Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 167

Fri, 14 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owner (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Tz'nius (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (David Riceman)
• 6. RSRH - History in Aggadah is Beyond Critical Examination (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owner (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 9. Not livid with anger (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 10. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Not livid with anger (Micha Berger)
• 13. Tzni'ut and Gender Issues (Joseph Kaplan)
• 14. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Michael Makovi)
• 15. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Rich, Joel)

The Sages said "a wayward and rebellious son never was and never will be,"
but R. Yehonatan said, "I saw one, and sat on his grave." As a rule,
Talmudic controversies center on questions of law and not of fact. R.
Yehonatan's first-hand testimony was certainly reliable; on what basis,
then, did the other Sages dispute him?
The answer is that they referred to the juridical aspects of the rebellious
son, while R. Yehonatan testified as to the reality of the phenomenon: "I
saw one, and sat on his grave!" He had seen a child who matched the Torah's
description, although G-d killed him and not a court.
This explains the identical disagreement, ibid., concerning the apostasized
city described in Devarim 13:13-19: the Sages said it "never was and never
will be," while R. Yehonatan said, "I saw it, and sat on its ruins." It is
impossible that the destruction of such a city by Jewish force of arms
could have escaped the notice of everyone except R. Yehonatan, just as it
is inconceivable that the Roman authorities would have allowed such an
action to take place. Rather, R. Yehonatan testified as to the phenomenon:
there indeed had been such a city, which was subsequently destroyed in
whatever manner.

(From New Interpretations on the Parsha--Ktav, 2001)
Rabbi Y.H.Henkin
________________________________
\Nice pshat but based on what?	the but in the original discussion seems to
say they were disagreeing (I agree that I have never understood the
disagreement on fact and the oddity of both involving the same R'
Yehonatan)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090813/5c31e9b6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:59:29PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: So Again I ask - is our goal to know the original dvar hashem or to
: follow the "process hashem" ?

On the off chance this question isn't rhetorical:

Lo bashamayim hi.

The whole reason why TSBP is be'al peh.

Hilkhos Mamrim pereq 2.

RYBS's notion of halakhah as a creative partnership between HQBH and
man.

Etc...

The original Devar Hashem was: Follow this process!

That was the whole point of my original post. That the process has
continuity, and therefore we don't care about a historical snapshot,
what this tanna or that amora was actually intending to say. Rather,
we want to understand the maamar *as it stands within the flow of
the mesorah*.

My idea wasn't just that this third path between historicism and
deconstructionism is necessary for mesorah. Rather, that this approach
to the sources is the very definition of mesorah!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

At 04:23 PM 8/13/2009, Michael Makovi wrote:

>Isn't everyone's own kitchen table under their own supervision?

Doesn't this depend on who in the home does the shopping and that 
standards that he or she uses when shopping.  If the wife does the 
shopping and the cooking, how many men can tell you what products 
actually come into the home?

><snip>
>
>Incidentally, my rabbi told me that he once went to a restaurant, and
>the heksher was a signed letter from one of the "gedolim" (I forget
>who), saying that the proprietor was a personal friend of this given
>gadol. This gadol said that he had never inspected the restaurant
>personally, but he said he personally knew the proprietor to G-d
>fearing, plain as that. As far as I can tell, my rabbi seems have
>believed this letter was authentic, and he said this letter was better
>than any hekhsher the Rabbinut can proffer.

This story I do not understand. Just because someone is G-d fearing 
does not men that he or she has extensive kashrus knowledge.  Not all 
G-d fearing people have the same kashrus standards. How does one know 
what these are without investigating?


>I'm reminded of another story, of Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin eating at
>a wedding. Some pipsqueak little yeshiva bahur (my own rabbi's
>wording) came up to Rabbi Henkin and asked what the hekhsher was.
>Rabbi Henkin took a bite of food and after swallowing, said he didn't
>know. My rabbi, sitting next to Rabbi Henkin, asked him why he wasn't
>concerned, and Rabbi Henkin, livid with anger, threw his fork down and
>said that the hatan and kallah were frum Jews and were surely serving
>kosher, end of discussion.

I have the same comment here.

This story I do not understand. Just because someone is G-d fearing 
does not men that he or she has extensive kashrus knowledge.  Not all 
G-d fearing people have the same kashrus standards. How does one know 
what these are without investigating?


