Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 016

Wednesday, May 18 2005

• Re: The Rambam and Korbonos (was psak and Hashkafa)
• Re: The Extraordinary Number of Stars
• hashkafa and psak
• psak and hashkafa
• The Rambam and Korbonos (was psak and Hashkafa)
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Reality of the Universe
• RYBS matza ashira
• Re: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• Re: The Extraordinary Number of Stars
• RE: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• Reality of the Universe
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• re:kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: re:kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: re:kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• RE: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:46:57AM +0200, Shalom Berger wrote:
: The Rambam's well-known comment in the Moreh about korbanos being a
: response to pagan worship does not include any statement about the future,
: nor does it logically negate the possibility of animal sacrifice in the
: 3rd Beis HaMikdash.

See also the Narvoni ad loc, quoted by the Abravanel in the haqdamah
to seifer Vayiqra. The Narvoni understands the Rambam as saying that
qorbanos dress an innate human need, which we find emerged in AZ. This
also explains the Ramban's question about Noach's qorban (at a time when
no ovdei AZ lived) or the fact that Kayin and Hevel gave qorbanos before
there ever was AZ.

I play with these ideas in the machashavah section of
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vayikra.pdf> and in my blog at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/purpose-of-qorbanos.shtml>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

> What's remarkable is the recent discovery of galactic clusters and
> superclusters. Our local cluster "by consensus" contains 30 galaxies!

Closer to 50, actually. And other clusters (and superclusters) vary in
number as well.

And that's the problem with Numerics -- they're nice until the numbers
don't match. Then you must either wave away the discrepancy or explain it.

Saying it's an "approximation" doesn't work, since 30 isn't a number
people use for approximation (powers of 10 are).

Akiva

-- 
there are no dilemmas without confusion, there's no free will without
dilemmas, and there's no humanity without free will.

Simcha Coffer wrote:
> I would actually be shocked if you could illustrate a case where Chazal
> paskened l'chumra on a Halacha and the Rambam negated their pesak and
> paskened l'kula due to his estimation of Chazal's inferior scientific
> grasp. It flies in the face of what the Rambam states openly in his
> hakdama to the Yad.

What about zugos? Aren't there chumros l'halacha that the Gemara Pesachim
is requiring and the Rambam is saying not to worry about the whole thing?

While some of the details of RYL's question weren't precise the question
still stands. The Rambam had an hashkafic approach that wasn't appreciated
by all and yet his halochos are accepted.

But the question goes further than that...

RSC's suggestion about only disregarding the Rambam in areas of imported
Greek philosophy, seems to work to some extent, but I wonder if it
passes the test of all areas of contention with the Rambam. As a matter
of fact the case he talks about (the existence of Shaidim, where the Gra
has strong words against his accursed philosophy) does have what seems
to be halachic impact. The sugya at the end of Pesachim, that the Rambam
intentionally skips over and so upset the Gra, is about zugos - avoiding
things in pairs. Since the Rambam denies the existence of Shaidim, he
has no problem with zugos. The Biur HaGra on Shulchan Aruch, in a part
which is paraphrasing whole chunks of Rambam, wants to know why zugos is
not in the Rambam and consequently in Shulchan Aruch. That sounds like an
halachic nafka mina that's an extension of the Rambam's philosophy to me.

If we are to say that RSC's idea, that we discard any Rambam that come
from non-Torah sources, including where they extend to halacha, we've
now taken quite a leap. It's no longer in the realm of theory that we
diregard parts of the Rambam, it's halacha.

Where did we get the power to accept the Rambam as our one of the biggest
poskim, but to ignore his psak in areas where we don't like the hashkofos
they came from?

-- OK, I just re-read RSC's posts and if I understand correctly he would
respond as follws: Rav Yosef Caro and the Rambam understood the sugya of
zugos (and meat and fish to not be eaten together) as aitzah tova, not
halacha. In that area, the Rambam felt current scientific knowledge or
some other approach to "dangers" entitles us to ignore those aitzos tovos.

