Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 036

Sunday, November 28 2004

• FW: Ikkarim Redux
• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• Re:Orthodox Conservative rabbi
• Re: Requesting this list to list machshava classics
• Re: Requesting this list to post Machshavah classsics
• Re: Tachlis HaBeriah
• Re: Asking Questions
• RE: Asking questions
• Tachlis HaBeriah (Was: Requesting this list to list machshava classics)
• Re: Tachlis HaBeriah
• Re: Tachlis HaBeriah (Was: Requesting this list to list machshava classics)
• Re: Asking Questions
• Re: Requesting this list to post Machshavah classsics
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Requesting this list to list machshava classics

WRt to the position taken by some that one not only has to accept the
ikkarim (or some ill defined version of them) as true, but as ikkarim -
here is a source from the hatam sofer.

I don't have access now to the original. This is my translation from
the source as cited by Yeshaya lebovits in emuna, historia va'arachim,
p 100 from shut chatam sofer, yoreh deah 356

It is impossible for me to believe that our salvation is one of the ikkare
hadat, and that if that foundation falls the wall will fall, (g-d forbid)
..... and that we shall say that if g-d forbid our sins will cause that
hashem will banish us forever, ...., is it because of this that Israel is
allowed to cast off the yoke of heaven or to change even the slightest
(kutzo shel yod) even from the words of the rabbis? halila! We do not
worship hashem to eat the fruit of the land and enjoy its goodness -
to do your will my g-d I wish, and in every respect we are the slaves of
hashem, who will do with us according to his will and desire; and this (=
coming of mashiach) is not an ikkar and not a foundation at all to build
on it any building, but since that the basic foundation of everything
(ikkar yesod hakol) - to believe in the torah and neviim, and there
our ultimate salvation is promised ....... therefore someone who casts
doubt on the salvation is therefore denying the foundation of belief
(cofer beikkare haamanat) in the torah and neviim.

Explicitly that emunah in mashiach is not viewed as an ikkar - even
though its belief is binding.

Meir Shinnar

I must apologize for my tardiness in responding to a few posts in a
thread I started. I will try to combine my comments in one post.

First, R' Michael Feldstein:
I think the term, "Orthodox Conservative rabbi," which someone used
in a previous post, is a misnomer. A rabbi is either an Orthodox rabbi
or a Conservative rabbi, depending on where he received his smicha. I
think what we are talking about is Orthodox rabbis who are employed
at Conservative shuls, and whether their employment at such a shul
automatically negates the Orthodox smicha that they have received. This
is the real question. There are many Conservative rabbis who are shomrei
mitzvot, but I would not consider them an "Orthodox rabbi" because they
are personally Orthodox and also a rabbi. The term "Orthodox rabbi,"
in my opinion, means someone who has received an Orthodox smicha.

MYG: 
Agreed - which is why I wrote, "An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?" instead
of, "An Orthodox Rabbi?" As R' MB wrote: "I took the original title of
this thread to refer to an O [man] who we're identifying as a C Rabbi.
IOW, he is C in ordination and affiliation who personally is O."
Incidentally, in a later post R' MB summed up my question (im nofach
mi'shelo) very well: "But as I see it, no substantiated arguments have
been made for the central point: Someone whose personal emunah and
practice is within O but believes in the validity of the full range of
C as options for other people -- is such a person O or not? Does simply
affiliating with a movement change someone's status? And what halachic
chalos corresponds to "movement", anyway?"

Now, R' Jonathan Zuess took issue with some of my statements.
R' JZ:
> It seems to me that if we are going to have biases in our feelings and
> reasoning, they should be toward kindness and giving people the benefit
> of the doubt, rather than searching for justifications for excluding
> them from Judaism.

MYG:
>...an inconsistant blob of contradictory beliefs, of which every member
>is free to choose as he/she wishes,...

R' JZ:
> Conservatism holds that members must follow the rulings of their local
> Rabbi.

To which I respond: Okay, but whose rulings do the rabbis have to
follow? Exactly. Besides, IIRC, (and I don't have the text available to
me now) especially in matters of belief, members do not have to follow
the rulings of their local rabbi.

R' JZ continues, quoting me:
>...any rabbi associating with it is cutting himself off from Klal 
>Yisroel.

