Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 037

Thursday, June 23 2005

• re: tinok shenishba
• Re: gadol ha-dor
• Re: RSRH (from Areivim); Sundry Comments
• TIDE vs TuM
• Re: RSRH
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: Learning Halakhah from Agadah
• hashkafa and pesak
• Re: Learnming halacha from Aggadah
• Re: [Hirhurim] Slabodka and Secular Studies
• Re: al chet ve'ayin
• Re: What's a rasha
• Re: Where were all the firstborn?
• Re: Manna
• Re: TIDE vs TuM
• RSRH
• Re: TIDE vs TuM
• Re: RSRH
• Re: TIDE vs TuM
• Tinok Shenishba
• Re: hashkafa and pesak

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< I listened today to the radio program of
R. Avraham Yosef (RAY). He paskened that for a minyan one needs 10 people
who are shomer mitzvot. He said that chilonim would count for a minyan
only on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur because we assume today that most
of them are tinot nenishbu. >>>

My understanding was that for Yom Kippur, they don't even need to be
tinokos shenishbu: "anu mattirin l'hispalel im haAVARYANIM".

Similarly, why would Rosh Hashana be different than the rest of the year?

I know that RET said that RAY couldn't elaborate because it was such a
short radio show, but does anyone else have any guesses?

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 02:45:52PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: OC 472:5 states one may not recline (at the seder) in the presence
: of a Gadol, even if it isn't his Rebbi muvhak. So it would appear it
: applies today.

Someone can still be greater than you without there being a special chalos
to the fact. And of course someone who is significantly greater in Torah
knowledge than the masses should be shown kavod by everyone. How does
that come to listening to his pesaqim just like those of your own rav?

It's the shift from a term of comparison to one of halachic chalos
(which would be boolean: gedolim vs non-gedolim) that I objected to
in the post that started this. I believe both the all-or-nothing and
the implication that there's a concept of "gadol" in terms of halachic
authority are non-halachic.

The halachic state had people who were in special roles of authority: the
melekh, his navi, the kohein gadol, the av beis din. We can't generalize
from these people because they did have a specifically defined chalos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

At 05:03 AM 6/23/2005, Eliyahu Gerstl wrote:
>Rabbi Schwab was not an advocate of TIDE nor was he atypical. In twenties 
>and thirties many young men from the German Jewish  community decided to 
>study in the east because that was where they could learn gemorah on what 
>was generally a higher level than in Germany.  At the same time the 
>Orthodox Rabbiner Seminar in Berlin brought in a young Eastern European 
>iluy, R. Elya Kaplan as its head and after his death R. Y.Y. Weinberg who 
>was also from the east followed as the last head of the seminary.

The interesting thing about RAEK and RYYW is that both developed a 
quasi-TIDE philosophy during their respective tenures at the *Rabbiner 
Seminar*. This is, of course, in contradistinction to RYBS and the 
Lubavitcher Rebbe, whose sojourns at Western European *Universities* did 
not have that impact on them.

>I recall reading R. Schwab's Elu ve-Elu when I was about to go to 
>university when seeking some personal guidance. I was confused by it as it 
>did not advocate general studies as having intrinsic worth and therefore 
>as a lechatchila and it therefore contradicted what I had believed was the 
>Hirschian position.   Of course I did not know that R. Schwab as a young 
>man was the person who had elicited the famous opinions of eastern 
>European rashei yeshiva as whether general studies were muttar.  A true 
>Hirschian, IMO, and would not have therefore have doubted that general 
>studies were not only muttar but rather  le-chatchila and moreover he 
>would not have needed the approval of rashei yeshiva of a different 
>hashkafic orientation. He would have approached the rabbanim in his own 
>community.

There is no doubt in my mind that R' Schwab was not a true advocate of TIDE 
and R' Gelley is certainly not. I once asked one of my cousins who is a 
grandson to R' Breuer how many true TIDEeans in the truest philosophical 
meaning of the word exist today and he answered (and named) four (I 
disagree about one of them).

