Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 104

Fri, 21 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: time of Purim Seudah (Michael Poppers)
• 3. . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Meir Shinnar)
• 4. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: R Berkovitz (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Michael Makovi)

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> R. Henkin points out that the application of the status of /tinok 
> she-nishbah/ to secular Jews began in 19th century Germany

What about the Rambam applying it to those born into Karaism?


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

In Avodah Digest V25#100, REMT wrote:
> Another is that it requires going to shul immediately after the s'udah
for ma'ariv (assuming that there _is_ a late minyan available), which many
will probably not do, but will opt for davening biychidus at home, since
being full (and perhaps a bit in one's cups) is not conducive to dressing
for shul and taking the walk, especially for those who find the singing of
Shir Hama'alos on Friday night the most effective sleeping pill. <
The "poreis mappah" (PM) approach appeals to me (whose initials are
"v'nahafoch hu" ;-)).  I would imagine that the person taking that approach
would be dressed lichvod hayom (and thus also at a Shabbos-appropriate
level) before beginning the seudas Purim and that he would likewise
consider his davening alternatives beforehand.  As others have since noted,
a communal seudah is certainly one method, and a "basement minyan" of PMers
would be another (assuming their shul isn't that close to where they live).

Gut Purim, a guten Shabbes, and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080320/3b371c2d/attachment-0001.htm 

RMB
>  REB even realized his argument was specious, which is why he had to
>  mention the metahalachic concept of "eis la'asos" -- this must be done
>  despite it violating the normal rules. I fail to see how this is an
>  eis la'asos, as no one's relationship to Hashem is saved through it,
>  "just" unity would.

I don't have the time now to get into the debate.  However, the above
paragraph summarizes a major problem and difference in perspective.

The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling - although,
perhaps, reflective on an approach emphasizing the individual rather
than communal perfection.  However, for many of us, the notion of
unity is an integral part of our avodat hashem - and yes, there is a
tremendous eys la'asos.  The fact that this is not viewed as part of
our relationship to hashem means that our relationship to hashem is
flawed.

Just some other points on the debate.  RDE's points suggest that the
notion gemeinde has completely disappeared from the radar screen.  The
notion of whether the individuals have the status of TsN is one that
we have had before - the citation of RMF about the fact that the non O
have contact with the O and therefore should have learned is
essentially a rephrasing of the radvaz's point about karaites - where
he modifies the rambam's position that current karaites do not have
the din of kofrim, because the radvaz says they could have learned
forom the rabbinic community.  Independently of whether one holds like
the radvaz or the rambam here, it is clear that today, most of the non
O community has little contact with the O community and therefore, it
is quite reasonable to argue that  the metziut has changed from the
time of that psak of RMF.

However, being TsN is only one part of the issue.
The gemeinde position in Germany was not that the Reform was tinokot
shenishbu (Rav Kook's and the Chazon Ish's shitta that, in essence the
prevalence of non O and secular culture made everyone a tinok
shenishba does not, TTBOMK, appear in the German literature. )However,
German Gemeinde Orthodoxy, including Rav Bamberger, the leading posek
in Germany at the time of Rav Hirsch, as well as Rav Hildesheimer, and
as well as the Seride Esh who participated in  gemeinde activities
(IIRC from Marc Schapiro) (the SE is Rav EB's moreh muvhak - remember
that REB is the reason the SE manuscripts were saved) allowed and even
encouraged religious interaction with the non O formal religious
communal structure.  Even though  many of the rabbinic leaders of the
non O had grown up O - and many even had O rabbinic training - and
that they espoused positions that made them mehallel shabbat
befarhesya and a kofer by many shittot - the O gemeinde still
advocated continued interactions and being part of the same community.
 It is clear that this is just incomprehensible to many.  However, if
the gemeinde position is accepted - whether on a n et la'asot basis or
other - much of what REB says becomes clear.

