Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 059

Monday, November 18 2002

• Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• RE: shittat harambam
• Yissochor
• Re: Yissakhar vs. Yissaskhar
• Re: zekher and Yisaschar
• contemporary 'Litvish'er' Yeshivos vs. Volozhin
• Re: NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• vaYeitzei
• Re: Astrology
• Atzas gedolim and the Ramban
• Re: Astrology, Mussar, and RS"G
• Re: Astrology
• Re: Atzas gedolim and the Ramban
• Re: Mussar
• Fwd: Re: Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• Re: zeicher/zecher
• Re: Name of Eisav's Third Wife
• Re: Star Wars
• Re: Mussar

In some web searching last night , came upon a post from the good
ol' heyday of MJ (13:60, IIRC) from RMJF which very impressively and
comprehensively deals with the Astrology topic. Worthwhile reading.

I do not have at home most of the seforim cited by the Frankel in the
Maftei'ach, including R' Yerucham Pereleman on RS"G, so it will have
to wait till I go into the office on Monday, but I see that he seems
to line RS"G up with the Rambam on this issue - perhaps someone has the
GRI"P on the RS"G at home and can check this out in the meantime.

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

At 10:53 PM 11/13/02 -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>OK, out of curiosity, I looked.  It does seem to support RAF's position.
>I quote from the end of the chapter (Friedlaender):

Look again, from the *beginning* - he rejects Aristotle on the basis of 
pesukim in Navi and - were Aristotle to have proof he would regard the 
pesukim in Bereishis as metaphor - but he cannot because of the Nevi'im.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 10:18 AM 11/14/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>My original stance (and I believe almost all of the people here..)was that
>the rambam's position on astrology was derived not from hazal, but from
>reason (broadly understood).  Given the rambam's belief  that hazal were
>great philosophers, he understood hazal as sharing and believing in this
>belief.

Which you, and RMJF, believe to be the Rambam's distortion and erroneous 
interpreatation of Chazal, culminating in an incorrect psak in Hil. AZ 
Chap. 11 (after all these notes back and forth, I still have not seen any 
of my correspondents attack this point!!!).

>Few people (I can't think of anyone here) denied that the rambam
>believed that hazal denied astrology - the question was the basis of
>the belief - whether he came to that belief through hazal and mesora,
>or through the use of reason. No proof has been given for the former,
>although citations have been given (cited as irrelevant by RYGB) that
>the rambam would understand and reinterprete many maamre hazal against
>their simple pshatto make them consistent with the demands of reason.

I have explained under separate cover how what is explainable elsewhere is 
not explainable here - as this relates to core issues of Hashgacha and 
interaction with the Beri'ah.

>What some people have argued is that looking at the tradition objectively
>without the use of external criteria, it is difficult to make the case
>that the rambam does - that hazal rejected astrology, which is why so
>many disagreed with the rambam. The only way to arrive at the rambam's
>conclusions is to use extraneous materials. That is quite a different
>position than arguing that the rambam himself said that hazal rejected
>astrology - something that, IIRC no one has suggested. What has been
>at dispute is whether the rambam used reason against the simple pshat
>of hazal, rather than relying on a mesora and deriving his understanding
>from the text itself.
>
>
>The above position was summarily denounced by RYGB as one "that anyone
>with the least shred of Emunas Chachamim; understanding of Mesorah,
>and experience with the writings of the Rishonim - not to mention the
>sources that you have either misconstrued or not examined - must reject
>the position out of hand as inimical to Orthodox Jewish theology."

This is still correct.


>Now RYGB cites approvingly Marc Shapiro's position
>>        I would agree with the named Rosh Yeshiva that the Rambam based
>> his understanding of astrology on logic and philosophy, but he also
>> believed that Chazal agreed with this. If you are saying that he DERIVED
>> his opposition to astrology from Chazal, I would actually have to
>> disagree with you. Again, I am not really sure if this is a dispute
>> about Chazal or Rambam

>As my position is really Marc Shapiro's position, why the change?