So what was the Gra so upset about??? Sound like the Gra holds chazal's
understanding of "reality" is untouchable....

So to those who took the other side, and wanted to make a distinction
between psak and hashkafa, are there any SOURCES to back up your side? I
haven't really heard any... just svaros.. and the question from these
two Rambams have been answered well, I think.

>The Rambam believed that there would not be Korbonos in the 3rd Beis
>HaMikdash? Chas VeShalom!

>Why do we need a "Mesorah at the end of his life" that he "recanted"? He
>writes clearly in Hilchos Melachim 11:1 -
...
>Don't take my word for it; look it up.

I regret this error in my post and apologize for it. The lesson for
me is that one should not rely on second hand information, but always
check the original source.

Y. Levine

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> <me>the Rambam
> holds that saying tehillim doesn't help, and the heter of pikuah nefesh
> applies only to doing helpful activities, not useless activities.

<Where do you see this in the above quoted Rambam?>

See the previous halacha (AZ 11:11); the Rambam says there that l'hisha
does not help and is permitted only to calm the ill person. In the case
of l'hisha using psukim the Rambam rules that the heter doesn't override
kfirah (cf. Rif Berachos 3a).

<The reason you cannot read a verse from the Torah to heal someone
is because the implication of the pasuk "v'yihiyu chaim linafshecha"
(Mishlei) implies that Torah is to be used as a refuah for the soul,
not the body. The efficacy of saying a pasuk in connection to refua is
not discussed. For all we know, it might help yet despite this it is
assur to do.>

See above, the Rambam reads "af al pi she'eino mo'il klum".

<In fact, the Rambam states that when using tehilim to increase your
z'chus in order to save you from tzaros and harm, it is mutar to do,
implying that saying tehilim for physical assistance does help e.g. we
are always saying tehilim for people who live in EY.>

How can doing an aveirah increase your zechuyoth?

In fact the heter according to the Shulhan Arukh seems to be predicated
on the magical efficacy of lahash. If the people who are saying tehillim
are following your logic then they're doing aveiros even according to
the Shulhan Arukh. Then the situation is even worse - - they lack any
halachic support for their practice.

> <me>So, according to the Rambam all the shuls in my town are staffed and
> populated by kofrim.

<Well, not exactly. According to the Bach, the Rambam didn't mean the
kind of Kofer that looses his chelek l'olam haba. (I'm not sure how much
of a consolation that is for you...perhaps a chatzi nechama :-)>

The Bach doesn't distinguish between types of kofrim. What he says there
(YD 179 s.v. "kathav ha Rambam") is that the Rambam used the phrase
"bichlal hakofrim" to mean "similar to kofrim in one respect". It's not
often that I have a chance to disprove a Bach by citing PG Wodehouse,
so I'll leap at the opportunity.

"Not kofrim?" repeated his lordship blankly. "But - -" He suddenly
percieved a flaw in the argument. "But he said they were," he pointed
out cleverly. "Yes, I remember distinctly. He said they were kofrim."

> What's a good Maimonidean to do?

<If you choose not to say tehilim, you can always be mispallel. When
the shliach tzibur says the me shebeyrach after tehilim, go to the
front, listen to every word, and say amen. This way you are making a
public show that you are empathizing with the choleh and praying for
his health and not chs'v being poresh min hatzibur when they are doing
a good thing. (Rambam hilchos Tshuva) Also, you can have him in mind
during rifaeinu.>

I think you're missing my question. How can one be part of a tzibbur
which organizes heretical activities? In fact, even if one accepts the
idea that they're not really kofrim since they follow the psak of the
Shulhan Arukh (assur but not kfirah), how can one be part of a tzibbur
which organizes activities which are assur?