I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
not valid gerut. National identity and the future of am yisrael are
very much part of our avodat hashem - and therefore, yes it is an et
la'asot

2) I think that RMB misunderstands Rav Uziel zt"l psak - and tries to
understand it from the context of other positions.   The issue of
gerut is amech ami ve'elokaich elokai - and the question is the
relative weight and need for specific kabbalat ol hamitzvot - versus
that by becoming ami one will perforce be performing mitzvot.  The
notion that kabbalat ol hamitzvot is the  central and dominant part of
conversion is so deeply ingrained that the notion that there are other
positions seems incomprehensible.

3) Finally, WRT RMB's general critique of REB, he is adopting an
essentially Hegelian position of the hazon ish - that the fact that it
happened is proof that
a) hashem wanted it to happen and
b)Therefore it is a good thing and it reflects a seal of divine
approval - it should have happened.

This is by no means a universally accepted position - because it is
(or was) a common belief that many things happened as a response to
human actions and errors rather than primary divine plan.  eg - the
hurban used to be viewed by many as, while reflecting divine will, it
was a divine will in response to human error, rather than primary
divine will.  The rambam goes even further in allowing blind chance
and nature to account for many evens, rather than intrinsic divine
will on the specifics.

REB's critique of halachic developments is in the same mode - the mere
fact that halacha developed in a certain fashion because of human
actions does not mean that this was the primary way or only way that
halacha should have developed - and the question is the reversibility
of the process.  The rambam held that the only binding period was the
talmud - and while some have argued that there were other binding
periods - and this seems to be the dominant position now - as has been
discussed before here, this is not a universal ly accepted position,
and indeed it is difficult to fit how real poskim work into this
model.  The question is how far one can go - and that is hardly a
point of essential belief.



Lastly, one small related  issue that was addressed in the past.  RDE asks
>  1) Could you please give a citation that a tinok shenishba "bears no
>  guilt".
See in the first few chapters of Pachad Yitzhak by rav hutner on
pesach, where he specifically argues that a tinok shenishba does not
have the status of a rasha, even though he violates all the mitzvot.

Meir Shinnar

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 04:36:14PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
: relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling...

And not made.

Davening at home rather than hearing shofar by taking a car affects
one's relationship to Hashem. But there is no "eis la'asos" for someone
who usually attends shul to get to shofar blowing in such a scenario.

Eis la'asos requires near total loss of that relationship.

...
: 2) I think that RMB misunderstands Rav Uziel zt"l psak - and tries to
: understand it from the context of other positions.   The issue of
: gerut is amech ami ve'elokaich elokai - and the question is the
: relative weight and need for specific kabbalat ol hamitzvot - versus
: that by becoming ami one will perforce be performing mitzvot.  The
: notion that kabbalat ol hamitzvot is the  central and dominant part of
: conversion is so deeply ingrained that the notion that there are other
: positions seems incomprehensible.

Not only incomprehensible, but digarded by halachic process. Yes, ol
malkhus Shamayim, milah and tevilah is codified -- that /is/ geirus.

: 3) Finally, WRT RMB's general critique of REB, he is adopting an
: essentially Hegelian position of the hazon ish - that the fact that it
: happened is proof that
: a) hashem wanted it to happen and
: b)Therefore it is a good thing and it reflects a seal of divine
: approval - it should have happened.

This is also in response to something you incorrectly guessed I meant.

I'm presenting the notion as it inheres in maamrei chazal. Not
because history said that this is the right and good. But because
the people actually doing the halachic process did. Starting with the
"shachekhum vechazar veyasdum" stories I already mentioned, add the
famous exchange between Abayei and R' Papa on nisqatnu hadoros, through
to the authoritative (but far from absolute) nature of the SA and nosei
keilim as taken for granted now by centuries of poseqim.

What is to be lamented is the discontinuity which causes the need for
codification. The "Rupture" not the "Reconstruction".

...
: REB's critique of halachic developments is in the same mode - the mere
: fact that halacha developed in a certain fashion because of human
: actions does not mean that this was the primary way or only way that
: halacha should have developed - and the question is the reversibility
: of the process....

