Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 083

Wednesday, January 2 2002

• Re: Rambam and REED
• davening 'credits'
• RE: davening 'credits'
• re: davening 'credits'
• re: davening 'credits'
• re: davening 'credits'
• re: davening 'credits'
• re: davening 'credits'
• Re: davening 'credits'
• Re: Halakhah methodology
• Re: halakhik methodology
• Re: (im)mutability of the siddur
• Re: Seli'hot
• Re: English names
• Re: Avodah V8 #81
• re: davening 'credits'
• RE: davening 'credits'
• Re: Seli'hot
• gedolim, da'at Torah & etc. - a framework for study

Reb "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are saying that schools should be designed to make everyone a chacham.
>   REED would probably counter that this is impossible and will end up
> making no one a chacham.  He would also say that the role of non-chacham is
> under-rated.  Better to have a few chachamim with many other meshamshim
> than no chachamim with a lot of top-quality meshamshim.

In hakhi nami. REED states explicitly that the Frankfurt model (RSH's
TiDE school) produced more fone baalei batim who are shomrei Torah,
but no gedolim. Seen in this context, when he is willing to sacrifice
999 for th e one true gadol, he is even willing to put up with some
shababnikim going off the derekh.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

Carl mentioned:
> When Baruch Yosef became ill, one of my Chaverim here
> suggested that I call the almana and ask that she and her
> children be mispallel for Baruch Yosef by my American
> Chaver's kever in America that some of the merit of the
> Tehillim that I said for my Chaver should go for Baruch Yosef.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, you're asking
that some prayer 'credits' be transferred from one person to another.
I've always wondered about this type of thing: How is it that some people
look at tefillot and zechuyot with a simple mathematical formula? For
example: If I say tehillim for a group of people, is it less effective
than saying for one person in particular?
Do people really believe that there's a heavenly accountant keeping track
of exactly which tefillot were 'used up' and how much is left until the
'account' is empty? That we can transfer credit to someone else's account,
or that we can get a larger return on our 'investment' by playing certain
tricks? For example, Some people split up the whole sefer tehillim among
a bunch of people so that they can get 'credit' for completing the whole
book, with much less effort. Is there a source for this sort of view?

Avi Burstein

Shortly after R' Yitzchok Isbee, z'l (a rav in Flatbush) was niftar (at
a relatively young age), I heard R' Frand ("RF") speak. RF said that he
had heard many people asking "We said so much tehilim/davened so hard
for for R' Isbee? Were these tefilos said in vain?"

R' Frand provided one answer: No, these tefilos were not in vain.
HKBH took these tefilos and saved them (and for, reasons unknown to us,
did not "use" them to save R' Isbee). There are times when tzaros strike
k'lal yisroel and, due to the sudden nature of the tzaroh, we are unable
to daven for help. It is at times like these that Hashem then uses the
tefilos that we said for other situations.

For instance, when we hear about a bomb exploding in Israel and that the
casualty rate was lower than expected, we can assume that our tefilos
(previously said for other reasons) were "applied" to this situation
(since we were unable to daven before the bomb exploded because we didn't
know it was going to happen.)

(This is obviously just one answer to a complex question, and I don't
recall the source that RG gave, if any.)

KT
Aryeh

[PS: Carl added about TYI:
> And a tremendous magid shiur. His Torah lives on through the many 
> Dial a Daf tapes that he made. 
-mi]

R' Avi Burstein asks: <<< How is it that some people look at tefillot
and zechuyot with a simple mathematical formula? For example: If I say
tehillim for a group of people, is it less effective than saying for
one person in particular? ... That we can transfer credit to someone
else's account, or that we can get a larger return on our 'investment'
by playing certain tricks? For example, Some people split up the whole
sefer tehillim among a bunch of people so that they can get 'credit'
for completing the whole book, with much less effort. Is there a source
for this sort of view? >>>

Perhaps we can understand this better if we first ask about the mechanics
of davening for others in general.