Your position is not the same as Prof. Shapiro's although that is not 
material. To the extent that it is material, Prof. Shapiro does not assume 
that the Rambam through his bias misread Chazal.


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

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
<<My son mentioned that someone told him about... .minhag of reading
it Yisaschar the first time, and Yisachar every other time, a minhag of
which I have heard, but for which I do not recall a source. Anyone?>>

apparently connected to fact that Yisochor's son is listed as Yov in
B'reishis, but Yishuv in B'midbor. So Yisochor kind of "donates a shin
in B'midbor". Thus various minhogim, most popular -- including reading
yisoschor the first time in B'reishis and then switching (i.e. prior to
his shin transplant the father still had it), or a variant -- to read it
Yisoschor right up till B'midbor and then switch back to Yisochor. this
minhog was widely protested. There is a detailed note on just this topic
by Penkower in Vol 4 of Iyunei Miqroh U'foroshanus (bar Ilan U Press).

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

RCS wrote:
> My son mentioned that someone told him about the
> minhag of reading it Yisaschar the first time, and Yisachar every other
> time, a minhag of which I have heard, but for which I do not recall a
> source. Anyone?

Rumor has it this is a minhag of the Gra. (but rumors may be 
misinterpretations)

Arie

At or about 19:09, 14/11/02 -0600, Avodah's email stated:
>My son mentioned that someone told him about the
>minhag of reading it Yisaschar the first time, and Yisachar every other
>time, a minhag of which I have heard, but for which I do not recall a
>source. Anyone?

Lu`ah Davar be`Ito lists the following minhagim:

1.      Based on ibn Ezra on Shemot 1:3 and Radaq (I Chronicles 
15:24:  read it, even the first time, with a single "sin" qemutza, 
unehara nehara ufashtei.

2.      Minhag Qarlin-Stolin and others read it as written (malei) 
throughout the Tora.

3.      Some read it this one time or throughout Genesis with two "sin"s, 
and thereafter with a single one.

4.      Some read it up to parashat Phineas with two "sin"s and 
afterwards with one (related to yod vav bet becoming yod shin vav bet).

There are various references included, but I have excluded them.  See 
Davar be`Ito, 5763, page 464.

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
---------------------------
mailto:laser@ieee.org

Subject: RE: Astrology, Mussar

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Dr. Shapiro's wrote:
>> I am quote surprised at the vehemence of the assault on Mussar, 
>> especially since Mussar emerged victorious and with the exception of 
>> Volozhin all, yeshivot accepted it

> But today's yeshiva system is *based* on volozhin, isn't it? 

Perhaps in some ways (perhaps very generally in the idea of a Yeshiva
being an independent institution, drawing it's student body from far
and wide (not only from locals), etc.

However, in other (many ?) ways, (most - at least 'Litvish'er' type)
Yeshivas of today do not follow Volozhin, e.g.

1) IIRC in Volozhin, talmidim learned what they pleased - 'a spirit of
freedom reigned there' (source - R. Moshe Tzuriel in introduction to
his sefer 'Otzros haNetzi"v, IIRC).

2) In Volozhin all of Sha"s was learned. The Alter of Slobodka instituted
the focus of study on 'Yeshivish'er mesechtos' (making of a godol p. 516,
volume I, book one).

Perhaps the work by Prof. Stampfer (and perhaps further on in 'making
of a godol', etc., has more on this.

Mordechai

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I've also wondered about this minhag. AIUI, if you don't remember
> your name they "can't find your records." What if R"L you don't want
> the Malachim to find your records?

That's why I like the other explanation - given by Rashi:

Michoh (6:9) --... Rashi writes: "Vesushiyo Yireh Sh'mecho": "... From
here (we learn) that whoever says (daily) a posuk that begins and ends
the same way as his name, the Torah will save him from Gehinom ("Hatorah
matziloy migeihenom")..."

