Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 84

Tue, 26 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Ashkenazim and Sephardim (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Kabbalah's Legitimacy (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Does God Change his Mind (Meir Shinnar)
• 4. Re: Does God Change his Mind (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: basis of AZ (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Zayin Adar (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Girl Scout cookies (T613K@aol.com)

 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 101 dated 12/20/2007 R' Michael Elzufon  
<Michael@arnon.co.il>
writes:

>>What is the source for the claim that Ashkenazi practice came  from Eretz
Israel and Sephardi practice came from Bavel?  My  impression has always
been the opposite. <<

 
 
>>>>>
I'm coming back to an issue that was raised a couple of months ago, because  
I found something relevant in Berel Wein's book *Herald of Destiny: The Story 
of  the Jews in the Medieval Era 750-1650*
 
He writes: "The reason there emerged, in the early Middle Ages, two  distinct 
ethnic and cultural groupings, Sephardic and Ashkenazic, is a subject  of 
much scholarly conjecture and controversy." (pg. 78)
 
Then he has the following footnote, which I quote in full:
 
==begin quote==
 
See, for example, H.J. Zimmels, /Ashkenazim and Sephardim/, (London, 1958),  
pp.1-10, for a review of this question.  Regarding the geographical  origins 
that provided the basis for the initial split of the people into two  
groupings, there are also various theories.  Several maintain that the  Sephardim were 
mainly Babylonian Jews who brought their customs to Europe, while  the 
Ashkenazim were descendants of Palestinian Jews.  Other theories  reverse these 
antecedents, making the original Ashkenazim Babylonian and the  Sephardim 
Palestinian.  Still others identify the Sephardim as descendants  of Jews from 
Jerusalem and southern Palestine, and the Ashkenazim as descendants  of Jews from 
northern Palestine.  In short, we can say with certainty the  precise origins of 
the distinct groupings are uncertain.
 
==end quote==
 
I think that probably ends the whole subject here on Avodah, although if  any 
of our distinguished chaverim have further insights into this question I'd  
be most interested to hear them.
 

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



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080226/898908b0/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:14 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
>
> Yes, it is possible for someone of lower stature can overturn someone of
> higher stature, if his svara and/or raayos are strong enough. The Gra did
> it, Rav Moshe did it, and many others did it.
>
> But RRW's use of the word "ANYONE" makes it sound like individual
> balabatim all over the world have taken it upon themselves to pretend that
> they're smarter than Rav Moshe.
>

Nothing to do with smartness. Teyuvta's are not a function of greater
intelligence- jsut superior sources! [according to the abover reasoning
since R. Chaim Brisker has the hiehge3st IQ therefore his minhag of using
tea bags with just a simple kli sheini on Shabbas is normative halachah!
that is the IQ-centric view of halachah]

Rather,anyone who can bring rayas and make a cogent argument can overturn
anyone else. yes that is what I  meant


Example: See th Bach at the beginning of Bassar bechalav . he shows us from
the Gemeara that Rav ashi woould hold accordingto Rabbi Akiva that issur
bassr bechalave derabbanan is assur bebshul miderabbana and assur
behana'ah.  Although the Rambam and the maggid Mishnah rule otherwese, and
the ccepted p'sak is otherwise, therevcan be no doubt if Rav Ashi is the
operative sugya the Bach is right.

The Be'er Hagolah cites the Bartenura as supporting the Rambam's read.  But
a simple peak at the Bartenura inside supports Rav Ashi'as read IOW  the
Bach.

Question: do I have to be a bigger gadol than the be'er Hagolah to read the
Bartenura's OWN WORDS and see tht he does NOT agree wtih Rambam et. al?
What's agdlus go to do with it?

Now the Bac hTRIES to fit Rav Ashi into the Rambam's OWN words.  Why is the
Bach WRONG on this 2nd part? Simple not only does EVERYONE read the Rambam
the other way, but the Rambam on peirush Mishnayos is EXPLICITLY the other
way!

Are you NOW going to tell me that since the BACH is greater than RRW, that
RRW cannot read the Rambam better - given thR ambamm's own words on the
matter. Gadlus is irrelevant!