>As to TuM and TIDE, IMO the latter accords with much of TuM, BUT not an 
>Orthodox form of Wissenschaft des Judentum as advocated at the Rabbiner 
>Seminar begun by R. Hildesheimer.   RSRH  was generally against the 
>employment of modern critical scholarship in Torah study and believed that 
>Torah was an independent system and that there therefore was no need to 
>employ outside methodologies. Thus RSRH did not support the Rabbiner 
>Seminar of R. Hildesheimer.

As we have iterated many times here, there are vast differences between 
TIDE and TuM - at least as the latter was formulated by RYBS. TIDE sees 
life as a seamless whole, and seeks harmony and true synthesis of T and DE. 
TuM sees life as consisting of two paradoxical poles and bridging between 
the two, with no need nor quest to resolve the discrepancies.

>As far as R. Elias' commentary to his new edition of RSRH's Nineteen 
>Letters: it is correct that he views TIDE as a horaat shaah. But see a 
>point-counterpoint series of two articles in 1996 in Jewish Action.  In 
>that series,R. Joseph Elias and R. Shelomo Danziger debated this issue. R. 
>Danziger (who had previously taught at Breuers for over twenty years ) 
>argued strongly that TIDE was not a horaat shaah but le-chatchila. R. 
>Elias (who had been the principal at Breuer's) disagreed.

I do not know how anyone familiar with the writings of RD Joseph Breuer and 
RD Isaac Breuer can contend that they would acquiesce to the position that 
TIDE was an Horaas Shaah.

>A detailed study of RSRH, his life and his ideas is that of Samuel 
>Rosenbloom, Tradition in an age of reform, JPS, 1976. IMO the author 
>of  the latter book would strongly support Rabbi Danziger's opinion.

>As a side comment,  it is of interest that the Breuer's community has not 
>associated itself with YU and in fact I was told by someone who grew up 
>there that he when he was considering going to YU in the early sixties (?) 
>that he was advised by the late long-time president of the community, that 
>it was far better that he go to some other university. But of course 
>that's not a proof  as to RSRH's hashkafot but only the views of the 
>leadership of the Breuer's community, and  a proof that the community had 
>obviously undergone many changes since the time of RSRH.

See above. Precisely because there are similarities between YU and KAJ it 
was important to negate the comparison. Hence the perennially (tragically) 
mostly abortive attempt to sustain a separate KAJ Beis HaMedrash.

>A person named George D. Frankel has written a pamphlet decrying the 
>changes in his community (mentioned in Avodah, 50:47,48)."Dan Shall Judge 
>His People: 5 Essays on Torah im Derech Eretz and the Breuer Community Today."

>My own opinion based admittedly on only a few observations and without an 
>intimate knowledge of that community  is that Breuer's is now a yeshivish 
>community (with German minhagin) but one that is more open to Torah im 
>Parnasah than some other yeshivish communities.

Accurate enough. It is a pity that it did not go the other way - better, 
IMHO, to have sustained TIDE and jettisoned the minhagim than to have 
sustained the minhagim and jettisoned TIDE.

YGB 

[Micha:]
> We also seem to have concluded amongst ourselves that TIDE differs from
> TuM in that TIDE values applied knowledge and TuM more academic knowledge.
> But not that TIDE was identical to "Torah vaAvodah" ala the CI.

I thought that RSRH was more interested in the humanity's than science.
Today's TuM crowd generally goes into the sciences (RAL in English
Literature is the exception not the rule). So it sounds almost the opposite
of what Micha writes.

kol tuv,
-- 
Eli Turkel

On 6/23/05, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote on Areivim:
> . . . evidence of R' Schwab's own writings, where one clearly
> sees that he held of TIDE l'chatchila. 

Of course he held that TIDE is l'chatchila. The problem is that he
*redefined* TIDE away from what Hirsch originally meant. So R. Hirsch's
version of TIDE is b'dieved, while R. Schwab's version is l'chatchila.
(Of course R. Schwab would say that we are misinterpreting R. Hirsch.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 02:48 AM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
>True but that's not what I said. Obviously R' Elyashiv had reasons
>which led to the ban, several possible ones of which I enumerated in
>my post. All I meant to illustrate was that a l'maseh can evolve from
>an essentially aggadic opinion. The age of the universe is an aggadic
>topic by nature. We do not employ the shlosh esrey middos shehatorah
>nidreshes bahen to determine the precise time of creation yet R' Elyashiv
>still felt that he could pasken that a billion year universe based on
>current scientific dogma is a shita of kefira which led to the banning
>of the book

If a Rav paskened that the world is flat (there have been such rabbonim) 
would his constituency be mandated to accept that psak?

