Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 376

Fri, 07 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: childbirth as a time of sakana (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Go It Alone and Serve G-d (Prof. Levine)
• 5. How the Torah portrays our great men (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. How the Torah portrays our great men Again (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Sandakos (Jonathan Baker)
• 8. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Yitzhak Grossman)

T6...@aol.com wrote:
> In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 337 dated 9/22/2008 R' Daniel 
> Eidensohn quoted R' Moshe Feinstein:
>
>     Igros Moshe (Y.D. 2:74): Concerning inducing premature childbirth.
>
>     "In my humble opinion it is prohibited to induce premature childbirth
>     because childbirth in its natural time in the natural way is not
>     considered a danger at all....  We must
>     conclude that there is absolutely no danger in childbirth at all.
>     That
>     mean that G-d promised that there would never be danger in
>     childbirth.
>
> -------
> In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 373 dated 11/3/2008 "Chana Luntz" 
> Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk <mailto:Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >>After all, it is completely accepted in the sources that a yoledet hi
> k'chola sheyesh bo sakana (as stated explicitly in Shulchan Aruch Orech
> Chaim siman 329 si'if 1) ...
A possible resolution of the apparent contradiction is the fact that Rav 
Moshe was addresssing the issue of induced labor. He is simply saying 
that induced labor is dangerous relative to natural labor and therefore 
shouldn't be done for the sake of convenience.

Daniel Eidensohn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081105/462ab059/attachment-0001.vcf>

RMM wrote:
> I
> know Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz refers to Jews' College as the sister of
> JTS, but remember that this was during the Orthodox days of JTS when
> there was thought of fusing JTS and YU.

A lot earlier. The talk of the merger was in 1926 (though there is also a 
mention a 1906 proposal, but that is not what people talk about usually). 
From 
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.d
o/21367/America's_First_Native-Born,_University-Educated_Orthodox_Rabbi.htm
l
> Indeed, in 1902 and later in 1926 there were efforts to merge JTS with
> Yeshiva Rabbi Yitzchok Elchonan (RIETS). (See Bernard Revel, by Aaron
> Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Feldheim Publishers, second edition, 2000, pages
> 102-114.)

At that time, JTS was out of O, as is evident, for example, from Rabbi Dr. 
Revel's opposition to the plan. I paraphrase from memory. In RIETS, they 
learn Talmud, in JTS only *about* Talmud. Same for other important subjects. 
The he writes that JTS is developing/has developed into another movement, 
incompatible with YU's commitment to Halakhah and Messorah.

Rabbi Herz, however, left JTS in 1894 (from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Hertz ):
> Joseph Hertz was born in Rebrin, Hungary (now Slovakia), and emigrated to
> New York City in 1884. He was educated at New York City College (BA),
> Columbia University (PhD) and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America
> (Rabbi, 1894, the Seminary's first graduate). His first Ministerial post was
> at Syracuse, New York.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> RMM wrote:
>> I
>> know Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz refers to Jews' College as the sister of
>> JTS, but remember that this was during the Orthodox days of JTS when
>> there was thought of fusing JTS and YU.

> R' Arie Folger responded
>
> A lot earlier. The talk of the merger was in 1926 (though there is also a
> mention a 1906 proposal, but that is not what people talk about usually).
>
> At that time, JTS was out of O, as is evident, for example, from Rabbi Dr.
> Revel's opposition to the plan. I paraphrase from memory. In RIETS, they
> learn Talmud, in JTS only *about* Talmud. Same for other important subjects.
> The he writes that JTS is developing/has developed into another movement,
> incompatible with YU's commitment to Halakhah and Messorah.
>
> Rabbi Herz, however, left JTS in 1894 (from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Hertz ):

What about in 1915?

