Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 042

Tuesday, November 29 2005

• RE: TIDE
• Re: Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)
• Re: Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)
• RE: TIDE and TuM
• Re: TIDE

On November 16, 2005, RYGB wrote:
> S & R Coffer wrote:
>>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.

> As to Germany being a "spiritual wastedland," the charge is offensive.
> It is difficult to see the cradle of the Agudah, the land of Breuers,
> Carlebachs, Hildesheimers, Hoffmans, not to mention the Lithuanian
> transplants, as a "spiritual wasteland."

Why? Are you naive enough to think that the once great land of the
Breures etc. was not entirely assimilated into their German culture by
1937, i.e. a Jewish wasteland? Well, neither you nor I were there but I
personally heard from responsible eidey re'iyah about the condition of
frum Jewry in Germany just before Hitler ym'sh came. In fact, not just
in Germany. Rabbi A. Miller relates that when he went to Slabodka in
1932 there was a boat taking yidden to work from Kovno (yes, Kovno!) on
Shabbos every 15 minutes and when he left in 1938, the boat departed
every 5 minutes. The matzav in Germany was even worse. Intermarriage
and assimilation had practically wiped out the entire frum community
such that when Hitler ym"sh came, we can rightfully say what Chazal
said...ama keteila ketalt (Sanhedrin 96:)

>>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.

> You commit a fundamental error. TIDE is not about integration into
> gentil culture. In fact, I do not even think TuM is about that - except
> perhaps in its most extreme manifestations.

Great. If this is true, we have no dispute. However, your opinion
regarding TIDE is far from the common consensus, especially amongst
adherents of TuM (center to left) and other MO yidden.

I really didn't want to get into a debate about TIDE but since there
were several comments made about my lack of perspective regarding
this issue, my feathers have been sufficiently ruffled and therefore,
"afaresh licha seechasee".

Torah Im Derech Eretz is a phrase coined by Chazal and can have 4
different connotations, 3 of which RSRH had absolutely no hand in
inventing.

1) Derech Eretz Kadma LaTorah (or Im Ein Derech Eretz, Ein Torah) - The
idea that derech eretz (DE) is a prerequisite to Torah such that if a
person has Torah, he must have derech eretz. DE in this context refers
to proper behaviour and attitudes towards Hashem and towards man that
can be acquired even without the Torah. Rav A. Miller explains that
the reason this type of DE precedes the Torah is because if a person
ignores the common sense dictates of his mind, what chance does he have
of keeping the additional responsibilities that the Torah places upon
him? I think all would agree that this is not a Hirschian invention.

2) Yafeh Torah Im Derech Eretz - Being mifarnes es atzmo u'vney beiso. The
mishna in avos encourages one to pursue both Torah and a parnasah because
the simultaneous pursuit of both these items causes on to stay on the
straight and narrow. The Rambam in Hilchos TT (3:7) paskens like this
mishna and Chazal (Berachos 35:) state that many who tried to avoid this
system failed. Thus, once again, this is far from a Hirschian invention.

3) Im Yomar Licha Adam Yesh Chochma BaGoyim, Tamin - for short, Torah
Umadah (not the movement). The idea is that one can gain in their
avodas Hashem by supplementing the Torah with chochmas haTeva for
two reasons. Firstly, because it can act as a handmaiden to the Torah
regarding the technical subjects that the Torah discusses (e.g. Kiddush
haChodesh) and second, and most importantly, can lead to an additional
dimension in yiras shamayim to that offered by the Torah. Avraham Avinu
pioneered this derech in avodas Hashem, Dovid haMelech reintroduced it
into our nation and the AKH introduced it into our daily diet (pisukey
d'zimra), the Chovos Halevavos championed its cause in more recent times,
and the Maharal incorporates it into the DE of the mishna in Avos. Once
again, not a Hirschian invention.

4) TIDE and RSRH - When attempting to present a short synopsis of this
movement, I encountered a major obstacle. A common consensus seemed to be
lacking regarding TIDE and no matter what I would say, someone could knock
it so what should I do? As I was pondering my dilemma, I lazily clicked
on Wikipedia and typed in TIDE. Lo and behold, a very well formulated
presentation backed by no less than 19 (what a coincidence) strong TIDE
sources appeared before me. The following is a quote from this article.