Furthermore since we paksen like Rambam maggid Mishn et. al. then Rav Ashi's
read of Rabbi Akiva is irrelevant!

or if you will mah nafshach
either the vast array of Rishonim over-turn Rav Ashi nd the simple read of
the Gmara
OR
the Bach [as da'as yachid to be sure} overturns the vast array of Rishonim

Or Tosafos saying the mishna re: Dancing on YT is no opted [nullified} Does
that make Tosafos a bigger GAODL than Rab Yehudah hasnassi uveis dino?

Or the Brikse shita re: TEcheils IS me'akve es halvan despite a Mishna to
the contrary. { a problem we used to wrestle with in yeshiva]

My Problem with RMF's rejection of the BY's evara to defend Tosafos is not
tht RMF lacks the RIGTH to disagree with BY. it's the lack of  any argument
to the fact.

Gadlus is only relevant re: opinions.  Gadlus is irrelevant when you have
FACTS.
So if 999 gedolim say electricity is halachically like fire that is an
OPINION and cannot be over-ridden by lesser people.

But if a Gadol miscontrues a source and runs with a bad read, who says you
cannot make a tiyuvta!  The latest amoraim did Tirvuta's on the earliest
generatations by bringin in FACTS in the form of Braissos!   That does nto
mean that the authros orf the Talmud [let's say Mar bar rav Ashi for the
sake of illlustration] was GREATER than Rabbi Yochanan!  [see Arveiepsachim
for example.

Shluggin up is a function of bringin in sources.  Meisevei's and Esisevais'
are bringin in HIGHER sources that trum pthe gadlus of the individual

When Bach reads Rambam as following his shita, I trump Bach wioth the
Ramban's own words!  it;'s not the ego of RRW tht wins, it is the SOURCES
that trump the Bach. [FWIW the Shach iirc makes this point ,too!]

And if we were consistent, we would follow Rav Ashi/Bach over the Rambam but
we do not. And that itself is a cause for further debate.  I'm not sure why
the BRA who uses Talmudic text to trump Halachic precedent does not jump on
this one,but then again I have no see nit in a while so maybe he does.

Bottom line, if you can muster a higher sources, gadlus does not count.
This can be shown in dozens if not 100's of times in the Talmud itself and
certainly in nos'ei keilim on poskim.

QED
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080226/40e75233/attachment-0001.htm 

>> RMB
> There is something I'll call the Sinai Culture. Because nisqatnu
> hadoros, in general members of later eras, products of more
> dislocations since Moshe Rabbeinu a"h, have less of it. It's not a
> matter of book knowledge as much as having the perspective, priorities
> and etire gestalt. It's very much a culture, not a library.
>
> The nearest any of us get to recreating that culture is the talmud
> chakham. This is the concept chareidim call "da'as Torah", but the
> basic idea is that Torah study changes how one perceives the world.
> And the notion stands whether or not one buys into the consequences
> chareidim feel da'as Torah implies.
>
> It is from Torah gefeel, not Torah knowledge, that a poseiq draws his
> authority. A guy with an IQ of 180 and a Bar Ilan CD is still not
> qualified to be the poseiq acharon.

You mix up two completely separate issues.  There is a difference  
between psak, and determining truth - and while psak requires a torah  
gefeel, determining the metziut or history are related to truth - not  
psak.
>
> This notion is befeirush in the gemara (20a), nisqatnu hadoros is a
> statement about declining willingness for mesiras nefesh, not
> knowledge. (And in fact, knowledge increased in the span from Rebbe
> until the protagnonists in the gemara -- Rav Papa and his rebbe,
> Abayei.)
>
> See also
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/02/midgets-on-the-shoulders-of- 
> giants.shtml>
>
> Thus, it takes a certain amount of caution when inserting oneself into
> the question of the authenticity of Zoharic Qabbalah. Knowing data is
> insufficient if one really doesn't have the same instinctive sense of
> what Torah "feels like".
>

The issue of nitkatnu hadorot is actually quite problematic, because  
the earlier we go into the authenticated mesora, the less we have  
zoharic kabbala - and the question becomes how one who believes in  
nitkatnu hadorot can even think of rejecting of viewing as normative  
the position of Rav Hai Gaon on aggadta - the earliest authority to  
state precisely a position on this - and also one of the biggest  
b'aale hamesora...