From Affirmations of Judaism, the following was spoken by Rabbi Hertz
in Jews' College on December 19, 1915:

"Nearly thirty days have passed since Solomon Schechter has been laid
to rest, and many have been the strikingly affectionate and
reverential tributes that have on both sides of the Atlantic been paid
to his memory. Today, it is my solemn duty, as President of this
Rabbinical Seminary, to speak of him, who was the President and
Principal of the sister-institution in America and who at one time was
also a member of the Council of Jews' College. It is difficult to
essay an estimate of this great Teacher's influence for one who feels
his loss as a personal bereavement ..." Rabbi Hertz proceeds with a
very warm eulogy for Schechter. (One doesn't get the impression, as
some would have it, that Schechter publicly violated Shabbat. I don't
know much about Schechter, but at least according to Rabbi Hertz's
appraisal...)

I also cannot say I know much about the Conservative movement's
history or JTS's history. What little I know, however:

Evan Hoffman ("Factors of Traditionalism In Conservative Jewish Law",
JHI 9978, Doctoral Planning, Fall 2004) notes
"The above historical overview revealed that the Conservative
movement's first half century of halakhic activity was an era marked
by traditionalism.  Every leniency or measure of progress, even one
considered to be of absolute necessity, was only achieved after long
and difficult struggle.  Given the philosophy of Conservative Judaism,
it is not immediately clear why this should be the case." He goes on
to enumerate JTS's origins in Positive-Historical Judaism, etc.

Hoffman concludes that some while JTS/RA members were doctrinally and
practically Orthodox (he notes that Schechter's "Catholic Israel", as
the inviolability of whatever the Jewish laity desires or requests,
was formulated with observant Eastern European Jews in mind; Catholic
Israel was never applied in America by the early JTS leaders), others
simply lacked the courage to openly confront the Orthodox. So within
JTS, there was conflict between the right and left factions. On the
one hand, no particularly non-Orthodox rulings emanated from JTS, but
the internal dissension was certainly existent. This also stymied any
progress one way or the other.

Also, the students who came out of JTS were by and large not
halakhists nor Talmudics, and were more suited for pulpit and communal
positions; in fact, neither yadin yadin nor yore yore were offered. In
Ginzburg's words, "Hands off the law!". Even JTS's early leaders did
not want to innovate anything without the approval of the Orthodox;
when Epstein propose his agunah plan, he said "I have not come to rise
up against the tradition even slightly or to be lenient against the
decisions of any posek? I pray that my portion should be with those
who toil in sorrow of Agunot.", and Hoffman adds, "Epstein believed
that Jewish law should be decided by its leading scholars. He viewed
his proposal as an impetus, provided by a lesser scholar, for the
giants of Jewish learning to ponder and decide upon the Agunah issue.
Epstein was willing to abide by any learned decision of the gedolim,
not because he was intimidated by them or was assenting to their
political monopoly, but rather because his conception of halakhic
Judaism demanded it. The unfortunate turn of events was a general
unwillingness by the gedolim to analyze the proposal, instead choosing
to engage in polemics [including Le-Dor Aharon] at the request of
Agudat ha-Rabbanim."

And while JTS as a whole (and certainly its leaders and heads) was
more or less Orthodox, the rest of the Conservative rabbinut and RA
and such were FAR less so. As JTS's influence lessened and the RA's
increased, Conservative naturally took a sharp turn to the left. 1948
was a turning-point, when the Committee on Jewish Law (CJL) was
replaced by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). The
non-JTS factions of the RA gained more influence, and all emanating
opinions (majority and minority) were held to be equally binding.
Under the previous CJL, any halakhic "progess" had been stymied by the
right-wing, and the only leniences to emanate were eating broiled fish
in a treif restaurant (with so many conditions attached so as to make
the leniency a dead letter) and using a microphone on Shabbat. But
following 1948, in a span of less than a decade, such leniences as
using electricity on Shabbat, kohanim marrying divorcees, eating
kosher food in treif restaurants, shorter mourning periods all were
produced, and discussions of women counting in minyan began. And when
leniencies were desired, a ready tactic was found: excluding JTS
Talmud professors from taking part in the halakhic decision-making.

