Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 088

Thursday, January 10 2002

• Re: Pelishtim & R. Soloveitchik as academic
• Re: KOFUY TOVAH
• Re: Pluralism
• Re: Rashi Sanhedrin 3a
• Re: The Ramchal on Logic and Theology
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: KOFUY TOVAH
• Re: pluralism
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: gedolim, da'as Torah & etc. - a framework for study
• Rav and Social Worker? - some Stories
• Re: Question on names
• Kiruv Rechokim
• Ester
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: gedolim, da'as Torah & etc. - a framework for study
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: Kiruv Rechokim
• Torah Temimah on Yaakov, Dinoh and Eisov
• Fw: Torah Temimah on Yaakov, Dinoh and Eisov
• Re: MiPeninei Harav
• Re: Rav Ashi's s'mikhoh
• Re: Moshiach

In a message dated 12/27/01 4:23:58pm EST, Jordan TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:
> 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?

I've seen these lists
I've seen the Slichos in the Roedleheim (german Minhag) and the Vilna Kol Bo 
(Polish Minhag)

Near as I can tell these slichos were not researched but proposed based upon 
the idea of restoring slichos w/o regard to seeing how they used to be done

There is a version of the Machzor from Mosssad Harav Kook which has both the 
German and Polish nusach. I will take a look at it, BEH.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: KOFUY TOVAH
>>>
> Most people seem to confuse it with 'kofar' - deny - which it actually
> means.
> However I was trying to find the source of this word.

See Rashi Breishis 3:12, <<<<

 Yasher Koach for that reference - where Rashi in fact says
"kaan KOFAR betova" - even though he is referring to the gemorro in AZ 5
where it is talking about KEFUEI Tova.

But see the Tora Temima's explanation there where he brings the gemoro 
and makes a chiluk between Rashi and Tosfos's pshat on KT.

Seems to me that according to the TT - Rashi in chumash is going 
leshitosoy  ie Kofar = completely denying that there even was a tova 
[rather than kofui = admitting there was a tova but being ungrateful]

SBA.

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:31:15am EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> R' Micha Berger asked:
> <<< Plurality says that all the derachim are valid. How to define the
> spectrum of deracheha darchei no'am is left as an excercise for the
> reader. But within that spectrum, they're all good. Even if they're
> mutually exclusive. 

Bepashtus any one can say the following:
Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu
AISI anyone following their own Masorah has a reliable source to fall back on
Doesn't the Gmara use this as a rationale for Cussim?  

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:35:37PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: Land"d Rashi goes Lshitasei that Gemara must include some level of
: understanding (famous Machlokes Rambam/Rosh)...

Those following the interminable debate between RRW and myself may
be interested to note this machloqes.

The Rambam defines gemara to be "lehavind davar mitoch davar". Because,
being a Sepharadi rishon, he was inclined toward writing codes and the
textual mode. Therefore to him, gemara means lomdus.

The Rosh, an Ashkenazi rishon, will define gemara in terms of mesorah.

Interestingly, from shas one could argue both definitions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:52:49PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: In any case, I am curious ... how the Ramchal understands Avraham Avinu...:
: Notwithstanding "lo machshevosai machshevosechem", Avraham Avinu
: nevertheless insists that "Chalilah laCh! HaShofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh
: mishpat?" (Ber. 18:25)
: What might be the relationship between "logic" and "mishpat" in this
: context?

There is bichlal a question, as tzaddia vera lo routinely violates
Avraham avinu's complaint.