Sort of. As RYBS writes, the binding nature of shas is because it was
accepted across kelal Yisrael. And thus, in his day, it was safe to say
that shas was the last book with such authority. However, the SA too
was accepted across kelal Yisrael. As RARakeffet put it -- why do you
study SA for semichah and not the Rambam, Rif or Tur? The MB takes the
the standard page of SA for granted, and tells you he is setting out to
give you a survey of post SA standardization acharonim.

Thus, RYBS concludes, even lefi shitas haRambam, the SA's authority
differs from the gemara's only in degree, not in kind. I admit it's a
kind of projection of what would the Rambam say if we lifted him out of
his time and plunked him into another; a notoriously iffy excercise. But
the sevara seems compelling to me.

OTOH, does anyone follow the gemara's maskanah -- as they see the maskanah
to be -- exclusively and with no exceptions? Not even the Rambam can
say as much.

To state the same argument flipped around, we get an ad absurdum: If
one were to take REB's position as valid, the codifications we call
mishnah and gemara are also lamentable, and we should reconsider our
decision to make them binding. While REB doesn't go that far, his
only reason not to is pragmatic. Centuries of thought, including the
Rambam you mention, are out the window.

At this point in time, the question is whether the losses of the Shoah
will end up placing us in a period of authority less than that of the
acharonim. Now whether we are in a position to dispute the rishonim.

For clarity, the question I was answering was why REB is outside my
own limits of eilu va'eilu. And I answered that to me, his approach
to halakhah has the fluidity that I would put on the C side of the O-C
divide. One that simply can't be justified without a discontinuity in
what one calls halachic process. IOW, the question of "can we roll
it back" is one I can't even entertain, simply because it was never
"rolled back" before. It would be an introduction of something new to
the process. At least, until we get a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah
uveminyan. A Gra or a Besht, at least in the eyes of their followers,
can be of a stature to be such an exception to codification.

Which, as I said earlier in this thread, would be the product stellar
talmud Torah with its attempt to internalize, not a talmid chakham
with stellar academic, and hence objective study. This I placed on the
Mada side of TuM, and explained why even had I accepted REB's premises,
I wouldn't accept his pragmatic positions for how that fluidity should
be used.

And thus, to be clear where my critique/tirade was coming from: I'm not
yelling for banning, labeling him a kofeir, or any other such hysterics.
Just as I choose (mostly preconsciously, but not entirely so) which
derekh to follow, I also choose which range of derakhim are divrei E-lokim
Chaim. An idea can be excluded because I feel it is fundamentally wrong
without being labeled kefira.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

>  It would be helpful if you gave "specific citations" instead of vague
>  recollections.

>  1) Could you please give a citation that a tinok shenishba "bears no
>  guilt". You might want to see a teshuva written by Rav Henkin on the subject
>
>  The following is an excerpt written by R'  Gil Student.
> http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/tinok-she-nishbah.html
>
>  "In the forthcoming volume 4 of /Bnei Banim/
>  <http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/Bnei%20Banim.html>, R. Yehuda Henkin
>  adds his voice to this discussion with an essay on this subject (essay
>  no. 7 in PDF format
>  <http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/bnei%20banim%20excerpt2.pdf>).
> R' Daniel Eidensohn

Thank you for that teshuva.

I had already brought Einaim Lirot (EL) which brings many sources.
Looking at what Rabbi Henkin writes, EL is apparently following davka
the Rambam/Shulchan Aruch shita - I recall EL citing the Shulchan
Aruch that an eruv made with a Karaite is a kosher eruv, whereas an
eruv made with an apostate "Orthodox" Jew is pasul, so this
presumption of mine (that EL = Rambam/SA) seems sound.

I also brought Rav Kook and Rav Hirsch, who seem to follow this shita too.

The Chafetz Chaim and Hazon Ish also rule like this, and Rabbi Henkin
says "most mainstream halakhists tend to follow the view of the Hazon
Ish" even if "the final halakhah is still a matter of controversy".