YGB 

Zvi Hirsch CHayes lists the positions stating you cant learn Halakhah
from Aggadah-- see his kol kitve moriz chayes and he then shows the
huge number of laws derived from midrash and aggadah. Essentially,
Aggadah deals with the religious, social, historical, ethical position
of Israel amongst the nations while Halakhah is much more attuned to
jewish institutions-- regulating intracommunal norms where Israel is
the sole focal point. The interpretitive keys vary considerably Today
people think you can be oyver a midrash-- Gush Katif people I know think
midrash as expounded in gush Katif is all moshe misinai.

Zvi Basser 

> The statement by the otherwise obscure Amora, Hillel,
> that we  should no longer expect a messianic king since Hezekiah was
> intended to  be that person is to be found in T.B. Sanhedrin 99a.
> The Gemara there  does not reject this opinion after reflection -
> but rejects it out of  hand, since it conflicts with explicit verses
> in Zechariah (9:910).  Here, Zechariah ben Edo who lived in the times
> of Darius (from the  context of the nevuot, it is clear that he lived
> during the time of the  return from the Babylonian exile - i.e. long
> after king Hezekiah)  prophesizes the arrival of the messianic king
> who will rule from sea to  sea and from the Euphrates west. The view
> of the Amora, Hillel, is  therefore invalid and is simply a mistake.

I'm assuming that Hillel knew Tanach pretty well, so what exactly was
the train of thought that brought him to ignore those pesukim in the
first place?

On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 11:52:37AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: >> The view of Rabbeinu Tam that there are two sunsets (the origin of
: >> the 72 minute view) derives from an aggadah in Pesachim as to the
: >> size of the world, and its apparent inconsistency with the gemara
: >> in shabbat 34b. See Tosafot Shabbat 35a.
...
: There are actually many Tosafos like this. However, the Sepahrad school
: did not take aggados literally, as is well known. SO what we haaave here
: is a disagreement between Tosafos and Chachmei Sefard.

As I tried pointing out in my attempt at taxonomy, basing a din on a story
doesn't require the story be halachic. Rather, that every aggadic story must
be consistent with halakhah. They would not construct a story in which a role
model sinned. (Even if in real life the sin could have happened.)

Similarly, perhaps Tosafos hold that the implications of the metzius
in a story would never be chosen in a manner that leads one to wrong
conclusions about the din. In which case, you can not deduce that Tosafos
thought these stories were necessarily historical.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 03:54:26PM -0400, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
: On page 30, Dr. Kranzler writes that in 1932 or 1933, R. Schonfeld was
: studying for semikhah in a yeshiva in Slabodka (I think Knesses Yisrael)
: and, simultaneously, studying for a doctorate in a nearby university.

In one of RAEK's essays (RYGB might have a reference) he mentions the
active intellectual life in Slabodka. Slabodka didn't teach limudei chol,
but lively debates about Hegel, Marx or Frued were commonplace.

Kelm's HS actually had a limudei chol program at a time when the gov't
was NOT mandating it for yeshivos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:15:11PM -0400, Herb Basser wrote:
: SO perush rashi here: the gutteral semitic letter 'g and soft 'gh are two
: separate sounds and most semitic alphabets (like arabic) differentiate
: them. but they got assimlated into single written letters like ayin
: (same phenomenon with Heth) because it seems the alphabets that were
: used for the language did not have those sounds originally....

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:27:50PM -0400, Herbert Basser wrote WRT
ksv vs kvs:
: its quite common--- 
: its official name is metathesis--letter reversal salma/ simla,
: perush/pesher -- its not dyslexia-- it is a lingusitic thing that
: happens.

Something about the above bothers me for its implications about the
nature of lashon haqodesh and its alphabet.

I'm not 100% clear where I stand about the relationship between the
language of Adam and Chava, that of the Dor haHaflaga, and that of
Matan Torah.