R' JZ:
> Who is trying to cut who off from Klal Yisroel here? 

To which I respond: 
Wait! We are having an halachic discussion! (Otherwise we'll be demoted
to the rejected list... :-) ) It seems you are taking this a bit
personally. I have no objections to including a conservative rabbi in
"the fold." I just don't think a conservative rabbi should be considered
in the fold. I may be wrong. If so, please correct me. However, if I am
right, then it is they themselves, by their own definition of Judaism,
who are cutting themselves off from Klal Yisroel.

R' JZ wrote in a subsequent post: 
RMG:
>Are we obligated to judge him favorably - that he does believe in the 
>13 ikkarim, etc. - because he considers himself O?

It seems to me we are obligated to judge him favorably, in any case. We do
not know what he believes, and there is clearly room for the possibility
of assuming it is favorable. I would also point out that even if we
assume he is an apikorus, we actually don't have permission to speak
about our negative judgments publicly. The permissibility to speak
against an apikorus applies if one heard words of heresy directly
from an individual. However, if he heard the heresy second hand, he
is forbidden to speak against the person, whether in his presence or
behind his back. Rather, he should suspect the person as an apikorus,
and also warn others to stay away from him until the matter is clarified.
Further, he should not believe in his heart that the information is
true, according to the laws against accepting Lashon Hara. (Thanks to
Torah.org's adaptation of Chafetz Chaim)

To which I respond: Torah.org may have omitted the concluding lines
of the Chafetz Chaim I:8:5-6. "The preceding applies if one directly
heard the words of apikursus; but, if others told him of it, it is
forbidden... This is if he just "heard." (Shmi'ah b'alma.) However,
if they are established (muchzakin) in the city as apikorsim, it is as
if he himself recognized it (their heretical behavior - MYG)." In which
case, the Chafetz Chaim said that they are not included in "Amisecha"
and it is a "mitzva to denigrate and embarrass them." The question on
the table is: Is a rabbi associated with the conservative movement, by
definition, an apikores? If yes, then one is not required to judge him
favorably, nor to refrain from speaking negatively about him publicly -
even if he does all the mitzvos.

Someone sent me the following two citations from Mail.Jewish. The first is
a decade old: <http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v13/mj_v13i59.html#CRW>
Here are the relevant parts, regarding RYBS's position on the matter:

Reuven Cohn:
> I have not looked into sources that would shed light on the issue of
> conservative conversions.  What I would like to bring to the discussion
> is a vivid memory that I have from my childhood.  It was one of numerous
> discussions that my late father would have with Rav Soloveitchik as they
> walked home from shul every shabbos, often with several other people
> from shul, including our longtime teacher at Maimonides, Rabbi
> Wohlgemuth, yibadel le'chaim.  The Rov was always engaging, witty,
> relaxed during those walks.  The particular phrase that stuck in my mind
> from one particular conversation was the Rov saying that there was no
> question in his mind that conversions done by conservative rabbis were
> valid from a halachik point of view.
> The reason that this incident stands out in my mind is because of the
> continuation of the Rov's statement that he said so dramatically that I
> can still hear his intonation-- "but I will never allow them to be
> accepted in Israel."
> I never inquired as to what the Rov meant by this statement.  I was
> after all just a kid tagging along.  As I remembered this scene over the
> years, I have assumed that the Rov meant that if a conservative rabbi
> follows the requirements of a halachic conversion, it would be a valid
> conversion, but that the Rov would not allow his own view on this matter
> to be used in the political battle in Israel to legitimize a
> conservative rabbinate.
> I appreciate that a memory of a discussion in which I was merely a kid
> in awe of his elders cannot be the last word, but I think that it may
> have some relevence to the issue.

On the other hand, <http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i67.html>:
Amitai Bin-Nun:
> In MJ v.39 i.65, Gil Student wrote that R' Aharon Soloveitchik would
> disqualify any Conservative Rabbi from serving on a beit din based on
> ideology alone. I would just like to point out that Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm
> wrote claimed in article in Moment Magazine (I think it was either 1983
> or 1986), that the Rav, in his role as Chair of the RCA Halacha Commitee,
> would accept the gittin of Rabbi Boaz Cohen of the JTS faculty. Rabbi Lamm
> extrapolated from this that denomination itself is not a disqualification
> according to the Rav. This being the Rav, I wonder if anyone knows of
> anytime he indicated that he held the opposite.