So with all due respect to Radbaz, Minhas Elazar, Shevet ha-Levi, and
Reb Moshe, I feel more comfortable siding with "most mainstream
halakhists", especially Ravs Kook and Hirsch, to whom I am much closer
than I am to Reb Moshe.

I cannot remember where else I have read on this issue, but it
shouldn't be surprising that they all have followed the nonobservant =
tinok she'nishba shita, given its apparently popularity (according to
Rabbi Henkin).

Now, I will admit that it is indeed a good question, what
distinguishes and Essene from a Karaite from an R/C-Jew. Why is the
former supposed to be b'meizid and the latter two b'shogeg - I'm not
completely sure, and I will say, "tzarich iyun". But I have not a
doubtful bone in the my body that whatever the first two are, there is
no way on earth that I can possibly be convinced that the last of the
tree is anything but shogeg ha-shogegim. Having myself gone through a
Reconstructionist Sunday school program, I can testify to anyone who
requests, exactly what these children think, and exactly what they are
taught.

One anecdote will suffice for now: a student had asked about Kabbalah,
and the next week, the teacher brought a printout from
http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm. At the line, "Kabbalah and Jewish
mysticism, were traditionally not even taught to people until the age
of 40, when they had completed their education in Torah and Talmud,"
one student burst out, "Well, we've finished our Jewish education [we
were all 16-18 years old, i.e. several years post bnei-mitzvah], so
that means we can learn Kabbalah!" I personally was flabbergasted, and
gave an impromptu remark to everyone regarding the vastness of Jewish
literature, from Chumash to Tanach to Mishna to Gemara, and the
students all looked at me, *completely* uncomprehendingly, and when I
had finished, they resumed right from where they had left off prior to
my interruption. They had ABSOLUTELY no notion of the tiniest inkling
of what "Jewish civilization" really is. I doubt any of them had even
even read an entire perek of chumash; in Sunday school, we used a
chumash-digest textbook for crying out loud - never once did I see an
actual bona-fide chumash in the classroom! I DARE anyone to make a
case that this is anything but the most pathetic and blithe ignorance,
and I DARE anyone to declare it anything but shogeg.

Now, let me tell you the effect of this ignorance: as shown, these
children honestly think they already know Judaism! They honestly think
that they are scholars and have completed a rigorous course in
Judaism! It has been noted too many times, that these children, in
their ignorance, honestly think they know Judaism, and so they abandon
it, due to its apparent emptiness. They seek out left-wing secular
ideologies, eastern mysticism, whatever; but they never EVER seek out
Judaism, for they honestly think they already know it.

For a vivid example of this, see From Central Park to Sinai. The
author recounts that after he realized the emptiness of secularism, he
spent a decade looking for G-d, but it never occurred to him to look
into Judaism, because he already "knew" how empty it was. Oh, he
trekked across Europe and read book after book on various religions,
but he *never* investigated Judaism.

So even if any of them have the chance to learn about Judaism, they'll
spurn it without thinking twice, in their pathetic ignorance. They
honestly think they know what Judaism is, b'emet mamash b'emet. I
CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.

A mashal: A person can be infected with an illness, and have the
infection so little, that he never shows symptoms, and yet he
nevertheless gains immunity. This is what happens with these youth.
They never actually learn even the tiniest crumb of Judaism, but they
think they have learned a large lot, and so they have a natural
resistance against learning more - the fact that there is more to
learn is simply not on their radar. Oh, yes, there is a large world
out there, full of new things to learn, but thank G-d I already know
everything there is to know about Judaism!

Thus, to expect them to be open to receiving the truth upon contact
with an Orthodox Jew, is incredible in my eyes. With all due respect
to Reb Moshe, I find the idea incomprehensible.

Furthermore, I doubt any of them had actually met an Orthodox Jew in
his or her life. Sure, the communities of Kemp Mill and White Oak and
Potomac and such were not too far away for those who wanted to find
them, but for those who had no interest, who where blithely learning
in public school, ten lifetimes could pass without ever meeting an
Orthodox Jew.