I am not bothered by the idea that HQBH allowed language to evolve
so that lashon haqodesh was read when we needed it har Sinai. But
then the ideal language for communicating before the haflagah would
be something other than the ideal language for Matan Torah. Why would
that be?

Moreoever, Medrash Rabba says that Ashur (the person) earned two
gifts for refusing to help build the Migdal. That Hashem would send
Yonah to Ninvei to give his capital city another change; and Kesav
Ashuris. The implication being that the kesav, not just the alphabet,
is pre-Migdal. But can we take the Medrash as history?

Similarly, "veromamtanu mikol halshonos" is linked to Avraham Avinu's
non-participation, and therefore retention of the pre-migdal language.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:26:18PM -0700, nosson sternbach wrote:
: you have not addressed the prob. the question was: what needs to
: happen in order for someone to be considred a rasha that is posul from
: testifiying. does the person just need to do the deed or does bais din
: need to paskin that he is a rasha? or perhaps another way?

WRT which din?

Since it's not a "kana'im poge'im bo" situation, I would be loathe
to implement "moridin velo maalin" without a pesaq that the person is
a rasha.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:24:00PM +0300, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: The concept of tinok shenishba is quite narrow (she'eino yodea mitorat
: yisrael KLAL) [caps mine].

R"D Josh Backon posts this here and on scjm with some frequency. It's
in stark contrast to what others posted. A typical exchange includes
something like the following from RDJB (in v5n117):
> The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah Siman Bet s"k 16) indicated that in his day
> we no longer *danim din mumarin v'epikorsim* with regard to *moridin
> velo ma'alin*. To extrapolate this to everyone being a tinok shenishba
> is highly dubious.

A little later RCSherer wrote:
> FWIW, a friend who works in kiruv told me a number of years ago 
> that RSZA held that all chilonim in Israel have the status of tinokos 
> she'nishboo. AIUI the reason is that the chilonim are so hostile to 
> fruhmkeit here that they do not and cannot internalize what they 
> learn.

Most extreme was this opening comment from RMShinnar:
> 2) A long time ago (~25-30 yrs) I was told by a rav that today, given the
> pervasive influence of the secular community, everyone (even in Bne Brak)
> has the halachic status of tinok shenishba, and he said that in the name of
> the Hazon Ish. ...

Similar to RDJB's position, RGStudent wrote (in part):
> The Radbaz in a different teshuvah (2:12) writes that even the children
> of mumrim still have the din of mumrim. He was dealing with the children
> of anussim who fled Spain but remained Christians. Despite the fact that
> they were raised as Christians, they were not considered tinokos shenishbu
> because they could become frum if they wanted. The Beis Yosef (YD 159)
> quotes a Nimukei Yosef who says similarly to the Radbaz and a Rambam who
> disagrees and holds that these children were tinokos shenishbu. The Beis
> Yosef paskens like the Rambam ONLY because the Rambam was explicit while
> the NY was not. However, the Radbaz, who was not mentioned by the BY,
> was explicit as well.

> The Minchas Elazar (1:74) says that the Mabit who claimed the din of
> tinokos shenishbu for the children of Karaim were talking about people
> who lived in countries with no Jewish communities. However, where there
> are Jewish communities and these children have opportunities to learn
> about Judaism and return to it they have a din of mumrim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 08:37:44PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: But it's not the case that half of all first borns will be bechorim,
: due to the fact that some pregnancies (about twenty percent I think)
: end in miscarriage.

Why look only at miscarriage? Any bechor who didn't live until the day of
the count would be missing from the count. And bederekh hateva, it might
have been a mortality rate of 50% for children of that period.

However, wasn't there a berakhah beinging that number down to zero?

: And then there's also the fact that many boys were killed by Par'oh, no?
: But would more first-born boys than later-born boys have been killed?

Maybe. The palace staff,, in looking for the Jews' savior, could have
focussed on firstborns.

: But wait, wouldn't there have been more women than men since so many
: boys were killed, and wouldn't there have been more polygamy as a result?
: One man, several wives? From when did they start counting first born as
: "first-born to his mother"? If they counted them as "first born to the
: father" (which MUST be the case at least in Shevet Levy), would that
: help solve the mystery?