Contrast the aforementioned with RYGB's citation of a conservative
rabbi's citation of R' AS:
> For instance, see the stinging comments of the recently deceased
> Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, "On the Matter of Conservative Weddings,"
> HaPardes 61.2, #5, pp. 8-19. R. Soloveitchik, scion of the great
> Lithuanian scholarly family and brother of modem Orthodox giant R. Joseph
> Soloveitchik, takes a more nuanced approach than R. Feinstein, yet arrives
> at similar conclusions. "If one were a Conservative Rabbi who believed in
> the Written Torah and Oral Torah with complete faith and kept all mitzvot
> with precision, both the major and the minor (if we can posit that such
> a strange thing is possible) and if he were a great scholar and expert
> in Talmud and Codes; since he is a rabbi of a Conservative synagogue,
> and a member of the Conservative movement, even this person would be
> unfit to judge and to be a member of a rabbinical court, such as for
> conversion" (p.18). Rabbi Soloveitchik bases this unforgiving ruling on
> B. Sanhedrin 26a, where it is stated that one who joins "a confederation
> of the wicked" cannot judge . "Even if a Conservative rabbi is a great
> scholar and keeper of mitzvot and exemplar of proper ethical conduct,
> he is part of a confederation of traitors," he concludes.

Which, BTW, I think answer's RMB's question:
> But as I see it, no substantiated arguments have been made for the
> central point: Someone whose personal emunah and practice is within
> O but believes in the validity of the full range of C as options for
> other people -- is such a person O or not? Does simply affiliating with a
> movement change someone's status? And what halachic chalos corresponds to
> "movement", anyway?

On the subject of ikkarim, RMB wrote: "The "in some form" refered to
the fact that few of us believe in the ikkarim the way the Rambam meant
them. And none of us (AFAIK) hold that one must believe in them exactly
as presented by the Rambam in order to be within the fold."
Additionally, R' Meir Shinnar and R' DE quoted the Chasam Sofer indicating
that a certain flexibility may be allowed. A friend told me that the
Brisker Rav had a very hard-line position on this, consistent with the
Rambam's mehalech. Does anyone have more information on this?

Thanks for listening, and KT!
Moshe Yehuda Gluck

P.S. As many of you may know, there was an active off-list discussion
about moderation policy on Avodah/Areivim. Without commenting on that,
I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly thank all those who make
Avodah/Areivim possible. As far as I know, this metaphysical location
is unique in the vast wilderness of the information superhighway. R'
MB, the moderators, the writers and all the readers - thank you all!

>When dealing with mamzeirus, the imperative is to be very strict in
>avoiding mamzeirus lechat-chilah, and meiqil once it's bedi'eved. Thus,
>Rav Moshe says we can assume the wedding was void bedi'eved -- but
>only bedi'eved.

 From a talmid of rav Moshe, I was told that he held that the wedding
was void lecatchila. It was only respect for the strong opposition of
rav Henkin that made him put it as bediavad.

>But as I see it, no substantiated arguments have been made for the
>central point: Someone whose personal emunah and practice is within
>O but believes in the validity of the full range of C as options for
>other people -- is such a person O or not? Does simply affiliating with a
>movement change someone's status? And what halachic chalos corresponds to
>"movement", anyway?

This is not a well defined question. WHat does "believes in the validity
of the full range of C as options for other people" mean? Does it mean
that he views them as valid lecatchila or bediavad? Furthermore, being
a C rabbi doesn't entail that - it means at most, that he holds certain
practices in his shul are mutar bediavad, so he can participate in them.

Remember, for most Jews, the choice isn't between the Conservative temple
or the Young Israel, it is whether to have any affiliation.

Rav Lichtenstein spoke once (It was cited here before) about RYBS"s
well known tshuva forbidding going to hear shofar in a Conservative
shul,and said, essentially, that it doesn't apply to the assimilated Jew
in Akron - where getting them to any shul is a positive. DOes a rav who
believes that the C movement is doing something for those assimilated,
even though we might disagree with his assessment of the metziut, so
far over the line that he is not O?

