Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 89

Tue, 04 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: Jewish Music (David Eisen)
• 2. Re: Jewish Music (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: History (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: History (Daniel Israel)
• 5. Re: history (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: Girl Scout cookies (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: origins of AZ (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Calendar Drift (was: Zayin adar) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: thought re tonight's RYReisman shiur (Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts)
• 10. Re: Torah limud: theoretical/academic versus lishma/yirat hashem/emunat chachamim (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: ashkenaz and sefard (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: ashkenaz and sefard (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: History (hlampel@koshernet.com)

RRW noted:

I once heard in the hallow halls of RIETS that the Rav [RYDS} said if it
makes no sense it cannot be halachah.  and this is pPerhaps why RYDS did
no buy into the Taz's humra of Davening late on Shauvos!]- and even the
Magen Avraham ONLY required saying Kiddush after Tzeis [ayein sham!]
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I heard the following story from R. Aharon Adler of Ramot A':

RYDS was asked by a talmid who engaged in karate if it was permissible
to perform the customary kowtow before one's fellow combatant at the
beginning of each match. He paskened that it is assur and proceeded to
explain that the reason it is assur is because this is "shtupid," and
anything that is "shtupid" is assur!

Kol tuv,
David 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080303/91f928d5/attachment-0001.htm 

On Mon, March 3, 2008 9:36 am, R David Eisen wrote:
: I heard the following story from R. Aharon Adler of Ramot A':
: RYDS was asked by a talmid who engaged in karate if it was permissible
: to perform the customary kowtow before one's fellow combatant at the
: beginning of each match. He paskened that it is assur and proceeded to
: explain that the reason it is assur is because this is "shtupid," and
: anything that is "shtupid" is assur!

In Nefesh haRav, the story is retold with the word "stupid"
transliterated (with a samech) into Hebrew letters. And what was
"stupid" was bowing to the mat. (Remembering that one's opponent is a
human who deserves respect may well be critical for an ehrlecher Jew
before practicing a martial art.) In any case, the story is well known
and its implications well accepted among his students.

Doesn't say much, though, for people who aren't RYBS's students.

After all, RYBS doesn't explain why bowing to a mat is stupid, but
showing respect to a loaf of bread isn't. Our symbolism is holier, is
informed by mesorah and all that, but how does that make theirs
"stupider"? Both are excercises in learning hakaras hatov (despite the
insentience of the "meitiv").

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, March 3, 2008 7:24 am, Michael Makovi wrote:
:>  the members of Chazal who derived halakhos from such stories could
:> still have not assumed they were historical. One assumes a rule of
:> the system is that one does not besmirch a role model by attributing
:> actions to them that are today (at the time of the retelling)
:> considered assur.
...
: We could generalize this to say that any story of a gadol, in which he
: is depicted as doing such-and-such, we can learn that such is a
: legitimate way of behaving. Even if he didn't really do it, the fact
: that he is thought of having done it, lends it legitimacy.

As much legitimacy as one gives the people who retell it. My notion is
that a halakhah derived from a story about Avraham that dates back to
the tannaim should be presumed to be an intentional implication of the
tannaim who preserved and retold the story. Most story tellers -- and
none living today -- carry the same halachic authority. So, while it's
similar in kind, it's so dissimilar in quantity as to not be
comparable.

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

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:17:58 -0700 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>I also think I provided a way in which RET can accept the notion 
that 
>the members of Chazal who derived halakhos from such stories could 
>still have not assumed they were historical. One assumes a rule of 
the 
>system is that one does not besmirch a role model by attributing 
>actions to them that are today (at the time of the retelling) 
>considered assur.  Then, the survival of a story into the corpus 
would 
>imply that there are no such issurim contained therein. It's a way 
to 
>pick the brains of the previous generations who brought the story 
down
>to the one drawing the conclusion.

I think this description is a little oversimplified, given that we 
do have stories in which various great figures are described as 
doing things and criticized by Chazal.  (Whether these actions are 
actual issurim or not is not really that relevant.)  OTOH, 
contemporary m'farshim who suggest criticisms with little or no 
basis in Chazal have been themselves sharply criticized.