As I understand it, when I daven for someone, I show Hashem that
the person is close to me, and that if he is in pain, it pains me as
well. It is not a heavenly accounting trick that the zechus that I get
for a certain mitzvah should go on someone else's account. Rather, I ask
Hashem to relieve *my* pain by healing that *other* person. According to
this, it seems to me that the urgency to heal that person is a function
of how much pain I feel from that other person's illness. My davening,
therefore, be more effective for a close relative than for someone whose
name I saw on a list. On the other hand, the davening will not be diluted
by davening for a larger group of people, because I have the same amount
of pain over A's and B's illness whether C is ill or not.

On the other hand, who's to say that I am unable to transfer my zechuyos
to someone else's account? Aren't there many stories of tzadikim who did
exactly that? According to this mechanism, I can transfer zechuyos to
anyone, whether near or far, provided that Hashem knows who the recipient
should be. (This was discussed in a recent thread about what happens if
we mess up the person's name.) On the other hand, this sort of accounting
*would* dilute the zechuyos if distributed to a larger number of people.
(This is my own reasoning, based on L'fum Tzaara Agra. If "accounting"
works in the Beis Din Shel Maalah, then it has to be a mathematical
accounting.)

Okay, so I guess I painted myself into a corner here. Two mechanisms,
both logical, but diametrically opposite in results. Well, I don't claim
to have all the answers. All constructive comments are welcome.

Akiva Miller

Aryeh Stein wrote:
> RF said that he had heard many people asking "We said
> so much tehilim/davened so hard for for R' Isbee? Were
> these tefilos said in vain?"
> R' Frand provided one answer:  No, these tefilos were
> not in vain.  HKBH took these tefilos and saved them
> (and for, reasons unknown to us, did not "use" them to
> save R' Isbee).  There are times when tzaros strike k'lal
> yisroel and, due to the sudden nature of the tzaroh, we
> are unable to daven for help.  It is at times like these
> that Hashem then uses the tefilos that we said for other situations.

I didn't need another example of someone behaving like that and explaining
that in shamayim, they 'save up' davening credits and 'use' them later
on. I know very well that people believe it. I asked what the source
was for it. Is there a source in any of the classical seforim for such
a view or are all these explanations coming from gedolim stories (both
current and past)?
I also don't see how we can be 'unable' to daven. Before a bomb goes
off, I have davened many times for the safety and security of my fellow
Jews. Three times a day (at least) we all pray that the wicked designs
of those who plot our downfall shouldn't succeed. What else could these
prayers possibly be intended for? We are always praying for all sorts
of situations, those we currently find ouselves in and those that have
yet to happen.

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> ...when I daven for someone....I ask Hashem to relieve
> *my* pain by healing that *other* person. According to this,
> it seems to me that the urgency to heal that person is a
> function of how much pain I feel from that other person's illness.
> OTOH, the davening will not be diluted by davening for a
> larger group of people, because I have the same amount
> of pain over A's and B's illness whether C is ill or not.

I appreciate your explanation of the mechanics of tefilla and according
to that explanation, your statement above would seem to be true. But
according to this reasoning, the tefilla for A & B will hardly be
effective for C, since being that you don't know him (you only got his
name from a list), you don't feel too much pain from his sickness. Since C
isn't a cause of your heartfelt expression of pain, HKBH wouldn't consider
the pain you feel for A & B a factor when dealing with C. In addition,
according to your explanation, the whole idea of 'transferring credit'
doesn't make any sense. The pain you feel for A's suffering can't be
'saved' for someone else or for a 'later use'!

> On the other hand, who's to say that I am unable to
> transfer my zechuyos to someone else's account?
> Aren't there many stories of tzadikim who did exactly that?
> According to this mechanism, I can transfer zechuyos to
> anyone, whether near or far, provided that Hashem knows
> who the recipient should be.