There is a well known O rav who, during his smicha years, served as
youth leader in a Conservative shul - leading many to Orthodoxy. HOwever,
many of his charges went to Ramah and USY. Was that a problem?

WRT to the question that the issue might not be about the kashrut of
the rav, it has been pointed out in previous go rounds that there were
Conservative rabbanim whose gittin were accepted...

Meir Shinnar

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
> At 10:12 AM 11/25/2004, David Riceman wrote:
>>On the contrary, what distinguishes a "baal" of anything is that he has 
>>the expertise to choose which approach he uses.  Do you expect a baal 
>>tefillah to adopt niggunim from all customs? You are defining what it 
>>takes to be a m'laket, not a m'chadesh.

> I expect a Ba'al Tefillah to have studied all the approaches, to present 
> evidence of his awareness of all sorts of niggunim and be capable of 
> expressing himself in a broad selection of them. Yes.

I repectfully disagree. A good Chasidishe Baal Teffilah will very
likely not be able to Daven in any Nusach even remotely resembling
Havaras Sefard or any Sefardi Nusachos. Same is true of Sefardi
Baalei Teffilah.

Do you think the great Kusevitsky knew the style of Nusach commonly
known as Carlebach? I doubt it.

I know many a great Baal Teffillah that knew their own Nusach very
well but had no clue about others.

HM

I agree with RMB. IMO,the exclusion of either RYBS or Rishonim or Gaonim
who did not use the derech of either the Baalei Chasidus or Mussar and
who utilized other sources strikes me as creating a glass house or maze
from which only those with a certain orientation are admitted.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

At 01:02 PM 11/25/2004, Harry Maryles wrote:
>When I say purpose of creation, it implies your statement. IOW, the
>tachlis ha'beri'ah is the purpose of creation by God of the physical
>universe. Isn't it true that we believe that the universe was created
>so that Man can serve God?

Who be "we"? Most definitely not I! I should hope not RYBS either
(although perhaps you will prove that he does). What kind of a God is
that, who would create a world to have servants?!

>...
>> Does anyone (perhaps other than RYBS) hold mitzvos are an end in and of
>> themselves?

>RYBS stays well within the Hashkafos of Brisk ...the idea of "What" versus
>"Why". That we can derive from that the Tachlis HaBeriah (the "Why") is
>perhaps a by-product, ...a deduction... a peirush on his philosophy. The
>"end" in RYBS's philosophy is to know "How" to do the Mitzvos. Fulfilling
>them the way God intended us to, is the end in itself. No other end has
>any meaning for Halakhic Man. His is not to know why we do the Mitzvos. He
>likely believes that we ultimately CANNOT know the "Why". That knowledge
>is in the realm of God, not Man. We can at best only speculate as to what
>God's purpose for creation is. And there is no purpose for Man to know
>the "Why"... only what and how. To man, The physical universe is a given
>(both in a physical and philosophical sense). Our purpose is to serve him.
>That's it.

Yishme'u aznecha mah she'picha meddaber!

(Or, yikre'u einecha mah she'eitcha koseiv.)

What you are suggesting - with which I might well agree;-) - is that
Brisk raises as its banner the banishment of underlying theological
thought. The antithesis of Machasheves Yisroel.

>> What about lo nitnu ha'mitzvos elah l'tzaref bahen es
>> ha'beri'os?

>I assume you are quoting Gemmarah here. The Gemmarah will often make
>poetic statements about "why we do this or that mitzvah. But can we
>say with any real conviction that such statements are THE definitive
>reasons? They may be valid and truthful statements but I question the
>definitive value of such statements.

I try not to question the statements of Chazal when they are taken as
definitive by the Rambam, Ramban, Chinuch, etc....

>> What about those pre-Mattan Torah individuals who had
>> no mitzvos?

>Pre-mattan Torah is part and parcel of God's creative process leading
>up to Mattan Torah. Would anyone question Mattan Torah as apex of our
>existence as Jews? Is there any other point in history that has any more
>significance than Mattan Torah?

That does not answer the question!