SBA

VaYishlach Yitzchak es Ya'akov, vayailech padena aram.... (28:5 - last
week's parsha)
VaYeitzei Ya'akov m'Be'er Sheva, vayelech Charana (28:10 - this week)
Rashi - Why mention his leaving? Because a tzaddik's departure=departure
of the town's beauty and splendor.

Q1. Why does the Torah wait till the opening of this week's parsha
(the recap) to teach the limud of "yetziyas tzaddik osah roshem" -
why not use the vayeitzei terminology earlier in 28:10 when Ya'akov's
departure is originally mentioned?
Q2. Even if we need "vayeitzei" as a recap (Rashi), why repeat "vayeilech"
- we already know where Ya'akov is headed?
Q3. Why the switch in the name of the destination - padam aram vs. charan?
Q4. Why the mention the place of departure (Be'er Sheva) in our parsha,
but not in the previous parsha?

Noam Elimelech: VaYachalosh Yehoshua as Amalek l'fi charev. The power of
klal yisrael is not just to defeat reshaim on our terms, but to battle
and defeat them minei u'bei on their own terms. The koach of Amalek
is in cherev - al charbecha tichye - and according to that measure he
is defeated(not *b*'cherev, b'*l'fi* - acc. to the midah he exhibits).
Eisav's koach was through kibbud av, yet davka through the kibud av
of Ya'akov serving Yitzchak while Eisav's hunt came up empty was he
defeated. Be'er sheva=the tikkun of 7 middos by the Avos. Ya'akov left
the tikkun accomplished by the Avos to do battle with Lavan on his own
terms in Charan.

In other words (i.e. mine): In tandem with the physical journey to
Lavan's house there is a spiritual journey from the heights reached at
Be'er Sheva (=tikkun 7 middos) back to Charan, the point of Avraham's
original departure (11:31-12:5) from Terach's household of avodah zara.
Ya'akov must spiritually engage ra on its terms without recourse to the
ruchniyus already attained by his forebearers.

Last week's parsha=emphasis on the physical journey. This week's
parsha=emphasis on the spiritual. Hence:

A1. Davka here the emphasis is on the roshem of the tzaddik, which is a
"din" in his ruchniyus.
A2. This is a different type of journey, so the address is given again,
but the emphasis is shifted to the spiritual by...
A3. Changing the address from Padan Aram (physical location), to Charan,
the original pre-ruchniyus home of the Avos, and
A4. Using the remez of Be'er Sheva=tikkun of 7 middos as the spiritually
significant point of departure.
Finally, the physical journey is vaYishlach Yitzchak, but the spiritual
journey is a far more lonely vaYeitzei Ya'akov.

PPS: Ya'akov fled Lavan's house accused of taking all his money with Lavan
giving chase. Lavan complains he would have sent him off with "simcha,
shirim, tof v'kinor". My wife pointed out the thematic overtones of
yetziyas Mitzrayim: fleeing with the bounty, the chase, the shira,
the tof of Miryam. I think you need more linguistic parallel to make
a convincing case, but its an idea.

-Chaim

Michael Frankel wrote:
> 6. Speaking of other rishonim -- a side question l'shitas RYGB that chazal
> must have so believed because rambam had a mesorah they so believed --

See Ramban Shichchath HaAsin al Sefer haMitvoth #8 (Tamim Tihyeh ...).
Admittedely it has to be understood in the context of the Ramban's
denial of the existence of physical law, but it can certainly be taken
as a rejection of astrology.

David Riceman

To support his position that advice from gedolim is generated with ruach
hakodesh Rabbi B cited a Ramban in Bava Bathra 12a. He later cited a
passage in Shaar haGmul where the Ramban identifies ruach hakodesh as
a form of nevuah.

I was a bit puzzled since in the drasha Torath HaShem Temimah (ed. Chavel,
p.149) the Ramban says that we nowadays have no nevuah, not even bath kol.
Now the drasha is about the greatness of Torah, and it would fit very well
for the Ramban to say that one of the greatnesses of Torah is that someone
who studies it assiduously, even nowadays, can attain a form of nevuah.
That he goes out of his way to deny that seems to me a strong difficulty
with the Rabbi B's understanding of the Ramban.