From his analysis, it would seem that while many of the early JTS
leaders were more or less Modern Orthodox, they had to share the
reigns with less Orthodox peers. Outside of JTS, Conservative was
decidely not Orthodox at all. So in its early years, progress was
stymied by conflict between the Orthodox and not-Orthodox factions of
JTS, and once JTS and the RA became equals in leadership in 1948, any
possibilities or pretenses to Orthodoxy crumbled.

However, I'm not sure what particularly happened around 1906 or 1926
which would have affected JTS's Orthodox status. As for Rabbi Revel's
statement that in JTS they learn only about Talmud and not Talmud
itself, this does not seem to impugn JTS's Orthodoxy, as JTS itself
admitted its students were pulpit leaders and not halakhists; plenty
of Orthodox baalei batim do not learn Talmud, but this makes them
ignorant, not non-Orthodox!

While I certainly have PLENTY of more important things to learn, I
have found myself curious as to what exactly happened with JTS.
Certainly, it'd be important for us to know, insofar as if a
once-Orthodox institution could cease to be so, we'd be desirous to
know how and why, so that this phenomenon is not repeated.

Mikha'el Makovi

P. S. An interesting anecdote: I found a Conservative Rosh Hashanah
Mazhor in the Machon Meir library (I am the librarian), and was
worried about its reliability. I saw its publication date was from
somewhere in the 1940s or 50s (I forget exactly when), and I thought
that MAYBE it would kosher, since this was around the Conservative's
turn to the left, and so perhaps it was still kosher. I called up
Rabbi Henkin and asked if he knew anything; I told him the date and he
noted that it was published before the car-on-Shabbat decision, and
that PERHAPS the mazhor would indeed be kosher. I asked him if there
would be any particular telling section of the Mazhor which I could
use as a benchmark for its reliability, and he told me to see if it
preserved the Korbanot section. I checked, and in fact, there were no
Korbanot to be found. But Rabbi Henkin had indeed had the hava amina
that perhaps it could be kosher...

 From the commentary of RSRH on the first posuk in this week's Parsha:

It is true of course that the community should represent exalted
values. On this premise Judaism, too, attaches importance to the community
and forbids the individual from detaching himself from the
community. Nevertheless, at the outset of Jewish history, Scripture says:
Lech lecha , ?go for yourself, go your own way? ? this is an even more exalted
value. No one may say: ?I am as good and as honest as everyone else, as
is the fashion here nowadays.? Every individual is directly responsible to
God for his personal conduct. If it becomes necessary, if the principle
adopted by the majority is untrue ? then go it alone and serve God!

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081106/1a9ce852/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from the new translation of the 
commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on 
Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the 
question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger.

In light of this, I have to wonder why some think 
that all "negatives" about our predecessors 
should be suppressed. What I am talking about is 
the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that 
certain things took place in the past if they do 
not jive with our present view of what the 
religious world should look like.  As I have 
quipped more than once, "There are Holocaust 
deniers and there are Orthodox deniers."

YL

RSRH quotes the Ramban ?Our father Avraham inadvertently committed
a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block
of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land,
about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another
sin he committed? ? nevertheless, none of this
would perplex us.

The Torah does not seek to portray our great men
as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: ?Here you
have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!? It does
not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which
we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we
must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a
model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.
Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: ?Look upon Me!
Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!? We are never to say: ?This must be
good and right, because so-and-so did it.? The Torah is not an ?anthology
of good deeds.? It relates events not because they are necessarily
worthy of emulation, but because they took place.

The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.
The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract
from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their
stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they
been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and
unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed
with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed
free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed
to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired
by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to
emulate. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081106/e1e9a8f4/attachment-0001.htm>

I inadvertently left out an important part of the commentary.

The following is from the new translation of the 
commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on 
Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the 
question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger.