Huh? What mechanism are you demonstrating here? That "tzadikkim did
it"? How do we know what really happened upstairs or what mystical powers
tzaddikim can have to make things happen? I don't think general public
practice and 'hashkafa' should be established from a few stories of the
sainted and exalted.
Please understand clearly, I'm not saying you can or can't, just that
it sounds a bit simplistic and far fetched (see above). I have no idea
how things work upstairs (as do most people I know), which is why I'd
like to be conclusively shown one way or the other with something a
little more definite than "tzadikim and gedolim did it..." To me, it
seems that this is another 'hashkafa' that's become quite popular which
really doesn't have any serious basis for it.

Avi Burstein

On 1 Jan 2002 at 6:01, Avi Burstein wrote:
> I didn't need another example of someone behaving like that and
> explaining that in shamayim, they 'save up' davening credits and
> 'use' them later on. I know very well that people believe it. I
> asked what the source was for it. Is there a source in any of the
> classical seforim for such a view or are all these explanations
> coming from gedolim stories (both current and past)?

Maybe the Gemara in Bava Kama ("kol ha'mevakesh davar l'chaveiro v'hu 
tzarich l'oso davar, hu na'neh tchila") is relevant here....

> I also don't see how we can be 'unable' to daven. Before a bomb
> goes off, I have davened many times for the safety and security
> of my fellow Jews. Three times a day (at least) we all pray that
> the wicked designs of those who plot our downfall shouldn't
> succeed. What else could these prayers possibly be intended for?
> We are always praying for all sorts of situations, those we
> currently find ouselves in and those that have yet to happen.

I think there's a qualitative difference between something that might 
happen and something that has happened. There's a big difference 
between a general Refaeinu and a Refaeinu for someone who is sick 
now. Maybe not in the specific words said, but certainly in the 
kavana. 

> I appreciate your explanation of the mechanics of tefilla and
> according to that explanation, your statement above would seem to
> be true. But according to this reasoning, the tefilla for A & B
> will hardly be effective for C, since being that you don't know
> him (you only got his name from a list), you don't feel too much
> pain from his sickness. Since C isn't a cause of your heartfelt
> expression of pain, HKBH wouldn't consider the pain you feel for
> A & B a factor when dealing with C. 

And if I also know C, would that make a difference? Kol Yisrael 
areivim zeh la'zeh? 

> In addition, according to
> your explanation, the whole idea of 'transferring credit' doesn't
> make any sense. The pain you feel for A's suffering can't be
> 'saved' for someone else or for a 'later use'!

I think that's exactly the point. That the tfillos you use for one 
person, which do not go unanswered, but may not help that person, get 
"transferred" to another person for whom they do help. Of course, not 
being Hashem's accountants, I don't think any of us can be sure how 
this works.... 

-- Carl

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl mentioned:
> Maybe the Gemara in Bava Kama ("kol ha'mevakesh davar
> l'chaveiro v'hu tzarich l'oso davar, hu na'neh tchila") is
> relevant here....

I don't see how the gemara in Bava Kama 92a ("kol ha'mevakesh
rachamim...") sheds any light on this. This is not a 'trick' that's
happening. It's simple mida-k'neged-mida. Since he put others before
himself, they put him before others. But I would think that it needs to
be sincere selflessness. Someone who tries to use this as a trick and
specifically says to himself, "Well, I want to have my tefillot answered,
so I'll daven for the other guy instead." is making a bit of a mistake.

I wrote:
>> I also don't see how we can be 'unable' to daven. Before a bomb
>> goes off, I have davened many times for the safety and security
>> of my fellow Jews. Three times a day (at least) we all pray that
>> the wicked designs of those who plot our downfall shouldn't
>> succeed. What else could these prayers possibly be intended for?
>> We are always praying for all sorts of situations, those we
>> currently find ourselves in and those that have yet to happen.

Carl replied:
> I think there's a qualitative difference between something that might
> happen and something that has happened. There's a big difference
> between a general Refaeinu and a Refaeinu for someone sick now.

I admit there's probably a difference, but the point of the paragraph
wasn't to say otherwise. The point was to show that it's not accurate
to claim that there are situations when tefila that's been 'saved up'
is needed due to lack of tefillot applying to the current situation.

I wrote:
>> Since C isn't a cause of your heartfelt expression of pain, HKBH
>> wouldn't consider the pain you feel for A & B a factor when
>> dealing with C.

