Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 034

Wednesday, October 29 2003

• Re: Interesting article on TECHELET
• Re: flood
• Re: Avodah V12 #31
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• Cease fire
• Incorrect Hebrew in the payet?
• RE: Rambam and Creation
• Teshuvah of IDF Chief Rabbi Weiss
• Naked and Cunning
• Adam and animals
• Re: Adam and animals
• Re: Rambam and Creation
• RE: Rambam and Creation
• Re: MN 3:18 (was: MN 3:38)
• Re: MN 3:18
• RE: MN 3:18
• RE: MN 3:18
• Re: Basis for philosophical discussion
• RYBS on Heter Meah Rabbanim
• Ending a text on a sad note
• Re: RYBS on Heter Meah Rabbanim
• Re: RYBS on Heter Meah Rabbanim
• Re: RYBS on Heter Meah Rabbanim
• Re: Ibn Ezra/ On Authority

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:03:00PM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: I just came back from our hospital library where I came across the
: September 20th issue of the journal NEW SCIENTIST. A (gentile) British
: amateur scientist who wanted to re-create techelet may have stumbled
: on the mechanism. He isolated a blue pigment from a shell (cockle),
: fermented it for 10 days at 50 degrees C whereafter it reduced to a
: green form soluble in water. When a cloth dipped in the green solution
: was dried in sunlight, the dye oxidized and debrominated, turning blue.

Techeiles is described as coming from dam hachilazon, not an extract
from the nartiq. The dye is taken while the chilazon is alive, but the
process kills the chilazon.

Which cockle? Is there a species of cardiidae (named for their
heart-shaped shells) indigenous to the Mediterranean? Obviously the ones
that are a part of Irish diet are native to colder climes.

The bit about the dye being green fits Rashi, but little else works.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

>If the mabul covered the entire world and destroyed everything how
>come we have trees with more than 6000 rings on them? ...

You think these questions have no resolution other than declaring an entire 
parasha in the Torah to be a fairy tale?!

...
>i.e from bereshit I understand that 5764 years ao the sun and moon
>and the stars were created. If this is true than previous worlds
>don't help us. The only way out is that only life (or perhaps only
>the dinosaurs) were destroyed.

Nowhere does it say there that the sun and moon were created on Day 4. As
the Lubavitcher Rebbitzen translates, literally (1:14): "And the godly
spirit of law and order said: 'Let there be luminaries in the atmosphere
of Heaven..." etc. The word creation does not appear in that context at
all. And the word "Va'ya'as" later refers to execution, not creation.

YGB 

>What I meant that is nothing that scientists know about occurred 5764
>years ago. If one doesn't care of the scientific view that one doesn't
>need the whole explanation of cycles and worlds destroyed....

>BTW for my information - which medrashim are these - as we all know some
>medrashim are taanaitic or early amoraic while others are from the time
>of the geonim and some even from after Rashi.

They are "mainstream" Gemaros and Midrashim. Only you need one of the old 
Torah Sheleimah's, the new ones are evidently printed without Rabbi 
Kasher's invaluable Hosofos.

YGB 

>For example -- creation is discussed as taking place over 6 "24 hour"
>days, that being the literal definition of "day" -- and confirmed by
>the usage of "night" and "day".

>Your position requires one to believe that time sequence.

>As soon as one starts talking about "day" being 1000 years, eons,
>"periods", "stages", etc, one has started treating the account
>allegorically.
...

There is a difference between interpretation of day by cross reference
to another pasuk in Tanach that refers to yomo shel HKB"H as 1000 years
and an approach that makes entire parshios fiction.

>During the period in question (5000-3000 years ago) the historic timeline
>is continuous due to the meticulous record keeping.

Can I have a source, please?

>Now you are talking about the "metaphysical" process of creation --
>and you gave no indication that you were switching the domain of the
>discussion.

Rashi makes it quite clear that the agados he cites are to be understood
as pshat in the text. I am sorry if you think that is switching the
domain of discussion.

YGB 

While I realize some may interpret this unilateral cease fire on my part
as a sign of weakness on my part, this is not the case.