Why? The laws of pidyon haben speak of the bechor of an eishes leivi
being patur from pidyon.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:48:23AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: This is medukdak in the lashon of nafsheinu. The nefesh is the seat
: of emotion. The eating of the Mon was an essentially intellectual
: activity. [Chabad-style Deveykus?] The Jews objected to having eating,
: an essentially sensual and emotional activity, transformed into an
: essentially intellectually and mind-focusing activity.

Lemaaseh, kashrus -- in particular basar vechalav -- does something
similar. Elevates the act of eating from simply doing what animal do
and places it into the uniquely human realm of thought.

-mi

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 16:27 +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I thought that RSRH was more interested in the humanity's than science.
> Today's TuM crowd generally goes into the sciences (RAL in English
> Literature is the exception not the rule). So it sounds almost the opposite
> of what Micha writes. 

see in the collective writings his essays on the benefits of how secular
and judaic educations can improve each other. One could perhaps argue
that in today's day and age science fills that role better than the
humanities.

Recently I posted on the equivalence, or lack of it, between TIDE and
TuM. Since almost every reply I received, on or off list, seemed IMHO
to have missed the point, I'll try to clarify what I meant.

I asked two questions:
1) If one does not consider R' Schwab the foremost advocate of TIDE,
who is?
2) Those who consider TIDE and TuM equivalent, do they have mareh makomos
in RSRH's writings to support this?

In light of the above, one can imagine my frustration with replies,
such as this one from R' Micha Berger:
> RYBS said so. So at least /his/ version of TuM was identical to how
> RYBS understood RSRH's TIDE.
How does RYBS assertion = mareh makom in RSRH's writings?

Or this one from R' Ahron Gerstl:
> As a side comment, it is of interest that the Breuer's community has
> not associated itself with YU... But of course that's not a proof as
> to RSRH's hashkafot but only the views of the leadership of the Breuer's
> community, and a proof that the community had obviously undergone many
> changes since the time of RSRH.

This statement assumes the equivalence of YU and the shittah of TuM to
TIDE, with no proof presented for that assertion, even though that is
THE topic of discussion!

All the posters mentioned brought up points that were of interest to
me but left my questions unanswered. Although I would enjoy discussing
those points, I feel it would only serve as a smoke screen to my main
question: Those people who assert that TIDE and TuM are equivalent;
do they have proof from RSRH's writings?

KT,
MSS

Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Micha:]
>> We also seem to have concluded amongst ourselves that TIDE differs from
>> TuM in that TIDE values applied knowledge and TuM more academic knowledge.
>> But not that TIDE was identical to "Torah vaAvodah" ala the CI.

> I thought that RSRH was more interested in the humanity's than science.
> Today's TuM crowd generally goes into the sciences (RAL in English
> Literature is the exception not the rule). So it sounds almost the opposite
> of what Micha writes.

Even though I have attempted to define both Hashkafos in the past, I
must admit that I do not really have a clear grasp of the
similarities or differences between the two. The above exchange seems
to corroborate my view. TIDE and TuM thus seems to fall into the same
category that Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter used to define
pornography: "I know it when I see it". But I think a more deatiled
description of the 2 Hashkafos is in order so let me try again.

My understanding of the two Hashkafos is more inclined to RMB's
definitions than RET's but I am begining to believe that TIDE and TuM
are not as far apart as I thought. 

AIUI, RSRH's TIDE is more utilitarian. It encompassed the view that
one can be a full fledged Jew and yet participate in general society.
He beleived that one needs to function in the real world and that we
are to improve ourselves enough to do that.

TuM is more academic and philosophical. TuM sees Torah and Mada as a
value system with Torah being the higher of the two values but Mada not
far behind. IOW TuM believes that there is intrinsic value in Mada beyond
the utilitarian.

I beleive that this difference, although significant, does not translate
into any great practical difference. Most of the time, in both Hashkafos
there will be greater emphasis on Torah study and a lesser but also
important significance to the Study of Mada. For example, to TIDE,
going to medical school would be done so that one can gain the knowledge
to save lives. For Tum going to Medical school would be to gain the
knoweldge period. Practical difference: zero.