Carl replied:
> And if I also know C, would that make a difference? Kol Yisrael
> areivim zeh la'zeh?

As I said, it makes sense that as much pain you feel for C's suffering,
is how much G-d takes into account your prayers when dealing with C. So
if you know him and you feel true pain, it would matter. But this still
doesn't answer the main issue: It doesn't make sense to 'transfer' prayer
'credit'. 'Kol Yisrael areivim zeh la'zeh' simply means we have to care
about every other Jew. Not that we can 'save' tefillot and 'transfer'
them.

I wrote:
>> In addition, according to your explanation, the whole idea
>> of 'transferring credit' doesn't make any sense. The pain
>> you feel for A's suffering can't be 'saved' for someone else
>> or for a 'later use'!

Carl replied:
> I think that's exactly the point. That the tfillos you use for one
> person, which do not go unanswered, but may not help that
> person, get "transferred" to another person for whom they do help.

I may be missing the boat here, but I still am not hearing anything but a
confirmation of "that's how things work". Can anyone tell me a real source
for this, besides more stories of people that believe it to be true?

Avi Burstein

On 1 Jan 2002 at 14:23, Avi Burstein wrote:
> I don't see how the gemara in Bava Kama 92a ("kol ha'mevakesh
> rachamim...") sheds any light on this. This is not a 'trick'
> that's happening. It's simple mida-k'neged-mida. Since he put
> others before himself, they put him before others. But I would
> think that it needs to be sincere selflessness. Someone who tries to
> use this as a trick and specifically says to himself, "Well, I want to
> have my tefillot answered, so I'll daven for the other guy instead."
> is making a bit of a mistake.

Actually, I heard a tape recently where the Magid Shiur said that he 
and one of his Chaverim were both looking for shidduchim and they 
made a deal that during Chodesh Elul they would each daven for 
each other instead of davening for themselves. Obviously, we are not 
Hashem's accountants and cannot be sure that this was what made 
the difference, but they were both engaged within six months. In any 
event, he said that they based their actions on this Gemara. So 
maybe you don't have to be so selfless after all.... 

...
> I admit there's probably a difference, but the point of the
> paragraph wasn't to say otherwise. The point was to show that
> it's not accurate to claim that there are situations when tefila
> that's been 'saved up' is needed due to lack of tefillot applying to
> the current situation.

Sure it's accurate to claim that. When I davened for my Chaver, I had 
no idea that my own son would never the same tfillos seven months 
after my friend was niftar (different illness but an illness all the same). 
Did my son benefit from my tfillos for my Chaver z"l? I cannot say for 
sure (obviously), but there is some basis for saying that he could 
have benefitted from them. 

...
> As I said, it makes sense that as much pain you feel for C's
> suffering, is how much G-d takes into account your prayers when
> dealing with C. So if you know him and you feel true pain, it
> would matter. 

But why is it based on the pain that I feel for C? I daven for an awful 
lot of people. Some of them I know personally. In some cases, I know 
relatives but not the choleh themselves. In some cases, I know 
friends of the choleh, but not the choleh themselves. And in (now rare 
cases, because I try not to do this, because people tend not to tell 
you when there is a change unless you know them) some cases I 
know neither. Do you think my tfillos are less likely to be answered 
because I don't know the person for whom I am davening? Ain hachi 
nami, I am likely to daven better for someone I know, but that doesn't 
mean that my tfillos are more or less likely to be answered whether or 
not I know the person and am therefore better able to empathize with 
their pain. 

> But this still doesn't answer the main issue: It  
> doesn't make sense to 'transfer' prayer 'credit'. 'Kol Yisrael
> areivim zeh la'zeh' simply means we have to care about every
> other Jew. Not that we can 'save' tefillot and 'transfer' them.

I don't think we usually do the transfer. I think HKB"H does it in his 
cheshbonos. But that doesn't mean we cannot daven for him to do it. 
He's His own accountant. 