Here's the Ramban in Bava Bathra:< "Since the destruction of the Temple,
even though prophecy has been removed from the prophets, it has not
been removed from the sages (gemara ad. loc.)" even though prophetic
prophecy (nevuath haneviim) has been removed, which is prophecy via
visions (hamareh vhechazon), the sages' prophecy, which is via wisdom
(derech chochmah) has not been removed. Instead, they know the truth
through the ruach hakodesh inside them (shebkirbam).>

As I said in a previous post there is no hint in what context this
applies, and, in any case, we have to harmonize it with the apparently
contradictory passage in Torath HaShem Temimah I cited above. Rabbi B's
explanation doesn't work since it ignores one of the passages, rather
than explaining all of them.

There's another passage (also in Shaar HaGmul, ed. Chavel, p. 303)
which helps: < The harp (kinnor) and musical instruments in the Temple
allude to attaining via thought (hasagath hamachshava), which depends
on ruach. There is nothing physical finer (dak) than music, as they said
"voice, speech, and ruach, this is ruach hakodesh (Sefer Yetzirah 1:9)"
[incidentally if you have Scholem's edition of the Ramban's peirush on
Sefer Yetzirah you might take a look here - it reiterates that ruach
hakodesh is a form of nevuah]. In this world the sages attain seven
sefiroth via ruach hakodesh, and their lights are attached to the mishkan
and the mikdash and are alluded to in the seven candles of the menorah
and some of the korbanoth, ... in messianic times the eighth sefirah
will be attained ... and in olam haba there will be complete attainment
(hasagah shleimah) of ten sefiroth.>

I would suggest, as the most plausible understanding of the Ramban in
Bava Bathra, that even nowadays sages have prophecy in the sense that
they attain sodoth haTorah, which are not accessible via pure logic,
and are the ultimate fruits of prophecy, not via prophetic methods but
via scholarly methods.

In which case the Ramban is not related to the thread at hand.

David Riceman

RYGB:
<<Will have to look. I do not know, I thought RS"G rejected astrology,
but I need to research.>>

If by RS"G you mean R. saadia gaon, then the answer is nah. he too
accepted it as a working system. i'm still at my day job and can't
provide specific mareh moqom, will try to do later.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

> See Ramban Shichchath HaAsin al Sefer haMitvoth #8 (Tamim Tihyeh ...).
> Admittedely it has to be understood in the context of the Ramban's
> denial of the existence of physical law, but it can certainly be taken
> as a rejection of astrology.

Ramban (Toras HaShem Temima): The word tamim means whole or complete. In
other words everyone should be entirely with G?d and not devote anything to
the stars or constellations or to demons. Thus we see at the beginning of
the parsha (Devarim 18:9) when you come to the land which G-d has given to
you - you should not learn to do .because it won't be necessary since there
will be prophets who tell the future - while the non Jews know the future
from diviners and magicians.

> To support his position that advice from gedolim is generated with ruach
> hakodesh Rabbi B cited a Ramban in Bava Bathra 12a. He later cited a
> passage in Shaar haGmul where the Ramban identifies ruach hakodesh as
> a form of nevuah.