In any case, logic need not relate to mishpat. It may be logical to
be unjust, perhaps because some other priority is more pressing. (E.g.
rachamim, or the education of the victim, or whatever).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:25:40am EST, Jordan Hirsch TROMBAEDU@aol.com 
writes:
> Is it possible that DT as a way of thinking in uniform fashion about
> issues that are not specifically Torah related became prevalent at a
> time when mass media, ease of communication, and massive population
> shifts upset the communal structure of the Torah observant community
> so much that people were willing to forgo the more freewheeling debate
> one might have seen as late as the early 20th century for a sense of
> security? Jew have suffered persecution at many times in their history,
> but the various immigration movements, both to Israel and the US, were
> really rather unprecedented in the previous 1500 years. And it would not
> have mattered earlier that the CI insisted on this kind of approach,
> because it would have taken much longer for anybody to find out what
> he was saying! So the rise of DT can be linked to the confluence of
> a number of sociological phenomena. And that does not even take into
> account the rising political power of various Jewish organizations in
> Europe between the wars.

For me  "da'as Torah" has its place in creating Halachic standards - such as 
the use of electicity on Shabbass

OTOH if it stifles basic human creativity in the area of thought, it becomes 
a form of politically correctness that will stifle new ideas and 
creatitivity.  You might as well say "let not any creative innovative minds 
dwell in the tenst of Torah."  

IMHO: 
You want people to think for themselves, but to behave according to societal 
norms.

The danger AISI is when charismatic original thinkers can create a cult-like 
following and lead people astray - EG SZ or some of the early Reformers.

The Antidote IMHO is communal consensus re: Observance. Let the Okeir Harim 
propose and  the Sinai's either dispose or ratify - as the case may be. 

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 1/2/02 5:15:53pm EST, Zeliglaw@aol.com Steve Brizel
writes:
> 7) I am not sure that Organizations create Gdolim. Who created the Ari
> HaKodesh, the Besht and the Gra? Who created R Chaim Volozinher and R
> Chaim Brisker? Neither the Agudah nor the OU created gadlus of R Ahron,
> R Moshe or RYBS ZTL. As RMF stated so well to the times, when over a
> period of time , your opinion and guidance is sought, one becomes viewed
> as a Gadol.

AISI
Bizman hazeh: Consensus creates Gdolim.
It is a kind of Torah peer review.

But no Gadol is infallible, And even when we concede that RMF was the
poseik hador it does not mean we HAVE to follow him e.g. legabei shabbos
clocks for lights only.

And it seems obvious to me that certain Gdolim were repsoected more in
some ares than in others Lemashal we pasken like Rav in Issurin and like
shmuel in Mamannos

In my day if you wanted to aks "how to learn this sugya" RYBS was
considered the epitome, but if you wanted to know "what is the Halachah
about that" you went to RMF.

Illustration:
When I was in YU I took my tough Halachic Sheilos to R. Nissan Alpert
ZL who was considered RMF's talmid muvhak.

Later on when I became a rabbi, I escalated sheilos to different experts.
R MD Tendler became my authority for tough bio-medical isses R. S Shcwab
was my authority for litrugy nusach, minhag etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/7/02 7:56:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> Seems to me that according to the TT - Rashi in chumash is going 
> leshitosoy  ie Kofar = completely denying that there even was a tova 
> [rather than kofui = admitting there was a tova but being ungrateful]

There most definitely is a reason why Rashi changes from the Loshon
Hagimara, (however it is obvious that Rashi interprets in the Gemara, as
total denying, as he holds that Odom at this point said that he sees no
Tova, rather it brought him sin and hence death, (although there is the
issue of Niskareir Datoi (Rashi 2:23) which is perhaps why Rashi writes
(3:12) "*Kan* Kofar" as before there was some acknowledgment). Likewise
the Yidden did not see a Tova in the Mahn, rather it will bring death
(Rashi Bamidbar 21:5), (even though that there too there was some good
in the fact that they had food, without spending there money to buy from
surrounding nations (at points that this was possible, Oichel Bakesef
etc.), likewise WRT hearing directly from HKBH they saw no Tova rather
they were afraid of death Dvorin 5:22, (interesting see Rashi there
Possuk 24, that Moshe was Mochiach them Bremez then, which is closer to
Tos.'s Pshat in AZ vs. Rashi's own Pshat).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/7/02 8:58:46am EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> Doesn't some types of pluralism already exist in halacha.
> If a gentile comes to convert we try and persuade him not to and to just
> keep the 7 mitzvot of bnei noach.
> Doesn't this mean we tell him Judaism is good for us but not necessary
> to you. You can choose a different way as long as it contains certain
> minimum principles.