...
> I may be missing the boat here, but I still am not hearing
> anything but a confirmation of "that's how things work". Can
> anyone tell me a real source for this, besides more stories of
> people that believe it to be true?

I think the Gemara is a source for it. Otherwise, how would tfillos that 
I am saying for someone else be used to work for me when I need 
the same thing? Who davened for me? I think the answer is that 
HKB"H takes some of the credit I accrued for my Chaver and gives it 
to me for my own needs. 

For that matter, isn't that how giving tzedaka works? "Aser bishvil 
she'tisasher." 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

> I appreciate your explanation of the mechanics of tefilla and
> according to that explanation, your statement above would seem to
> be true. But according to this reasoning, the tefilla for A & B
> will hardly be effective for C, since being that you don't know
> him (you only got his name from a list), you don't feel too much
> pain from his sickness. Since C isn't a cause of your heartfelt
> expression of pain, HKBH wouldn't consider the pain you feel for
> A & B a factor when dealing with C. In addition, according to
> your explanation, the whole idea of 'transferring credit' doesn't
> make any sense. The pain you feel for A's suffering can't be
> 'saved' for someone else or for a 'later use'!

I think RAM's point was that they wouldn't really be for "someone else"
if they were used other than as intended at a later time. Rather that
they would, like their initial intent, be used to alleiviate _my_ pain,
albeit from a different source.

Reb David Riceman wrote:
> 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).

Actually, the idea, although at its extreme, dangerous because it allows
halakhah to go where it should not, is within bounds normal and doesn't
disturb me at all. On the contrary, halakhah dictated by lomdus stands
the chance to wobble too soon when rav X doesn't understand rishon/a'haron
Y's lomdus and thinks he knows better. The split between lomdus and psak
allows for a fast moving, investigative halakhah that is halakhah ve-ein
morim kein (I obviously use the phrase out of context, just as an idiom)
and a conservative psak that guards against lomdus gown haywire. Thus,
only after some lomdus has been subjected to peer/poskim review can it
become halakhah.

This dichotomy between lomdus and psak makes it possible to consider
many different lomdus approaches and keep halakhah quite standard (as
in lo titgodedu).

Arie Folger

On Friday 28 December 2001 12:54, Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>I agre that Ideally psak is neutral towards chumra and kullah.

FYI, rav 'Hayim Soloveitchik said once during a conference at YU "there
are no 'humrot or kulot, there is only halakhah". BTW, no less than the
Maharshal is quoted by the Shakh (I can't remember where, but I'll look
it up) as being against 'humrot (that, of course, is in the eye of the
beholder,as Maharshal is the source of many of our 'humrot).

Arie Folger

Reb Eli Turkel wrote:
> 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

Scholars of mysticism differentiate between Kabbalah which is the brand
of mysticism practiced in Castille & Gerona (Spain) and also in Provence
(France) and between Ashkenaz mysticism. The latter is much more magical
in character and less theosophical/intellectual. Thus, don't dump counting
the words with Kabbalistic approaches.

I thougfht that the Rokea'h was trying to preserve the correct nussa'h
possibly based on a belief that the words have a magical quality when
using the original nussa'h, and set out to do a work very similar to
that of the pre'hazal sofrim who counted words in Scripture.

FYI, RD Kanarfogel found Tosafist material that shows that they were
not opposed to 'hasidei Ashkenaz, but on the contrary engaged in it. He
published a book on the matter last year in mid-Shvat.

Arie Folger

acl100@juno.com wrote
> In the preamble to the1966 Teshuvah Drasha available from R Nordlicht
> (but not very clear) RYBS encourages everyone to reestablish the saying
> of selichos.  

I often heard about RYBS's insistence on reestablishing seli'hit Only
problem is that I pray according to nussa'h Sefard, and have only
known davening including seli'hot, or so I think. Does anybody care
to elaborate on what seli'hot where were missing and what RYBS urged
talmidim to reintroduce?

BTW, could you please sign your posts with an intelligible name keminhag
hamakom? acl100 just doesn't sound llike a very euphonic name, I am sure
you have a better sounding middle name ;-).