The volume of responses required on my part, in *almost* single handed
battle against what seem to be the predominant (and, in my opinion,
incorrect) views of the members of Avodah has taken far too much of time
that I should be dedicating to Mishnayos Orlah etc.

I am therefore immediately and completely desisting from further
discourse on any and all of the issues under discussion and changing
over to digest mode. If someone else decides to take up the cudgels,
that is their prerogative. Moreover, if someone chooses to reject my
assertion and assume my withdrawal to be a tacit admission of defeat,
that too is their prerogative. Nevertheless, I must choose to do in
accordance with Ratzon Hashem as it seems to my understanding, and I
cannot imagine that He has any interest in continuing the discussions.

Until some other time,
YGB

A note concerning incorrect Hebrew in the payet of the yomim noraim.
(I use the transliteration "payet" because that is the way the word was
pronounced in Ashk'naz, and is historically more accurate than the modern
Hebrew "piyyut.")

Let me say at the outset that in general I am not a fan of correcting
nuskho'os if they are old. Methodologically, it is better to assume that
the form written reflects what was actually said and to find a reason for
why people said that. However, it is also true that old manuscripts are
rife with mistakes made by copyists rushing to finish, or copyists who
"corrected" the text without sufficiently understanding what lay behind
it. The problem was exacerbated after the era of printing, when every
new siddur claimed to be "iberzetzt un farbessert," which usually means
that the printer hired someone who thought himself to be great expert
in grammar to "fix mistakes," or the printer did so himself. In many
cases, the self-styled expert did more harm than good. (The famous
examples are R. Zalman Henau and R. Yitzhoq Satanover, who put out
their own siddurim corrected according to their own theories, thereby
replacing a lot of old authentic forms that they did not understand.
Although they were condemned by the g'dolim of the time, their siddurim
became accepted because of wide distribution, and most modern siddurim,
including ArtScroll, perpetuate their mistaken readings.) And the
g'dolim of previous generations were not shy about correcting mistakes
in the siddur. So it is also not methodologically correct to assume
that everything appearing in a manuscript siddur must be correct and
must have been gone over by rabbonim who knew Hebrew grammar.

I am not attacking payet, as R. Avraham Ibn Ezra does, on the basis
that its Hebrew is incorrect. As studies of payet have shown, it has
its own internal rules, which permit forms like "qah" for "he took,"
which would be laqah in Biblical Hebrew or natal in L'shon Hazal.

But payet does have its own rules, and is not just hefqerus, where
the paytan would write anything that came into his mind. For instance,
things like masculine and feminine agreement are scrupulously observed
by paytanim. In addition, payet, like the prayers written by Anshei
K'neses haG'dola, echoes language of the T'NaKh and of the Medrashim;
in virtually every line there is an echo of some posuq or some Medrash,
as many of the commentaries explicate.

These echoes provide definitive evidence that something has gone wrong
in the transmission of the payet in modern machzorim (possible reasons
to be discussed below). An example is the payet that was said by all
Ashk'naz q'hillos before dukhening (on Yom Tov and on Yom Kippur, the
only occasions when kohanim dukhened in Ashk'naz from the time of the
rishonim). The payet begins "v'te'erav l'fanekha 'atiratenu k'olah
ukhqorban," yet most machzorim have the initial word punctuated as
"v'te'arev," as if it were a verb in the Nif'al. Anyone who knows
Hebrew grammar will object that the root '-r-b cannot appear in the
Nif'al in that meaning; when you add to that the fact that the payet is
unquestionably an echo of verses such as "v'arva laShem minhat Y'hudah
viYrushalayim kiYmei 'olam" (Mal'akhi 3:4) and "ye'erav 'alav sihi"
(T'hillim 104:34), it is clear that the paytan meant for the verb
to be in the Qal, as it invariably appears in Biblical Hebrew and
L'shon Hazal. Indeed, that is the way it is punctuated in several
old manuscripts that I have seen. The mistake must have, therefore,
originated somewhere along the lines of the transmission of the machzor.
The origin of the mistake, it seems to me, stems from the fact that
in German and early Yiddish verbs with the meaning "to be pleasing"
are passive or reflexive, and most passive or reflexive verbs parallel
a Hebrew verb in the Nif'al or Hitpa'el (and the latter is precluded
by the consonants). The translation of the verse in Mal'akhi in German
by Luther thus is "und es wird dem HERRN wohlgefallen das Opfer Judas";
"wird wohlgefallen" is a passive verb. (In other translations, there was
no verb used, and instead the Hebrew verb was translated by an adjectival
phrase such as the "es zol zis zain" used in the "ivri-taitch" found in
some machzorim, which is very late.)

