Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 48

Mon, 12 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: Medrash (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: R. Danziger's Review of R. Elias' 19 Letters (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: AishDas and Mussar (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Fw: yefas toar (Michael Kopinsky)
• 5. RSRH on Aggadita (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Re: attitude to agadot (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: attitude to agadot (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: attitude to agadot (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: attitude to agadot (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Concord wine for 4 kosos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Precedent and Change (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Tzinius and the ILG (Micha Berger)
• 13. Vashti's tail (T613K@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Vashti's tail (Zev Sero)
• 15. Mazal vs. Malach (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)

Zoo Torah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> 
> <<On the other side of the spectrum, I've never heard of *anyone* who takes
> the RBBC stories literally, so arguments against such a position are using a
> straw man.>>
> 
> Maharsha, in his commentary to the first of Rabbah bar bar Chanah's stories,
> and apparently referring to all of them, does say that these stories are
> true in their literal meaning as well as in their deeper meaning; he notes
> that sailors see weird and wonderful things. Rashbam writes similarly. So it
> seems that there is a long-standing dispute in these matters.

I meant that nobody nowadays takes the RBBC stories literally.  Indeed
the Maharsha's approach is exactly what I am advocating.  In his day,
it was not yet clear that the RBBC stories *can't* be literally true,
so he was happy to believe them, or at least most of them, while still
having to explain what on earth they are doing in the gemara.  So he
explains their metaphoric meaning, what the gemara means by retelling
them, while pointing out that there's no reason to disbelieve that
these phenomena actually exist.  Nowadays we know that these things
don't exist, anywhere in the world, and never did; and we can't invoke
miracles to explain them, because the stories aren't about miracles,
they're about what are supposed to be perfectly natural phenomena that
anybody can go and see if he only knows where to look.  So we must
understand them as fables that are told purely for their esoteric
meaning.  And the Maharsha would surely have agreed, had he known what
we know.

This is exactly the same approach that we see the Maharsha take with
Vashti's tail.  He doesn't get incensed that the Aruch dared to give
a non-literal explanation; he simply asks what forced the Aruch to do
so.  There doesn't seem to be any reason *not* to accept the tale of
the tail, so he does.  But if there were some reason why this was
difficult, then he'd agree that it need not be understood literally.
E.g. suppose, rather than invoking Malach Gavriel, the gemara had
said that "Vashti spontaneously sprouted a tail, as some people do
under stress".  The state of our medical science may not be perfect,
but we're pretty sure that people don't do that, so we would be forced
to understand this non-literally, and the Maharsha would've understood
what forced the Aruch to do so.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 
For those who are interested, I have posted a link to Rabbi S.  
Danziger's original review of Rabbi Elias' edition of RSRH's Nineteen  
Letters  at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf


Yitzchok  Levine 

>>>>>
My father was very unhappy with R' Elias's edition of Nineteen  Letters.  He 
thought R' Elias subverted Hirsch's intentions but I  don't know exactly what 
his objections were.  He was going to tell me some  day.  I wish I could ask 
him now.  





--Toby  Katz
=============
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070311/1ba00d44/attachment.htm 

<RMB>
>> The only alternative to Mussar is chassidic ecstatic experience. IOW, 
>> either
>> one pursues meaning that is based on thought and experience, or one that 
>> is
>> based on experience for which thought is a second layer.
<snip>
>> Mussar is a broader concept than the one path taken by Tenu'as haMussar. 
>> One
>> can use their tools to deepen pretty much any hashkafah.

I think you're missing something here.  Both mussar and "chassidic ecstatic 
experience" use the koah hadimyon as a tool.  The difference is whether 
they're aiming to effect the dimyon or the sechel.  There are Jewish 
traditions which emphasis bypassing the dimyon altogether and exclusively 
using the sechel.  For example, the Rambam in MN, his son in Sefer HaMaspik 
L'Ovdei HaShem,  Abraham Abulafia (if I understand his claims correctly) 
and, more recently, Franz Rosenzweig.

David Riceman 

On 3/10/07, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> Again see Rashi on "Veheisiro simlas shivyo":  "Lefi sheheim naim, sheAkum
> benoseihem miskashtos bamilchomo lehaznos acheirim imohem..."
>
> Rape? She was ASKING for it...

So are many rape victims today, but that does not make it any more OK.  I
doubt the simlos shivya that they wore were any more revealing than
"street clothes" today.

Someone pointed out to my that the translation of the writings of 
RSRH about how one should view Aggadita is on R. N. Slifkin's web 
site at http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/hirsch.rtf.

I have taken the liberty of converting this file to pdf format and 
posting a link to it at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/.