David Riceman

In Avodah V15 #15 dated 5/17/2005  RSC writes:
R'  David Riceman:
> As far as I know every shul in my town encourages and  abets saying
> tehillim for people who are seriously ill. The Rambam (AZ  11:12) rules
> that people who do that are kofrim.

R' Simcha  Coffer:  The Rambam says "halochesh al hamaka". Perhaps in the 
case of  seriously ill people he would not have said this  halachah.

...
RDR:  > What's a good Maimonidean to  do?

RSC:  If you choose not to say tehilim, you can always be  mispallel. 

I understand the Rambam to be forbidding the use of pesukim as magic
spells, incantations and the like. It's possible to use pesukim as a
form of kishuf--ironically--but using the Tanach that way is what I
understand to be forbidden.

If, when you say Tehillim, your kavana is that you are addressing the
Ribono Shel Olam and asking for His mercy and help, then I cannot see
a reason that this would be forbidden. It doesn't matter whether the
choleh is in danger of losing his life or is "only" in a matzav of pain
and distress.

For that matter I don't see the harm in asking for all your needs to be
met, every day, and in fact, isn't that what we do when we say Shmoneh
Esreh? In fact, I've heard shiurim saying that one davka SHOULD ask
Hashem to give him all his needs, even seemingly trivial ones, on a
daily basis. Perhaps this form of "simple prayer" is taught to girls,
and boys are told something different.

To me, the suggestion that one should daven /instead/ of saying Tehillim
makes no sense. That's like telling someone that he should fast by eating
cookies instead of cake.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> If, when you say Tehillim, your kavana is that you are addressing the Ribono
> Shel Olam and asking for His mercy and help, then I cannot see a reason that
> this would be forbidden. It doesn't matter whether the choleh is in danger
> of losing his life or is "only" in a  matzav of pain and distress.

Take a look at the gemara in Shavuoth (15b) which is the source of this
halacha. R Yehoshua ben Levi is described as saying psukim from Tehillim
during Kriath Shma al haMita (as we do). The gemara asks: but isn't he
violating the issur of using psukim as a lahash, and it answers "l'hagein
shaini", i.e., he was doing it prophylactically to prevent getting sick.

If what you say is true the gemara could have said he was doing
it as a prayer, and of course one may always pray to God for help.
The implication is that the gemara doesn't recognize saying tehillim
as a form of prayer (I can't recall where, but IIRC Rabbi Shapira has
a nice discussion of the proper use of Tehillim in Hovath HaTalmidim).

David Riceman

On Tue, 17 May 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> One major point missing from your analysis: We're arguing about peshat
> in the Rambam. My personal position is closer to the one you ascribe to
> RCV. 

I know. (you're much too Maharaly to hold differently :-) I'm sorry I was
unclear. I did say though "Perhaps RMB holds (according to the Rambam)"
What I said re RZL was "RZL holds, like R' Chaim Volozhin, ..." What I
meant to say was "RZL holds (in the Rambam), like RCV's shita in general,
etc. (see the commas) meaning that he sees the Rambam in terms of RCV's
shita. Phew...Now that I aired that out, I would like to prove to you
that the Rambam holds like RZL. Ready? (drum roll please...) In Halachah
alef the Rambam is magdir three items that one must know about Hashem:

1) he is the original (or first) matzuy
2) he is mamtzeey all the nimtzaim
3) any nimtzaim that exist are only due to the truth (meaning the reality)
of his metzius

In Halachah beis and gimmel he qualifies #3 and #1 respectively, and
in halachah dalet he brings the pasuk of Hashem Elokim Emes that you
and RZL are arguing about. My proof is that since Halachah dalet is a
biblical source for the Rambam's previous three halachos, and the second
category in halachah aleph is "mamtzeey kol nimtza" which translated means
perpetuates (present tense) all that exists, thus, the metzius of Hashem
is qualitatively different from the rest of the nimtzaim even during
the duration of the existence of creation because he is actively being
mihaveh (mamtzeey) them, just as RCV says. Thus, when the Rambam brings
his pasuk, it does not have to be limited to the third category alone, it
can include the idea of metzius as understood in the second category also.

