Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 377

Fri, 07 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 2. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men Again (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Another View on How to Portray People of the Past (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: How the Torah portrays our great men (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. abraham and sarah in Eygpt (Eli Turkel)
• 9. a troubling halacha (Eli Turkel)

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:55:34 +0200
"Michael Makovi" <mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Feinstein, Rabbi J. David Bleich, and Chelkat Yoav Tanyana (anyone
> know anything about him??) all say the Noahide death penalty is a

Rav Yoav Yehoshua Weingarten, a famous Gaon and student of Avnei
Nezer.  Rav of Kinsk:

Close to 1896, R. Yoav Joshua Weingarten, one of the greatest
authorities in Jewish law [Halakha] assumed the rabbinate. Previously,
he served in Lutomiersk and Gostynin. His decisions in Jewish law are
gathered in the work Helkat Yoav on the four parts of the Shulhan
Arukh. R. Yoav Joshua died in 1922.

From http://www.jewishgen.org/Yizkor/pinkas_poland/pol1_00240.html

Get your own Helkas Yoav here:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/9608

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

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:02:01PM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: 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.....

: RSRH quotes ...
: 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!"...

And yet there is a tendency in medrash to do just that "kol haomer Davd
chatah"... Justifications are given for all the "good guys" so that all
of Tanakh's major sins were really guzma about something judged kechut
hasa'arah, and nefarious interpretations given to the deed of the wicked
-- it wasn't a meal, it was an attempt to poison, but a mal'akh switched
the plates; it wasn't a kiss, it was a check for hidden jewelry. With
exceptions, such as Yishmael's teshuvah before Avraham's petirah.

But the trend certainly is to portray the good as exclusively good. Any
explanation as to why HQBH and the nevi'im held these people up as
flawed has to explain why Chazal minimized it.

Perhaps RSRH doesn't need to address that question because he holds
that Chazal's stories were not taught as history, and that they wrote
with the assumption that people knew this to the extent that they
weren't removing the impact of the story as told in peshat by their
derashos.

Or perhaps they simply assumed we would deal with the story on both
levels.

Or, leaving RSRH territory for a general answer of the difference in
tenor between peshat and derashah, perhaps one could distinguish between
how HQBH writes a biography and how we should. (Vehlakhta biderakhav has
limits; people dying doesn't imply a precedent against lo sirtzach.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

 


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

===========================
R'DE
What is the source of the prohibition of ascribing errors to the avot?
On a related note, if we take the minimalist approach to the TSBP that
was given at Sinai, what was the algorithm that chazal used to determine
where they could or couldn't ascribe errors.  (I hope you understand
this isn't lkanter but to understand)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 
 
In a message dated 11/7/2008, Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu writes:

"Are you  telling me that Reb Zundel Berman lied to me?" He replied, "Yes!"  


>>>>>
Of course there are other possibilities.  One,  that R' Berman did not 
remember accurately what RAK said to him.  Two, that  you did not remember 
accurately what R' Berman said to you so many years  ago. Three, that there was more to 
the conversation, a context that you  have not reported or don't remember.  
Four, that R' Berman said it about  somebody else, not about RAK.  Five, that 
it was not R' Berman, but  somebody else, who quoted RAK to you.  Six, seven, 
eight.....
 
"RAK said three years" OR "R' Berman lied" -- those two alternatives  
scarcely exhaust the range of possibilities!

 

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



**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other 
Holiday needs. Search Now. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?
redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081107/1dfec7a2/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from  Haskalah, Secular Studies 
and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892 
by Rabbi Dr. J. J. Schachter. The entire 
essay  may be read at 
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU2_Schachter.pdf 
The reader may also want to see Facing the Truths 
of History at http://yuriets.yeshivalive.com/TU8_Schachter.pdf

YL

Rabbi Schacter writes, "In a recently published 
essay [R. S. Schwab, Selected Writings (Lakewood, 
1988), 234], Rabbi Shimon Schwab justified this 
neglect of history on positive ideological 
grounds rather than simply considering it as 
reflecting an avoidance of bittul Torah. His 
comments are remarkable and deserve being cited in detail:

'There is a vast difference between history and 
storytelling. History must be truthful. 
otherwise, it does not desert its name. A book of 
history must report the bad with the good, the 
ugly with the beautiful, the difficulties and the 
victories, the guilt and the virtue. Since it is 
supposed to be truthful, it cannot spare the 
righteous if he fails, and it cannot skip the 
virtues of the villain. For such is truth, all is 
told the way it happened. Only a Navi mandated by 
his Divine calling has the ability to report 
history as it really happened, unbiased and without prejudice.