It is precisely when we go later that there is greater emphasis on  
Zoharic kabbala.....

It is the acceptance of zoharic kabbala that leads to statements such  
as by rav aharon feldman that now that we have the kabbala we know  
better than the rambam - precisely the opposite of nitkatnu hadorot..

>
> On Fri, February 15, 2008 4:01 am, Michael Makovi wrote:
> : You'll also be hard-pressed to find a scholar who accepts that  
> Daniel
> : was not written in the Hashmonean era. I mean only that this defense
> : cuts both ways. If you try to appeal to disputed authorship of an
> : apocryphal(-like) mystical work, you've exposed yourself.
>
> : In any case, I haven't yet found a scholar who can seriously
> : distinguish between Daniel on the other hand, and the other
> : apocryphal/apocalyptic works on the other, without simply  
> resorting to
> : mesorah....
>
> Who cares what scholars think? It's like taking proof from Apocrypha.
> In both cases one may have access to information, but people who know
> the Sinai weltenschaung deemed it irrelevent.
>
> This is a major blunder C inherited/adopted from the Historical
> School. This confusion of academia, where the goal is to know
> something well through staying apart from it, objective, as opposed to
> talmud Torah where the goal is to internalize the study and bedavka
> learn how to understand it from within.
>

This position, IMHO, demeans torah and hashem - because it implies  
that we can't use our objective methods and the reason given us by  
hashem  to study the history within torah.  The issue of the  
relevance of the history within torah, and the factual evidence, to  
torah and spiritual growth in torah may be debated- but to deny that  
some aspects are subject to independent study is to deny a whole  
tradition of torah - and of kabel ha'emet from anyone.

>
> ...
> : Rambam as is well known, was essentially reconciling the science of
> : his day with Torah, much as many do today. So if Aristotle (who  
> could
> : not be wrong) had proved such-and-such about Hashem or the world,  
> then
> : surely the Torah concurs (for how could the Torah contradict that
> : which has been proven?), and so the only thing left to do is show  
> how
> : everything in the Torah agrees with everything proven by Aristotle.
>
> The Rambam did believe that Aristotle could be wrong, and in fact
> rejected his theory on the eternity of matter (as you yourself write
> in the next sentence).
>
> Thus if the Rambam believed the Torah had a position that contradicted
> Aristotle's conclusions, he would assume Aristotle was wrong. That's
> not being questionable because of Greek Philosophy. It's using
> Philosophy to fill in gaps the Torah doesn't spell out.
>

We have had previous discussions on your understanding of the  
rambam,  The rambam viewed truth as monovalent - and therefore two  
different sources of truth must agree - and if they disagree, there  
is a problem with one of them.  As the truth of chazal and the torah  
was not, according to the rambam, stated explicitly but  
allegorically, one could, in general, easily reinterprete the  
presumed viewpoint to be in agreement with truth - but certain things  
were so fundamental that such reinterpretation could not be done -  
and the rambam believed that there could be no intrinsic opposition.   
He never stated his position on what would happen in such a case -  
not because of lack of emuna, but part of his emuna was that such a  
contradiction was not feasible - as god was responsible for both  
nature and torah...- and such a case would mean a radical  
reunderstanding of the nature of torah.

>
> To better address RMM's next point in light of my comments above:
> :>  REB, was far less immersed in the Torah weltenschaung than the
> :> people he was disputing. This is the whole nisqatnu hadoros. REB
> :> might have  nice theories, but his threshold of proof is quite  
> high.
> :> And his invocation of a Torah theology over that of Chazal or the
> :> rishonim smacks of R's call of a return to prophetic Judaism --  
> with
> :> the huge distinction of the claim being mutar WRT aggadita.
>

I would protest against the casual disrespect of a major talmid  
chacham.  Rather than being less immersed in the torah weltanschaung  
that the people he was disputing - WRT his contemporaries, he came  
from a different torah culture - one that, unfortunately is  
disappearing and is no longer recognized by many.  WRT to the  
medieval authorities he was disputing - he came from the same  
weltanschaung - that, now, unfortunately, has also disappeared - that  
allowed free inquiry within the parameters set by chazal - even if it  
led to radically different conclusions......