It is interetesting to note the Ramchal's discussion of Ruach Hakodesh

Ramchal (Mamar HaIkkarim) [R' Aryeh Kaplan translation]" Below the level
of actual prophecy there is also a level known as ruach hakodesh. Here G-d
grants an emanation to an individual's intellect, and when he receives
it, information is set in his mind without any doubt or error. The
individual then knows the revealed concept completely with all its causes
and effects each on its particualr level. Through such inspiration one
can become aware of things that are also accessible to man's natural
intellect. The person who becomes aware of them through revelation,
however has a distinct advantage over one who does so in a normal human
manner. When one gains knowledge trhough inspiration, he does so without
effort, and attains it with neither doubt nor error, which is not possible
when one gains knowledge through mere human reason. It is also possible,
however, for a person to gain knowledge of things that are outside
the realm of human reason. These include hidden mysteries as well as
future events. Ruach Hakodesh is something that is actually felt by the
indivduals who achieve it. They are aware, without any doubt whatsoever,
that they are expereince an emanation, and that it is being granted to
them. Sometimes, however, an emanation is granted in a person's mind,
allowing hm to perceive the full meaning of a concept where the person
granted this emantion is not aware of it. In such a case it seems like a
thought that occurs to him [as a spontaenous inspiration]. In a broader
sense, this is sometimes inaccurately also called Ruach HaKodesh."

Daniel Eidensohn

Dr. Shapiro wrote:
>if there was opposition, so
> what. Many more gedolim opposed the Brisker derech in learning than the
> Mussar approach.

As far as I know there were never public proclamations against the Brisker
Derech nor were there published essays against it. What is the basis of
this assertion?

Dr. Shapiro wrote:
>   I am quote surprised at the vehemence of the assault on Mussar,
> especially since Mussar emerged victorious and with the exception of
> Volozhin all, yeshivot accepted it. Now late 20th century mussar might
> not be identical with early 20th century mussar, and Slobodka is not
> Novordok, but Mussar became part and parcel of the yeshiva world. The
> Chazon Ish's criticisms were voices in the wilderness.

R' Bechhofer wrote:
>That is Mussar, and I cannot see how anyone can deny its validity and
> critical need in Avodas Hashem.

Contrary to Dr. Shapiro who feels that mussar has become fully accepted
at almost all yeshivos and R' Bechhofer's assertions of its critical need
for everyone - the fact is that mussar is perceived by many as not only
inappropriate but as a harmful path in avodas HaShem. It is possible
that this represents a distinction between Americal and Israel. It is
also possible that this is a relatively recent development. It would
be helpful to hear what the attitude towards Mussar/Mashgichim is in
America. Over Shabbos I heard the following comments from my sons which
was presented as the typcial attitude in Israel yeshivos. It doesn't take
ruach hakodesh to detect a note of hostility towards Mussar. Mussar is
perceived not just as irrelevant today but also as harmful. They did
acknowledge that 50 years ago there were mashgichim that were widely
respected but that is not the present situation. The Chazon Ish was not
and is not a "voice in the wilderness".

1) Moshgichim are viewed as mistakenly thinking they know everything
about everything [true story] There was a close talmid [who is now a very
respected talmid chachom] of a very well known gadol who was approached
by the mashgiach. The mashgiach told the bachur that because he was not
learning well it was advisable to switch yeshivos. The bachur replied,
"I might not be doing well in mussar but my learning is fine". The
masghiach replied "No your Torah learning is also not doing well it is
best if you switch yeshivos". The bachur went to the gadol who told him
that in fact he was learning very well. He said let me explain to you what
is happening. "There was once a king who commissioned a painting. When it
was finished he offered a reward for who ever could find defects in the
painting. A shoe maker stepped forward and identified problems with the
depiction of shoes in the painting. He was given his reward. The next
day the shoemaker returned and said that the depiction of the clothing
in the painting was wrong. The king not only refused to pay him but
he demanded that the previous reward be returned. "When you commented
on the shoes it was reasonable to assume that you knew what you were
talking about since that is your profession. However now that I see you
are expressing judgments on things out of your field of expertise it is
obvious you are just a "know it all" and therefore even your judgement
about shoes is suspect".

2) Rav Boruch Ber - who never accepted Mussar in his yeshiva was once
convinced to at least try learning Mussar once. He sat for hours with
the sefer with incredible devotion and concentration. The Mussarniks were
very excited seeing his intense involvement. When they met him days later
they asked him his opinion of mussar study. He replied "It is ossur. I
got so involved in my faults and what I should be doing with my life
that I was not able to sleep at night and I lost the next day of Torah
study because I was unable to concentrate".