And even if they had met such a Jew (unlikely), and even if he had
been the wisest, most enlightened person they had ever met (unlikely,
given that he's going against hundreds of wise enlightened gentiles),
and even if they had had chance to engage him in lengthy discussion
(unlikely; if they had met an Orthodox Jew, it was probably at the
supermarket checkout counter), they still have to overcome the
prejudices of having been steeped in the latent American culture and
R/C Jewish culture for all their years. As I have said, I don't think
there is any explicit anti-Orthodox propaganda anymore. Instead, there
is passive long-term absorption of American culture and R/C Judaism,
and profound immunizing ignorance.

And moreover, this Orthodox Jew, they will probably immediately,
subconsciously, brand him as outdated and backward. Right there. Right
from the get go. Immediately go any chance whatsoever of winning them
over with his wisdom, without the greatest effort on his part.
Immediately upon making his acquaintance, they've already set up
barriers against him personally, as an individual. It is
discrimination, yes it is.

How many barriers Reb Moshe believes are so easily overcome!

> However, R. Henkin objects to extending this concept beyond its current
>  application

Its current application is to justify the sins of those who don't know
any better. The only extension I can think of, is to justify the sins
of those who DO know better, which is absurd. Exactly what is Rabbi
Henkin getting at here?

> or to using this status as a justification for non-observance.

What does he mean by "justify"? If he means, "to provide a post-facto
excuse for the non-observant, to declare them sinners but in excusable
and lamentable ignorance", I would say that if TsN cannot do anything
but this.

If TsN does not justify non-observance, what does it do? Chazal seemed
to use TsN to do davka this, to declare Jewish children taken captive
by gentiles, as innocent and b'shogeg.

So what does Rabbi Henkin mean?

> Most importantly, one should never think of himself as a
>  /tinok she-nishbah/ because this only becomes an excuse for sinning."

Obviously, one can never excuse himself as a TsN - how could one
possibly do so? By definition, one ignorant enough to be a TsN, does
not know how ignorant he is, nor does he know what a TsN is. If he
does know how ignorant he is, or if he does know what a TsN is, he is
too knowledgeable to be a TsN, and he knows it too.

A Jew raised amongst gentiles - he does not even know what he is
ignorant of - ask him how much hilchot Shabbat he knows, and he'll ask
you what Shabbat is. OTOH, I know baalei teshuva that still know
almost nothing, but they've learned enough to know that there's a
Talmud and a Shulchan Aruch sitting on the shelf, full of things they
still need to learn. They can of course sin b'shogeg, but he's not a
TsN - if you tell him that he just did melechet borer, he'll either
ask, "Which melacha is that?" or "How is what I just did borer?".
Either which way, he obviously has some modicum of knowledge.

>   2) Furthermore I haven't seen any source that the rabbis of Reform and
>  Conservative are considered tinok shenishba.  Do you have any such source?

No I do not. But I have never seen a source that distinguishes their
rabbis from the lay. Presumably, most or at least many of their rabbis
are as ignorant as the lay.

Now, Rabbi Berkovits, as cited previously, says that their leaders are
sincere and honest in their intent to preserve Judaism, however
misguided and wrong they are. This seems to be identifying their
rabbis with TsN.

But even without REB, the fact that every source I have seen
identifying R/C with TsN, says R/C b'klal and not R/C laypeople to the
exclusion of R/C rabbis, seems therefore to be saying that ALL R/C,
lay and rabbis, are all TsN.

Now, there may be R/C rabbis who were raised Orthodox - my
Reconstructionist shul had davka such a rabbi. So in what category he
falls, is a very good question. Maybe he is b'meizid, or maybe he had
a pitiful Orthodox education growing up - I don't know; tzarich iyun.
I could, in fact, give his email to anyone who wants to ask him.

But on the whole, I'd say that most R/C rabbis are probably as
ignorant as their flock. Obviously, they have greater book learning -
most must have learned at least the Chumash and a small amount of
Gemara. But it was all learned in HUC with tremendous prejudice, and
that's on top of the prejudice they absorbed growing up - is it
difficult to presume that these rabbis had great textual learning but
the same notions and prejudices as they had had prior to their
learning?