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090813/2aaaa210/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW
> Ein hachi nami
> BUT
> I will echo Micha. There are indeed NO legal bounds being crossed here
>
> Thus:
>> I haven't seen, nor have I heard of our poskim and other leaders,
>
> Is in this context a red herring
>
> Rather - this is an issue of machshava, Mussar and Dei'os (Rambam's term)

If our poskim and leders have not followed it, it means that they
don't consider it an issue of machshava, Mussar and Deios either.....
That it the problem - I am assuming that our real rabbinic leaders are
bound in their behavior just by legal bounds, but also by machshava,
Mussar and Deios...

> And what do sifrei mussar say? ?Some seriously object!!
atually they deal with a different issue....
> EG
> R Chaim Vital Shaarei Qedusha Part 1 shaar 5 (p. 24 in my edition)
>
> "V'sivrach b'chol kochacha min haserarah (BTW it's a sin not a shin)
> haqoveres es b'aleha!"
> Tr;
> "Escape with all your might from office-holding (or perhaps from
> officiating)- that buries its masters or owners."

For RRW to cite Chaim Vital is a real chiddush.  However, let us
define the issue better, because your examples are not relevant..

The issue we are discussing is not serara (and the notion that power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has Jewish echoes),
nor the pitfalls of pride, nor not wanting kavod.
There is no dispute about that (albeit the issue of serara is tempered
by the realization of the necessity of it)

RHS and RMB are making a far more sweeping claim - that fulfilling any
public function is inherently lack of tzeniut, and is therefore
automatically problematic to be avoided unless unavoidable or there is
a good reason why you have to do it.
> How about "us'na es harrabanus".
authority and serara are different than public functions.....
>
> Again a RY who Honors a Chassan by reading his Kesubbah is not violating
> this, because his office bestows honor on the Chassan-kallah

RHS makes his point about tzeniut in his talk about women reading
ketuba at a wedding.  If a kalla asks her teacher to read the ketuba
at her wedding, and the hatan agrees that he would be honored, why is
that different??

Again, while there is large musar literature on kavod, and avoiding
honorifics, etc - there is no litrature that having a public role
violates ones tzeniut - and should only be done if necessary.

Meir Shinnar

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:59:29PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : So Again I ask - is our goal to know the original dvar hashem or to
> : follow the "process hashem" ?
>
> On the off chance this question isn't rhetorical:
>
> Lo bashamayim hi.
>
> The whole reason why TSBP is be'al peh.
>
> Hilkhos Mamrim pereq 2.
>
> RYBS's notion of halakhah as a creative partnership between HQBH and
> man.
>
> Etc...
>   
In particular see Drashot HaRan #7 ed. Feldman pp. 112-114 concerning 
Rabba bar Nahmoni's final psak.

David Riceman

At the moment, I'm reading Schorsch, Ismar. "Zacharias Frankel and the
European Origins of Conservative Judaism." Judaism 30 (Summer 1981):
344-354.

On page 353, we read, "For Hirsch, statements of historical fact
preserved in Rabbinic literature were pronouncements of dogmatic truth
beyond critical examination." The footnote reads "Jeschurun, VII
(1860-1861): 441-442."

This statement regarding Hirsch sounds suspicious. Rav Hirsch was
asked by Geiger whether he'd accept the Talmudic etymology for
prozbul, when in reality, the word is obviously Greek, not Aramaic.
Rav Hirsch replied that the historical etymology is not so important
as the meaning the Rabbis assigned it (presumably since the meaning
they assigned it is related to the halakhic view of those same
Rabbis). It is not that Rav Hirsch considered the historical facts to
be "beyond critical examination", but rather, he simply questioned the
relevance of thos historical facts. Prozbul may be a Greek word, but
so what? I'd compare this to Rav Hirsch's question: all those scholars
who study the piyyutim, how many of them actually recite the piyyutim?