...
>In order to develop the idea of Halakhic Man, one has to first understand
>what Cognitive Man is. That Cognitive Man makes his mistake is a feature
>in his flawed status. Homo-religiosus, too, makes a mistake as to what he
>considers the most important feature of existence. While the latter may
>not be the Kofer that the former is, his views are still incomplete and
>therefore incorrect. It requires the capacities of both, to synthesize
>Halakhic Man.

Fair enough.

>> Do you really think that Chassidim don't believe that Halachah is the means
>> that allows one to know how to interact with the physical universe?!

>That's not what I said. I said they believe ("admit" ...is the word
>I used) that Halacha is the means given to us by God to achieve
>Deveikus. But their emphasis is on Deveikus and they look at Mitzvos
>only as a means to achieve it. Halakhic Man rejects this view as mere
>speculation on their part. To Halakhic Man the Mitzvah is the end and
>not the means. I'm not sure Halakhic Man would even concede the concept
>of Deveikus. But if he does it is at best a peripheral.

See above (about banishing thought). At least Chassidus makes the
attempt...

YGB

WADR to RYGB, the quoted vort is not sichas chulin. I also heard RHS say
over this vort as well. I seriously doubt that RYBS would have quoted
RCS in one of his works on the basis of what you dismiss as "sichas
chulin." Moreove, the teshuvah drashos and yahrtzeit shiurim of RYBS
always contained a mixture of halacha and aggaddah. The yahrtzeit shiurim
were well known for "two hours of halacha and two hours of aggadah".

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

RYGB
> Sorry. as RYBS, great as he may have been, refuses to incorporate Mussar
> and only the smallest smidgen of Chassidus and Kabbalah in his writings,
> he is inadmissible as a candidate for "the greatest ba'al machashava
> of generations." To cite him as such is to misunderstand machashava. I
> suggest the writer consult the classic work "Perakim b'Machasheves
> Yisrael" by Rabbi Yisraeli and see how often RYBS is cited. 
> V'ha'maskanah berurah.

Perhaps RYGB would care to define machshava - why would the omission
of mussar, chassidus, and kabbalah make one's writings not machshava? I
can understand saying that they are not mainstream, but not machshava? (
I would add that to some of us, those characteristics of RYBS's thought
help make it, in Emanuel Levinas's phrase, "a religion for adults")

WRT to Micha Berger's statement that RYBS doesn't deal with some of the
classical issues of machshava - the purposeful refusal to deal with some,
such as theodicy in Kol dodi dofek, is actually a profound statement on
theodicy and limitations of human understanding.

WRT to the refusal to acknowledge the validity of a story that goes
against one's understanding - and even viewing it as slanderous -
something clearly not shared by Rav Zevin and RYBS, two major talmide
chachamim with great respect for Rav Chaim - this refusal to accept as
true what goes against one's understanding is, unfortunately, too common
(eg, artscroll history), but am surprised at such public endorsement of
it by RYGB.

Meir Shinnar

ygb@aishdas.org posted on Nov 25, 2004:
> 1. That's not a tachlis for the Beriah; that is what Man does with
> the world.

Without taking sides as to what should be defined as "machshavah," I
think it should be noted that the Rambam in the section of Aggadta in
his Hakdama L'Parushu al HaMishna (also known as Hakdama L'Seder Zeraim)
has a lengthy piece on the purpose of the beriah. He concludes that ("as
the philosophers hold") all the world was created for the purpose of
producing an adam hashalem, whose purpose is to visualize the One-ness
of Hashem. (Pp. 155ff. in English section, and 25ff. in Hebrew section,
of "Maimonides Introduction to the Talmud," Judaica Press.)

In Moreh Nevuchim (III:13) the Rambam ridicules the idea that the universe
was created for man; for ultimately, if the puropose of man is to reach
perfection, one must ask, "and what is the purpose of /that/? He concludes
that the proper Torah hashkafa is to say that Hashem created each thing
for its own purpose, because that is His Will, period.

Zvi Lampel

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
> At 01:02 PM 11/25/2004, Harry Maryles wrote:
>>When I say purpose of creation, it implies your statement. IOW, the
>>tachlis ha'beri'ah is the purpose of creation by God of the physical
>>universe. Isn't it true that we believe that the universe was created
>>so that Man can serve God?