WRT to nitkatnu hadorot - his point is that with hashkafa, there is a  
radical change in the medieval sources - and we need to go back to  
the original.  One need not agree with his theology to agree that  
there seems to be a major change in hashkafa in medieval sources -  
which seems to be fairly universally accepted - whether the change is  
one os style and elaboration of ideas implicit in the past or actual  
innovation may be debated - but he is hardly the first to suggest  
that much of medieval philosophy took a turn (think of the Gra on the  
rambam...)



> : Again, I would simply say that he was operating on the same sources
> : but had a different philosophical starting point. Medieval Jewish
> : philosophy had a lot of questions never asked by Chazal and a lot of
> : philosophical baggage never regarded by Chazal.
>
> Yes, philosophy created new questions to answer, in addition to giving
> new words with which to answer them. But rishonim knew better than we
> can judge which seams between philosophy and Torah are smooth, and
> which are more forced and artificial.

This is a point over which rishonim - who you say knew better - would  
have strongly disagreed - as they believed that, at least post  
talmudic,the primary issue is the strength of the argument rather  
than the authority of the arguer....Your position of respect for the  
rishonim actually rejects a core tenet of their hashkafa...


Meir Shinnar

On Tue, February 26, 2008 1:30 pm, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: You mix up two completely separate issues.  There is a difference
: between psak, and determining truth - and while psak requires a torah
: gefeel, determining the metziut or history are related to truth - not
: psak.

The two topics aren't halakhah vs metzi'us (current or historical),
it's halakhah vs aggadita. I'm arguing that having a feel for what
Torah is makes your aggadic pronouncements more reliable. No one
mentioned history yet, and I would prefer we don't.

...
: The issue of nitkatnu hadorot is actually quite problematic, because
: the earlier we go into the authenticated mesora, the less we have
: zoharic kabbala - and the question becomes how one who believes in
: nitkatnu hadorot can even think of rejecting of viewing as normative
: the position of Rav Hai Gaon on aggadta - the earliest authority to
: state precisely a position on this - and also one of the biggest
: b'aale hamesora...
:
: It is precisely when we go later that there is greater emphasis on
: Zoharic kabbala.....
...

You're spelling out the dilemma that led to the "atop shoulders of
giants" metaphor. (My emphasizing that nisqatnu is measured in
culture, not information, simplifies things somewhat.) But the issue
being problematic doesn't meant it's non-existent or wasn't utilized.
It means we have a question about something that we know was and is
employed to explain things.

...
:> This is a major blunder C inherited/adopted from the Historical
:> School. This confusion of academia, where the goal is to know
:> something well through staying apart from it, objective, as opposed
:> to talmud Torah where the goal is to internalize the study and
:> bedavka
:> learn how to understand it from within.

: This position, IMHO, demeans torah and hashem - because it implies
: that we can't use our objective methods and the reason given us by
: hashem  to study the history within torah...

As I didn't discuss history or anything in evidence, I don't follow
the the thrust of this or the rest of your post. "Qabel es ha'emes"
doesn't mean "Torah bagoyim ta'amin".

I am not denying Chokhmas Yisrael ("frum wissenschaft"). I'm defining
it as a seperate discipline than what I called talmud Torah.
...
: We have had previous discussions on your understanding of the
: rambam,  The rambam viewed truth as monovalent - and therefore two
: different sources of truth must agree - and if they disagree, there
: is a problem with one of them.  As the truth of chazal and the torah
: was not, according to the rambam, stated explicitly but
: allegorically, one could, in general, easily reinterprete the
: presumed viewpoint to be in agreement with truth - but certain things
: were so fundamental that such reinterpretation could not be done -
: and the rambam believed that there could be no intrinsic opposition...