Moreover, Rav Hirsch's teshvua on aggadah clearly accepts the
Gaonic/Rishonic view that midrash is umdena. If so, then Rav Hirsch
would presumably accept that all historical facts in the aggada are
the Rabbis' own subjective and human understanding of those historical
facts, and not objectively pure historical accounts given at Sinai.
Furthermore, Rav Hirsch accepts that some of the historical tales in
the aggadah may be inventions designed to teach morals and theology
and not history. (Cf. Rabbi Azaryah de Rossi's proposal that the story
of the mosquito in Titus's brain is a conscious and deliberate
invention designed to teach about G-d's Providence and reward and
punishment. Rabbi Chaim Eisen, "Maharal's Be'er ha-Golah and His
Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship", Hakira 4,
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Eisen.pdf - after examing the
Gaonic/Rishonic understanding of aggadah, Rabbi Eisen shows that de
Rossi's proposal would meet with Rav Hirsch's approval, as both Rabbi
Hirsch and de Rossi follow that same Gaonic/Rishonic approach,
notwithstanding that the Maharal, departing from the Gaonic/Rishonic
understanding of aggadah, viewed de Rossi's suggestion as heresy.)

For these two reasons, that quoted statement about Rav Hirsch from
Schorsch's article on Frankel seems quite erroneous. Unfortunately, I
cannot check that reference to Jeschurun. Can anyone add anything to
this? Thank you.

Incidentally: From this article about Frankel, I can definitely see
that Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner's and Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits's
view has much in common with Frankel and Conservative. However, I
still side with Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits against Rav Hirsch. I
also - perhaps like Rabbis Hildesheimer and Hoffman contra Rav Hirsch
- see nothing wrong with critical historical scholarship. However,
this article of Schorsch's details Frankel's understanding of the role
of the Volksgeist in halakhah, similar to Schechter's Catholic Israel.
As far as I can recall, Rav Hirsch never levels any criticism against
this notion, but as far as I'm concerned, it is this precisely
reliance on the Volksgeist that is ultimately pernicious if not
heretical, not to mention intellectually tepid and pathetic. (Frankel
seems to have had a reverence for history, such that history alone,
and its role in the creation of the Volksgeist, was enough to command
reverence and adherence to halakhah, in his opinion. Frankly, I find
this notion extremely wanting. Conservative Rabbi Dr. Daniel Gordis
notes that most American Jews would agree with me; see his "Positive
Historical Judaism Exhausted: Reflections on a Movement?s Future",
http:/
/danielgordis.org/sitefiles/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Positive-Historical-
Judaism-Exhausted-Reflections-on-a-Movements-Future.pdf
. Rav Hirsch criticizes Frankel for making the Rabbis the creators of
halakhah, but I see no problem with this. On the other hand, even
though Rav Hirsch never discussed the following, I think that Frankel
and Schechter put halakhah into the hands of the laity, and made it
legitimate only insofar as the people preferred being halakhic. This,
and precisely this, is I think what makes Conservatism heretical, and
not what Rav Hirsch criticized. My analysis largely agrees with Dr.
Daniel Gordis's analysis (op. cit.) - already in the first opening
pages, Dr. Gordis calls for the unequivocal rejection and abandonment
of the concept of Catholic Israel. I wrote a letter to Dr. Gordis,
reproduced at http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/08/positive-hist
orical-judaism-exhausted-r.html,
and Dr. Gordis's response to me indicated that he mostly agrees with
what I said there.