Quote
In Hirsch's view, Judaism must "include the conscientious promotion of
education and culture". Hirsch speaks of the Israel-Mensch ("Israel-man"),
the "enlightened religious personality" as an ideal: that is the Jew who
is proudly Jewish, a believer in the eternal values of the Torah and at
the same time, a cultured "man" of the modern world. "The more, indeed,
Judaism comprises the whole of man and extends its declared mission
to the salvation of the whole of mankind, the less it is possible to
confine its outlook to the synagogue. [Thus] the more the Jew is a Jew,
the more universalist will be his views and aspirations [and] the less
aloof will he be from ... art or science, culture or education ... [and]
the more joyfully will he applaud whenever he sees truth and justice
and peace and the ennoblement of man."

Now that's vintage RSRH!

Now, there are several possible responses that can arise when considering
the above presentation. The first is to deny the above paragraph and
categorically declare that RSRH never encouraged adopting gentile
culture. This attitude was expressed by RYGB (above) and echoed (with
righteous indignation) by R' Gershon Seif and R' Brent Kaufman. Truth
to tell, I would like to believe them and actually think they may be
correct. However, from a historical perspective, there is much to doubt
about this attitude as some have pointed out on Avodah.

The second attitude is to embrace the above paragraph and adopt it as your
general Weltanschauung on life. Essentially, many of the TuM adherents
have done just that as have the overwhelming majority of MO Jews.

The third attitude is mine. I wish to make a reconciliation between the
above two approaches and claim that RSRH, while really promoting the
above-mentioned philosophy, would not necessarily have advanced it in
a non-modern world and thus, in the times of Mashiach, for instance,
where modernity's primary purpose will be to serve as a facilitator
for klal yisrael, RSRH would dispense with his approach and adopt the
Rambam's approach at the end of Hilchos Milachim.

There is a fourth attitude. Not only did RSRH not mean to promote the
above presentation as a davar kavua, even category #3 (Torah and making a
living) was not mankind's ultimate goal. I have had several discussions
with TIDE/TuM people who scoff at this attitude and point confidently
to the Gemara in berachos "harbey assu kRSBY vilo alsa biyadam". Also,
they point to the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah and the mishna in Avos
etc. but tishuvasam omedes bitzeedam because the Rambam in Hilchos Shemita
ViYovel (13:13) and in Hilchos Milachim (12:5) clearly states that the
ultimate goal is to immerse oneself in Torah and eschew any involvement
in DE (parnasah) just like RSBY and therefore the obvious resolution is
to say, just like R' Chaim Volozhiner says in Nefesh haChaim (1:8), that
TIDE, even as applies to making a parnasah, is only secondary to learning
full-time. As it happens, almost all people, including many who try, are
not ra'uy for this mihalech just like the Gemara states in Berachos. Only
a few yechidey sigula actually manage to succeed with RSBY's method. As
it happens, I think that RSRH would have also agreed with this attitude.

Simcha Coffer   

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:12:47AM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: RMB writes that the Rashbam even questions "vayhi erev vayhi voqer"
: in Beraishis as meaning that night precedes day. Now it is true that
: according to the Rashbam, since creation starts with the creation of
: light, the Peshat in the verse is that night follows day (see Rashbam
: for the details). I asked RMB to clarify which Chazal the Rashbam was
: disputing. Since RMB did not respond, I will assume for the sake of
: concreteness that the Rashbam is putatively "disputing" Chulin 5.5,
: which asserts that for halachic purposes the day follows the night. This
: would appear to support #1.

: However, that would be an error, as the Rashbam clearly states (Ber. 1.14
: "Uleyamim" -- "and for days') -- "from one appearance of the stars until
: the next appearance constitutes one day". The Rashbam is fully bound by
: Chazal as in #2.

I took your question as rhetorical. It seems absurd to suggest that the
Rashbam's wife bentched licht 18 or 40 min before haneitz on Saturday
morning. Therefore, this is a strawman.

The second problem with my example is that we were discussing medrashei
aggadah, in particular aggadic stories. While the example I gave was
about a historical point, Chazal use it as a ra'ayah for the halachic
position. It's therefore not a pure example.

