Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 029

Wednesday, November 16 2005

• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: public hochacha on e-mail list
• Re: IVF [was: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?]
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• RE: TIDE
• Haskala in Germany
• Writting His name in full
• Kabbalah
• Belief in HaShem
• RE: Hagar mistreated?
• RE: TIDE
• Re: Hagar mistreated?
• Re: TIDE
• RE: TIDE
• Re: TIDE

> From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> <long long ago>
>> I still fail to see
>> this in the Rambam. His description of "Talmud" is: "yavin veyasqil
>> acharis hadavar meireishiso, yotzei midavar ledavar, veyidmeh davar
>> ledavar..." So far, this to mean sounds like lomdus.

><me> I hope to find time to write a detailed post later this week.  In the 
>meantime see R. Shneur Zalman's H. Talmud Torah, chapter 2, Kuntress 
>Aharon, note 1.

Somehow I never did find the time. Here's an off-the-cuff version of
something I had hoped to write in detail:

The Rambam says (my translation from H. Talmud Torah 1:11): "He should
deduce conclusions [of syllogisms - see Milloth HaHigayon 6:3] from
their premises, deduce one particular [davar] from another, compare
one particular to another, and apply the hermeneutic principles until
he understands their essence [? ikkar hamiddoth - I don't know what he
means by this] and how to deduce the permitted and prohibited, etc.,
from traditional sources."

I had written in an earlier post:

<Rashi is asking us to deduce general principles from specific laws,
especially mishnaic laws (e.g., rubo k'kulo from shahat rov ehad b'of
...). The Rambam is asking us to find Biblical sources of specific laws,
and to deduce specific laws from Biblical texts via the 13 middos.>

RMB had suggested that one of the phrases "deduce conclusions [of
syllogisms - see Milloth HaHigayon 6:3] from their premises, deduce
one particular [davar] from another, compare one particular to another"
might mean deducing general principles from particulars, which I take
as equivalent to his "lomdus". I don't see it in the words.

I had hoped to find time to point out the Rambam's derech in psak also
doesn't fit well with this. The Rambam's tendency is to prefer codified
law to justified law. So, for example, the Rambam will almost invariably
pasken like a Mishna unless he has strong reason not to, whereas Rashi
and Tosafoth generally treat the Mishna's opinions as not much more
valid than any other Tannaitic opinions. The Rambam paskens based on
Talmudic statements of case law rather than Talmudic justifications,
and will occasionally go so far as to offer justifications other than
those offered by the Talmud (apparently) for pedagogic reasons.

It's this paragraph above I had hoped to expand and adorn with footnotes.
So far I've been too harried by job hunting (anyone need to hire a part
time statistical consultant?).

David Riceman 

On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 13:30 +0200, Reuven Miller wrote:
> I am on another "frum" e-mail list and there was a post where a Rav
> wrote admonishing a poster for something he had written saying that it
> is against the halacha and that he need do tshuva.
> I back- chanelled this Rav with the comment that he has now publicly
> embarrassed the first poster.

Why not correct the person privately, and enable them to correct themself
publicly? If they then don't, then you make the correction publicly.

Avodah V16 #28 dated 11/15/2005 RMB writes:
> BTW, RMF also uses an aggadic story as a ra'ayah in declaring  the child
> of IVF a non-mamzer by invoking Ben Sirah as precedent.

In the vast majority of cases, IVF uses the sperm and eggs of the husband
and wife, not donors. It is most often used in cases where the man is
perfectly fertile but the woman has blocked Fallopian tubes. It is also
used in cases where the man has a low sperm count but does have viable
sperm. In those common cases, which are the vast majority as I said,
no question of mamzerus arises in the first place.

We must make it very clear that the case RMF addresses is the relatively
UNCOMMON case of IVF with donor sperm -- when the husband has no sperm
at all -- which lechatchila should not be done but bedieved if done,
the children resulting therefrom are not mamzerim.

I personally would not even have asked the shaila. If I could not have
had children with my own and Mike's genes I would not have had children
at all. I did not want any question to be raised at all.