Suppose one of us today would want to write a 
history of Orthodox Jewish life in pre-holocaust 
Germany. There is much to report but not 
everything is complimentary. Not all of the 
important people were flawless as one would like 
to believe and not all the mores and lifestyles 
of this bygone generation were beyond criticism. 
An historian has no right to take sides. He most 
report the stark truth and nothing but the truth. 
Now, if an historian would report truthfully what 
he witnessed, it would make a lot of people 
rightfully angry. He would violate the 
prohibition against spreading Loshon Horah which 
does not only apply to the living, but also to 
those who sleep in the dust and cannot defend themselves any more.

What ethical purpose is served by preserving a 
realistic historic picture? Nothing but the 
satisfaction of curiosity. We should tell 
ourselves and our children the good memories of 
the good people, their unshakeable faith, their 
staunch defense of tradition, their life of 
truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless 
charity and their great reverence for Torah and 
Torah sages. What is gained by pointing out their 
inadequacies and their contradictions? We want to 
be inspired by their example and learn from their experience.

When Noach became intoxicated, his two sons Shem 
and,Japhet, took a blanket and walked into his 
tent backwards to cover the nakedness of their 
father. Their desire was to always remember their 
father as the Tzaddik Tomim  in spite of his 
momentary weakness. Rather than write the history 
of our forebears, every generation has to put a 
veil over the human failings of its elders and 
glorify all the rest which is great and 
beautiful. That means we have to do without a 
real history book. We can do without. We do not 
need realism, we need inspiration from our 
forefathers in order to pass it on to posterity.'"

Rabbi Dr. Schacter then comments,

"It is interesting that Rabbi Schwab does not 
deny that "important people" and "good people" 
have failings and inadequacies. Rather, he 
suggests that they are best overlooked and forgotten.

However, even this remarkable argument (which 
merits its own analysis) explains only the 
neglect and disregard of history: it does nor 
justify the distorting of history. While it may 
explain why one should not write about the past, 
it does not justify distorting the past when one 
does write about it. Inventing the past is as 
foolish as foretelling the future, but more scandalous.

This point was made forcefully and tellingly by 
Rabbi Joseph Elias in a review article written 
over twenty years ago. [See Joseph Elias, "Past 
and Present in the Teaching of Jewish History," 
The Jewish observer IV:8 (November, 1967), 18, 
23. The italics are by the author.]

He wrote:

... the later history of the Jew can help most 
significantly toward a proper understanding of 
our sacred heritage and of our duty here and now. 
Through it we can convey to our youth the 
principles which underline and emerge from our 
past, and their application to the problems and 
issues of our time. Let it be well understood, 
however, we must see the present in the light of 
the past and not, reversely, project the passing 
ideas of the day, its confusions and uncertainties, into the past...

If he (i.e., "the Torah historian") permits his 
values and judgements to be subject to the 
influence of his age, he will arrive at a 
distorted picture of both the Torah world and the 
secular world?and he will even project these 
distortions into that past from which he could have learned the truth."



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081107/c83c14a3/attachment-0001.htm>

At 09:37 AM 11/7/2008, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/7/2008, Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu writes:
>"Are you telling me that Reb Zundel Berman lied to me?" He replied, "Yes!"
>
> >>>>>
>Of course there are other possibilities.  One, that R' Berman did 
>not remember accurately what RAK said to him.  Two, that you did not 
>remember accurately what R' Berman said to you so many years ago. 
>Three, that there was more to the conversation, a context that you 
>have not reported or don't remember.  Four, that R' Berman said it 
>about somebody else, not about RAK.  Five, that it was not R' 
>Berman, but somebody else, who quoted RAK to you.  Six, seven, eight.....
>
>"RAK said three years" OR "R' Berman lied" -- those two alternatives 
>scarcely exhaust the range of possibilities!
>
>
>--Toby Katz
>=============
>
If one takes this approach, then one cannot accept anything. "The 
printer changed the text of the sefer, etc." I know what Reb Zundel 
said to me. I even asked him to repeat it.