Lehalakhah, both positions are true. Shabbos and yamim tovim start with
erev. However, in the BhM, they start at the day. So, there is no reason
why the Rashbam, or Chazal, need the pasuq to mean one or the other to
be consistent with the din.

But chazal are bringing it as a ra'ayah for when Shabbos begins. I.e. they
are asserting that there is only one way to understand what period "yom
echad" refers to. However, the Rashbam does bring another understanding
-- and is thus choleiq with Chazal's assumption that it's muchrach. Even
if he takes your #2, that he is being megaleh a different paneh, it runs
counter to the assumption that there is no room for another taitch.

As for the Rashbam's means of understanding another pasuq, what does
that have to do with his disagreeing with Chazal on this one?

: Whatever the explanation, the Rashbam is a faithul follower of Chazal
: as in #2. In Ber. 1.1 he asserts that "... ALL of our Rabbis' words and
: Midrashic explanations are HONEST and TRUE".

This is irrelevent. As I wrote before
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n018.shtml#10>, now repeated
for the third time:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:42:23PM -0600, brent wrote:
>:                                 It was put forth, (thankfully), based
>: upon this Ramban (and the other Rishonim that hold like this)
>: ... According to this opinion one is only required to accept Medrashei
>: Halacha and not Aggadata. ...

> I think the position should be rephrased.
> One is as obligated to accept medrashei aggada (and aggadita in Shas)
> as one is medrashei halakhah (and the pesaqim of Shas). However,
> accepting medrash aggada means accepting the truth of the nimshal,
> not the historicity of the mashal.

If the Rashbam believes that historically set stories are usually
meshalim, not historical claims, he would not be questioning the
honesty or truth of Chazal's words. And that would give him room to make
contradictory historical claims.

...
: In his description of his discussion with his famous ancestor Rashi,
: the Rashbam writes (Ber. 32.7) that the Midrashic methods of the Sages
: which are derived from hints hiddden in the plain meaning and the use
: of Midrashic exegesis such as the 32 principles of R. Eliezer or the 13
: principles of R. Yishmael is the ESSENCE of the TORAH.

This also crosses the domain line. This is halachic derashah, not aggadic
stories.



On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 10:55:48PM -0500, T613K@aol.com asked about RJO's
reference to Gittin 57a:
: What I want to know is, are we to understand "boiling excrement"
: literally or figuratively? Maybe it means that Gehenom is very, very
: unpleasant. Or is there actual excrement there?

According to the Ran and the Ikkarim, the heat of gehenom is that of
bushah. Thus, I would take this to mean "the bushah of having gotten
oneself so enmired of the worst of gashmius".

-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      

S & R Coffer wrote:
>On November 27, 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
>>>[2] The Rishonim believe that Peshat is a legitimate derech fully
>>>authorized by Chazal, even where the Peshat is not only different from
>>>the Derush, but even asserts what appears to be the opposite. In this
>>>case, the Rishon merely reveals one of the Shivim Panim of Torah given
>>>to Moshe Rabbenu at Har Sinai.

>>View #2 above represents a new type of rational for the reality that
>>Rishonim sometimes rejected the views of Chazal. From my research this
>>distinction was first mentioned by the Maharal....

>Actually, the Ramban states this approach openly in parshas Noach,
>(8:4) when diverging from an aggadas Chazal in BR. If you read the
>Ramban closely you will notice that 1) the Ramban feels like he needs
>to take rishus from Rashi to be miyashev the pasuk al pi pishuto when
>it apparently conflicts with a Medrash aggada 2) he mentions that Rashi
>had a right to do so because of shiviim panim latorah 3) there are many
>"medrashim chalukim" amongst Chazal themselves...