A similar proof can be brought about the phrase in "un'Tanneh toqef
q'dusshat haYom" which is punctuated in most machzorim "uvashofar
gadol yittaqa'." A grammarian would point out that "basshofar gadol" is
impossible; either it must be "b'shofar gadol" or "bashofar haGadol."
But the more conclusive proof is that this is a quotation. After all,
the clause itself is not standard Hebrew, which would be "b'shofar gadol
yitqa'," or "shofar gadol yittaqa'." But clearly the payet is echoing the
pasuq in Y'sha'ya 27:13 "v'haya bayyom hahu yittaqa' b'shofar gadol, and
there indeed it is "b'shofar," and not "basshofar." This latter mistake,
it seems to me, does not require an explanation; it is just an error in
grammar caused by a manuscript copier or a printer who did not know the
rules of Hebrew, and anyone who has examined manuscripts can testify
that there were many such.

And indeed, such mistakes in punctuation seem to be very common in the
payet in machzorim. From later in un'tanneh toqef, we find:

As printed				Correct Hebrew would be
K'heres hannishbar			k'heres nishbar or kaheres hannishbar
Kehatzir yavesh				k'hatzir yavesh or kehatzir hayavesh

In "hin'ni he'ani mimma'as":
Nir'ash v'nifhad (with a patah)		(should have a qomatz)

And in the payet " 'od yizkor lanu":
Uvabben hane'qad (with a patah)		(should have a qomatz)

The interesting fact, ha'omer darsheni, is that such mistakes are rare
in a) everyday siddurim; b) the basic t'fillos in printed machzorim.
They seeem to be common only in the payyet.

The explanation, it seems to me, is that payet and s'lihot were, prior
to the age of printing, contained in separate manuscripts pamphlets,
and these manuscripts were not subjected to the same amount of scrutiny
as the siddur. The basic t'fillos, even those for Rosh haShono and Yom
Kippur, were contained in the old siddurim (as well as some more modern
editions, such Roedelheim and the Lubavitch one). The siddurim, as we
have mentioned above, were subject to intense editing as new editions
came out; most outright mistakes were corrected. The payet and s'lihot
were contained in separate books, and the modern printed machzorim
combine material from both to make it easy for people to follow.

One other factor also may play a role. The examples brought above where a
Nif'al verb has a patah instead of a qomatz, and thus is in the incorrect
tense, may reflect a copyist who did not distinguish between a patah
and qomatz in his own speech. Such confusions between patah and qomatz,
between tzere and segol, and between qomatz qoton and holam were as
common among medieval copyists with S'faradi pronunciations as they are
in modern day Israel.

What is not so well known, but well attested, is that most people in
Ashk'naz during the time of Rashi and Tosefot pronounced Hebrew much
like the S'faradim. An example is probably the most important manuscript
of payet: the one used by the ShaTz in Worms, written according to the
colophon in 1272. (I say "most important" because a) it was from Worms,
the most prestigious Jewish community in those times, with world-famous
talmidei chachomim, where Rashi himself went to learn Torah, and b) it
was the official copy of the shul, and so the community would have hired
one of the best scribes, and any significant mistakes would have been
corrected.) The information about the textual variants in the manuscript
are available even without microfilm: Mal'akhi Beit-Aryeh wrote an article
discussing them in L'shonenu in 1965 (as mentioned above, the manuscript
contains only payet, for the 4 parshiyot and the yomim tovim, and was
used to supplement the siddur). And the manuscript, although generally
written carefully, shows a sufficient number of mistakes between qomatz
and patah, and tzere and segol (e.g. the word hayyoneq is pointed with a
qomatz under the he' and a segol under the nun) to prove that the copyist,
and presumably the entire community, pronounced those vowels the same. If
such errors were common even in the best of manuscripts of payet from
the earliest times in Ashk'naz, it is not surprising that many have
survived until today, especially in cases where most Jews are unaware
of a grammatical distinction (like the past and present of Nif'al).