The expression "donor sperm" means by definition that the sperm are
obtained from an unrelated donor. Some people confuse this and think
"donor sperm" means the sperm were donated by the husband rather than
travelling the natural route through coitus. They then wrongly think
that if pregnancy did not result from coitus, but from IVF instead,
there is a shaila of mamzerus even though the sperm was obtained from
the husband! It is a matter of tremendous importance to me personally
that this confusion be cleared up.

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

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< There is no actual issur in writing down
TSBP. "Ee ata resha'i" means it's a bad idea, not assur. >>>

Really? I'll accept that if others think so too, but it never sounded
that way to me. Something like "ain [osim davar zeh]" has enough wiggle
room to be translated either as "they do not do it", "they may not do
it", "they should not do it", or some other nuance. But how would you
translate "ee ata resha'i", other than "you are not permitted"? Sounds
like an issur to me.

<<< Or do you believe the reisha is also an issur, and one may not quote a
pasuq without a text in front of you -- ruling out even davening without
a siddur. >>>

Yeah, well, ummm... I don't claim to have all the answers. [runs and
ducks :-) ]

(BTW, just for accuracy's sake, I want to mention that when RMB spoke
of <<< writing down TSBP >>>, he surely meant to refer to *publishing*
TSBP. No one ever said it was assur to write down personal notes, and
I've made that typo myself numerous times.)

Akiva Miller

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
|S & R Coffer wrote:
|>Because he had no choice. Haskala was a growing force in Germany and
|>something had to be done...

|Haskalah, AFAIK, was *never* a force in Germany. Indeed, there was no
|room for it to attract adherents *because* of the philosophy of RSRH which
|successfully brunts its force. It was only in Eastern Europe that Haskalah
|made inroads.

If it wasn't Haskalah, then what caused most of Germany to go off the
derech? When RSRH came to Frankfurt, it was about 15(?) families that had
called him. What happened to the rest? I quote to you from his "Nineteen
Letters", "If you consider all these various influences, you will be
able to understand how Judaism looked about eighty ago, as well as all
the developments that followed. At that time, when the yoke of oppression
began to be lifted and the spirit felt freer to stir, there emerged once
again a most brilliant and respected personality (Moses Mendelsohn -
MSS) whose commanding influence has dominated developments to this very
day. This personality had not derived his freer spiritual growth from
Jewish sources; he was chiefly great in the philosophical disciplines of
metaphysics and aesthetics, and he viewed the Bible only philosophically
and aesthetically. Thus he did not develop the study of Judaism on the
basis of its own premises but merely apologetically defended it against
political stupidity and pietistic Christian challenges. Personally a
practicing Jew, he showed his brethren and the world that it was possible
to be a strictly religious Jew *and yet* to shine, highly respected, as
a German Plato." (L 18 pgs.268-269 Feldheim '96) It seems pretty clear
that he's laying the blame on the poster boy of Haskalah, Moshe ben Mendel
(as he refers to him later in the same letter). I await your response.

|BTW, as one of my former bosses at Artscroll astutely
|pointed out to me, the time is ripening for a new Haskalah movement to
|make new inroads precisely *because* our contemporary Charedi milieu is
|*not* emulating German Orthodoxy, but Eastern European Orthodoxy. V'hu
|davar pashut.

Interesting.

|TIDE addresses *all* problems of Judaism with far greater hatzlachah than
|the shittah which promulgates isolation from goyim. The one *issue* -
|not problem - that it does not address as successfully as *some* other
|shittos is the production of Gedolei Torah.

I wonder at your characterizing this as an "issue" - and definitely not
a problem. I will not list all the places that seemingly refute this,
as I'm confident that you know them and have an explanation. I will ask
you for the explanation.

KT,
MSS

RYGB writes: "Haskalah, AFAIK, was *never* a force in Germany. Indeed,
there was no room for it to attract adherents *because* of the philosophy
of RSRH which successfully brunts its force."