Arie Folger

Reb Gil Student:
> 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)?

And rav Pappus (a.k.a. Puppa), Berurya, rav Titus (apparently in
Yerushalmi), Antigonus Ish Sukho, the father of rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira,
the Gimpels, Faivels, Kraindels, Shprintzes, Treyzels, Raizels among us,
Raina - the daughter of the Sefer Haterumot, Mordekhai (+-=Marduk), ...

Arie Folger

[... Esther +-= Ishtar =~ Asheirah. -mi]

Reb David Finch wrote:
> 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.

More often than not proper diyuk and iyun will show what interpretation
is necessary in the text, i.e. it is beyond dispute, and what is a
particular commentator's conviction of what pshat should be. All this
is before we start reading additional things in the texts, something
which should carry even less weight.

Example: in 'Hullin 8a-b there is a discussion of whether it is permitted
to cut meat or slaughter using a knife that was used for AZ. The gemara
asks how one can slaughter/cut with such a knife, since it is full of
bliot assurot, and answers kegon shelibnah be-ur. Tos. ad loc makes a
big deal of the kegon shelibnah rather than kegon shehig'ilah be'hamin,
and tries to figure out which knifes according to that gemarrah, could
not be kashered with hag'alah. Tos also makes observations WRT stam
keilim einam bnei yoman, and says it doesn't apply to knives. Ramban
says there is no diyuk, as the gemara simply used libun laav davkah,
just to shrug off any questions from excessive daykanim.

IMO, even though Tos. make their point within good tradition of pshat,
it is not necessarily pshat, and should be considered commentary.

Ramban, BTW, is a good source to see what is and what isn't mukhra'h. He
even does so when it undermines his own pshat.

Arie Folger

Avi Burstein wrote:
>I didn't need another example of someone behaving like that and explaining
>that in shamayim, they 'save up' davening credits and 'use' them later
>on. I know very well that people believe it. I asked what the source
>was for it. Is there a source in any of the classical seforim for such
>a view

Maybe this will spark someone's memory, but I thought there was a
commentary (or was it from the Maggid of Dubno?) that applies this
principle to the tefillos that Avraham Avinu davened on behalf of S'dom.
They were stored and used in later generations when Jews were in danger.
Anyone remember such a source?

mendel

-----Original Message-----
> I appreciate your explanation of the mechanics of tefilla and
> according to that explanation, your statement above would seem to
> be true. But according to this reasoning, the tefilla for A & B
> will hardly be effective for C, since being that you don't know
> him (you only got his name from a list), you don't feel too much
> pain from his sickness. Since C isn't a cause of your heartfelt
> expression of pain, HKBH wouldn't consider the pain you feel for
> A & B a factor when dealing with C....

I think that the dagesh is in the wrong direction in this explanation. It is
not we who can "direct" tfillot as if we were telling the bank teller into
which account to put our money, it is HKB"H who decides into which account
to send our tfillas.

My understanding is more like this: If we are davening for someone we are
creating positive spiritual energy by our actions. Now, if the person that
we are davening for is not meant to live past a certain time then all our
tefillas for that person have still been said and still have a positive
spiritual effect on the worlds. Therefore, all of this positive spiritual
energy has to go somewhere and so HKB"H can put it to the account of someone
else who needs it.

---Rena

On 31 Dec 2001 at 19:38, Arie Folger wrote:
> I often heard about RYBS's insistence on reestablishing seli'hit Only
> problem is that I pray according to nussa'h Sefard, and have only
> known davening including seli'hot, or so I think. Does anybody care
> to elaborate on what seli'hot where were missing and what RYBS urged
> talmidim to reintroduce?

Most Ashkenaz Nuschaos for Shachris and Mincha on Yom Kippur go straight
from Yaaleh v'Yavo to Zchor Rachamecha. At Musaf, after the several
pages of piyutim at the end of the Avodah, they go straight to Zchor
Rachamecha. What RYBS re-established was saying Slichos before Zchor
Rachamecha and after Yaaleh v'Yavo and the Avodah.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

A lot of words (and blood) was spilled in the discussions on Areivim re
Lubavitch and re "My gadol is bigger than yours". Some was even spilled
on bash MO for lack of respect for their da'at Torah, bash RW for etc.