A refined version of your hypothesis would have to include the 
caveat that some stories do come down for the purpose of teaching 
something not to emulate, and would have to include a method for 
identifying those stories.  One simple suggestion would be that the 
only such stories are the ones with a critical component already, 
but this does bring us back to the question as to when that 
criticism was attached and who is able to make such criticism.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

> Avraham was a tzadiq. Moreso, Avraham as portrayed in the Torah is an
> archetype used to illustrate positive values. Narratives that are
>  perpetuated about Avraham avinu can not include activities we consider
>  wrong, even if wrong because of halakhos that didn't yet exist.
>  Because if they did, they would water down rather than enhance the
> usability of Avraham as an archetype of serving HQBH through chessed.

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

I believe one of RSG's Hirhurim blogs compared Avraham's keeping the
613, to a mural he (RSG) once saw of the Levi'im singing in the Beit
haMikdash wearing streimels and kaftans- how do you show a little
Chassidic boy that the avot were good frum Jews? They wore streimels!
And so how do we know Avraham was a good Jew? He was so good that he
kept the Torah before G-d even told him!

It's evidently very possible that it is anachronistic and was never
intended to be anything but.

Now, I wonder, to what extent did Chazal realize when they were being
anachronistic? Is that they didn't care about historical accuracy, but
nevertheless knew when they were being anachronistic, or did they
genuinely lack a real historical sense b'klal? Now, since ancient
people in general were less historically critical than we are
nowadays, my question boils down to : given Chazal had less critical
historical sense than we do, to what qualitative sense was this the
case, between 0 and 100 percent of ours.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Wed, February 27, 2008 4:55 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
: It's also relevant to those who don't rely directly on RMF's heter for
: chalav hacompanies, but do consider it enough to give the keilim of
: chalav hacompanies the status of "the keilim of the Rhinish Jews",
: and eat food cooked in them.

Just to pick an important nit... It's not RMF's heter. It's RMF's
explanation of a heter already followed by most American Jews at the
time of his writing. Odds are most who are meiqil can trace their
pesaq to people trusting the USFDA before the IM.

RMF published his reasoning, but we're not all being someich on a
single rav.

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

On Sat, February 23, 2008 5:47 pm, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: I based myself on Rambam who views idol worship as a substitute for a
: G-d they cannot see. In a recent trip to China I asked the local guides
: about Buddha. They also insisted that the idols represented some higher
: power.

Most Buddhists claim that their beliefs do not involve theology. FWIW,
to me the similarities to L acosmism (as RJJB calls it) seems too
self-evident to simply dismiss their higher reality that everything
shares as anything but a theological claim.

But back to the topic of the Rambam... The first halakhah in AZ
describes the origin of AZ as honoring to Hashem's "entourage" as a
way of honoring Him. They then later forgot the One behind the
servants. It's not exactly the same as "a substitute for a G-d they
cannot see", although that is a plausible explanation for why they
forgot Him.

My Hindu co workers speak of belief in a single Deity who is so
incomprehensible that man perceives it as millions of gods. This is
different in philosophy to the Rambam's description of AZ's
beginnings. But then, Hinduism is influenced by Benei Qeturah, and
thus probably isn't the most raw of AZ.

...
: However, Toby is right based on other sources that at times idol
: worship is not intellectual but is instead an excuse for
: licentiousness...

Desire motivates ignoring the source of morality.

People aren't so simple. Odds are it isn't a matter of different times
as much as falling for intellectual theories that one has an emotional
reason to prefer. Different people, based on how cerebral they are,
are more one way or the other. But probably both play a part in every
case.

There is a truism in Poor Mitchel's Almanac which goes:
    The mind is a wonderful organ
    for justifying conclusions
    the heart already reached.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha ("Mitchel", belaaz)

-- 
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

On Sun, February 24, 2008 12:07 pm, R David E Cohen wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
:> When the calendar was made, Adar II would always be the last month
:> before the vernal equinox, and thus always be mazal Dagim.

: When the calendar was made, yes, but probably not before the calendar
: was made (when the Sanhedrin was declaring shanim me`ubaros) -- at
: least certainly not when the Mikdash was still in existence....

Rashi associates the months with the mazalos they had at the time of
the mabul, linking it to medrashim about the mazalos? /
constellations? changing due to the mabul.

I could see the latter... If air humidity and clouds changed
dramatically, that would explain why (contra Ramban, I admit) rainbows
would be newly associated with the end of rain -- either because until
then it didn't take rain or because until then the conditions were
wrong for them to happen. And, it would change which stars are visible
from the ground.

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: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
>Hearing RYR talk about "galus m'chaperes avon," I couldn't help thinking
>of one "'prav'ing galus" example he didn't mention: CHaBaD shlichim.