My conclusion is that payet printed in siddurim should be treated as if it
were in a manuscript: there are definitely errors (as discussed regarding
v'te'erav and uv'shofar gadol), and erroneous vocalizations. A complete
treatment of this issue would involve tracing the payet as represented
in the earliest manuscripts to the earliest printed editions and changes
made from one printed version to another; such a treatment is beyond
the scope of this note.

Seth Mandel

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>> <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/b9-2.htm#2>

>I'm sorry, I read the whole chapter and couldn't find anywhere the use of the
>word "mashal" or "nimshal" (allegory). >Could you point out the actual
>paragraph?

The first two paragraphs in the URL. In Rav Qafih's translation, "ve-gam
ein darchei ha-bi'ur ne'ulim be-faneinu" and in Ibn Tibon's, "ve-lo
sha'arei ha-peirushim setumim be-faneinu". This means re-interpreting the
verses so as not to mean creation as we understand it, i.e. allegorizing
the verses.

Gil Student

On or Around October 3 there was a report of a Responsum (Teshuva) of
IDF Chief Rabbi Brigadier General Yisrael Weiss regarding Criteria for
the release of Terrorists in exchange for israeli Soldiers. There was
a link to the actual teshuvah. Would someone be so kind as to send me
that link or teshuvah.
    Thanks in advance
        Aryeh

[Perhaps you're thinking of a different email list. I checked the archive
for vol #12 (which started right before Rosh haShanah, and the only
"weiss" were in posts by RHW, no appearance of "brig" or "terror". The
letters "soldi" only appear in a discussion about whether chillul shabbos
ought be deferred to soldiers who are mechalelei shabbos. -mi]

> In yesterday's parsha, we are told (2:25-3:1): "And the man and his wife
> were both arum and were not ashamed. And the nachash was more arum than
> all the other animals..."

> I find it striking that the exact same word seems to be used in these
> adjacent psukim. They are generally translated in different ways (naked,
> cunning) but I wonder if there might be some way to explain the psukim
> using the same meaning for both occurrences of the word.

>                                      .... Perhaps there is indeed a
> deeper message that Hashem put there for us. I wonder if there might be a
> perush somewhere who disagrees with that Ibn Ezra, and comes up with
> another way of explaining these psukim. Anyone ever see anything along
> these lines?

R. Hirsch and the Netsiv both try to deal with this question. The Ibn
Ezra's answerm BTW, is much deeper than it seems at first. There is a
great deal of alliteration and "word-play" in the first two chapters of
Breishis that you see less of subsequently. In my unlettered opinion
this is to emphasize that Creation was secondary to word of Hashem
speech, speaking.

M. Levin

> What I find even more amazing is the Rashi on Pasuk 23 chapter 2. on
> the words Zos HaPam. Rashi there states that Adam had relations with all
> animals and wild beasts but could not find satisfaction until Eve. When he
> had Eve "This time..." he found satisfatcion. This all took place before
> Adam ate from the Eitz HaDaas. The Torah does not call his actions an
> abomination at all...
>             Is there a concept of innate or natural immorality? Do we
> need the Torah to tell us so. Or did the Etz Hadass do this. In pre Eitz
> HaDaas times, is it possible to say that not only was Adam not capable
> of sinning but even sin itself did not exist and that all acts would
> have been permissible except from eating from those two trees.

Please see the Gur Arye ibid. who asks and answers your question.

M. Levin

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> Please see the Gur Arye ibid. who asks and answers your question.

I do not own a Gur Areyeh. What does he say?

