Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 031

Saturday, October 24 1998

• Re: what is Torah
• Administrivia
• angels and talmud Torah -- what about madda?
• Re[2]: who is a rabbi
• TV's in Yeshiva
• Re: angels and talmud Torah -- what about madda?
• Re: Administrivia
• "Should it not be determined by the practice of the city?"
• RE: TV's in Yeshiva
• Administrivia redux
• Re: TV's in Yeshiva
• apology
• Authorship of the Mishnah
• Kehil
• Re: Kehil
• What is a Rabbi? (part 2)
• What is a Rabbi? (part 1)
• Re: who is a rabbi
• Cheftza of T"T

R. Eli Clark wrote:

> My sense is that the Rambam in fact held that all of this was talmud
> Torah, as he included physics (as he defined and understood it) in his
> Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah.  But I always assumed he was a bit of a da`at
> yahid on the subject. 
> 

To which, R. YGB replied:

> The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the material in
> Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which indicates that
> its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is Halachic, but rather it
> will serve to help one fulfill the preceding halacha of Ahavas Hashem.

Eli was NOT saying that it is halachic, only that it might be considered
Torah.  This it might be, and therefore there would be a kiyyum of Talmud
Torah to studying it.  I don't think that there would be a need for birchas
haTorah beforehand, though, as that might only apply to certain types of
Torah.

Eliyahu

Please take complaints about posters to me or the poster personally.

Replying within the mailling list just invites a reply-in-kind, v'ein ladavar
sof.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5957 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I am still wondering why the argument regarding the study of angels as
an expression of the Hokhmah of Hashem does not apply to science.

R. YGB writes:

>Let me recommend an excellent work called "Inner Space" by R' Aryeh
>Kaplan. On a more basic level one might try my uncle R' Immanuel
>Schochet's "Mystical Concepts in Chassidus."

No thank you.  I am still filling my belly with bread and meat.

>The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the material in
>Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which indicates that
>its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is Halachic, but rather it
>will serve to help one fulfill the preceding halacha of Ahavas Hashem.

Uh, I didn't say that the science Rambam writes in Yesodei ha-Torah was
halakhic, but that it was, in Rambam's view, Torah.   And I stand by
that.  Yes, he writes that the knowledge of creation (both physics and
metaphysics) leads to ahavat Hashem, but it does not follow that such
material is not Torah.  In fact, I have 4 textual proofs that Rambam
considered the science in Yesodei ha-Torah to be Torah.  First, the work
in which it is included is called "Mishneh Torah."  Second, the section
in which it is included is called Yesodei ha-Torah.  Third, toward the
end of the 4th perek of Yesodei ha-Torah, he describes the contents of
Perek 3 and 4 (the science of his day) as Ma'aseh Bereishit, as opposed
to the material in Perek 1 and 2 which he calls "Ma'aseh Merkavah."
Fourth, a few halakhot later he refers to the contents of all 4 perakim
as "Pardes."

I find it difficult to believe that Rambam considered "Ma'aseh
Bereishit" and "Pardes" to be something other than Torah.   But you are
obviously free to disagree.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli

Indeed.  Gadol haMe'aseh min ho'seh


<<
C.  As far as influence and the greater plan, Avraham was greater.
     
     The insular yeshivish institutions while they might, and I stress 
     might, 

I have, c"v, nothing against the institution that granted Semicha (Yoreh
Yoreh :-) ) to my esteemed brother in law, R' Chaim Brown. But, in a
recent issue of "The Commentator" supplied to me by our Chaver
(honorific!) Steve Katz, there was a long essay about the "South Park"
minyan - an under five minute Ma'ariv Minyan to enable its participants to
be in time for the beginning of a TV Show that, by the essay's
description, has X-rated humor, that is watched b'rabbim in student
lounges.

With all due respect to Rabbi Teitz, there is something wrong with this
picture...

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> >Let me recommend an excellent work called "Inner Space" by R' Aryeh
> >Kaplan. On a more basic level one might try my uncle R' Immanuel
> >Schochet's "Mystical Concepts in Chassidus."
> 
> No thank you.  I am still filling my belly with bread and meat.
>

That is your perogative, although I find it a pity. Those of us who do
study these matters are firmly convinced that they are essential
components of Talmud Torah.
 
> Uh, I didn't say that the science Rambam writes in Yesodei ha-Torah was
> halakhic, but that it was, in Rambam's view, Torah.  And I stand by

You are entitled to your opinion. but the Chasam Sofer felt that the
Rambam included material that is not "Torah" in the Mishne Torah. He
regarded Hil Kiddush HaChodesh as an example thereof. See the Teshuvos CM
end of no. 197 and Chiddushim, BB 21a. I would say Hil. Dei'os Perek 4
falls into the same category.

In fact, I would say that all these types of material in the Ramabam *are*
Halachic. But not strictly "Torah".

