those who think like he does because they
>>> do not know, or do not study, the sources, which in halochoh is regarded
>>> korov lemeizid.

>>Who does he mean by "so-called gedolim"? R. Chaim Shmulevitz? The Brisker
>>Rav? Rav Shach?

I clearly defined what I meant and the rest is commentary. So don't again 
put words in my mouth and try to politicize issues.
Hopefully this will end this pilpul shel hevel. Kadmissu pumaichyu 
le'udnaichu was a merit at mattan Torah, but is totally unacceptable in 
every other

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


[ 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         ]