HM

From: <gil@aishdas.org>
> Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/b9-2.htm#2>

> The first two paragraphs in the URL.  In Rav Qafih's translation, "ve-gam
> ein darchei ha-bi'ur ne'ulim be-faneinu" and in Ibn Tibon's, "ve-lo
> sha'arei ha-peirushim setumim be-faneinu".  This means re-interpreting the
> verses so as not to mean creation as we understand it, i.e. allegorizing
> the verses.

In that case, the issue of this discussion is not whether you can use
Drash and Sod or you have to go with PeShuto Shel Mikra.

The issue is: How do we define the English word "Allegory"
or:
How do we translate the Hebrew word Derasha.

Maybe we should resolve this issue, and then we can go back to the topic
and see what everyone agrees or disagrees with.

Shoshana L. Boublil

RSB
> <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/b9-2.htm#2>

> I'm sorry, I read the whole chapter and couldn't find anywhere the use
> of the word "mashal" or "nimshal" (allegory). Could you point out the
> actual paragraph?

In the URL, the second paragraph. He doesn't use the word mashal -
but the following
    vegam eyn darche habeur neulim lefanenu velo nimnaim mimenu beinyan
    briat haolam. ela yecholim hayinu leva'er otam kderech she'asinu
    bishlilat hagashmut

Explanation
What is the mechanism of biur used in shlilat hagashmut - mashal...

Meir Shinnar

RMS's response was typical, he wrote:
> Dear R Folger:
> I read your post - is it MN 3:38 - dealing with the third category of
> mitzvot dealt in in hilkhot deot - that you are dealing with?

Well, I made a mistake when I wrote the chapter # in my palm. It should
have read MN III:18, one of the chapters dealing with hashga'hah. I
still need help, though.

Arie

Have you seen Charles Raffell's dissertation on this subject? I think
it is considered to be the latest and greatest on the subject, although
he seems to me to have left some very important questions unanswered.

Gil Student

RGS
> Have you seen Charles Raffell's dissertation on this subject? 

Is it published? How does one get a copy?

Meir Shinnar

> Well, I made a mistake when I wrote the chapter # in my palm. It should
> have read MN III:18, one of the chapters dealing with hashga'hah. I
> still need help, though.

There is a two volume work that just came out by RY Lebowitz - based on his
weekly classes which for some years dealt with the More Nevuchim - one
volume is on ta'ame hamitzvot, the other is on hashgacha.  The volumes are a
record of an interactive class going through the chapters of the more
nevuchim - the volume on torat hahashgacha goes through in detail reading
chapter 3:18 ( as well as the surrounding chapters) - one need not agree,
and the perspective is based on RYL's understanding of the rambam - which
many here would find problematic - but it gives a good starting point in the
text and the underlying issues.

Meir Shinnar

RYGB read my post where I delineated possible difficulties with the
popular understanding of the Mabul, and reacted with much vigor to one
of my points. I steted that the ark was a bit on the small side for
holding so many animals, and he directed me to the Ramban in Bereishit
6:19. Problem is, that the Ramban doesn't change my argument. The Ramban
says that the ark was large, though definitely too small to hold the
globe's land animals, and that they all fitted miraculously.

I had written that the entire event can be understood by resorting to
the miraculous, so I thought I had been explicit enough in acknowledging
the Ramban. I added that there are good reasons to try to understand the
text without resorting to the supernatural, and referred to the Ralbag
and the Malbim on the episode of the cessation of the flow of the Jordan
River in the beginning of sefer Yehoshu'ah.

Now, I haven't stated positively that a partial Mabul is what the
Torah mentions, I merely said that such speculation would answer some
difficulties and is at first sight compatible with the text, which I
said because I leaned Zva'him 113a&b. However, I do concede that the
matter simply needs more investigation.

RYGB cited the Ramban because he disagrees with my entire methodology,
which is his right. I still maintain that the derekh halimud that Ralbag
and Malbim use in the aforementioned episode would either disagree with
Ramban in Bereishit 6:19, or at least suggest that we at least try to
understand the Mabul differently, even as detailed anaysis of the sources
may eventually prove the endeavor futile.