Speaking of that letter of mine to Dr. Gordis, and speaking of my
siding with Frankel against Rav Hirsch, let me quote from that letter
of mine to Dr. Gordis, explaining how I can be a Hirschian and yet
side with Frankel. In short, I (and perhaps Frankel) am siding with
Rambam, while Rav Hirsch is siding with Rashba. To quote myself:
"I'm quite aware that Rabbi Hirsch's conception of halakhah is quite
different from Rabbi Berkovits's! I cannot be both a Hirschian and a
Berkovits-ian without accounting for what Rabbi Hirsch said about
Frankel. For a long time, in my ignorance, I had no choice but to
throw up my hands and say that with all due respect to Rav Hirsch, I
had to disagree with him regarding the nature of the Oral Law. Dr.
Elliot Bondi told me that in truth, my disagreement with Rav Hirsch
was very small, and that notwithstanding my support for Rabbi
Berkovits, I still mostly agreed with Rav Hirsch as well, but I failed
to understand how Dr. Bondi could be correct. But later I came to
understand: my personal answer now is based on footnote 42 in
Rationality and Halacha: The Halacha L?Moshe MiSinai of Treifos
(http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Buchman.pdf), by Rabbi Asher Benzion
Buchman. There, Rabbi Buchman says that the difference between Rambam
and Rashba in tereifot is not such much a different conception of how
halakhah works, and it's not even primarily due to their radical and
far-reaching disagreement regarding naturalism and supernaturalism
(for that, see David Guttmann's Avodah Zarah as Falsehood - Denial of
Reality and Rejection of Science
(http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Guttmann.pdf) and Rabbi Buchman's
U-Madua Lo Yeresem (http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf));
rather, there's is a difference in how much (quantitatively) of
halakhah was revealed at Sinai. For Rambam, Sinai revealed a few
general principles that were left for humans to expand upon; for
Rashba, revelation revealed far many more details, leaving less for
humans. I'd say that my disagreement with Rav Hirsch is the same; both
of us agree with Frankel that new hiddushim can be made and new facets
of halakhah revealed over time, etc., but the question is one of
quantity, of how much of halakhah, how much (quantitatively) of the
Talmud and Shulhan Arukh can be explained by tanur akhnai and Moshe
seeing Rabbi Akiva's lecture. According to this, Hirsch, Frankel, and
I are all mostly on the same page, and have merely a quantitative
disagreement. If so, wherefore Rabbi Hirsch's vehement denunciation of
Frankel as a heretic? I once said, in a private conversation with
Rabbi Alan Yuter, that I thought it was simply an issue of polemic
knee-jerk reaction; Rabbi Hirsch, quite simply, with all due respect
to him, was on edge and was hypersensitive, due to the time in which
he lived. (I'm being overly simplistic and bombastic, but I trust I
don't need to elaborate for you what I mean, as I'm sure you know more
about what I just said than I myself do.) I later saw the exact same
explanation by Professor Marc Shapiro in ?Review Essay: Sociology and
Halakha?, Tradition 27:1, Fall 1992. I'm not an adequate enough
scholar to determine if my explanation here is completely historically
correct, but it personally satisfies me, at least as a theoretical
paradigm, even if ahistorical. It is certainly close enough to the
historical truth, and conforms closely enough to the respective
positions of the various authorities in question, for it to be valid
in the world of theology, even if it wouldn't pass muster in the world
of objective academic historical scholarship. For my own personal
purposes, I have reconciled Rabbi Hirsch with the historical school
sufficiently for me to be a Hirschian Berkovits-ian. Perhaps a bit of
post-modern critical literary method is called for - Post-Modern
Interpretation of Texts
(http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-modern-int
erpretation-of-texts.html)."

Michael Makovi

>> Isn't everyone's own kitchen table under their own supervision?
>> Michael Makovi

> Doesn't this depend on who in the home does the shopping and that standards
> that he or she uses when shopping.? If the wife does the shopping and the
> cooking, how many men can tell you what products actually come into the
> home?
>
> R' Yitzchok Levine

I guess one has to trust his wife!

As for the two following stories:
--- Presumably, this gadol also knew that his friend knew hilkhot
kashrut. I should have said G-d fearing AND learned, instead of only
saying G-d fearing. The point is, this gadol trusted his friend to be
punctilious and faithful and accurate in keeping the laws of kashrut,
and saw no need to actually investigate the premises himself. I'll
have to ask my rabbi which gadol this was.
--- As for the wedding and Rabbi Henkin, I assume the hatan and kallah
got a caterer with a reputable hekhsher. I think the point is that
just as you will eat in a frum Jew's home without looking for a
hekhsher, so too you can eat at a frum Jew's wedding without looking
for the hekhsher.

Michael Makovi

WRT the point that has been made on this list, that avoiding kavod is not a
norm that is actually practiced, because we can see that even many great
rabbis do accept titles, leadership positions, honours, etc.

Positions like Rosh Yeshiva, Rav of a community, etc. do need to be filled
in order for communities and yeshivot to function. So some rabbanim decide
that it is appropriate in their situation to accept these positions,
sacrificing their tznius to fill a public need. These rabbanim are by
definition the ones we have heard of, whose names we all know - because they
have accepted public roles.

But there are other, equally great, rabbanim who have indeed chosen to avoid
taking public roles, who sit quietly and learn and teach and are tremendous
talmidei chachamim but most of us have never heard of them. These are the
rabbanim who DO practice the norm of avoiding publicity for the sake of
tznius. Of course, they do not go around announcing how tzanua they are, and
that despite being gedolim they have managed to remain completely
inconspicuous! Therefore, only those who are personally close to them
realize what they are doing.