Simcha Coffer     

R. KG MIller asked
> I asked what RYBS's shita was on this, as I don't know of any halachic
> difference between egg matza and grape juice matza -- both are mei
> peiros, no?

Seeing as no one else has answered this - I will try and explain despite
my limited understanding of the sugya in question. Please correct me if
I am wrong

When the Rambam discusses the definition of Matza Ashira that you are not
yotze with, he mentions several dicrete categories of liquids: chalav,
yayin and there might be a few more -ayen sham. But he seems to exclude
'me perot' or eggs. I think it might be a stira to how he describes the
chimutz process earlier, but I haven't really learnt this sugya. What I
hear in a shiur was simply that RYBS was medayek from this Rambam, that
the Rambam holds you could be yotze on regular egg matza. If you accept
the diyuk of tosafot that you can eat anything you can't be yotze on
(which BTW some Temanim and the GRA don't accept b'da'at haRambam) then
this means you need wine matza like the new Manischewitz ones. In the
end I was half convinced by a Temani fellow b'da'at haRambam that there
is no se'uda sh'lishit + I couldn't (surprise!) find any Manischewitz
grape matzah in Boro Park, so I decided that b'da'at haRambam it was
better not to eat egg matza, so I had an early snack on some of
 the right kind of mezonot - to at least be yotze according to the
'yesh omrim'. But if I could organise matza mevushelet I would probably
have that. I heard that R. Moshe Soloveitchik (son of R Aharon I think)
in Brisk, Chicago has matza mevushelet. They have, apparently, designed
an entire contraption for boiling the matzas one at a time, and holding
them in place so they don't fall apart. Combine that with the size
shiurim they have, and you can imagine it takes a long time!

As to my survey - it seemed like most Ashkenazim split the meal, some
Sefardim ate egg matza, and some didn't. I don't think any Sefardim
split the meal. No egg matza eaters nor kneidalach either among the
Ashkenazi contingent. Interesting. Nobody went for matza mevushelet -
even the diehard Aruch HaShulchan followers - unless they just didn;t say.

L'erev shabbat sh'chal b'erev shabbat haba birushalayim!

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@yahoo.com

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Aha! Then you *do* have sources for pesak in your hashkafah. Good. That
> means we agree. Essentially there is no difference between Halacha and
> Hashkafa. Both of them require a source.

Of course I have sources. I do make things up. But I also use my own
Daas to determine which sources or combination of sources make the most
sense to me. My Hashkafa is based on whom and what I have encountered
personally or in print, over the years. They include RYBS and RAS but are
not limited to them. Among others who have influenced me are Dr. Eliezer
Berkovits and Dr. Norman Lamm, as well as people like RYGB, RMB, and
many others right here on this list. Also included in shaping my Hashkafa
are many of my own friends and aquaintances... my wife, my parents, and
even my own children. I have learned much from all of my Rebbeim and even
secular teachers, Frum and not Frum, Jew and non-Jew. I have learned from
S'forim and secular books on all subject matter. Over the years I have
accepted... and rejected... from them all. The result is my Hashkafa.
Not someone else's. No one "Paskin'd" a Hashkafa for me.

The same cannot be said for Halacha. Halacha is based on Psak. I can
neither combine the Psak of many Gedolim in order to find out the Halacha
nor can I sub-divide a Psak and accept only a part of it. Psak is usually
a black or white issue. Assur/Mutar... Treif/Kosher... Tameh/Tahor... Do
this/Don't do that. Hashkafa is an approach... not an act. And your
own Daas plays a big part in deciding what your Hashkafa is. And if
I am to be completely honest, my Hashkafa, although well grounded in
basic principles, is in a constant state of flux... always evolving,
being refined, and adjusted as I continue to encounter new thought.