>May all hol'chei d'rachim merit to have their t'filos answered.

Though kavanato r'tzuya, the description of shluchim as "prav'ing galus"
is not quite accurate.

The exercise of "Prav'ing galus" was traditionally reserved for those
who elected a self-imposed state of galut or affliction for the purpose
and intention of spiritual self improvement.

The interest of shluchim is different, their's is to be mikarev libon
shel Yisroel, and if that takes mesirut nefesh, to move family and
children to distant & spiritually desolate places in galut, so be it.
Analogous to the difference bet. the mesirut nefesh of Rabbi Akiva &
Avraham Avinu, R"A longed for it, "Matai Yavo Liyadai V'Akaimenu", A"A
on the other hand, was solely interested in spreading the name of Hashem
(no self (soul)-motives considered), however, when mesirut nefesh was
needed nothing would stop him.

Zvi Konikov

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:03:31PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I think the problem we have is you have made the academic and Torah
: approaches mutually exclusive. You seem to hold that either one
: approaches everything objectively and theoretically, OR he approaches
: it from a Torah perspective of lishma and yirat hashem and emunat
: chachamim.

No, he can do both. But then he is doing two different things. I'm
saying that as kinds, they are distinct.

REB is famous for one kind of study, objective and theoretical study.
Which is not talmud torah in the sense of trying to internalize and
have a subjective relationship to Torah. As an O Jew, he engaged in
talmud Torah as well, but that's not what catapulted him into fame,
or the majority of his published work.

...
: The fact is that there is a great amount of academic knowledge
: available today that simply was not available in the past, period.
: Today, then, we cannot simply ignore it, but rather, we must confront
: it and deal with it one way or the other...

Mesorah is a chain; it ties us to generations past and gives us a duty
to generations in the future. 

:                   being an observant Jew does not mean ignoring the
: academic information, and being an academic doesn't mean that he
: doesn't believe in Sinai and keep halacha. The two can be mutually
: exclusive, but don't have to be.

Agreed.

However, Talmud Torah isn't about that information, it's about being a
part of the living fulfillment of beris Sinai, part of the flow of the
mesorah. The role of the Meiri in that is diminished; never mind the
role of contextual information.

So, the O Jew should be fascinated and study such info. But he shouldn't
confuse it with that which defines how we are to live as O Jews. Not
just in terms of halachic authority, but also in terms of perceptions
of the goals we live toward. Because, after all, the two are inseprable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:14:25PM +0100, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Ashekanzic Liturgy kept Kallir from Israel and Meshulam Ben Kalonymos
: of Lucca Italy. IT is fairly well-established fact that Ashkenaz
: ,looked up to Italy and Italy to Israel in terms of Minhaggim etc.

Well, the piyutim from MbK might indicate something. But the baalei
Tosafos identified R Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer ben RSbY, whereas
Sepharadim did not. That would be sufficient to explain why Ashkenazim
would use his work more than Sepharadim, without positing ancestry.

It's very hard to posit ancestry off something as flimsy as use of
piyutim. Things like berakhos endings are somewhat stronger. And the
increasing number of cases where Ashkenazi norms end up fitting midrashei
halakhah or the Y-mi more closely than the Bavli seems to fit scientific
method -- confirming the hypothesis by further experiment.

: The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland
: Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came
: there from EY.

Much of them. Not all. My understanding is that Ashkenaz is understood
to be a richer mix of EY Jews than Sepharad. Not exclusivity. This is
why RGMhG links back to the gaonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:14:25PM +0100, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Ashekanzic Liturgy kept Kallir from Israel and Meshulam Ben Kalonymos
: of Lucca Italy. IT is fairly well-established fact that Ashkenaz
: ,looked up to Italy and Italy to Israel in terms of Minhaggim etc.

Well, the piyutim from MbK might indicate something. But the baalei
Tosafos identified R Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer ben RSbY, whereas
Sepharadim did not. That would be sufficient to explain why Ashkenazim
would use his work more than Sepharadim, without positing ancestry.

It's very hard to posit ancestry off something as flimsy as use of
piyutim. Things like berakhos endings are somewhat stronger. And the
increasing number of cases where Ashkenazi norms end up fitting midrashei
halakhah or the Y-mi more closely than the Bavli seems to fit scientific
method -- confirming the hypothesis by further experiment.

: The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland
: Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came
: there from EY.