Ramban is not utilizing View #2. View #2 requires that there be an 
apparent conflict between chazal and the rishon which is reconciled by 
saying that chazal is medrash while the rishon represents pshat. There 
is no such thing is this Ramban. Ramban is dealing with a medrash 
(quoted below) which based on certain assumption concludes that the Ark 
came to rest on the 17th of **Sivan**. Ramban raises objections such as 
the fact that the Ark would have sunk if it was submerged as deeply as 
the medrash describes. In other words he rejects the validity of a 
statement of chazal based upon his scientific knowledge. He does not say 
that science is psaht and the medrash is derech drash. He does initially 
say that according to pshat the Ark would have rested on the 17th of 
**Iyar** - not Sivan. But then he says that the correct explanation 
[i.e., he is rejecting the medrash] the Ark in fact came to rest on the 
17th of **Nisan**.
In addition his statement regarding Rashi - is not taking permission 
from Rashi. He is simply speaking in a very respectful tone saying just 
as Rashi can produce an analysis which differs from a particular medrash 
so can he. A similar type of statement is found in the Ba'al HaMeor to 
justify his rejection of the Rif.

What can be taken from the Ramban is that 1) where a statement is based 
upon deduction rather than mesora - one can disagree with it if the 
premises are wrong. This would explain also his rejection of Seder Olam 
regarding the length of the Egyptian Exile since it was based upon 
deduction. 2) Where Chazal make an assertion of scientific fact which is 
known to be false through empirical investigation - we can not only 
reject the statement but also the deduction arrived by assuming it to be 
true. 3) Where there is a dispute amongst chazal concerning a historic 
event - that indicates that there is no clear mesorah and one can offer 
an alternative. It is not necessary to pick one of the statements of 
Chazal. An occurrence of this principle is found in the Abarbanel's 
discussion of Bava Basra (14-15). Rav Tzadok attacks the Abarbanel and 
says that one can not offer an alternative not mentioned in Chazal. 
Similarly the Maharal attacks the Ramban for making interpretations not 
found in chazal. 4) Ramban is not saying that he is only offering pshat 
to complement the drash of Chazal. He is saying that there is a correct 
understanding which he presents and which contradicts the medrash.

In sum Ramban is not utilzing view #2. He is rejecting the conclusions 
of the medrash. He is not offering an explanation of pshat which 
complements the drash.

----------------------------------------
Soncino Translation
*Bereishis Rabbah (33:7):*

7. AND HE SENT FORTH THE DOVE, AND SHE RETURNED NOT AGAIN TO HIM ANY MORE,
AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE SIX HUNDRED AND FIRST YEAR, IN THE FIRST MONTH,
THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH. We learned: The judgment of the generation
of the Flood lasted twelve months.1 How is this deduced? (i) In the six
hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth
day of the month... the windows of heaven were opened (Gen. VII, 11);
and it is written, (ii) And the rain was upon the earth forty days and
forty nights (ib. 12): this embraces the rest of Marheshwan and Kislew;
(iii) And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days
(ib. 24): this covers Tebeth, Shebat, Adar, Nisan, and Iyar; (iv) And
the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day, upon the
mountains of Ararat (ib. VIII, 4): that means Siwan, the seventh month
from the descent of the rain. For sixteen days the water diminished at
the rate of a cubit per four days, which is one and a half handbreadths
per day. You may thus infer that the Ark was eleven cubits in the water,
and it all drained off in sixty days. Thus you read, And the waters
decreased continually until the tenth months (ib. 5): that is Ab, the
tenth from the descent of the rain.