HM

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 11:16:46PM -0400, R. Alexander Seinfeld wrote:
: The number itself is amazing (10^18). This is (cosmically speaking) pretty
: darn close to the current estimate of 10^22...

Not really. You're being mislead by the exponential notation. They differ
by a factor in 1:10,000.

...
: It goes on to say that superclusters are grouped into clusters of about
: 30 (megasuperclusters?) and that these are in turn grouped into an even
: bigger pattern of about 30 (hypermegasuperclusters?) of which the universe
: has a total of (about) 365.

: What?s the significance of the number 30? I cannot find any
: spiritual/religious reason for choosing that number and so it comes
: across as a conscientious oral transmission of a received tradition,
: rather than simply one person's guestimate.

But the mention of 365 may hint that the number is symbolic, not
precise.

...
: Moreover ? from my amateurish research ? it seems that one of the
: prevailing theories of cosmic structure is that it is fractal ? and
: is not the calculation of Berachot 32a an example of fractal structure
: (4billionx30x30x30x30x360)?

A number can't be fractal. In order to be fractal, it has to be a curve
(or the function that computes a curve. The curve has to have infinite
length but fit within a finite area (or a surface of infinite area in
finite volume, etc...)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On May 17, 2005 Harry Maryles wrote:
> Of course I have sources. I do make things up. But I also use my own
> Daas to determine which sources or combination of sources make the
> most sense to me.... 

Your long dissertation regarding all the wonderful people that have
had a hashpaah on you, although interesting, is totally immaterial to
our subject.

We are not talking about a general weltanschauung that is developed
during the course of one's lifetime. I told you on a previous post
that I am not using the term "hashkafah", in our discussion, to mean
a worldview or outlook. We are referring here to fundamental beliefs,
to ikarey emunah which shape the very essence of Judaism, and thus
its adherents, regardless of who the Jew deliberating these concepts
is. Look, if RYBS and RAS both condemned a book and paskened that there
are elements of kefira in the book, I'm sure you would take their pesak
a lot more seriously despite your "independence of mind".

When Rav Elyashev paskened that a particular book was kefira, this was not
merely a worldview pesak. It is one associated with the ikarey emunah and
has halachic ramifications. If all of the gedoley Yisroel would pasken
this way, it would be assur for you to read this book. As it happens,
there is currently a machlokes in klal yisroel relating to this issue,
and thus, if your primary sources of hashkafa are aligned with RNS's
ideas, you might have a right to accept them.

This thread began with a request by R' Gershon Seif regarding R' Elyashiv
and regarding sources for a distinction between halacha and hashkafa. I
responded by saying that if someone is squarely in the camp of Rav
Elyashev for all his pesakim including ones relating to ikarey emunah,
and he randomly decides to "switch up" at will, his defection would be,
IMO, halachically suspect to say the least. This is the point I made three
or four posts ago and thus far you have failed to refute it. Introducing
general worldview ideas into our conversation blurs the lines between
elective hashkafah and mandatory hashkafah and only serves to obfuscate
rather than clarify.

Best wishes
Simcha Coffer

[Micha:]
> He isn't saying man is less existing, but that he is less nimtza
> because his existence is contingent upon something other than his own
> essence.

This exchange seems to me to be a round robin exercise in semantics
with little accomplished. The above statement is axiomatic. If HaShem
is Omnipotent and the Creator of all life, then of course, everyone's
existence is contingent upon something other than his own essence.
What is the chiddush here? What am I missing?

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: This exchange seems to me to be a round robin exercise in semantics
: with little accomplished. The above statement is axiomatic. If HaShem
: is Omnipotent and the Creator of all life, then of course, everyone's
: existence is contingent upon something other than his own essence.
: What is the chiddush here? What am I missing?

As others (RMS and RSC) already explained: My point is that when the
Rambam says that our existence is contingent, he isn't making us less
real.

Contrast this to Rn Gila Atwood's (a member way back) signature line:
> We are pixels in Gd's imagination.