Saying "no one really avoids public roles in order to maximize their tznius"
is like saying "all wavelengths of light are within the visible spectrum."
It is true that all the important rabbis of whom I have heard do accept
public roles - that's why I have heard of them! And it is true that all the
wavelengths of light I have personally observed are within the visible
spectrum - that's why I managed to observe them.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090814/cfc74ebf/attachment-0001.htm>

Pursuant to reading a submission of my own, I noticed an anecdote about me
in someone else's submission to  Avodah, in the same issue. This had me,
kivayachol, full of anger and throwing my fork down over something I
disagreed with. 
It didn't happen, but I recognize the phenomenon: a surfeit of yirat
hakavod which enables talmidim to tell over second-hand stories of this
sort without ever noticing that the embellishments constitute lashon hara
and dibah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090814/01ff784d/attachment-0001.htm>

 

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:59:29PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : So Again I ask - is our goal to know the original dvar hashem or to
> : follow the "process hashem" ?
>
> On the off chance this question isn't rhetorical:
>
> Lo bashamayim hi.
>
> The whole reason why TSBP is be'al peh.
>
> Hilkhos Mamrim pereq 2.
>
> RYBS's notion of halakhah as a creative partnership between HQBH and 
> man.
>
> Etc...
>   
======================================================
I understand all that - so are we saying that if we find a way to exceed
the speed of light and gather old light rays to see/hear exactly what
happened in the past, we would ignore it?
KT
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.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:27:26AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I understand all that - so are we saying that if we find a way to
: exceed the speed of light and gather old light rays to see/hear exactly
: what happened in the past, we would ignore it?

I believe we would. We ignore HQBH directly telling us the truth, why
would this be any different?

We also frequently revisit the question of archeology and whether it could
change the text we should use in a seifer Torah. If we found something
provably from Ezra's seifer Torah that differed on malei vechaseir,
would we follow that text -- or do we continue defining "kosher" via rov?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

This topic line allows me to open for discussion here something I asked
the va'ad. (I'm sending this email to both Avodah and AishDas's e-vaad,
apologies to those who will be getting two copies. Please try to make
sure both avo...@aishdas.org and eva...@aishdas.org are both in your
"To:" list in any replies.)

I blew my cool on the subway one morning this week, and frankly until the
I got some emails back on the va'ad's email list, I was proud about it.

I got on the train, took a hold of the pole, and rapidly noticed that
the woman next to me was very pregnant, on wobbly legs, and yet still
picking up one leg, rotating her ankle, switching to the other leg to
rotate that one.

So, I turned to the gen Y-ers in the seat nearby, and yelled at them
for not getting up and yeilding the seat.

Now I realize that I was supposed to only express anger, not actually
feel it. However, thinking about the situation, that seems wrong. There
should be some kind of strong negative feeling in that circumstance. One
can't be apathetic kalter-Litvakim when faced with injustice.

So, if anger is not the appropriate emotion when dealing with injustice,
particularly injustice meted out to others, what is? What is it I'm
supposed to be feeling when expressing anger at those young 20-somethings
who couldn't give up a seat for a woman in her third trimester?

After posing the question to the va'ad, it was pointed out that my
reaction was wrong -- as is typical for ka'as -- for two reasons:

1- I assumed they were mechutzafim, rather than considering the
possibility that they simply didn't notice.

2- Because I flew off the handle, my response did nothing to help the
next pregnant woman, sr citizen or handicapped person they leave standing
in the train. Instead of making them reconsider, I gave them a guy they
could easily dismiss as a flake.

However, I think the underlying question stands.

To me it seems there is something fundamentally wrong with facing
injustice, particularly injustice where someone else is the victim,
with equanimity. It's a kind of apathy toward the suffering of others.
And yet sifrei Mussar eg Alei Shur's ve'adim on ka'as speak of eliminating
all ka'as and only allowing expressions of ka'as.

My confusion seems to flows from two differences in ideals:

1- Is the yeitzer hatov defined as responding with thought, or as
responding with the right middos?