This is, I think, quite wrong. It is true that the form of Haskala
in Germany was different than that of Eastern Europe, but by most
definitions Haskala *begins* in Germany, and had already mostly
played itself out by the time the Eastern European version came into
existence. Wissenschaft & Reform are merely different Jewish reactions
to *aufklarang* (Enlightenment), as Socialism, Nationalism, etc., were
when secularization came to Easter Europe.

Furthermore, its worth keeping in mind that Hirschian Austritt-type
communities was not the only form of Orthodoxy in Germany; many of
those associated with the Hildesheimer Seminary did not accept the
Austritt principle & by the same token Hirsch did not approve of the
Wissenschaft orientation of the Seminary. Indeed the Seminary can be
seen as a moderate form Haskala itself.

>The Shach states that in other languages one may write  G-d's name
>out, however, it has become the Jewish way of writing  it.
>The Kitzur SA in 6:3 says that one may not write His name in any other
>language.

So, even according to these opinions writing God on computer is
permittable.

bk

> Bear in mind that what we call the Zohar is largely an invention of
> the printers in Cremona and Manuta in 1558,

This opinion is not accepted by mekubalim. If there are any that do accept
this I would request a mekor. The opinion that it was written in the 13th
century when it was found by R. Moshe De Leon is that of the maskilim.

> After that, the Vaad Arba Aratzot decreed that the uneducated masses
> shouldn't study kabbalah until 40

Chassidim didn't accept this either. Most mekubalim that I've spoken
to and learned from do not accept this as binding any longer.

bk

Two questions:

1) Is the mitzvah of belief in HaShem a command to intellectually know of
His existence (or better, to strive for this knowledge) or is it a command
to have simple faith in His existence? Some combination? Machlokes?

2) Does a ben Noach have a mitzvah to believe in HaShem? The relevant
mitzvah of the 7 mitzvos b'nei Noach would seem to be the prohibition of
avodah zara, but if a ben Noach does not do any action acknowledging the
status of any other power as being divine, would he be in violation of
this law? In other words, would a non-Jew who professes to be an agnostic
or an atheist (or, for that matter, one who never thinks about such things
at all= ) be doing anything wrong? If a ben Noach does have some chiyuv
of active belief in HaShem, does it differ at all from that of a Jew?

Thanks,
Joshua

On November 15, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Three problems with the above cheshbon.

> The idea that galus mitzrayim begins with Hagar's pain is pretty enough
> that im kol zos, I would accept dochaw terutzim to keep it going.

I'm not sure what you mean. Kindly rephrase and dilate upon.

>: First of all the incident in question occurred at least 17 years before
>: Yitzchok's birth.

>: Second, the incident at Yitzchok's birth was not even considered as a sin
>: by the Ramban. Chazal say that the term mitzachek by Yishmael refers to AZ
>: and I don't recall the Ramban arguing with Chazal on this point...

> But that's their eviction, not the mitzta'eir.

Am I missing something? You wrote "According to the Ramban, this would
explain why the end of galus Mitzrayim was 400 years counted from
Yitzchaq's birth. The mistreatment began when Yitzchaq entered the
picture. Which means that de facto, if not explicitly stated, we start
counting the galus from the anguish of Hagar, a princess of Egypt"

IOW, you are equating Hagar's anguish (your term "mitzta'eir") with
the ensuing 400 years galus mitzrayim and claiming that the historical
timeline that this anguish relates to is the point when "Yitzchok entered
the picture". The only time we find Hagar (and simultaneously Yishmael)
mitzta'arim (anguished) subsequent to Yitzchok "entering the picture"
was the incident of the eviction and thus eviction and "mitzta'eir"
(anguish) are synonymous in this case.

> The real question is the maqor for the Rambam saying the incident in
> question was more than 17 years (or, as according to RZS, 14 years),
> before Yitzchaq's birth, as opposed to being at Yitzvhaq's birth but
> before teaching Yitzchaq any AZ would be an issue.