I do not believe the Rambam would agree with this sentiment. RZL's
understanding of the Rambam allows for this kind of idea.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

on this that dovid riceman said "since the Rambam holds that saying
tehillim doesn't help, and the heter of pikuah nefesh applies only to
doing helpful activities, not useless activities."

i whould like to add that this is not so pashut,for we find a machlokes
regarding if you can pray for a person to die if they are in great
pain.The Ran in nedarim 40a says this is the correct thing to do since the
result of you praying is considered wholly divine acton,BUT the Netsiv
in shiltot 93 says the Rans view is is not the halakhah since when a
person prays he has a very direct impact on the results and since it is
forbidden to hasten a persons death it is asur to pray for them to die.

Point is praying dose not fall under "useless activities" rather it is
at least from the Netsiv point of view a "helpful activites"

Nosson Sternbach

From: "nosson sternbach" <nossondovid@yahoo.com>
> Point is praying dose not fall under "useless activities" rather it is
> at least from the Netsiv point of view a "helpful activites"

But the Rambam isn't talking about praying, he's talking about lahash.

David Riceman

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:28:00AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: But the Rambam isn't talking about praying, he's talking about lahash.

So let me make the impliued question explicit: What's the nequdah that
separates the two?

LAD, and I'm posting because I'm very open to alternatives, tefillah
is about becoming the kind of person for whom HQBH would do the
tova. Lachash is about trying to use words to manipulate the metaphysics
of the situation -- thaumaturgy.

My problem is fitting kemei'os into that taxonomy. I'm Litvish enough
not to be direcly affected by the problem -- I was taught that kemei'os
and "mezuzah reading" are assur. (The latter came up halakhah lemaaseh
while I was in Rav Dovid Lifshitz's shiur.) However, do people who do
enagage in such practices (which takes us away from the Rambam, but the
question can be asked WRT chazal as well) have a different line? Or a
better explanation of how they fit on the muttar side of the ine?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:51:34PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: This may be true but if Chazal used science to come to certain conclusions
: in Halachah, then what you are saying is that Chazal would then be fallible
: in Torah matters too, right?

Wrong.

This has been discussed at least a dozen times on Avodah in the past.
RGS has an essay on the subject title "Scientific Changes and Halakhah"
at <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html>.

See also my repeated discussions of the difference in opinion between R AY
Kook and R' Dovid Lifshitz about beitzei kinim. There's also discussion
of the CI's position that the 2 millenia of Torah define pesaq, and
therefore even if the science was wrong, the pesaq stands.

Amoraim, OTOH, tended to find reasons for existing pesaqim, relying more
on mesorah for pesaq. Again, see RGS's essay; this is only one mehalekh.

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 04:18:48PM -0400, he wrote:
: No. Anything the Rambam took from Greek science and the like is not
: obligatory on us whereas anything he took from Torah is. (unless another
: Rishon argues etc.)

Why are you comfortable saying this about the Rambam, but not Chazal?

R S' Coffer wrote in a third email:
> Aha! Then you *do* have sources for pesak in your hashkafah. Good. That
> means we agree. Essentially there is no difference between Halacha and
> Hashkafa. Both of them require a source.

Having a source does not mean having a concept of pesaq. Requiring
a source doesn't mean azlinan basar ruba, or that I can't revive the
position of a tanna that no amorah or rishon took.

Something RMShinnar and I have debated repeatedly since Avodah's early
days touches on whether the Rambam requires a source for an aggadic point
(me) or not (RMS). Both of us understand the Rambam as ruling out the
possibility of a rock-solid logical or philosophical proof that runs
counter to the Torah. The question between us was whether that means
that when such a proof requires a new interpretation, it's evidence
that the proof isn't really rock-solid, or permission to create a new
shitah. Finally the light bulb turned on in my head when, in another
debate (about creationism), RMS explained that he believes only halakhah
is within the realm of mesorah.