> Who be "we"? Most definitely not I! I should hope not RYBS either
> (although perhaps you will prove that he does). What kind of a God is
> that, who would create a world to have servants?!

I cannot speak for RYBS. I can only attempt to understand his "Halakhic
Man". But consider the following:

The highest compliment paid to Man is that he is an Eved HaShem. Who
was the quintessential Eved HaShem? Moshe Rabbenu. It is told about the
Chafetz Chaim that he refused to say Brich Shmeh because it contained
refferences to being an Eved Hashem.(Ana Avdah D' Kudisha Brichu). He felt
he was not on the Madreigah to be called an Eved HaShem like MR was. If
you don't think the purpose of creation is for Man to serve his creator,
what is the purpose?

...
> What you are suggesting - with which I might well agree;-) - is that
> Brisk raises as its banner the banishment of underlying theological
> thought. The antithesis of Machasheves Yisroel.

To say the least I am no expert on Halakhic Man. But as best as I can
determine from my reading of RYBS's works is that there are limitations in
the ability of Man in trying to identify underlying theological reasons
for creation. One ...MAY... contemplate the reason for existence, but
to Halakhic Man it is a waste of time since we cannot ever know the mind
of God.

I suppose it is the height of irony that RYBS, who is considered the
greatest Orthodox Jewish philosopher of the twentieth century defines
Halakhic Man in these terms "what" and "how". But in fact it is not
beyond the pale of Machsahava to think in those terms instead of
"why". The conclusion that "what" and "how" is what is essential and
not "why" is the result of a Machshava that has considered the "why"
and come to the conclusion that dwelling on it is futile.

>>> What about lo nitnu ha'mitzvos elah l'tzaref bahen es
>>> ha'beri'os?

>>I assume you are quoting Gemmarah here. The Gemmarah will often make
>>poetic statements about "why we do this or that mitzvah. But can we
>>say with any real conviction that such statements are THE definitive
>>reasons? They may be valid and truthful statements but I question the
>>definitive value of such statements.

> I try not to question the statements of Chazal when they are taken as
> definitive by the Rambam, Ramban, Chinuch, etc....

OK. My ignorance is showing. I don't know what these Rishonim hold and
I take your word for it.

Please explain the meaning of the word "l'tzaref". I undertand it as
meaning "to form" or "mold". Are the Mitzvos molding God's creations?
If so, what are they molding into? But most importantly, can we even
know the answer to that question before it happens? And what about the
Gemmarah that states: "Lo Nivra HaOlam Elah B'Shvili". Doesn't this
contradict somewhat the idea of a sort of evoltionary process that
"l'tzaref" implies.

Halakhic Man ...MAY... agree that there is a process going on but that
it is beyond our ken to determine God's purpose for Man in particular
and creation in general. Halakhic Man therefore is happy to be God's
servant knowing that by doing so he fulfils His will. God may "Morph"
Man into somthing else as Man goes about the business of performing
Mitzvos but that is not Man's concern. Man is a soldier doing God's
bidding unquestioningly.

>>> What about those pre-Mattan Torah individuals who had
>>> no mitzvos?

>>Pre-mattan Torah is part and parcel of God's creative process leading
>>up to Mattan Torah. Would anyone question Mattan Torah as apex of our
>>existence as Jews? Is there any other point in history that has any more
>>significance than Mattan Torah?

> That does not answer the question!

Why not? The ultimate Tachlis was given to Man at Har Sinai. Until then
service to God was defined in different, perhaps more direct terms
(Nevuah and the like). Besides, the Avos observed the all Mitzvos
pre-Mattan Torah. Chazal and the Rishonim go to great lengths to show
that and to explain why there were certain exceptions.

HM

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:10:40AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Without taking sides as to what should be defined as "machshavah,"...

I think that without the language debate, there is no original thread.
(As opposed to this "Tachlis" spin-off.)

FWIW, I'm missing something from RYGB's position. First he said the
topic of RYBS's philosophizing wasn't machashavah. But later he said
the distinction in terms of the person not the topic, and said he would
consider RYBS is a chosheiv not a ba'al machashavah. Doesn't a chosheiv
also engage in machashavah?