There are a couple of ideas that are assumed and unstated by many of the
participants in these threads, and challenging or at least validating
these ideas may go a long way toward raising the level of civility in
discourse; it may even make this entire kind of threads mostly irrelevant
(I can dream, can I).

The ideas I am refering to are:
1) existence of Da'at Torah
2) requirement to recognize all gedolei Yisrael, and if you're myopic,
   too bad.
3) prerequisit for being called gadol is acceptance by all [who are
   qualified to hand out gedolim club cards], never mind this contradicts
   point # 2.
4) requirement to follow all and everything that gedolim say.
5) assuming a certain level of infallability on behalf of gedolim
6) the mass media-ization of gedolim - the gadol in BB is THE gadol for
   all of klal Yisrael's issues.
7) the tacit agreements that organizations have the power to annoint gedolim.

I am sure fellow list members will find a few more such ideas, and my
goal at present is not to be exhaustlve. However, I would like to start
a thread on each of the above ideas to investigate them IN THE SOURCES.

A few suggestions for research:

1) existence of Da'at Torah
What is the earliest usage of the concept? We all (most) are familiar
with REED who holds that belief in DT is sine qua non in Judaism; the
14th ikkar. what about earlier periods? Does anyone know about Va'ad 'Arba
Aratzot? Weinreb in his book on Jews of Poland 1100-1800 makes a couple of
references to kehillot disagreeing with and disobeying their rav. There
ought to be teshuvot about such conflicts. How about documented stories
re not folowing DT or about DT being right/wrong in a particular case.

I will quickly delineate REED, so that we can move to the next level. REED
holds that DT is real, a special connection gadol has with God. We must
follwo DT and believe on it; it is a/the pillar of our faith. Even when
DT is wrong we have to follow it, as it is a gezeira. Thus, the Belzer
rebbe's advice to his 'hassidim not to go to EY during the war does not
disprove DT, and his 'hassidim were required to follow his suggestion.

2) requirement to recognize all gedolei Yisrael, and if you're myopic, too
bad.
Thus, we want them all to agree on everything, and if one of hamon 'am
dares to adhere to a non authorized ideaology such as TuM or TiDE or
whatever, he may run into genuine trouble ('herem, problem klapei Shmaya
in some people's eyes, possibly lo tassur acc. to Min'hat 'Hinukh). This
is why rav Shakh's 'haramim are either explained away, disputed, or rav
Shakh belittled.

Isn't there a place for rikhtig, ehr zugt azoi, main rebbe zugt andisht,
in mihr fihren zikh azoi vie enzer rebbe zugt? A lot of 'hassidim say
that and they are not being threatened out of existance by other groups
they disagree with (or am I wrong. This too could be subject of SERIOUS
analysis?).

3) prerequisit for being called gadol is acceptance by all [who are
qualified to hand out gedolim club cards], never mind this contradicts
point # 2.
RMF said in a NYT interview that he became a gadol because people
accepted him as such. This may imply that a gadol is simply a democratic
appointment and carries with it no privilege to coerce. Aderabah,
it simply means that he is viewed as a democratically accepted (not
elected) leader by a group of people, and should be seen as such. The
tacit appointment carries with it the requirement to lead THAT group,
not everybody.

4) requirement to follow all and everything that gedolim say.
Isn't that restricted to neviim for all matters and Sanhedrin for
halakhik matters?

5) assuming a certain level of infallability on behalf of gedolim
Early sources please.

6) the mass media-ization of gedolim - the gadol in BB is THE gadol
for all of klal Yisrael's issues.
Back when we discussed WTC, there was a discussion on whether
RYSE will be the final authority on these matters, or some emerging
American gadol. Didn't historically every community have its manhigim
(evry shtetel, and above that evry region). Before the advent of
motorized travel gedolim had a natural division of labour according
to geography. Does this have to change and bring with it a bliurring
of turfs?