We already have seen citations from R' Hai Gaon, the Rambam, RSRH,
and R' Yisrael Salanter saying that aggadita lacks the authority of
halakhah. RSRH (in the article reprinted in Light) even takes RMS's
position -- that aggadita is to be valued as being the theories of giants
in mesorah, not mesorah itself.

That said, if we're talking kefirah, we're talking halakhah, not just
aggadita. Kefirah has lemaaseh impact. So, if R' Elyashiv believes that
one shouldn't drink non-mevushal wine touched by someone who believes
in an old universe, or accept him as a geir, it is certainly a *pesaq*
for him to say so. Even if it involves changing the chalos sheim of
"kefirah" and therefore of the aggadic positions it includes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Your long dissertation 

long dissertations... "R" us. :)

>regarding all the wonderful people that have had a
> hashpaah on you, although interesting, is totally immaterial to our subject.
 
> We are not talking about a general weltanschauung that is developed during
> the course of one's lifetime. I told you on a previous post that I am not
> using the term "hashkafah", in our discussion, to mean a worldview or
> outlook. We are referring here to fundamental beliefs, to ikarey emunah
> which shape the very essence of Judaism, and thus its adherents, regardless
> of who the Jew deliberating these concepts is. 

You cannot eliminate outlook from the definition of Hashkafa. In
fact outlook is precisely what Hashkafa is. Hashkafa is not about
Ikarei Emunah. I have already conceded that fact. That is Halacha, not
Hashkafa. One cannot say, for example that it is my Hashkafa that God
does not exist.

> Look, if RYBS and RAS both
> condemned a book and paskened that there are elements of kefira in the book,
> I'm sure you would take their pesak a lot more seriously despite your
> "independence of mind".

Not true. That's precisely where I differ with you. If my own Daas
tells me that it is not Kefira and I have Rishonic and Achronic support,
I would disagree with RAS and RYBS.

The only way I would accept my rebbe's view is if I couldn't determine
myself whether something is Kefira or not. I have often disagreed with
my rebbe on various Hashkafic issues even though I in general agree with
him on almost all matters. For example, I disagree with my rebbe about
saying Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut. He did. I do not. Also, my rebbe was a
very big Kannoi on not giving any parts of Eretz Yisroel to the Arabs
under any circumstances. He in fact "paskined" that it was Assur to do
so. I disagreed with him because: a) my own Daas told me Pikuach Nefesh
was a greater issue and, b) because I had other Gedolim I could rely on.

> When Rav Elyashev paskined that a particular book was kefira, this was not
> merely a worldview pesak. It is one associated with the ikarey emunah and
> has halachic ramifications. If all of the gedoley Yisroel would pasken this
> way, it would be assur for you to read this book. As it happens, there is
> currently a machlokes in klal yisroel relating to this issue, and thus, if
> your primary sources of hashkafa are aligned with RNS's ideas, you might
> have a right to accept them. 

Well... you just made my argument for me.

> This thread began with a request by R' Gershon Seif regarding R' Elyashiv
> and regarding sources for a distinction between halacha and hashkafa. I
> responded by saying that if someone is squarely in the camp of Rav Elyashev
> for all his pesakim including ones relating to ikarey emunah, and he
> randomly decides to "switch up" at will, his defection would be, IMO, 
> halachically suspect to say the least. 

One need not rely on one's Posek in Hashkafa matters. One can rely on
other Poskim if his own Daas fundamentally disagree with his Posek.
And this is the crux of the issue. Can one use his own mind freely in
deciding which Hashkafa makes the most sense to him EVEN IF he relies
on one particular Posek for Psak in all other matters of Halacha? My
clear answer is yes, Yours seems to be, no.

To accept your perspective is to deny your own rational tought. It is to
give up even your ability to think. To say that a given Posek is smarter
and holier than you...REQUIRES... you to be subservient to that individual
(i.e. to be Mevatel your Daas to his) in all matters of thought EVEN WHEN
there are other Poskim who disagree is to turn you into a mind numbed
robot, robbing you of much of your human capacity for rational thought.