Related:

The Gra in Even Sheleimah refers to sheviras hamiddos and fighting
middos, without ever specifying middos ra'os in particular. Also, in
Igeres haMussar (a/a/a Ohr Yisrael ch. 10), RYS opens "Haadam chafshi
bedimyono, ve'asur bemuskalo." -- switching to translation for the rest
for legibility -- "His unbridled imagination draws him misrchievously in
the way of his heart's desire without yir'ah for the uncertain future --
the time when Hashem will examine all his affairs."

Both appear to be identifying the yeitzer hatov with seikhel.

And yet, RYS also writes of tiqun hamiddah, changing the middah
(typically through hergeil) into something positive. The Orchos Tzadiqim
makes a point of showing where each middah has a positive use, some are
constructive more often than others, bet every middah is assigned some
context in which it's positive.

More starkly contrasting is REED's model of nequdas habechirah, in which
he lauds moving the nequdah over to the point where good deeds need not
require conscious thought. Better to not need seikhel to come to the
right choice, be such that it happens preconsciously!

2- Is the ideal, particularly WRT ka'as? Is it the Rambam's middah
beinonis or the Orkhos Tzadiqim's case-by-case some middos are tavlin,
good in small amounts, others are more like the basar? Or is it total
eradication?

The Rambam himself appears to take both sides. I explore this in
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/10/anger-and-the-golden-mean.shtml>.
The Rambam, Hil Dei'os 1:4 introduces the concept of middah beinonis for
each dei'ah, and gives ka'as as one of his examples. And yet in 2:3,
the Rambam writes "veyeish dei'os she'asur lo le'adam linhog bahen
beinonis... vekhein ka'as"!

Here are snippets of the answers I gave on Aspaqlaria:
> The Lechem Mishnah understands the Rambam to be recommending the
> Middle Path in all cases. However, since anger and egotism are so
> dangerous, one end of the spectrum is far more hazardous than the
> other. Therefore, the Chassid chooses to err on the side of caution,
> and lean toward avoiding them rather than stay in the ideal, the
> middle. The Lechem Mishnah makes a linguistic note. By most dei?os,
> the Rambam refers to pursuing the beinonis. But here the middle is
> described as emtza?is ? it is not the middle distance between both
> extremes, but the mean taking into account the severity of either
> side. This distinction is the point of chapter 2.
...
> Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:54) ... understands
> the Rambam 1:4 as speaking of getting angry over important matters, so
> that his display and attitude prevent their repetition. However, when
> one can?t readily see the error, the anger just seems inane and
> doesn?t help anyone. In this case, one should follow the advice in
> chapter 2, and avoid anger.

> Unfortunately, I was unable to satisfy my own frustration at
> understanding the Rambam since I couldn't fit either suggestion into
> his words. ...
> A possible resolution that seemed more straightforward to me is
> suggested by the Rambam's words (also from 1:4). Obviously, advice
> about how to be a good Jew carries more weight when informed by the
> Lechem Mishnah's knowledge or Rav Moshe's, but....

> Maimonides is defining two possible paths: the Chakham (Wise), and the
> Chassid (Pious). Both laudable ideals. In the majority of chapter 1, he
> addresses the path he himself took, that of the Chakham -- finding the
> middle. In chapter 2, when he discusses modesty he clearly describes the
> Chassid approach. It would seem the same would be true of his discussion
> of anger in chapter 2.
...
> Another possibility is that chapter 2 isn't focusing on an ideal, but
> rather on how to cure a defect in one's middos. From the previous law
> in that chapter:
>     2) How do they cure?...
> Contrast that to the advice in 1:6, that the person "is obligated to
> accustom oneself to them"...

And then I suggested a possible combination, that the chassid is bending
over backward because he's the one working to fix the middah, training
it like a vine on a trellis (to borrow a mashal from the Rambam).

One can reframe my 2nd question as follows:
The chassid's approach to ka'as appears to violate what seems to me to
be very reasonable about the chakham's approach -- that every middah
has value and its proper place. As the O"Tz writes, and as the Rambam
himself says at the end of pereq 1, that "vehalakhta bidrakhav" means
the midah habeinonis.

To me it would seem that rachamim on others implies a role for ka'as.
If not of the sort that takes over and prevents the seikhel from
stopping stupid ideas.

Thoughts?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In thinking about this some more, it seems to me that there are three  
concepts that overlap and may sometimes be confused in connection  
with people playing a public role in the Jewish community: tzni'ut  
(modesty), kavod (honor) and respect.