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070311/a8159962/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The current issue of Hakirah (vol. 4) ...
:               there is another article about the Maharl MiPragueand aggadot.
: He points out that virtually EVERY Gaon and Rishon took aggadot with
: a big grain of salt many stating explicitly that they are no binding
: especially when they have no direct halachic portion. The first person to
: insist on their complete validity was the Maharal and he reinterpreted
: them so they were not to be taken literally.
: Until our times they has been almost no one that takes the position
: of R. Feldman that denying aggadot is kefirah.

Are you sure RAF says this? It is the exact opposite of what he says in
the preface to The Juggler and the King in the name of the Gra. And he
says nowhere that he personally follows another shitah.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:00:16AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: 4, and this should satisfy the minimalists: Maybe the tail was "visible"
: only to Vashti.  It was all in her mind; or if RMB prefers, it existed
: in her private universe but not in anyone else's.  When she looked in
: the mirror, she saw a tail; when she felt behind her, she felt a tail,
: and so she refused to be seen like that.  There was no need for anyone
: else to see it, so they didn't, but *she* didn't know that.

I do not think the issue should be reduced to minimalism vs maximalism.

I'm trying to follow neither, but find how the overwhelming majority
of baalei mesorah treat this topic. In the case of time during maaseh
bereishis or the truth of aggadic stories, this leads me to a position
similar to that of the minimalists. WRT the mabul, I end up multiplying
miracles (or going to a very modern ontology) and sound like a maximalist.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The current issue of Hakirah (vol. 4) ...
:               there is another article about the Maharl MiPragueand aggadot.
: He points out that virtually EVERY Gaon and Rishon took aggadot with
: a big grain of salt many stating explicitly that they are no binding
: especially when they have no direct halachic portion. The first person to
: insist on their complete validity was the Maharal and he reinterpreted
: them so they were not to be taken literally.
: Until our times they has been almost no one that takes the position
: of R. Feldman that denying aggadot is kefirah.

Are you sure RAF says this? It is the exact opposite of what he says in
the preface to The Juggler and the King in the name of the Gra. And he
says nowhere that he personally follows another shitah.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:00:16AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: 4, and this should satisfy the minimalists: Maybe the tail was "visible"
: only to Vashti.  It was all in her mind; or if RMB prefers, it existed
: in her private universe but not in anyone else's.  When she looked in
: the mirror, she saw a tail; when she felt behind her, she felt a tail,
: and so she refused to be seen like that.  There was no need for anyone
: else to see it, so they didn't, but *she* didn't know that.

I do not think the issue should be reduced to minimalism vs maximalism.

I'm trying to follow neither, but find how the overwhelming majority
of baalei mesorah treat this topic. In the case of time during maaseh
bereishis or the truth of aggadic stories, this leads me to a position
similar to that of the minimalists. WRT the mabul, I end up multiplying
miracles (or going to a very modern ontology) and sound like a maximalist.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The current issue of Hakirah (vol. 4)...
: One of the few taking aggadot literally were R. Shimshon of Sens
: (Rash) and R. Moshe Tako of Regensburg

RMT, the one who the Raadad cites as taking "Yad Hashem" etc...
literally to the point of assigning Borei a "demus haguf?

At least it seems like a leshitaso in there.

-mi

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The current issue of Hakirah (vol. 4)...
: One of the few taking aggadot literally were R. Shimshon of Sens
: (Rash) and R. Moshe Tako of Regensburg

RMT, the one who the Raadad cites as taking "Yad Hashem" etc...
literally to the point of assigning Borei a "demus haguf?

At least it seems like a leshitaso in there.

-mi

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:20:17PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: See Pesachim 35a, ...
: it appears that whatever taxonomy was used by Chazal was sufficiently broad to
: allow these to be considered subspecies of some sort of wheat and barley.
: Presumably, hybrid/seedless grapes are still considered grapes, and their
: fermented juice, wine.

My point was about concord grapes, not the hybrid. I'm using the
infertility of the hybrid to prove that lehalakhah, they are
separate species.

Different forms of wheat and barley might be able to produce fertile
offspring. In which case, they are less estranged than old world
and concord grapes.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:22:02PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Lich'ora, this is the same shaila as the Muscovy duck...

Or Turkey?

I don't think so. In that case, mesorah defines whch birds we can assume
have simanei kashrus. The Muscovy duck has simanim, as far as we can
tell, and we are relying on whether its similarity to ducks is enough
to trust the simanim.

I see your reason to be meiqil because it's derabbanan, but the issue
in doubt is deOraisa.

Concord grapes are not native to EY, it's not the gefen of the 7 minim.
Here we're trying to decide the breadth of a term in chumash, not the
limits of a mesorah used to double-check. Mesorah isn't /defining/
reality, lashon haTorah is.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I see a number of kinds of halachic change.

The first is a change in metzius that makes what seems to be the same
situation warrant a totally different pesaq.

This is what the CC argued in defending Beis Yaakov. Because girls were
getting general education, the amount of Torah they are supposed to
learn in order to grow up into shomerei Torah umitzvos has dramatically
increased. The pesaq didn't change, the girl did.