Mekor? It's simple mathematics. The Ramban under discussion is
found in Bereishis 16:6 and refers to the incident of Sarah's
consternation regarding what she perceived as condescending behaviour
on Hagar's part (see the pesukim). At the time, Hagar was pregnant with
Yishmael. Approximately 14 years later, when Avraham was 99 years old,
Yishmael had his bris. He was 13 Years old at the time. Approximately
1 year later, when Avraham was 100 years old, Yitzchok was born. 2
Years later (see Rashi) Avraham threw a party to celebrate the occasion
of Yitzchok's weaning. After the party episode the Torah relates the
episode of Hagar and Yishmael's girush. If you add 14+1+2 you should
arrive at 17. The reason I said "at least 17 years" is because Rashi
(21:10) seems to indicate that Yitzchok was older than 2 at the time
of the girush because he (Rashi) relates that Yishmael was competing
with Yitzchok over the yerusha and I personally find it hard to imagine
that Yishmael would be maintaining a sophisticated dialogue with, and
displaying a confrontational stance towards a boy who was just weaned
off his mother's milk.

> Then I can go on to constructing my dochaq teirutz.

I would prefer a concession regarding your erroneous calculation but to
each his own.

Simcha Coffer 

On November 15, 2005, Shaya Potter wrote:
> I don't agree with the conclusion. I agree that we were isolationists,
> but our population numbers weren't growing as one would expect. So one
> can possibly conclude that isolationism didn't particularly serve large
> segments of our population.

"Lo meyrubchem mikol ha'amim chashak Hashem bachem va'yivchar bachem,
ki atem hami'at mikol ha'amim". Just as the former half of the pasuk
is an ongoing commentary on our status quo, so is the latter. We were
never meant to grow in population "as one would expect" however just as
a farmer who plants a tree is really thinking about the relatively much
smaller fruit, so Hashem, who plants mankind, is really thinking about
us. And to ensure that we remain the most qualitative element of mankind,
He has enjoined us to isolate ourselves from the rest of mankind as it
says "v'avdil esschem min ha'amim lihios Li".

The following might annoy some list members on Avodah but I can't resist
translating the last two lines of Parshas Kedoshim in the sefer haChinuch.

Quote: "And one who distances himself from all of their customs and all
of their culture and puts all of his heart and mind to Hashem and his
precious mitzvos will live on in joy forever and his seed will inherit
the earth".

Simcha Coffer

RMB wrote:
> But that's their eviction, not the mitzta'eir.
> The real question is the maqor for the Rambam saying the incident in
> question was more than 17 years (or, as according to RZS, 14 years),
> before Yitzchaq's birth, as opposed to being at Yitzvhaq's birth but
> before teaching Yitzchaq any AZ would be an issue.

Did I miss something? First of all, the interpretation in question is
from RambaN, not RambaM, and second of all, he commented on the incident
in parshat Lekh Lekha, when Yishma'el wasn't even born yet. It is not
sending away Yishma'el which Ramban criticizes, that was supported by
G"d himself (kol asher tomar lekha Sarah shema' beqolah). Rather, Ramban
criticizes the first expulsion of Hagar, under the pretext of vaeqal
be'eneah. That event happened at least 14 years before Yits'haq's birth,
as Yishma'el wasn't even born yet, and would have been 17 years earlier,
as the second expulsion was beyom higamel et Yits'hak at the earliest,
i.e., when Yits'hak was 3 years old.

So, what is your question?

Arie Folger

Samuel Svarc wrote:
> If it wasn't Haskalah, then what caused most of Germany to go off the  
> derech? When RSRH came to Frankfurt, it was about 15(?) families that  
> had called him. What happened to the rest?

Certainly most inclined to Reform, but not so few remained
"gemeindeorthodox". In absolute numbers, the "big community" probably
always had more Orthodox members than the IRG. Apart from that, the
Orthodox in both communities were not much less "enlightened" or under
the influence of the Haskala than others. In the country, that might
have been different.

Also, Haskala, Reform and secularism are three different things.