Isn't there a place for honest and respectful disagreement on fundamental
matters and respect for turf? Aside from RD Berger's comment (partly
in jest, I think) about the kashrus industry employing a lot of Lubs, I
wonder what the big fuss is about Lub. messianism. It is, indeed, at least
shtut (note, list members, that plural of shtut is stuyot, not shtussim
or worse shtutim - that is a mistake that crept into Yiddish, along with
Shabbosim and taleisim rather than the proper Shabossos and taleissos)
according to most, and possibly a heresy. However, they are not causing
us trouble in the sense that the Frankists were instigating the Catholic
church against our ancestors, and they are not proselytizing among the
fruhm people, so they are not encroaching on our turf. Since non-Lubs
don't venture into many kiruv areas, they are not even encroaching on our
turf when being shli'him (and I am not even talking about the possibly
lower incidence of messianism among shli'him). In the worst case, we
could decide not to drink messianists' wine until the matter is resolved
one way or another, but we can appreciaate their right to disagree. (I
am no fan of messianism, but I am also no fan of group bashing.)

So, getting back to the point (please don't turn this thread into a
discussion of Lub. messianism. I am trying to concentrate on the notion of
separate turfs and whether that should allow for respectful disagreements
even on such fundamental matters as definition of mashia'h, etc.), do
we find precedent for respecting separate turfs and this nahara nahara
upashtei (if it is good for hilkhot she'hitah, is it also good for hilkhot
de'ot)? That would also go a long way toward settling disputes between
poeple who have been subject to/subjecting others to 'herem or lesser
form of exclusion. Do we need politics of exclusion? Is there a source
for that? Note, I am also keenly aware that turfs may vary according to
the kind of question. Thus, anything that can potentially produce mazeirim
is far more of a general interest problem than whther college is good or
bad, and what the best way to prodcuce gedolim is. I also wonder if we can
find precedent for _avoiding_ the issue of passeling weddings and gittin
were the eidim are messianists or deny DT while we are asking about it.

7) the tacit agreements that organizations have the power to annoint
gedolim.
I found the discussion re Moetzet on Areivim rather strange. I happen
to know one and only one member of Moetzet personally, and understand
both sides of the whether-he-should-be-considered-gadol question. What
I wonder is why Moetzet mebership is relevant? Isn't the moetzet the
Agudah's equivalent of the OU's rabbinical board [of directors]? Just
because Agudah believes in DT more than many others doesn't make their
selection relevant for other purposes. It would be different of we were
talking about organizations that have to deal with all klal Yisrael by
design, such as the Israeli chief rabbinate. Like ot or not, they have
jurisdiction in certain matters, and that power came with obligations
towards Israeli Jews. Thus, their appointment is most relevant to
outsiders (i.e. Israelis not in the chief rabbinate). Same goes for
whoever is apointed rosh hayeshivah. I remeber when in yeshivah ketanah
rav Shakh decided to secede from Agudah (late 80s; may not have been the
first time). Us little <plave diminutive here> were in uproar, trying
to figure out whther rav Shakh, being a gadol, had the power to make it
encumbent upon us to identify with Degel. The consensus that developed
was that he is a gadol, and us 'hassidic or 'hassidicizing ba'alei batim
children could still align with other groups, for instance the Agudah.
That did not permit us to be disrespectful to RS in any way, just to
disagree with him on these political matters and trust other political
pundits (the Moetzet).

So my question is whether we find precedence for organizations annointing
gedolim, and if so when yes, when no, and did these annointed gedolim
have a turf that was larger than that organiation's matters by virtue of
being appointed by that organization. As an illustration of failure in
this area, I have heard that the Va'ad 'Arba Aratzot wanted to appoint
the Taz as the authority to be followed in psak, but the Shakh was still
more appreciated.

This question will mostly require historical references, and again,
I stretch the need for QUOTING SOURCES.

Kol tuv,
Nizkeh lehagdil Torah ulehaadirah,
Arie Folger

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


[ 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         ]