Here is the main reason I disagree with R. Elyashiv. I have tremendous
respect for R. Elyashiv. He may very well be the Gadol HaDor, I don't
know. But clearly he has not studied all of the sciences related to
the age of the universe. He probably never opened any college level
textbook in any of the numerous fields that have shown evidence of an
aged universe. I'm certain that he would consider all such study Bitul
Torah. To merely know (as id likely the case with R. Elyashiv) of the
arguments made by those in the field in a general way and then dismiss
them as irrelevant or to say that all that evidence was all created by
God to look old... may be a legitimate Mehalach for many people. But
because of R. Elyashiv's severely limited of knowledge in those sciences
he does have enough information to Halachicly reject the Tifferes Yisroel
who DID study those disciplines that deal with an aged universe.

Those who argue that R. Elyshiv is so smart and holy that it is absurd
to say that he is ignorant in these matters is to attribute super-human
brilliance or Ruach Hakodesh to him. He as already clearly stated that
he does not have Ruach HaKodesh.

The Tifferes Yisroel saw what scientists were beginning to discover in
his era in the way of dinosaur bones and used such information as Rayos
to Emunah not as Steiros toEmunah. What R. Elyashiv has indicated by
his Psak exactly the reverse, that scientific information is a Stirah to
Emunah. He has not explained himself other than saying that dissemination
of RNS's books could lead to Kfirah.

Perhaps, as R Aharon Feldman has indicated, even R. Elyashiv would
say that such beliefs aren't Kefirah at all, but only that it could
lead to Kefirah in Bnei Torah who are unsophisticated in how to handle
such information. Of course you know what my answer to that would be.
In any case, I don't really know R. Elyashiv's mind on this issue.

Those who say (as did R. Orlofsky) that when R. Elyashiv Paskins,
we get down on our hands and knees, beg for Mechila, and find out how
we can do Teshuva for believing in Apikursus... are completely wrong,
IMHO. He attributes far too much authority to a single individual, R.
Elyashiv, granting him an almost infallible view on an issue which by
R. Elyashiv's own admission he does not have any real formal training
in. Add to that R. Elyashiv's insularity from the rest of the world and
the potential for incorrect Psak is multplied rhrough his reliance on
highly agendized Kanaaim whom his information is filtered through.

> Introducing
> general worldview ideas into our conversation blurs the lines between
> elective hashkafah and mandatory hashkafah and only serves to obfuscate
> rather than clarify. 

I disagree. What you call mandatory Hashkafa, I would call Halacha.
Obviously matters of belief are not activities yet they are also matters
of Psak. This, I suppose is the exception to the rule I mentioned
earlier about Psak being about acts. Of course there is Psak about
belief. But that is a matter of Halacha, not Hashkafa.... so much so,
it is incorporated into the Asseres HaDibros. For example, there is no
room for independent thinking in matters of belief in God. If you do
not believe in God or believe in multiple gods or any other of numerous
heretical concepts, you are a Kofer. Of course these things are Ikkarei
Emunah. But I do not put these items into the realm of Hashkafa at
all. Hashkafa is all about Hadracha and perspective BEYOND the Ikkarei
Emunah. So, a Psak that goes BEYOND the Ikkarei Emunah (which is what
the Psak of R. Elyashiv does) crosses the line into the area of Hashkafa.

How does one determine whether a Psak has ventured away from Halacha
in the area of belief and into the area of Hashkafic thought? Well,
one way is... if there is a Tifferes Yisroel who 200 years ago said
that such thought is NOT Kefira. This means that it has left the realm
of Halacha and enterted the realm of Hashkafa. It can no longer be an
Halachic Psak to call a belief Kefira if an accepted Achron of high
caliber says it is not.

HM

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


[ 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         ]