3) Ponevich has not had a mashgiach for the last 30 years.

4) Rav Hillel Zaks (grandson of the Chofetz Chaim and whose yeshiva
does not have a mashgiach) once commented that in his youth he heard the
following. A rosh yeshiva commented that the reason that rosh yeshivos
spend so much time traveling to raise money for their yeshivos was because
when a rosh yeshiva makes a serious mistake with a student it is form of
murder. Thus they must go into exile to atone for this. A student asked
"So why don't the mashgichim go into exile also?" The rosh yeshiva replied
"Because they don't do it beshogeg."

5) The reason that a yeshiva has a mashgiach is to provide an example
to the bochurim of what happens if you don't succeed in learning.

6) Reb Chaim Brisker [cited by Seridei Aish-translation in Men of the
Spirit] "If this 'repulsive fellow' (yetzer hara) meets you drag him
off to the study hall. This proves that the study of the Torah is the
best way of defeating the Evil Desire. The mention of Death will help
only a sick person. Some medicine will hep a patient to become well,
but if given to a healthy individual, would only make him ill. We
here in Volozhin are healthy both in spirit and body, we study Torah
and therefore we have no need of a special medicine. Perhaps the wise
scholars of Kovno and Kelm need to drink this bitter medicine, but let
them not invite healthy individuals to drink it with them". [Cited from
Rav YB Solevetchik from the Man of Halacha].

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

>From: Maylocks1@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:16:42 EST
>Subject: Re: Astrology Mareh Mekomos
>To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

>Dear Rabbi Bechhofer,

>     Even though I disagree with your fundamental point, I am happy to
> give you "ammunition.". Apparently you are unaware of the fact that R.
> Bahya Ibn Paquda opposed astrology. He was the first medieval writer to
> oppose astrology (a century before the Rambam). This passage is not found
> in the Ibn Tibbon edition but is found in the original Arabic and is
> included in Zifroni's Hebrew edition as well as Kafih's edition (see p.
> 354 note 1).
>     I have to say that I am also confused by the vehemence of your
> opposition to your opponents' view, going so far to say that they are not
> reflecting the mesorah etc. After all, they share the view of all the
> great gedolim who criticized Rambam, who believed his view was not
> derived from Chazal. Certainly, even if you think your correspondents are
> wrong, they are in good company.
>     You can post this if you wish.

>                                               All the best,
>                                                           Marc Shapiro

 From a later e-mail:
>P.S. I meant p. 254 in Kafih's edition. Unfortunately, I have just heard
>about the murders in Chevron. Hashem Yikom Damam!
>
>                          Marc

How can you be discussing possible differences in meaning between zeicher
with tzeireh and zecher with segol when zecher with segol does not appear
anywhere in Tanakh?

 From what reliable source with nikkud other than the Torah can one
base comparison?

Just for the record, the word appears nine times, twice in chumash,
five times in tehillim, once in Yeshayahu and once in Mishlei. All are
mileil with tzeireh. Check any Tanakh.

k"t,
Bewildered David

Re: Moch'las vs. Mach'las: For those who think they should repeat
twice, RGD wrote: <<You first go with the pesak, and then the other
possibility,if you insist.>>

As one opposed, in theory, to repetitions when there is really no doubt
as to which form is correct, I shouldn't make suggestions as how to do
it. But in the few places, where I do what I was brought up to do rather
than what I think should be done, I read the wrong version first and then
read the proper way as a correction. If you say it right the first time,
there is no reason to repeat.

One does not correct oneself by repeating it incorrectly.

As to Moch'las,. In opposition to the patach of Koren, Heidenheim,
Simanim & Co., every accurate manuscript, e.g., Keter, Leningrad, Sasson
etc., etc., as well as d'fus Venetzia, 1525 all have kamatz in all four
occurrences of the name. The occurrence in Breishit of the Keter has
been attested to (as RSM would put it) by Sapir's list of words examined
(M'orot Natan).