Briefly this is refleected in Dayan Grunfeld's Hkadamah to Choreb

HKBH made TWO brissos - covenants

1) with Bnei Noach
2) With Beni Yisrael

The fist is a general one
The 2nd is limited to US as a mamleches kohnim and Goy Kaddosh
This is why IMHO Halachah practice MUST be standaradized at least to a degree 
in order to have COMMUNAL Observance.   AISI Halachah is by defintion by 
convntion and by consensus. 

This is because to become a good person or a spiritual person one does not 
need taryag mitzvos per se.

But to be a good Jew one DOES need Trayga mitzvos

That is because an individual Gentile can ascent to spiritual heights,
but Israel is the ONLY COMMUNITY that is holy QUA Community!

In America, the concept of Kehilla is not as opopular as it was in Europe.  
The fnction of Halachah is highly related to the way a community relates to 
each other

Think of standars lf Kashrus and of when Shabbas starts. Without standards, 
conventions and consensu we would have utter chaos

OTOH, in terms of communing with HKBH, one can and may commune as 
individuals. There have always been small esoteric cells living amongst the 
gneral populace Think of the GRA in his tiny Beish Midrash in the big City of 
Vilna as an illustration.  The big city followed conventional Shulchan Aruch, 
the GRa followed a more esoteric tradition in relative obscure privacy.

Hassidim originally were esoteric, and thne broke loose and imposed 
Kabbalistic praxis on the masses.  This was a breach of communal conventoin 
and wisdom.  Soon Kehillso were divided even in Europe beween Misgadish and 
Chassidish. But the Torah tells us lo sisgodedu, that is keep each kehilla as 
homogenous AT LEAST in outward practice...

As Far As I'm concenred, practice is public and feelings are private.
Nahistaros Lashem
V'haniglos Lanu

Waht is in the field of Nigleh BY RIGHT is public domaion - ie. kashurs and 
Shabbos

What is in the field of Nistar is HKBH's Business - this includes 
philosophies and insights, etc.  

Thus each generatoin confomrs to TRaditoin in practice but finds its own new 
meanings and rationales which is IMHO what Hirsch did with TIDE.

A constanst and Cosntistent Torah is re-applied on a constant basis to the 
new environment

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/7/02 7:58:18pm EST, RabbiRichWolpoe writes:
> For me  "da'as Torah" has its place in creating Halachic standards - such as 
> the use of electicity on Shabbass
> 
> OTOH if it stifles basic human creativity in the area of thought, it 
> becomes a form of politically correctness that will stifle new ideas and 
> creatitivity.  You might as well say "let not any creative innovative minds 
> dwell in the tenst of Torah."  
> 
> IMHO: 
> You want people to think for themselves, but to behave according to 
> societal norms.
> 
> The danger AISI is when charismatic original thinkers can create a 
> cult-like following and lead people astray - EG SZ or some of the early 
> Reformers.

I respect your personal interpretation, but I have always understood daas 
Torah in its Desslerian sense, (is that a word) to mean that Talmidei 
Chachomim will, by virtue of their immersion in the holiness and purity of 
Torah study, have a special sensitivity to the correct path for someone to 
follow, even in non-Halachic issues. In other words, special expertise in a 
given subject matter is not the exclusive criteria for deciding what to do in 
a situation, but a Torah oriented sensitivity is required as well. If someone 
can elaborate or refine that definition, please do, as I am not sure I am 
expressing it as well as I could.