An anecdote: at my yeshiva (Machon Meir), two C rabbis came some years
back, for reasons I cannot fathom; I believe (but may be wrong) that
they were actually sent by their congregation. So they learned
(apparently, they were some of the best students here), and when they
returned to America, they insisted on a mechitza and were ousted from
their congregation. So obviously, they learned SOMETHING at Machon
Meir that they didn't learn at JTS - I rest my case.

Mikha'el Makovi

I am replying to this thread,
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n075.shtml#18, because it
interests me, and because it has some overlap with a recent thread,
viz. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n100.shtml#10

R' Rich Wolpoe says:
>
Plz allow me to clarify
The TSBP and che Chazal are softer, the question is HOW it got that
way Models:
1) This is ALL MiSinai. The Original Torah was designed on 2 levels.
The Chazla made up zero, they just reported what they heard. (Extreme
Sinai)
2) This was made up by Chazal out of a sense of politcal correctness or
Rachmanus. This might be {boredrline} heresy. (Extreme Historical School)
3) The TSBK was harsh and the TSBP was designed to soften it in reality.
The general MANDATE was from Sinai but the specfics evolved when Chazal
applied this mandate in reality. (Moderate Hybrid School)

My shita is #3. The seeds of Etz Chaim hi were planted at Sinari,
it sprouted forth over time.

My GUESS is that the objections to Z Frankel or E .Berkowitz were that
they said something like #2 or it at least what was pereceifed was #2..
>

He says that some may have objected to REB because he perhaps seemed
to hold number 2. This, I will try to show, is an untenable
understanding.

I will jump the gun by saying: According to shita number 2, Chazal
acted according to an un-Jewish, non-Sinaitic ideology. David Hazony
in Azure (www.azure.co.il), "Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits and the Revival
of Jewish Moral Thought", also in the introduction to Essential
Essays, he tries to show that the Conservative approach davka adopted
non-Jewish hashkafot from without, whereas Rav Berkovits used
hashkafot already intrinsic to Judaism. I will let Mr. Hazony
represent himself in this.

Now then, Rav Berkovits entire approach is nothing but number 3, I
feel. He says that the Torah was given at Sinai, but G-d left it for
Chazal, as a mandate from Him to them, to develop the Torah according
to certain means and with certain ends in mind. This is intrinsic to
his entire approach. He says that the Torah (She'bichtav) had certain
moral values in mind all along (such as not creating agunot, not
letting their be poor people, "you shall do what is good and
right...", etc.), and that the Torah itself desired that the Oral Law
liberate the Written Torah - Rav Berkovits explicitly speaks of the
Written Torah being unfolded by the Oral Torah, and he explicitly says
this is the very yearning of the Written Torah - to be unshackled from
its own confines. Hazony is not making things up when he says that
Rabbi Berkovits never intended anything other than that the exegetical
and halakhic methods of Chazal were intrinsic to Torah all along, and
that the Torah merely was waiting for Chazal to utilize the methods
and mandate already given them. He further says that the task of
Chazal and of the posek is to look into the Torah and himself and
figure out what is already intrinsic to the Torah's desires (not what
is in modern Western society that we'd like to fit the Torah to) and
make halacha accordingly. Rabbi Berkovits already explicitly said this
all himself.

I could quote sources, mostly from Not in Heaven, but instead, I'll
simply direct readers to everything in Essential Essays relating to
halakha. What I will quote is an unlikely source that most would not
think to link in: With G-d in Hell, one of his works on the Holocaust.

Chapter 9, "Now We Know", makes an unexpected veer into Chazal's
method of Midrash. I quote:

Pp 140ff:

The rabbis in the Talmud developed these teachings [of deemphasizing
warfare; REB has just quoted Samuel 2:4-9, 17:45-47; Psalms 44:7-8],
in their unique midrashic-homiletical style, through the
"interpretation" of appropriate passages in the Bible.

...

'Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, thy glory and thy
majesty.' (Psalms 45:4)

The rabbis declared: the gibbor here, the mighty one, is the hero in
the mastery of the knowledge of Torah. (Shabbat 63a) And the "sword,"
we assume, is the sharpness of his intellect, the ingenuity with which
he is able to to prove the correctness of his teaching against all
comers. IN this alone they could see the "glory" and the "majesty" of
a Jew. Naive? Certainly not. The teachers of the Talmud knew well that
"the plain meaning of a biblical verse must never be given up." But
while they had unparalleled recall of the entire text of the Bible,
they were not "Bible scholars" in the sense that we understand that
term. They were teachers of Judaism. When they taught a biblical text
in which the term gibbor, hero, occurred, their main concern was
neither with the etymology of the word nor with its historic meaning,
but with the association that the concept ought to call forth in the
consciousness of the living Jew. For any person, the meaning of such a
word as "hero" will be determined by by the culture in the midst of
which it is uttered. Within Judaism, based on the Torah, the hero was
the great master who dedicated his life to the teaching and
transmission of the Torah from generation to generation.

...

What is significant here is that though the "reinterpretation" was a
new meaning imposed upon a much older text, it was nothing new in the
comprehensive context of Judaism. This "reinterpretation" occurs in
the following discussion: [Rabbi Berkovits summarizes the discussion
of carrying a weapon on Shabbat.] ... Rabbi Eliezer responds with the
words of the Psalmist quoted above, that the sword of the hero is his
"glory" and "majesty." His colleagues are not impressed. The hero? He
is the great teacher of Torah. This is obvious; who else could it
mean? The sword? It has, of course, only symbolical meaning. In actual
fact, Rabbi Eliezer is, of course, correct with regard to the specific
text. The rabbis know that. And, indeed, during the discussion they
quote the principle that the plain meaning of a biblical verse is not
to be given up. Still, the opinion of the rabbis is accepted as valid,
as the halakhically binding interpretation. The specific text must
submit to the "reinterpretation" demanded by the comprehensive
ideology of Judaism. The plain meaning of the specific text stands;
however, our concern here is not with text, but with Judaism, not with
"Bible scholarship," but with the life of the Jew. Because for the Jew
who lives Judaism, the "meaning" of the text is revealed ever anew as
he reads it in the living spirit of the totality of the Torah. Thus
the reinterpretation becomes quite natural and it is indeed the true
statement.

The task of reinterpretation is pursued consistently... [REB brings
further examples]

----


assured, what he has just said here is remarkably similar to what he
says on halachic matters. I think all that Rabbi Berkovits has done,
is to conflate the aggadic and halakhic midrashic methods into one.

Moreover, we learn from many sources that:
1) Halakha can be forgotten and must be recovered by exegesis
2) Not all halakhot were given at Sinai - many were given in potentia,
and left to us to uncover as a seed sprouting and flowering.

Therefore, Chazal developed halacha, according to their midrashic
methods, when these two facts necessitated it. And they drashed in
ways to meet the new conditions of that generation, as needed - see
Rabbi Isidore Epstein [late principal of Jews' College] 's
introduction to the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, which is in striking
overlap with Rabbi Berkovits. Rabbi Epstein brings, for example,
Hillel drashing the prozbul, so as to support new socioeconomic
conditions. Hillel could just as well have said that all debts are to
be remitted, period. Instead, he sought to find a way to reconcile the
Torah's text with that generation's need to not remit debts - and
Hillel found the answer in his drash. But the drash was motivated by
need and conditions; Hillel did not coldly and analytically interpret
the text according to its pshat. He found a midrashic loophole because
he was looking for one.