BTW, there was quite a discussion of the new Ashkenazic custom of
repetitions on the Mesorah list about a year ago. No other eidah has
such innovations.

k"t,
David

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:32:34AM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> Other pre-existing opinions, no? Isn't this simply the notion of being
:> forced to a da'as yachid to fit the data?

: I'm not quite sure what you mean.  Other pre-existing opinions?  I think
: he's talking more about allegorizing psukim...

But, as RYGB beat me to it, the Rambam is pretty clearly stating that
he would only consider allegorizing pesuqim IF it were consistant with
mesorah. Not introduce a new concept into Torah to solely satisfy a
scientific constraint. That would be giving greater ne'emanus to
scientific method and contemporary theory than to Torah.

: As it is, the kabbalists have allegorized them into a spiritual creation
: of the Universe.  Which is handy for those of us who see the Creation
: passages as somehow not fitting current theories of cosmogony.

But they did so based on ideas found in TSBP. They didn't rewrite
Torah in the face of some external datum. And if they hadn't found
meqoros within mesorah, would we be permitted to innovate such ideas
for apologetic reasons?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

WADR to our moderator, I believe that the post below, consisting as it does 
of anecdotes and assertions with no empirical data, constitutes simple 
Lashon Ha'Ra - no, sorry - Motzi Shem Ra - and it would be preferable to 
delete it from the archives.

That probably means my response below will have to go a swell, but as they 
say, oy l'shecheino!

At 10:40 PM 11/16/02 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Dr. Shapiro wrote:
> >if there was opposition, so
> > what. Many more gedolim opposed the Brisker derech in learning than the
> > Mussar approach.

>As far as I know there were never public proclamations against the Brisker
>Derech nor were there published essays against it. What is the basis of
>this assertion?

I do not know Dr. Shapiro's sourece, but the Hakdama to the Marcheshes is 
well known, as is Reb Yisroel's critique, which has remained Tirah she'b'al 
Peh - perhaps Dr. Shapiro knows where it is cited.

>Dr. Shapiro wrote:
> >   I am quote surprised at the vehemence of the assault on Mussar,
> > especially since Mussar emerged victorious and with the exception of
> > Volozhin all, yeshivot accepted it. Now late 20th century mussar might
> > not be identical with early 20th century mussar, and Slobodka is not
> > Novordok, but Mussar became part and parcel of the yeshiva world. The
> > Chazon Ish's criticisms were voices in the wilderness.

>R' Bechhofer wrote:
> >That is Mussar, and I cannot see how anyone can deny its validity and
> > critical need in Avodas Hashem.

>Contrary to Dr. Shapiro who feels that mussar has become fully accepted
>at almost all yeshivos and R' Bechhofer's assertions of its critical need
>for everyone - the fact is that mussar is perceived by many as not only
>inappropriate but as a harmful path in avodas HaShem. It is possible
>that this represents a distinction between America and Israel. It is
>also possible that this is a relatively recent development. It would
>be helpful to hear what the attitude towards Mussar/Mashgichim is in
>America. Over Shabbos I heard the following comments from my sons which
>was presented as the typical attitude in Israel yeshivos. It doesn't take
>ruach hakodesh to detect a note of hostility towards Mussar. Mussar is
>perceived not just as irrelevant today but also as harmful. They did
>acknowledge that 50 years ago there were mashgichim that were widely
>respected but that is not the present situation. The Chazon Ish was not
>and is not a "voice in the wilderness".

This entire paragraph consists of opinion and should be recognized
as such.

That having been said, to the extent that there is hostility to Mussar,
I do not see why it should not be taken precisely for what is: A
manifestation of yeridas ha'doros. Thought is out. As a grandmotherly
rebbitzin who teaches with my wife told her on Erev Shabbos: "My kids
say to me: "Mom, you're an intellectual - but no one thinks any more;
it's no longer necessary..."