Much of them. Not all. My understanding is that Ashkenaz is understood
to be a richer mix of EY Jews than Sepharad. Not exclusivity. This is
why RGMhG links back to the gaonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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

Re: History (Zvi Lampel)
RMB:

We
have, during the course of the years, found meqoros in R Saadia 

Gaon, the Rambam (who is quite harsh toward the
literalists a few 

paragraphs before he lists the ikkarim), R' Avraham
ben haRambam (in 

his introduction to the subject), the Maharshah, the
Baal haMe'or, 

the Maharal, the Ramchal (haqdamah to Medrash Rabba),
the Gra (Peirush 

al Qama Agados), RSRH, RYS (from RDKatzh's Tenu'as
haMussar, see 

< http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n003.shtml#03>
)... 



> I assume RDE has an authoritative collection of
sources in his DT vol I. <



Of course, you can insist that every time a rishon
cites an Aggadta he has in mind an unspoken underlying understanding that it is
not meant historically, just as when rishonim nonchalantly use the phrase ''the
Hand of G-d'' we understand they are speaking non-literally. But the rishonim *tell*
us the principle of anthropomorphism. As far as your thesis about a-historicity
of the aggadta, I?m not aware of any rishonic statement backing it. This leaves
your thesis unfalsifiable but unproven. So when you stated that this thesis is
held by numerous rishonim, it piqued my interest. 

 

As far as I know about the
rishonim you listed, I am not aware of any who said that the historical Aggadta
are not meant historically. I?m aware of the principle that Aggados that are
problematic on their face--because they contradict reason or fundamental
principles?must be delved into for alternative, deeper meanings. But this principle
is not saying that the non-fantastic historical reports are not historically
true. On the contrary, my impression is that the rishonim generally assume the
historicity of the Aggadic reports, and only if their methodology forces them
to reject them will they make an exception and do so. For instance, according
to some, an Aggadta that contradicts the pashtus ha-pesukim cannot be taken at
face value. The rishon will therefore state that it must have some ?sod? and is
not meant historically. But again, such instances are treated as exceptions to
the rule, while your thesis claims it is the rule.

 

Some specific examples of
literally-taken biographical/historical Aggados that come to mind: The conflicting
Aggados about what age Avraham was when he discovered Hashem. They are
explained as disputing opinions or as references to different stages of
Avraham?s discoveries. But I don?t recall any rishon saying that this isn?t
referring to an historical reality. You can insert that explanation, but
without a rishon who actually says there is such a concept, the thesis remains
at odds with the facts.

 

Or take the Aggadta
regarding Avraham?s persecution by Nimrod. In the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Avodas
Kochavim 1:3 ) the Rambam refers to this in terms that indicate he took it plainly
as an historical event: ''?the king sought to execute him, and a miracle was
done for him, and he went out to Haran''). Here the Rambam is plainly reporting
the Aggadic narrative?miracle and all--of Avraham?s persecution and miraculous
rescue as a purely biographical fact.

 

Again, in Moreh
Nevuchim (3:45),
the Rambam writes: ''it is distinctly stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father
Abraham chose the west side, the place where the Most Holy was built. I believe
that he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a
deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the Sun].
Abraham turned therefore on Mount Moriah to the West, the site of the Sanctuary,
and turned his back toward the sun.''

 

More: The Chazal about the
Yam Suf splitting not in just two parts but twelve. One would be certain that
the Rambam would take this as an aggadic embellishment, not meant to be taken
as a historical reality (--especially considering his often-alleged reluctance
to accept miracles not spelled out in Scripture--but that?s another controversy).
Nevertheless, in his Payrush on Avos (5:2) regarding ?the
miracles performed for our Fathers?ten in Egypt, and ten at the Sea,? he
explains that the ten miracles in Egypt were the ten times they were spared
the plagues that
attacked the Egyptians. He shows how this can be seen from the pesukim although
it is not always obvious--an obvious reliance on the Aggadta. Moreover, he then
continues, "But the ten miracles at the Sea--
they are [known only through] kabballa [i.e., the
 messorah].'' He then goes on to list the ten miracles
at the Sea--the splitting into 12 parts, the creation of fountains,
etc., etc. He expresses no skepticism or desire to allegorize the
Chazal, and accepts the historical fact of these miracles as a kabbalah.

 

To
me, it seems farfetched to claim the Rambam is not speaking about this messorah
as a historical report.

 

Zvi

 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080303/a1709ef7/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 89
**************************************

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..."