And RZL and I read the Rambam as saying that reinterpretation can be
done when the philosophy is solid and the extrapolation from mesorah
was iffy. However, something explicitly stated by "our sages and
prophets" is solid, and the philosophical proof must, in some as-yet
undetected way, be flawed.

I'm not sure we want to revisit this. Perhaps we should just prune
this tangent.

...
: WRT to nitkatnu hadorot - his point is that with hashkafa, there is a
: radical change in the medieval sources - and we need to go back to
: the original....

The genie can't be put back into the bottle. The rishonim applied the
Torah to new questions raised by the Metakalamun and Scholasts. REB
ends up doing the same for post-Kantian thought.

To say there is a radical chance in the medieval sources that took us
off course is to presume we have a better feel for what's in concert
with Torah than they did. Some make that very claim about the Rambam;
as you note, the Gra did. RSRH did. I like noting these two acharonim
who themselves embraced chokhmah still had a defined limit that they
believed the Rambam crossed. But they don't roll back the history of
the development of machashavah in its entirety.

Moreso, the fact that we have different questions and thus are seeking
a different set of answers doesn't make their answers to their
questions inherently wrong.

...
: This is a point over which rishonim - who you say knew better - would
: have strongly disagreed - as they believed that, at least post
: talmudic,the primary issue is the strength of the argument rather
: than the authority of the arguer....Your position of respect for the
: rishonim actually rejects a core tenet of their hashkafa...

Sources? AFAIK, they used chazal as sources, not baalei pelugta.

I am not arguing that we ignore the strength of the argument. I am
suggesting that we be skeptical about it when it runs counter to
established conclusions. When someone invents a new approach to
fundamental questions, their burden of proof is great. If they run
counter to consensus, that burden may grow greater than my ability to
assess if it has been met.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
 
From: Cantor Wolberg _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ (mailto:cantorwolberg@cox.net) 

>>"You want to make them righteous, but you can't show yourself  and boom  
out "BE GOOD PEOPLE", because then they'll be terrorized and  have no free 
will." <<[--RMM]

>>If that's the case, then how  do you explain that HaShem DID show  
Himself and boomed out "Anochi  HaShem Elokecha..." etc., which  
terrorized the people but certainly  did not take away their free will?<<


>>>>>
He did temporarily take away their free will at the time of aseres  
hadibros/Matan Torah.
 
Also "kafah aleihem har kegigis."
 
On Purim they voluntarily accepted what they had previously accepted by  
force majeure.   "Kiyamu vekiblu."



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






**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080226/4dfea059/attachment-0001.html 

 
 
From: "Richard Wolpoe" _rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com) 

>>The reason I reject a literal 24-hour day for the first 6 days  is that by 
the
Torah's OWN account the Sun/Moon/Stars/Plents [iow our  clanedrical system!]
was not created until day 4. <<
 
>>>>>
I don't believe in literal 24-hour days for the first six days either, but  I 
must point out that what you say is lav davka.  It's possible that until  Day 
4 the atmosphere was so thick and soupy that the sun and the moon were  
completely obscured, and they only became visible on the fourth day (or /would/  
have been visible if there had been anyone there to see them) when the  
atmosphere cleared enough to let the sun shine down onto the surface of the  planet.  
Rashi says the sun and the moon and everything else were created  on the first 
day and only put in place on their respective days of  creation.  The sun 
being put in the sky on Day 4 could theoretically  mean it only became visible in 
the sky on that day.




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





**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080226/805d36c0/attachment-0001.htm 

 
From: "Michael Makovi" _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewinddale@gmail.com) 

>> My  guess about the cookies is davka a guess - they may be mamash
milchig; I  don't know. I'm only guessing that if no milk ingredients
are there except  something <2%, they apparently aren't milchig
(because 1/60), but they'd  still be milk-equipment since they do have
SOME milk....<<


>>>>>
Two percent = one part in fifty, which is MORE than one part in sixty and  is 
definitely milchig.


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





**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080226/45fdcd07/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 84
**************************************

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..."