Jordan Hirsch  

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:26:03am EST, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> In discussing 'lo sosur mikol...yomin usimol', upon which Chaza"l
> comment 'afilu im yomru lach al yemin shehu semol vial simol shehu
> yemin' - he commented that there are different ways of understanding
> this. Some seem to believe that it means there is a sort of 'Rabbinical
> infallibility' (btw - [lihavdil!] IIRC the Roman Catholic doctrine of
> 'papal infallibility' was only accepted around 1870 C.E. - I think
> some may have broken with the Catholic church because of it - I wonder
> if there might be any connection between the fact that the Catholic
> doctrine of papal infallibility is so modern and the somewhat similar
> [lihavdil!] doctrine accepted by some Orthodox Jews today is of similar
> vintage. Perhaps something in the modern situation brought about the
> need for such a doctrine?). Others however see it solely as a practical
> necessity in order to keep Klal Yisroel together (IIRC he cited the
> sefer haChinuch on the mitzvoh as saying that it was better to have some
> central binding authority, even if it might make a mistake once in a
> while, rather than have no authority (and hence no unity).

I'm not sure about infallibility, but I WOULD say that a CONSENUS of gldoim 
DOES have authority


> IIRC, he also mentioned something along the following lines....

> Some think that 'daas Torah' means that a (unbiased) 'godol' will have the
> correct and superior position always, on any issue. He stated though, that
> Rav Aharon Lichtenstein had taken a more nuanced position - IIRC along
> the following lines - that being that a genuine 'godol' is so immersed in
> Torah, chochmah, etc., it is likely that he will have a superior and wiser
> position than others.....based on that....so it would be only reasonable
> to tap into that wisdom if possible.....However, that is not the same
> as saying that such a person is always 100% correct and infallible....
> 

I think ANY  individual Gadol is fallible and I would not except any Gadol's 
statemnt as being authoritative or binding etc. w/o it being ratified by his 
peers.

If R. Moshe Feinstein said that Kitniyos are assur on Pesach - I would not 
feel bound. but when all ashkenzaic poslim except that as a fact, then it is 
different.

I posted elsehwere about RMF and timers on Shabbas. We are gnerally more 
liberal than limiting times to just lights and we typically include Air 
conditioners and the like 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I heard this story from R. Harvey Senter besheim RYBS

3 great Gdolim were approached - what is the sinlge most important middah for 
a rav to possess?

The Aruch Hashulchan - R. YM Epstein - THE poseik hador {his words} a rabbi 
must be a poseik

R. Yitzele Peterburger - The Rabbis must be a melamed, he must teach Torah 
and and be marbitz Torah  

R. Chaim Brisker {Grandfather of RYBS} the Rabbi must be both of the above of 
course but the MAIN function  is that he should be a ba'al chessed.  {the 
source of this thread I believe}

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It was then said that the Chofetz Chaim - author of the Mishna Brura - was 
such a great Tzaddik  that his saintliness overshadowed his intelletcual 
prowess and people failed to notice what a great Gaon he was....

OTOH it was said of R. Chaim Brisker that he was such a  genius that people 
overlooked how great a ba'al chesed he was....

---------------------------------------------------------------

The story goes on that when R. Chaim Brisker was dying he dmeanded that NO 
epitaph be place upon his monument {matzeiva} pother than his name.

His sons over-ruled him and added one simple line - Rav Chessed - master of 
Chessed or Much Chessed.

When asked how could they overrule their father's explicit command 
{tza'va'ah} they replied: "His chessed was so great it became an actual part 
of his name!" 

-------------------------------

Some quick comments

Note that his story confirms the Aruch Hashulchan's status as the poseik -at 
least in Lita

R. S Schwab was said ot have been so overwhelmed by The Chofetz Chaim's 
saintliness that he too overlooked his great torah learning and was taken to 
taks by R. Chaim Ozer on this fact.

The fact that 2 Briskers did not take an explicit order so explicitly is no 
surprise to those who have learned the Brisker Derech of interpretatoin! 
--smile--  All kidding aside, there is a time that even though the children 
DID a acqquiese to the spirit of the command, they felt they could not take 
it 100% literally.