The second is changes performed through the halachic process.

This in turn can be subdivided in a number of ways:

Chiluq 1: Pure chumros vs pesaqim that include an element of qulah.
Pure chumros would require a lower threashold of proof, as no one is
violating the earlier pesaq, "merely" making life more difficult for
everyone.

Chiluq 2: Conscious changes of pesaq vs post-facto justifications of
changed norm.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:03:00PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Mussar, if anything, was a change, in transforming behavior-modification
: therapy into "limud Torah".

Cognitive behavioral therapy. Qabbalos are only a small part of Mussar.
It is also not quite fair to use the term therapy, which has been
associated with maximizing one's ability to accomplish one's own goals
for Mussar, which is about maximizing one's ability to be holy as
defined by the Torah.

But how is this a *halachic* change? Did Mussar change a pesaq?

:                                                  Similarly, in the case
: of the Chasidim that didn't happen - the Vilna Gaon reportedly refused
: to see emissaries from the Chasidim.  And so, the Chasidim didn't feel
: bound by the Godol Hador.

Actually, the Gra's charamim post-dated his aborted attempt to make
aliyah. It is even plausible that the Gra turned back because he didn't
like what he saw traveling through Poland and thought he needed to
"save" Litta.

Not the same as actually talking to the people involved to get clarity,
but not as extreme as you draw it.

...
: If the Gedolim don't try, avoid secular education, avoid scientific
: training, how do you think the Gedolim will "get a handle on it"?
: Miraculous ruach hakodesh, like the late Lubavitcher Rebbe?  Oh, right,
: he *did* have scientific and secular training.

The gedolim of yesteryear had at least informal education in limudei
chol. The CI's nephew spoke of the many hours the CI spent in his
European years satisfying his curiousity about medicine. MmE III has a
recollection of his father getting him to read Uncle Tom's Cabin. RSRH
confused this encouragement in Vilozhin with an actual TIDE curriculum,
and writes in a te'udas ishur that his followers donate to V as a fellow
traveller on a TIDE-like path.

Then there is the phenomenon RJJB writes of: formal limudei chol education
-- the number of gedolim who attended university in the early 20th cent,
the Alter of Kelm's gymnasia etc...

: If the Gedolim refuse to confront change, and deal with it constructively,
: the amcha feel justifed in finding smaller rabbis who are willing to
: deal with it constructively...

I'm confused. This presumes that following one's own rav rather than
"the gedolim" requires justification. Following the biggest names when
one's rav doesn't find it necessary (eg inyanei yuchsin, or they lack
competency of the subject, etc...), is the chiddush requiring a burden
of proof.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:44:06PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> How about "when society evolves to the point that a rule MUST be
> defined legally, rather than a set of values given for people to
> decide situationally," because too many people became ineffificent in
> situational judgment, and therefore formal, more blanket rules were deemed
> necessary? I think this is a traditional approach. (Compare Rambam re:
> R' Yose HaGlili and poultry with milk, as I think you've recently pointed
> out; and Rambam on why the nusach of Shemoneh Essray was standardized.)

The difference between my suggestion and yours is whether Chazal protected
TYQ with specific dinim derabbanan whenever they found a way to do so,
or whenever they found a need to do so (and found a way to).

I would not argue that they passed dinim when there was a need. I am
not sure they necessarily waited for the problem to become acute before
acting. Do you have reason to assert this?

-mi

Just a thought -- with all the comments on this thread -- is it possible  
that something protruded from some orifice or another -- not an animal  tail, but 
something medical, some female condition or bowel condition?  A  hernia, 
dropped uterus, hemorrhoid, tumor or who knows what?  Maybe  there's a way to 
square the "midrashim should be taken literally" school with  the "no miracles in 
the Megillah" school?
 


--Toby  Katz
=============
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070312/b4402f67/attachment.htm 

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Just a thought -- with all the comments on this thread -- is it possible 
> that something protruded from some orifice or another -- not an animal 
> tail, but something medical, some female condition or bowel condition?  
> A hernia, dropped uterus, hemorrhoid, tumor or who knows what?  Maybe 
> there's a way to square the "midrashim should be taken literally" school 
> with the "no miracles in the Megillah" school?

Again, in that case why invoke Malach Gavriel?  He wasn't considered
necessary for the tzaraat, but he was for the tail.  The only difference
I can see is that tzaraat happens now and then, but tails generally don't.
At least not to people who were born without them.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Ruach Chaim (Avos 1:2) quotes Chazal: ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????
???? ????? ?? ???. The citation given is Bereishis Rabbah 10. In Bereishis
Rabbah 10:7 I found the following: ?"? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???
????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???... Is R? Chaim Volozhiner equating Malachim and
Mazalos? Or, is the Mareh Makom wrong and there is another Chazal which says
Malach?

 

KT,

MYG 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070312/be459708/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 48
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."