____________________
*R' Chavel translation*
*Ramban (Bereishis 8:4):*

* *

4. AND THE ARK RESTED IN THE SEVENTH MONTH, ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE
MONTH. Rashi wrote: "From here you may infer that the ark was submerged
in the water to a depth of eleven cubits." This he wrote on the basis
of the calculation written in his commentaries, and it is so found in
Bereshith Rabbah. But since in certain places Rashi minutely examines
Midrashic traditions and for the same verses also takes the trouble to
explain the simple meanings of Scripture, he has thus given us permission
to do likewise for there are seventy ways of interpreting the Torah, and
there are many differing Midrashim among the words of the Sages. And so
I say that this calculation which they have mentioned does not fit into
the language of Scripture unless we bear with that which explains And the
ark rested in the seventh month as referring to that day mentioned above
[in Verses 2-3] when the rain was withheld and the waters receded from the
earth and decreased continually. [This Interpretation of the seventh month
is] unlike the counting of the second month mentioned in the beginning
of the section, [which Rashi explains there as being "the second month"
of the creation calendar], and unlike the counting stated at the end
of the section [in Verse 13: in the first month, which Rashi similarly
explains as being "the first month" of the creation calendar]! And how is
it possible that in the second verse Scripture should immediately retract
[from using the withholding of the rain as a reference point for counting]
and state, until the tenth month,113 and proceed to another reference
point, counting it, as Rashi explains, as the tenth month with reference
to the coming of the rains! The evidence Rashi brings from the submergence
of the ark in the waters is no proof for he attributes an equal decrease
of water to each of the days -- namely, a cubit every four days -- and
it is known in nature concerning the decrease of water that a great river
which decreases at first a cubit every four days will at the end decrease
four cubits in a day. Thus according to this calculation of Rashi, on
the first day of the month of Ab the tops of the mountains were seen,
and on the first day of Tishri the earth dried. Thus in sixty days the
waters decreased the entire height of the high mountains consisting
of many thousands of cubits, [surely a greater rate than four cubits a
day, as Rashi would have it]! Besides, when Noah sent forth the dove on
the seventeenth day of the month of Ellul, the waters were yet on the
face of the entire earth, and the trees were covered, and in a matter
of twelve days the whole earth dried! And by way of reason, if the ark
was submerged in the waters eleven cubits, that being more than a third
of its height [which was thirty cubits], it would have sunk because it
was wide at the bottom and finished to a cubit at the top, contrary to
the structure of ships, and there was also in it great weight!

*From the simple interpretation of Scripture it appears that the hundred 
and fifty days mentioned in connection with the prevailing of the waters 
include the forty days of the coming down of the rains since the main 
increase and prevailing of the waters took place during these days.* 
*Thus the waters began decreasing on the seventeenth day of Nisan, and 
thirty days later -- the seventeenth day of the month **Iyar,** which was 
the seventh month from the time the rain began to fall -- the ark rested 
upon the mountains of Ararat. Seventy-three days later, on the first of 
Ab, which was the tenth month from the time the rain began to fall, the 
tops of the mountains were seen. We have thus made a small correction in 
the interpretation of the language of Scripture, [namely, that all 
counting begins from the time the rain began to fall].

*But the correct interpretation appears to me to be that*. The hundred
and fifty days 121 were from the seventeenth day of the second month,
namely, the month of Marcheshvan, to the seventeenth day of the seventh
month, namely, the month of **Nisan**, and that was the day when the
ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.

>>                                               One would think in the
>>700 year period that the various commentaries of the rishonim have been
>>known that there would be copious examples of this explanation - but I
>>couldn't find them.

>In addition to the hasagos Ramban, the Rambam in pirush mishnayos is
>another example of a Rishon that states that we cannot reject maamarei
>Chazal out of hand. The drashos haRan states the same. And so does the
>Rashbam (brought down in JSO's post) and many other rishonim. Explanation
>#2 is thus the only rational reconciliation for the phenomenon of Rishonim
>sometimes disagreeing with Chazal.

***Nobody is saying one can reject a statement of chazal out of hand.***

But rishonim did reject views that were not based on a clear mesorah when
they felt the statement in chazal was wrong. It has nothing to do with
pshat versus drash. Rambam - even though he stated that one needs to be
highly respectful of chazal - rejected their views on astrology as did the
Meiri. The modern view as presented by Rav Dessler & the Leshem is that
everything that chazal said is true and can not be rejected. This was not
the view of the Rishonim. Thus explanation #2 is not "the only rational
reconciliation for the phenomenon of Rishonim sometimes disagreeing with
Chazal". Sometimes Rishonim in fact rejected the statements of chazal.

Daniel Eidensohn

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On November 16, 2005, RYGB wrote:
>> You commit a fundamental error. TIDE is not about integration into
>> gentil culture. In fact, I do not even think TuM is about that - except
>> perhaps in its most extreme manifestations.

> Great. If this is true, we have no dispute. However, your opinion
> regarding TIDE is far from the common consensus, especially amongst
> adherents of TuM (center to left) and other MO yidden.

For the record, TuM is not about integration into the gentile culture. It
is about utilizing the best of it, which does not contradict the
Halacha. It is about enjoying and renewing oneself, ...about adhering
to the Torah dictum: Mekadesh Atzmechem B'Ma SheMutar Lach.