RYGB doesn't question (<g>) RYBS's greatness, but rather whether that
greatness is in a direction he would label a ba'al machashavah. As
there is no nafqa mina, I have no idea why people are getting worked up
about it.



Speaking of the heated responses, I allowed at least one post that was
somewhat insulting to RYGB from someone who I assume mistakenly thought
he was defending his rebbe's honor. My apologies to him and to the list
for the oversight.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

At 09:02 AM 11/26/2004, [R Steve Brizel] wrote:
>WADR to RYGB, the quoted vort is not sichas chulin. I also heard RHS say
>over this vort as well. I seriously doubt that RYBS would have quoted
>RCS in one of his works on the basis of what you dismiss as "sichas
>chulin." Moreove, the teshuvah drashos and yahrtzeit shiurim of RYBS
>always contained a mixture of halacha and aggaddah. The yahrtzeit shiurim
>were well known for "two hours of halacha and two hours of aggadah".

Understand me: If it is not sichas chullin it is flat out wrong. Who is 
being dan RCS l'kaf zechus here - you or me?

YGB 

At 08:55 AM 11/26/2004, [R Steve Brizel] wrote:
>I agree with RMB. IMO,the exclusion of either RYBS or Rishonim or Gaonim
>who did not use the derech of either the Baalei Chasidus or Mussar and
>who utilized other sources strikes me as creating a glass house or maze
>from which only those with a certain orientation are admitted.

Rishonim and Gaonim were not excluded. RYBS, yes.

YGB  

WRT to RZL's bringing the rambam:
WRT to ch 25,
> First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof, and
> so those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain
> statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted
> otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved, and
> THERE IS NO NEED TO FORCE INTERPRETATIONS ON SCRIPTURE TO MAKE IT FIT
> ONE POSITION, AS LONG AS THE OTHER POSITION IS DEFENDABLE.

> Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is NOT CONTRARY TO ANY
> OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR RELIGION, and it is NOT CONTRARY TO
> THE WORDS OF ANY PROPHET. ...On the contrary, Scripture itself teaches
> the Incorporeality of God. ...

RMB and I have had a long standing debate, whether the operating principle
is that "the other position is defendable" is the main issue, or whether
the contradiction to the fundamental principles of our religion is the
main point. No need to rehash it - but I think that the rambam did not
think that any thing provable by reason could be contradictory to the
fundamental principles...
as he himself cites from ch 17
If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole
teaching of Scripture would have to be rejected, and we should be forced
to other opinions.

WRT to the second proof from ch 17, RZL is, IMHO, mistaking a fundamental
issue. The rambam is trying to prove, according to Aristotelian science,
that there is no inherent contradiction, and, according to aristotelian
science,one can not learn from the existent to the preexistent.
Therefore, the current apparently eternal state of the world does not
prove that it is eternal - and there is no contradiction between our
current knowledge of the world and the torah.

Current science poses a fundamentally different question - it does not
deny change in the existence of different heavenly bodies and nature on
earth - but it proves that there were earlier stages. The rambam argues
that one can not predict embryological development from a fully formed
human - but not that one can not study the embryos- and that is precisely
what is done today in science. We can prove using current science certain
ideas about age of the universe (or rather, putting bounds on the age)
and appearance of species - while RZL shows that the rambam argues that
aristotle can't prove, using aristotelian criteria, the eternity of the
world. The rambam does not deny the validity of the use of reason, nor
that those things proven by reason are to believed. RZL would limit this
use of reason to the aristotelian science the rambam actually knew - while
I would argue that it is a general statement about the power of reason.

Meir Shinnar

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
> R' Yisrael Salanter was NOT a Ba'al Machashavah. He WAS a Ba'al Mussar.

I don't recall who started this thread, but his original request was a list 
of influential classics in machshava.  My guess is that he did not ascribe 
to the word the meaning you do, which I don't believe is standard.  Do you 
really think he meant to exclude books like Or Yisrael and Nefesh HaHayyim 
(an anti-Hassidic polemic and so not qualifying according to you by not 
incorporating Hassidus)?

David Riceman 

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


[ 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         ]