In the vast majority of cases adherents of TIDE or TuM end up with similar
knowledge, but not always. There is a practical difference in that TIDE
will always lead one into studies that will get a more immediate benefit
for oneself (vis-a-vis parnassa) and what such knowledge can contribute
directly to one's community. TuM OTOH, which can and usually does lead
one into that as well, can also lead into a more philosophic type study
that will have no immediate bearing on Parnasa and will contribute
little if any utilitarian substance to one's community. TuM will value
the accumulation of such knowledge, whereas TIDE, I believe, does not.

I of course believe that either Hashkafa is valid. But I prefer one not
limited to utilitarian studies and allows me the option of studying any
and all of the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

HM

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 19:44 -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> 2) Those who consider TIDE and TuM equivalent, do they have mareh makomos
> in RSRH's writings to support this?

before one tries to answer that one has to answer what TuM (or as others
might say TuMa). To some, their definition of TuM might be very close to
TiDE, while other definitions of TuM, might be very different than TiDE
(gets the TuMa out) (yes, not the first time I've used the joke)

shaya

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 09:04:05AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: As we have iterated many times here, there are vast differences between 
: TIDE and TuM - at least as the latter was formulated by RYBS. TIDE sees 
: life as a seamless whole, and seeks harmony and true synthesis of T and DE. 
: TuM sees life as consisting of two paradoxical poles and bridging between 
: the two, with no need nor quest to resolve the discrepancies.

I think each reflect their zeitgeist.

In Hirsch's era, and to the people RSRH addressed, Hegel shaped the
thought and culture of the era. Dialectics were seen as things to be
resolved.

RYBS was a neo-Kantian. In his thought, and in the culture that defined
which approach would work for his community, dialectical tension is
seen in itself as a good thing. Humans live and grow through dealing
with these conflicting views, not through resolving them.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 04:27:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> We also seem to have concluded amongst ourselves that TIDE differs from
:> TuM in that TIDE values applied knowledge and TuM more academic knowledge.
:> But not that TIDE was identical to "Torah vaAvodah" ala the CI.

: I thought that RSRH was more interested in the humanity's than science.
: Today's TuM crowd generally goes into the sciences (RAL in English
: Literature is the exception not the rule). So it sounds almost the opposite
: of what Micha writes.

Applied vs academic isn't the same thing as science vs liberal arts.
For that matter, much of science is unapplied -- it's not the same thing
as technology.

RSRH's interest in German culture was in producing well-rounded and
refined Jews.
RYBS's interest in academic knowledge was just that -- in academia. Not as
"culture" but the greatness of knowledge in and of itself.

This might flow from the above. RSRH's focus would be on that secular
knowledge that more readliy blends.

In any case, RYBS studied philosophy when that was more "in", just like
this generation of MO tends to study the sciences because that's what's
"in" now.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unkown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

> ...He paskened that for a minyan one needs 10 people who are shomer
> mitzvot... If one combines this psak with that of RYSE the many people
> in this list (myself included) are pasul for a minyan,

It's impossible to accept that what was discussed on Avodah is really
what they said. It would be irrationally and ridiculously extremist...
It actually flies in the face of what many of us have been taught --
namely, you could have 9 tzadikim and you still don't have a minyan. On
the other hand, you could have 10 non-observant men and that would
constitute a minyan.

Besides, who is going to determine who should and should not be counted?
We would be getting into very dangerous territory. It's hard enough
examining your own tzitzis. You're going to start examining everyone
else's?!

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:33:46PM -0500, zlochoia1@verizon.net wrote:
:              ... The statement by the otherwise obscure Amora, Hillel,
: that we should no longer expect a messianic king since Hezekiah was
: intended to be that person is to be found in T.B. Sanhedrin 99a.
: The Gemara there does not reject this opinion after reflection -
: but rejects it out of hand, since it conflicts with explicit verses
: in Zechariah (9:910)....

"Otherwise obscure Amora"?

Aren't we speaking of the last av beis din? The man many rishonim
attributed our calendar to?

And even if not, we quote achronim and contemporary rabbanim all the time,
and would never simply dismiss their opinion. Even an obscure amora is
a more authoritative source than any of them, no?

-mi

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


[ 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         ]