-----------------------------------------------

I heard the following story in a similar vein.  A religious man was dying and 
had a sister in Chicago.  He asked his family NOT to call her until after 30 
days so that she need not sit shiv'a. {FWIW such notification is a chiyyuv 
for the kids but not a chiyyuv for siblings}  The man was niftar about 2 
weeks before Shavuos.  They decided to notify her several hours before Yom 
Tov. The point? Even though it was not literally after 30 days, this way she 
would get same beneift of a limitted time of sitting shiva.   

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/30/01 3:38:05pm EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> 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 talmedei chachamim use their
> english names even in the Beis midrash and yeshiva shul setting. What
> happened to lo shina es shmam. >>>

I heard quoted in the name of R. Yaakov Kaminetsky BEFORE matan Torah
these things were important to distingusih Israel AFTER matan Troah we
have Torah and Mitzvos to do that

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I think it has been mentioned a few times on here or Areivim that the
term "kiruv rechokim" is a 20th century invention. I found the following
Midrash Tannaim cited by R' Chaim Heller:

"Vezos Haberachah asher beirach Moshe, al tikrei haberachah ela
habereichah, mah bereichah metaheres af Moshe mekarev rechokim..."

Gil Student

R Micha wrote: [... Esther +-= Ishtar =~ Asheirah. -mi]

____________________________________________

I believe Esther's name is parallel to Ashtoret, the Canaanite goddess

Amihai

In a message dated 01/09/2002 4:31:58am EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> In my day if you wanted to aks "how to learn this sugya" RYBS was
> considered the epitome, but if you wanted to know "what is the Halachah
> about that" you went to RMF.

As R' YBS is quoted as saying something along the lines of "they call me
the Rav and R'MF the Rosh Yeshiva when actually our roles are the reverse"
(ie posek vs. saying shiurim emphasis)

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 01/09/2002 4:32:08am EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
>> . Others however see it solely as a practical
>> necessity in order to keep Klal Yisroel together (IIRC he cited the
>> sefer haChinuch on the mitzvoh as saying that it was better to have some
>> central binding authority, even if it might make a mistake once in a
>> while, rather than have no authority (and hence no unity).
 
> I'm not sure about infallibility, but I WOULD say that a CONSENUS of gldoim 
> DOES have authority

Interesting beginings of a parallel to Rambam on restarting smicha!

KT
Joel Rich

> I respect your personal interpretation, but I have always understood daas
> Torah in its Desslerian sense, (is that a word) to mean that Talmidei
> Chachomim will, by virtue of their immersion in the holiness and purity of
> Torah study, have a special sensitivity to the correct path for someone to
> follow, even in non-Halachic issues....

For thos of you following along at home, I'm _still_ waiting to hear
a single legitimate example that is both (a) of sufficient import to
expect someone to seek advice from _anyone_ and (b) is free of halachic
implications.

In a message dated 1/9/02 4:31:50am EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> "Vezos Haberachah asher beirach Moshe, al tikrei haberachah ela

There is also the Mishna is Ovos "Hevei Mitalmiduv Shel Aharon...Umikarvun
Latorah. But as I already mentioned from the Rambam begining of Hil. AZ
this began from Avrohom Avinu and was passed down thru the generations
untill Moshe became Rabbon Shel Kol Hanvi'im, (It remained as an
obligation of the Sanhedrin also).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Subject: Re: TT - Dina and Esav - Makor?

From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
>>> I heard the Bais Yisroel of Gur  rejected/ousted the sefer TT due to the
>>> pshat of TT on why Yaakov Avinu hid Dinah from Esav.

>> I'm a bit embarrassed but I have not found this TT

> Breishis 32:23

I just looked on it, but fail to see what is objectionable. It seems like a 
mighty fine pshat to me. Did I miss something???