>1) Moshgichim are viewed as mistakenly thinking they know everything
>about everything [true story] There was a close talmid [who is now a very
>respected talmid chachom] of a very well known gadol who was approached
>by the mashgiach. The mashgiach told the bachur that because he was not
>learning well it was advisable to switch yeshivos. The bachur replied,
>"I might not be doing well in mussar but my learning is fine". The
>masghiach replied "No your Torah learning is also not doing well it is
>best if you switch yeshivos". The bachur went to the gadol who told him
>that in fact he was learning very well. He said let me explain to you what
>is happening. "There was once a king who commissioned a painting. When it
>was finished he offered a reward for who ever could find defects in the
>painting. A shoe maker stepped forward and identified problems with the
>depiction of shoes in the painting. He was given his reward. The next
>day the shoemaker returned and said that the depiction of the clothing
>in the painting was wrong. The king not only refused to pay him but
>he demanded that the previous reward be returned. "When you commented
>on the shoes it was reasonable to assume that you knew what you were
>talking about since that is your profession. However now that I see you
>are expressing judgments on things out of your field of expertise it is
>obvious you are just a "know it all" and therefore even your judgement
>about shoes is suspect".

There are different kinds of Mashgichim. This is not the kind of Mashgiach
and Baal Mussar we admire, so this factoid is not relevant in way,
shape or form to our discussion.

>2) Rav Boruch Ber - who never accepted Mussar in his yeshiva was once
>convinced to at least try learning Mussar once. He sat for hours with
>the sefer with incredible devotion and concentration. The Mussarniks were
>very excited seeing his intense involvement. When they met him days later
>they asked him his opinion of mussar study. He replied "It is ossur. I
>got so involved in my faults and what I should be doing with my life
>that I was not able to sleep at night and I lost the next day of Torah
>study because I was unable to concentrate".

Hmm... And this proves?

That one should go through life with uncorrected faults, right?

>3) Ponevich has not had a mashgiach for the last 30 years.

Hmm... And R' Chaim Fridelander and R' Benzion Bamberger were...?

>4) Rav Hillel Zaks (grandson of the Chofetz Chaim and whose yeshiva
>does not have a mashgiach) once commented that in his youth he heard the
>following. A rosh yeshiva commented that the reason that rosh yeshivos
>spend so much time traveling to raise money for their yeshivos was because
>when a rosh yeshiva makes a serious mistake with a student it is form of
>murder. Thus they must go into exile to atone for this. A student asked
>"So why don't the mashgichim go into exile also?" The rosh yeshiva replied
>"Because they don't do it beshogeg."

Another one of those quaint period pieces of leitzanus. Thanks for sharing.

>5) The reason that a yeshiva has a mashgiach is to provide an example
>to the bochurim of what happens if you don't succeed in learning.

Ditto.

I wonder if that is why the Ponovitcher Rav - an anti-Mussarnik -
recrutied Rav Dessler. Do you think so?

>6) Reb Chaim Brisker [cited by Seridei Aish-translation in Men of the
>Spirit] "If this 'repulsive fellow' (yetzer hara) meets you drag him
>off to the study hall. This proves that the study of the Torah is the
>best way of defeating the Evil Desire. The mention of Death will help
>only a sick person. Some medicine will hep a patient to become well,
>but if given to a healthy individual, would only make him ill. We
>here in Volozhin are healthy both in spirit and body, we study Torah
>and therefore we have no need of a special medicine. Perhaps the wise
>scholars of Kovno and Kelm need to drink this bitter medicine, but let
>them not invite healthy individuals to drink it with them". [Cited from
>Rav YB Solevetchik from the Man of Halacha].

Sure, the SE cited that approvingly, right?... Of course not.

The history of Torah Judaism since R' Chaim Brisker has proved him wrong.

Now for my own anecdotal note:

I once heard a prominent Rosh Yeshiva speak out against Mussar.

He ended up being nichshal in a certain severe chet that I do not wish
to spell out.

Perhaps had he learned Mussar...

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]