As I see it, tzni'ut tells us HOW to play a public role, not whether  
we SHOULD play it.  Thus, one should be a public figure modestly;  
without arrogance, self-importance, ga'avah, conceit etc. etc.  That  
is what modesty means in this context and, of course, would apply  
equally to both men and women.

Kavod/honor tells us WHY, or, rather, WHY NOT, one should seek a  
public role.  If the reason is to seek kavod/honor, then sources that  
have been presented in earlier posts teach us that one should not  
chase after honor.  So if that's the reason for one wishing to play a  
public role, it's not a good one. Of course, when the purpose is to  
honor others (as, for example, posters have argued is the case of a  
misader kiddushin), then such "honor" is acceptable.  Again, this  
should apply equally to men and women.

And respect.  It seems to me that most of the women who seek the  
title "rabbi" are not doing it for honor but are doing it for  
respect, a respect that is necessary to do their jobs properly.   
Without the title -- and this might be unfortunate but I think it's  
true -- they're not listened to.  "Who's he/she to tell us that?"   
Without the title, it's tough to answer that question. I've heard  
faculty and administration in the schools my kids went to speak about  
"the rabbis" in a way that they do not speak about others in the  
school.  And because of that attitude and the respect "the rabbis"  
receive, they can do their jobs properly and are listened to.  In  
addition, they get paid better than others who may have equal  
knowledge but no title.  This too i an issue of respect (and fairness.)

I see this in real life in another setting.  My wife has a PhD in  
psychology. However, she uses "Dr." only in professional settings,  
EXCEPT when she's dealing with medical doctors, customer service  
people or bureaucrats.  When she was managing her elderly parents'  
health care, if she was simply Sharon Kaplan she was often shunted  
aside quickly.  When she introduced herself as Dr. Sharon Kaplan, the  
attitude changed, and her questions and comments were treated much  
more seriously.  Similarly, she has found that when making a  
complaint about goods or services or when dealing with a government  
(or any other) bureaucrat, saying she is "Dr." Kaplan gets her much  
better service; the service that all of us deserve but frequently do  
not get.

I have spoke n to women and men who do bikkur cholim in hospitals.  
Men who say they are "Rabbi" so-and-so are treated better by hospital  
staff than women (and men) who do not have the title.  Thus, women  
who want to be hospital chaplains know that having the title "rabbi"  
will get them the respect they deserve, thus helping them do their  
job better and enabling them to give better service to the recipients  
of those services.

There are, of course, other public policy issues concerning whether  
women should be rabbis or play a more public role in certain ritual  
settings.  But it seems to me that tzni'ut is not one of those public  
policy issues.

Joseph Kaplan

Regarding Rabbi Yehonatan's testimony of having seen the grave of a
ben sorer u'moreh and the ruins of an apostasized city:

My understanding, based on someone's (I forget whose) explanation, is
that Rabbi Yehonatan was speaking hyperbolically. Rabbi Yehonatan did
not spend his days searching for graves and city ruins. Rather, Rabbi
Yehonatan objected strenuously to this attempt to exegetically use
midrash halakhah to wipe these mitzvot out of existence, and his
principled philosophical objection to this sort of exegesis was an
exasperated outcry, as if to say, "These laws are so surely still
feasible, that I **may as well have** sat on the grave and the ruins."

If Rabbi Berkovits holds that midrash halakhah can be used to
creatively by Hazal to effectively write a law out of existence, Rabbi
Yehonatan, according to this interpretation, strenuously disagreed
with such exegetical methods.

Michael Makovi

 


On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:27:26AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I understand all that - so are we saying that if we find a way to
: exceed the speed of light and gather old light rays to see/hear exactly
: what happened in the past, we would ignore it?

I believe we would. We ignore HQBH directly telling us the truth, why would this be any different?

We also frequently revisit the question of archeology and whether it could
change the text we should use in a seifer Torah. If we found something
provably from Ezra's seifer Torah that differed on malei vechaseir, would
we follow that text -- or do we continue defining "kosher" via rov?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- -----------------
That (Ezra) is exactly my question (and I am mchalek between HKB"H rerevealing and our own efforts to find the truth using our intellect)
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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 167
***************************************

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..."