Mordechai

> I just looked on it, but fail to see what is objectionable. It seems
> like a mighty fine pshat to me. Did I miss something???

Some would object to saying Yaakov Avinu was so filled with hate for
his brother that Yaakov went to extremes to prevent Esav from repenting.

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:28:12am EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> He also said that RYBS would not accept scientific proof as to whether
> meat had been salted.

IIRC off the top of my head 
we were taught in Yeshiva that one may Lick {but NOT swallow} meat to 
determine if it has been salted yet, even though one might be tasting 
something assur.  

I'm not sure why scientific technique is ispo facto inferior. 

Does this have to do with kepeila?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/27/01 1:02:19pm EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com writes:
> Rrich writes further: <TB says Ravina Rav Ashi so hora'ah but Tosafos and
> others continue using Talmudic methodology as if nothing was finalized. >
> Not quite sure what is being asserted here, but the notion of sof ho'ro'oh -- 
> whatever that might mean -- has nothing much to do with tos methodology. New
> situations continued to arise which required p'saq, even if older chain of
> ho'ro'oh had broken.
...

I'm still fuzzy about Rav vs. Rabbi. The Bavli istelf uses Rabbi for EY
Amoraim. How does this work? The Bavli respected the terminology used
in EY even though it had its own jargon that meant the same thing? It
seems more pashut to say it saw a distinction in the title itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------
to do it justicie Sof Hora'ah should have thread of its own, here goes
in the meantime:

Tosafos at times uses dialective to overturn the pshat of the Gmara itself
Sometimes in favor of other sources - EG Yerushalmi or Psikta (See Eruvin 96 
re: Michal and wearing Tefilin)
sometimes in favor of Minhag

The Defintion of Ravina and Rav Ashi as Sof Hor'aah is crucial to
understanding this method.

As told to me by R .Kanarfogel (RDEK) Tosfaos re: sources outside of
the Bavli that had statemnt (such as memros) from Amoraim to be equally
authoritative

Therefore sof Hora'ah as construed by Tosafos becomes a point on the
TIME line and is not an endorsemnt of the Bavli is the final arbiter
of Halachah. and Therefore any statement from the same milieu that
were in the Bavli are capable of contradicted the Bavli. (See Taz on
Orach Chaim 46 re: Birfchas hanoseihn Layeief Koach upon which I will
post later BEH - which states this ONLY happens when we have a Minhag
or other simlar imperative that leaves the Bavli Shver as is).

In my earlier post today on Minhag, the easisest way for Tosafos to
deal with Sof Hora'ah is to presume that the Minhag got rooted before
the deadline - a type of grandfather clause.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/28/01 12:55:56pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: Anyway, focusing upon Moshiach as a PERSON instead of a concept seems
>: dangerous to me. Therefore the svara for changing the Nusach from
>: "umeivi Go'el" to "umeivi Ge'ulah" would make sense to me if I were not
>: so old-fahsioned about Traditional Nusach! --smile--

> Smile aside, leshitascha, it is not only somehing you can't change,
> it's a raayah that you're wrong. Didn't you say that all the rabbanim
> and kehillos that use a tefillah speak for its authoritativeness?

Right. I submit my "lamdus" to the authority of what is accepted.

But is also a fact that for most of us -misnagdim anyway -we never focused 
upon indiviudals nor into speculation.  we are supposed to wait patiently.

We used to sing, zol shein zein di ge'ulah - moshiach zol shein kumn
"let the redemption come, let the Moshiach come"


I'm not denying that Moshiach is a person. Rather I am opposing focusing upon 
an individual because of the lesson's we learned form Shabtai Zvi etc.  In 
that sense I am strongly recommending focusing upon the process of G'ulah as 
opose to idealizing or idolizing or making any kind of peronsality cult - CvS

IIRC there was a moratorium upon Messianic speculation imposed.

I am saying let's focus upon the Ge'ulah w/o specualting as to who his 
identity is 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]