So, in conclusion, the Ramban RYGB cited cannot be used as an objection
to this thread except if someone is a talmid muvhaq of Ramban (even then,
we could argue, never mind).

I expect to shift now to more discussion of sources, point by point,
rather than argue the same positions ad nauseum.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

"Ethical considerations also prompted the Rav's refusal to participate
in granting a heter me-a rabbanim to husbands whose wives were unwilling
to accept a get. The Rav explained that his policy was based upon the
realization that, if the shoe were on the other foot, corresponding
procedures would not be available to the wife."

R' Walter Wurzburger, "Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern
Orthodoxy" in Tradtion 29:1 (1994), p. 17

Gil Student

Many of our texts end on a sad note. Examples include Eichah, Koheles,
and many many haftoros. We do not want to end the public reading on such
a point, so we append the next-to-last pasuk, reading it a second time,
after it and the final pasuk have been read.

It seems to me the preference to avoid ending on a sad note is something
which developed after the Tanach was closed, because the authors of
those seforim don't seem to have had any compunction about what they
chose the final pasuk to include.

It also seems that this preference developed after the haftoros' endpoints
were chosen. This can be seen by contrasting their endpoints with the
endpoints of the aliyos read from the Torah: We never need to go back
a pasuk to avoid ending on a sad note, because the splits were chosen
and designed to avoid these occurrences to begin with.

In fact, I recall some cases where an aliyah would have ended on a sad
note, but the reading continues seveal more pesukim into an entirely
unrelated topic, and this is done to avoid ending on a sad note. The same
procedure *could* have been done with the haftoros (namely, continuing
into an unrelated passage) but they did *not* do so, and that leads me
to suspect that this practice of reading the next-to-last pasuk is a
comparatively recent development.

Question 1: Who started this practice, and when and why?

Question 2: If the earlier generations were not bothered by ending that
way, why did the later generations take it upon themselves to institute
this "improvement"?

Question 3: I understand that the person who gets an aliyah for "Chazak"
should *not* say "Chazak" along with everyone else, as it would be
a hefsek before his post-aliyah bracha. According to those opinions,
why doesn't the same apply to the haftoros? Why isn't recital of this
out-of-place pasuk considered a hefsek?

Akiva Miller

gil@aishdas.org wrote:
> "Ethical considerations also prompted the Rav's refusal to participate
> in granting a heter me-a rabbanim to husbands whose wives were unwilling
> to accept a get. The Rav explained that his policy was based upon the
> realization that, if the shoe were on the other foot, corresponding
> procedures would not be available to the wife."

> R' Walter Wurzburger, "Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern
> Orthodoxy" in Tradtion 29:1 (1994), p. 17

I find this approach problematic and am surprised that RYBS took this
approach for the reasons you state. If Halacha L'Maasah allows for a Heter
Meah Rabbanim, why shouldn't it be used? It is discrimination in reverse.

If one looks at the Klal, one can sense a lack of fairness in the Torah's
granting an "out" to married men whose wives refuse to accept a Get... and
the inability for women to do the same, thus becomming Agunos. But if
one looks at the individual, the picture totally reverses.

Why should an individual suffering a bad marriage be denied a legal remedy
when all other remedies fail? Does the increased suffering of their male
counterparts make for a better life situation for an Agunah? Does creating
male "Agunos" help female Agunos? Is such a woman happy that a man in
similiar circumstances is made to suffer just like her? I think not.

That women have no similar remedy is sad, perplexing... and even
outrageous. But to deny a legitmate option to men because of a sense
of "fair play" seems to be cruel to the individual in the extreme.
Why must gender be looked at? Any time an individual can be helped by
the application of Halacha they should be, irregardless of gender.

HM

Harry Maryles wrote:
> I find this approach problematic and am surprised that RYBS took this
> approach for the reasons you state. If Halacha L'Maasah allows for a Heter
> Meah Rabbanim, why shouldn't it be used? It is discrimination in reverse.