For the record someone who is closely associated with Yeshiva Rabbi 
Chaim Berlin told me that Rav Hutner said, "Five years in kollel is 
enough for anyone."

At least I have upped the time! >:-}

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081107/7dd1e64a/attachment-0001.htm>

At 03:11 AM 11/7/2008, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>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

I believe that you have misinterpreted what I wrote above. (I may not 
have been as clear as could have been also.)

My quip "There are Holocaust deniers and there are Orthodox deniers." 
was referring to those who would suppress and/or deny what are 
historical facts. Let me give you an example.

Reb Zundel Berman of Berman books fame was one of the first young men 
to learn in Lakewood. He told me the following. "Reb Aaron Kotler 
said, 'Three years in kollel is enough for anyone.'" I asked him, 
"Did you yourself actually here this?" He replied, "Yes." (Now I do 
not want to get into a discussion about whether Reb Aaron would say 
the same thing today. I am willing to grant that we live in different 
times, and he might very well take a different approach if he were 
alive today.)

I once related what Reb Aaron said about kollel to someone I was 
talking to. A fellow who was standing nearby, who was not part of the 
conversation and whom I did not know, almost shouted, "It's a lie! 
It's a lie! He never said such a thing!" I looked at him and said, 
"Are you telling me that Reb Zundel Berman lied to me?" He replied, "Yes!"

So here you have an example of what I call an Orthodox denier. Please see

"<http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=16669>My Mind Is 
Made Up. Do Not Confuse Me With The Facts!"   The Jewish Press, 
August 25, 2004 pages 7 & 77.

for more on this.

You may also want to read Facing the Truths of History by Rabbi Dr. 
J. J. Schachter at http://yuriets.yeshivalive.com/TU8_Schachter.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081107/98994570/attachment-0001.htm>

From R. Ari Kahn's Aish site

One of the classic commentaries, Rav Moshe Alshech poses the question thus:

    How could a man like Abraham come up with a plan which would save
his soul from being taken, God forbid, to leave Sarah, who was greater
than he in prophecy, to be defiled by heathens, she being a married
woman. This is one of the seven Noachide laws, and (Abraham was)
someone who observed (even) Eruv Techumin! (12:10-13)

The Alshech Hakadosh expresses shock and moral outrage at Abraham's
behavior (and, if I am not mistaken, his words contain a degree of
sarcasm and cynicism as well). How can a spiritual giant like Abraham,
a man who uniquely and alone discerned the Divine imperative, a man
who reportedly adhered to the entire Torah, including halachic
minutia, be guilty of such morally questionable behavior? To save his
own skin, he was willing to have his wife consort with the enemy.3
To save his own skin, was Abraham willing to have his wife consort
with the enemy?

Perhaps it seems inappropriate to question a man like Abraham.
Nonetheless Nachmanides -- better known as Ramban -- does just that,
although he uses more restrained language:

-- 
Eli Turkel

In the latest shiur of R. Zilberstein he repeated the halacha against
informing women of
the death of a close relative (assuming they dont live nearby) since
they don't say kaddish.
He even stated that if they live in the general area then one should
not post notices
of the death (common in Israel) so that they won't inadvertently find out.

I have great difficulty with this halacha (and have gotten a contrary
ruling from the
rabbi in charge of the Israel burial procedures)
Sitting shiva especially together with the family is of great
importance for most
people and they are greatly offended if denied that privelege. It caused great
anguish to my mother when it happened.
R. Zilberstein's reaction was that these were non-halachic reasons and
he wasn't interested
in psychological reasons of is importance.

I fail to see why the anguish of the relatives (especially women) is
not of importance.
In fact in the story in the gemara  R. Chiya in fact does tell Rav
that his parents passed
away but only indirectly.y

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 377
***************************************

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..."