In light of this, I have to wonder why some think 
that all "negatives" about our predecessors 
should be suppressed. What I am talking about is 
the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that 
certain things took place in the past if they do 
not jive with our present view of what the 
religious world should look like.  As I have 
quipped more than once, "There are Holocaust 
deniers and there are Orthodox deniers."

YL

RSRH quotes the Ramban ?Our father Avraham inadvertently committed
a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block
of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land,
about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another
sin he committed? ? nevertheless, none of this
would perplex us.

The Torah does not seek to portray our great men
as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: ?Here you
have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!? It does
not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which
we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we
must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a
model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.
Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: ?Look upon Me!
Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!? We are never to say: ?This must be
good and right, because so-and-so did it.? The Torah is not an ?anthology
of good deeds.? It relates events not because they are necessarily
worthy of emulation, but because they took place.

The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.
The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract
from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their
stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they
been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and
unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed
with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed
free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed
to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired
by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to
emulate.

Let us learn from our great teachers of Torah ? among whom the
Ramban certainly is one of the most outstanding ? that we must never
attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past. They
do not need our apologetics, nor would they tolerate such attempts on
our part. Emes, truth, is the seal of our Torah, and truthfulness is the
guiding principle of the Torah?s great teachers and commentators. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081106/0f9370f9/attachment-0001.htm>

The origin of the custom not to serve as Sandek for more than one child
in a given immediate family, arises in part from this week's sedra.  At
the end of the parsha, Avraham circomsizes (misspelled deliberately) himself,
his son Ishmael, and his 318 retainers and their sons.  What did he do
with the orlos?  The midrash tells us, he put them in a pile in the sun,
to decompose.  The stench of decomposition rose up to Hashem, who said
it was a sweet savor, a reiach nichoach, like the smell of the incense.
Now, any given kohen cannot offer incense more than once (presumably aside
from the kohen gadol, who deals with it every year at Yom Kippur).  So
too today, any given person does not serve as sandek for two brothers
from the same immediate family.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:57:13 -0500
Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

...

> The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
> of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.
> The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract
> from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their
> stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they

http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/09/20/the-better-part-of-valor/

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" 
> about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about 
> is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things 
> took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of 
> what the religious world should look like.  As I have quipped more 
> than once, "There are Holocaust deniers and there are Orthodox deniers."
>
This is rather a gross oversimplication of a complex issue. We can not 
generalize from this Ramban for three reasons 1) He was criticized by 
the Maharal for saying such a thing because Maharal asserts we can only 
ascribe error when Chazal tell us there is error. 2) The Ramban's view 
is in fact alluded to in the Zohar as R' Chavell discusses on this 
verse. 3) Hirsch is not making such a generalization but is simply 
saying that Chazal tell us that the Avos erred in certain matters and 
thus weren't infallible.

Thus  we can say that there is absolutely no evidence to support the 
assertion that the Ramban is teaching us that **we** have the right to 
ascribe error to the Avos or anyone else without a source in Chazal. 
Furthermore the citation from Hirsch also at most says - that Chazal 
tells us that the Avos erred - but he doesn't say that we can ascribe 
errors without support from Chazal.

Thus it is problematic to read "there are Orthodox deniers" into the 
words of either the Ramban or Hirsch - neither would have agreed with you.

Daniel Eidensohn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081107/8c91091b/attachment-0001.vcf>

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:31:29 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> Here's a quote allegedly from REB that I found by Google:
>     [Rabbis] who are seriously concerned and troubled by the inadequate
>     regard for the problems of contemporary Jewish life ... will introduce
>     the halakhic changes that are required in recognition of the human
>     dignity of the Jewish woman.
> 
> The contrapositive, that the lack of actual change reflects a lack of
> concern, was stated in Blu Greenberg's famous quip about a rabbinic will
> and halachic way.

http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/11/06/two-chief-rabbi
s-on-rabbinic-wills-and-halachic-ways/

> Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 376
***************************************

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..."