Lipman Phillip Minden

On November 13, 2005, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> Haskalah, AFAIK, was *never* a force in Germany. Indeed, there was no
> room for it to attract adherents *because* of the philosophy of RSRH which
> successfully brunts its force. It was only in Eastern Europe that Haskalah
> made inroads. 

This comment is entirely incomprehensible and is contrary to the facts
of history. Anyone familiar with the Haskala movement knows that by the
time RSRH reached Frankfort am Main, Haskala was so firmly entrenched
that there was no prayer of entirely uprooting it from Germany. RSRH
came to Frankfort almost 75 years after Haskala began! And by the time
Rabbi Yoseph Breuer escaped the Nazis in 1937, Germany was a spiritual
wasteland. Almost all of German Jewry had assimilated with the Germans
and lost any semblance of a Jewish tzura.

> BTW, as one of my former bosses at Artscroll astutely
> pointed out to me, the time is ripening for a new Haskalah movement to
> make new inroads precisely *because* our contemporary Charedi milieu is
> *not* emulating German Orthodoxy, but Eastern European Orthodoxy. V'hu
> davar pashut.

Not only isn't it a davar pashut, it is the furthest thing from the truth.
It is the people who drop their guard and allow themselves to integrate
into gentile culture that stand the biggest risk of falling prey to the
hevley haGoyim chs'v. V'heim dvarim brurim umivurarim.

> TIDE addresses *all* problems of Judaism with far greater hatzlachah than
> the shittah which promulgates isolation from goyim. 

This statement is so foreign to my perspective on yahadus that I find it
difficult to define precisely where to start in expressing my dissent so
I'll just let Bilam do the talking. "Hein am livadad yishkon u'vagoyim
lo yischashav" This is a definitive statement about how the Torah views
the nature of our relationship with our surroundings and thus I couldn't
have said it better.

Simcha Coffer

Samuel Svarc wrote:
>If it wasn't Haskalah, then what caused most of Germany to go off the

In fact, most of Germany did *not* go off the derech - it was in the big 
cities that they did, not in the little villages (like Bechhofen :-) ).

>derech? When RSRH came to Frankfurt, it was about 15(?) families that had
>called him. What happened to the rest? I quote to you from his "Nineteen

I believed that tidbit of misinformation (actually, IIRC, 11 families) 
for many years. In fact, there was a very large Grossgemeinde Orthodox 
community in Frankfurt - eleven families called RSRH; there were many 
other Orthodox Jews in Frankfurt.

>a German Plato." (L 18 pgs.268-269 Feldheim '96) It seems pretty clear
>that he's laying the blame on the poster boy of Haskalah, Moshe ben Mendel
>(as he refers to him later in the same letter). I await your response.

RSRH's perspective on MM is interesting, but not relevant. For the most 
part, German Jews were not great philosophers and thinkers. They wanted 
nothing more or less than freedom from the strictures of Halacha.

>I wonder at your characterizing this as an "issue" - and definitely not
>a problem. I will not list all the places that seemingly refute this,
>as I'm confident that you know them and have an explanation. I will ask
>you for the explanation.

It was clearly not a *problem* because German Jewry managed very well to 
produce rabbinic leaders of stature right up to WW II.

[Email #2. -mi]

Joe Socher wrote:
>This is, I think, quite wrong. It is true that the form of Haskala
>in Germany was different than that of Eastern Europe, but by most
>definitions Haskala *begins* in Germany, and had already mostly
>played itself out by the time the Eastern European version came into
>existence. Wissenschaft & Reform are merely different Jewish reactions
>to *aufklarang* (Enlightenment), as Socialism, Nationalism, etc., were
>when secularization came to Easter Europe.

It began in Germany, but was not the driving force there. Prikas Ol was
the driving force. Haskala was far more pernicious - and effective - in
the intellectual atmosphere of Lithuania than the pragmatic atmosphere
of Germany.

Haskala and Reform are not the same thing!

KT,
YGB

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


[ 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         ]