Mikha'el Makovi

>  >  REB...I fail to see how this is an
>  >  eis la'asos, as no one's relationship to Hashem is saved through it,
>  >  "just" unity would.
>  > R' Micha Berger

>  [T]he above paragraph summarizes a major problem and difference in perspective.
>
>  The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
>  relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling - although,
>  perhaps, reflective on an approach emphasizing the individual rather
>  than communal perfection.  However, for many of us, the notion of
>  unity is an integral part of our avodat hashem - and yes, there is a
>  tremendous eys la'asos.  The fact that this is not viewed as part of
>  our relationship to hashem means that our relationship to hashem is
>  flawed.
> R' Meir Shinnar

Some time ago, we had a thread on to what extent Jewish identity is
communal/national versus individual. I chose to place the individual
lower than many others did, but I think everyone can agree, however,
that national identity is a very important component, regardless of
where it lies on the gradient.

Hashem created us as davka not a nation, not a mass of individuals -
"am zu yatzarti li". Any individual can be a holy tzadik. But to
create an entire nation that as one united whole that is tzodek, that
is an entirely different matter. And even if one does not want to go
with Rav Kook and REB on the nation, one can just as well go with Rav
Hirsch on the kehilla - either way, unity has the same tremendous
importance. And the mitzvah of lo titgodedu, and the fact that we were
exiled due to sinat chinam, shows that unity is no small value.

To serve G-d individually is deficient. The King's glory is in the
multitude, and so only as a unity can accomplish our mission as Jews,
whether that unity is a kehilla or a medina (I prefer the second, but
regardless). Why would bamot be problematic, if the the individual's
relationship were primary? Why daven and say Kaddish in a minyan? Why
send mishloach manot? Why have a nation altogether? - just scatter a
few prophets throughout the world and let that be that!

And in any case, why must an eit la'asot lashem be confined to saving
an individual's relationship to G-d? Was writing the Talmud really
intended to help individual? I always thought it was intended to save
the Torah that was the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov...

>  I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
>  about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
>  does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
>  not valid gerut. National identity and the future of am yisrael are
>  very much part of our avodat hashem - and therefore, yes it is an et
>  la'asot

The Lubavitcher Rebbe said a person who loves G-d but not the Jewish
people, his love will not last. But one who loves the Jewish people
but not G-d - nurture his love for his people and it will grow to
encompass G-d too.

And of course, with Rut, "your people will be my people" came before
"your G-d will be my G-d". Even if one says that "your G-d will be my
G-d" is synonymous with "your mitzvot will be my mitzvot", the fact
remains that identification with the am is considered more important
than identification with G-d and mitzvot, even if the latter are
necessary too. And so one can conceive of a conversion involving
identification with the am but not G-d/mitzvot, but I cannot conceive
of a conversion of someone who accepts G-d and mitzvot but not the am.

Mikha'el Makovi

>  : The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
>  : relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling...
>  : R' Meir Shinnar

>  And not made.
>
>  Davening at home rather than hearing shofar by taking a car affects
>  one's relationship to Hashem. But there is no "eis la'asos" for someone
>  who usually attends shul to get to shofar blowing in such a scenario.
>
>  Eis la'asos requires near total loss of that relationship.
> R' Micha Berger

Or maybe, one individual missing the shofar is not enough. Maybe an
eit la'asot lashem requires the *tzibur* to miss the shofar. Maybe eit
la'asot lashem applies davka for a catastrophe involving the masses -
perhaps it is not the individual's loss of contact with Hashem that is
key, but either the tzibur's or the multitude of individuals'.

>  To state the same argument flipped around, we get an ad absurdum: If
>  one were to take REB's position as valid, the codifications we call
>  mishnah and gemara are also lamentable, and we should reconsider our
>  decision to make them binding. While REB doesn't go that far, his
>  only reason not to is pragmatic. Centuries of thought, including the
>  Rambam you mention, are out the window.

That's not ad absurdum - REB said this. He said that indeed, the very
existence of the Mishna and Gemara is lamentable. Now, he said, they
are here to stay just as the SA is. But all the same, he held that we
should try to make the halacha as flexible as possible, to keep its
original flexible and oral nature in mind, and not become "Karaites of
the Oral Law". (My point is simply that, agree or disagree with REB,
what you've said is not ad absurdum. I'm surely only hurting the case
though.)

 Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 104
***************************************

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..."