I guess this is another indication that RYBS was not the "Halakhic Man".

As an aside, I saw in Dr. David Shatz's Introductory Section to his
Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah (available on www.rav.org) that he
considers Halakhic Man to be a description of R' Moshe Soloveitchik, sort
of a "philosophical hesped" (see pages 48-50).

Gil Student

In a message dated 10/29/2003 11:33:45 AM EST, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> "Ethical considerations also prompted the Rav's refusal to participate
> in granting a heter me-a rabbanim to husbands whose wives were unwilling
> to accept a get. The Rav explained that his policy was based upon the
> realization that, if the shoe were on the other foot, corresponding
> procedures would not be available to the wife."

> R' Walter Wurzburger, "Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern
> Orthodoxy" in Tradtion 29:1 (1994), p. 17

Also brought down by R. Rakeffet. As an admirer of R'YBS I was puzzled
how to reconcile this with his philosophy that philosophy grows out of
Halacha. I assume there are other sources within halacha that "overcome"
this objection.

KT
Joel Rich

Not quite sure what the difference is between divide and disagree in
this context, but be that as it may I don't know that I'd agree with a
characterization of my own position as between 2 and 3 in the below list.
In fact I'd quite clearly disagree completely with #3 and would only
find a partial concurrence with #2 - basically that one should treat the
opinion of people one respected with appropriate koved rosh which might
or not translate into agreement. By the way, your very choice of words,
"compliance" as opposed to my own "concurrence", may reflect a more
fundamental difference in perspective. In fact, of the list below, which
by the way I do not find complete, I would actually come down closer to
#1, with the caveat that I don't believe there is such a thing as a p'saq
for somebody who didn't ask the question. So the voluntary acceptance of
"binding" authority is quite specific to the initiation of the exchange
by a shailoh from the asker, it is not a property or power possessed the
poseiq who may choose to exercise it at times and on such (even) halakhic
topics as he wills. I know this is quite far from current perspectives.

Thank you for your note.  MF  

MF posted in reposnse to GB:
Now, I have not actually met either RDE or RYGB, or just about anybody
else in this forum for that matter, and thus it would be foolish indeed
to assay a calibration of the saintliness or scholarship of either of
these presumed worthies from the odd avodah submission. But RYGB's remark
nevertheless reflects a mindset which has both larger resonances in the
broader community and which I find troubling. And that is the implicit
focus on the "authority" of the proponent rather than the substance
of the issue and its logical persuasiveness. Which is not to say that
"authority" has no place.

This is an unresolvable issue as it is one of 9 issues that divide
Modern and whatever-you-want-to call-it Orthodoxy. The 9 issues
and various attitudes to them are nicely laid out on the Edah
site,http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/diverse.cfm. May I
suggest that we disagree but not divide over this? Regarding this one
I quote:

DA'AT TORAH 

ATTITUDE #1: The Individual accepts the binding jurisdiction of a posek
voluntarily in matters of halakha. On non-halakhic matters, persuasive
reasoning is the proper ground for decision making, whatever its source.

ATTITUDE #2: Recognition of the authority of one or more posekim, should
lead the individual to serious deliberation on, and usually to comply
with, the non-halakhic judgments of those posekim in recognition of
their outstanding wisdom and insight.

ATTITUDE #3: The individual who has accepted the authority of one or
more posekim on matters of halakha is bound by the judgment of those
posekim also in non-halakhic areas when the posekim so dictate.

ATTITUDE #4: Gedolei Torah, recognized as such by the people, have
the authority to bind both the individual and communities to comply
with their dictates in all aspects of life, without having to provide
technical halakhic justification of their position.

RYGB clearly holds #4 while MF is somewhere around 2 to 3.

>Appreciate that. The language of dividing and disagreeing is taken out
>of Christian sectarian context and it was probably not the appropriate
>one to use here.

Compliance is the terms used by R. S. Berman, not by me. It stacks the
cards in the debate to favor the Modern O perspective.
My point was that this is an issue that cannot be rationally debated
because it goes to the heart of one's affiliation within Orthodoxy.

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]