Anyone who says that TuM is about integrating into the gentile culture
does not understand TuM at all. That many in MO mistakenly believe that
tro be the goal, is a function of both their ignorance and their focus on
the M instead of the O. To many (...probably most)Modern Orthodox Jews
it is a life-style choice. To my great dismay most of practitioners of
MO are of this mindset but it is not the definition of TuM at all... just
a manifestation of that ignorance.

That is why I like to identify them with the label MO-Lite.

HM

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:35:02AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Torah Im Derech Eretz is a phrase coined by Chazal and can have 4
: different connotations, 3 of which RSRH had absolutely no hand in
: inventing.

: 1) Derech Eretz Kadma LaTorah (or Im Ein Derech Eretz, Ein Torah) - The
: idea that derech eretz (DE) is a prerequisite to Torah such that if a
: person has Torah, he must have derech eretz. DE in this context refers
: to proper behaviour and attitudes towards Hashem and towards man that
: can be acquired even without the Torah....

Towards man, yes. But where is a maqor that DE refers to behavior toward
HQBH?

: 2) Yafeh Torah Im Derech Eretz - Being mifarnes es atzmo u'vney beiso...

Where do you get that DE here means parnasah? That would be "im ein
qemach, ein Torah", a different mishnah in Pirqei Avos.

Leshitas RSRH, both uses of DE are the same. As already discussed,
RSRH's TIDE implied a humanism.

: 3) Im Yomar Licha Adam Yesh Chochma BaGoyim, Tamin - for short, Torah
: Umadah (not the movement)....

Not at all. Nor relevent to TIDE. Chokhmah bagoyim ta'amin means that
you can rely on their observations. In context, that they may actually
know the gestation period od a snake better than we do. It's a statement
about using non-Jewish sources. How does that imply anything about the
value of secular knowledge?

: 4) TIDE and RSRH - When attempting to present a short synopsis of this
: movement, I encountered a major obstacle....

 From this point onward you make statements without providing any basis
at all.

[Wikipedia entry snipped.]
: Now, there are several possible responses that can arise when considering
: the above presentation....

Assuming wikipedia grasped the primary sources correctly....

...
: The third attitude is mine. I wish to make a reconciliation between the
: above two approaches and claim that RSRH, while really promoting the
: above-mentioned philosophy, would not necessarily have advanced it in
: a non-modern world and thus, in the times of Mashiach, for instance,
: where modernity's primary purpose will be to serve as a facilitator
: for klal yisrael, RSRH would dispense with his approach and adopt the
: Rambam's approach at the end of Hilchos Milachim.

But this is simply what you want RSRH to say, with no actual basis in
anything he (or wikipedia) actually wrote! So when a half dozen people
post how this sentiment runs counter to the ideas dripping off many many
pages of RSRH's writings, your reply simply is to repeat your imposing
your desired position on his work.

(Many of our debates appear this way from this end. Such as our
interminable debate on what REED says about 6 yemei bereishis. When
he writes that time had "no shortness and no length" and invokes it
to explain how the Ramban identifies the days with the subsequent
millenia NOT AS A REMEZ, he wasn't writing about time that lacks
measurability? That Adam saw all of history (from one end to the other)
with a metaphor of not being constricted by a whole in the in the paper
isn't a mashal for time sans human limitation not having a "flow"? No
matter how many times we went back and forth on this, you insist that
my citations -- which just happen to prove RAC's, one of the mevi'ei
la'or's, understanding -- are irrelevent and neither RAC nor I could
read the essay as well as you. So, the debates read like a habit of
simply reading your prejudice into sources, and far too many Avodah
discussions this year simply then revolve around people trying to prove
to you that the book in question actually says what it says. I find the
exercise frustrating, and as someone from a long line of hypertensives,
perhaps I would be better off resisting the temptation in the future.)

: There is a fourth attitude. Not only did RSRH not mean to promote the
: above presentation as a davar kavua, even category #3 (Torah and making a
: living) was not mankind's ultimate goal...

And again, not in RSRH anywhere. Besides, see his take on ki mTzion
teitzei Torah and what is means to be an or laGoyim. RSRH sets TIDE as
part of the messianic future.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

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


[ 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         ]