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

     Just some etiquette
     
     Can you get this Wolpoe guy to cut down his emails <grin>
     
     Good shabbos
     
     You know who 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Administrivia 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/23/98 10:17 AM


Please take complaints about posters to me or the poster personally.
     
Replying within the mailling list just invites a reply-in-kind, v'ein ladavar 
sof.
     
-mi
     
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5957 days! 
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. 
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
     

     Question: How did it evolve that the following places had parallel 
     Ashkeanza and Sephardi "kehillot"
     Amsterdam
     Hamburg
     Eretz Yisroel
     
     Or in other how can late-comers bring in their own minhoggin where an 
     extablished community - with its own minhoggim - pre-exist?
     
     Rich W.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is something wrong with the picture.
However, I believe R. Teitz was defending the institution which was
slighted, not every student in attendance.

If we indict RIETS because certain students (all right, a tzibbur) watch a
pornographic cartoon on a regular basis, then we must indict all yeshivas
which have talmidim who engage in pornographic activity - including, but not
limited to, magazine subscriptions, rented videos, movies, and internet
sites.

Leave us not be so naive as to think that the more "yeshivish" institutions
are automatically free of such.

Or, is the problem that the institution shows no "busha" by publishing the
article?

Gut Shabbos,
Avi Pechman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
> [mailto:sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 10:39 AM
> To: Highlevel Torah Discussion Group
> Subject: TV's in Yeshiva
> 
> 
> I have, c"v, nothing against the institution that granted 
> Semicha (Yoreh
> Yoreh :-) ) to my esteemed brother in law, R' Chaim Brown. But, in a
> recent issue of "The Commentator" supplied to me by our Chaver
> (honorific!) Steve Katz, there was a long essay about the "South Park"
> minyan - an under five minute Ma'ariv Minyan to enable its 
> participants to
> be in time for the beginning of a TV Show that, by the essay's
> description, has X-rated humor, that is watched b'rabbim in student
> lounges.
> 
> With all due respect to Rabbi Teitz, there is something wrong 
> with this
> picture...
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 

I develop software for a trading desk.

The NY Stock Exchange has certain limits. Then that limit is passed, trading
is shut down in the given instrument for a period of time until things return
to sanity.

I asked in my previous email, and twice over Chol HaMoed, that we don't go
down the path of mud-slinging. If people can't take the time to cool off
before writing, I'll lock the list up for a week and force the issue.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5957 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

     Dear R YGB & List,
        Let's concede that there IS something worong with the picture...
     
     Are Musmachuim from that institution thereby tainted via guilt by 
     association?
     
     I think there is a principle Ish b'Chet'o Yumos.  
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     (PS I understand that a certain Telze Rosh Yeshiva once attended said 
     Yeshiva...)  

During a thread regarding who's a rabbi, certain postings seemed to have
insulted an institution I once attended.

My response (in anger, always a mistake) insulted an entire category of
institutions.

Therefore, I retract the entire post, and I apologize to all I offended.

Avi Pechman

Micha Berger writes:
>Jon Baker writes in v2n24:
>:                       So it's an unresolved machloket Tannaim, which becomes
>: an unresolved machloket Amoraim, yet only Rebbe's opinion is recorded as
>: the anonymous (usually taken to be the majority?) opinion in the Mishnah.

>Stam mishnah k'rav Me'ir. I don't know the how independant a thinker Rebbe
>was. Perhaps it's taken as a given that he'd never disagree with his rebbe,
>Rav Me'ir. (And only gave an opinion where R' Me'ir was silent.)

I know stam mishnah k'rav Meir.  That's the point.  In this case we *do*
have an explicit braisa *in Rebbe's name*.  Why is it in Rebbe's name? 
Is it his own sevara?  Did he get it from Acher rather than from R'
Akiva?  That's why it seems significant for indicating Rebbe's role
in formulating the mishnah: he wasn't just collating material he had
heard, he was composing a work of psak.

>: Another counterpoint to R' Turkel's Rashi: if the Sanhedrin's power to
>: resolve machlokot ceased with the departure from the Lishkat haGazit, in
>: what sense is the Mishnah done as a "psak of the Sanhedrin"?

>The Sanhedrin operated as representatives of the people with respect to a
>number of mitzvos. There is similarity, therefore, between a decision of the
>Sanhedrin and the nation's acceptance of the mishnah.

Such as (mitzvos?)

From his reply, evidently R' Turkel doesn't agree that
the Sanhedrin gave up its power to resolve machloket when it left the 
Lishkah.  So by that rationale, the Sanhedrin could accept the Mishnah.

OTOH, what's wrong with saying that the *people* accepted the
Mishnah, in a "modern" way, that the rabbis of the time
accepted it as authoritative, the way they did for the Talmud and
for the Shulchan Aruch (outside of Ashkenaz)?  IOW, what need is
there to get the Sanhedrin qua constituted body into the act?

Actually R' Turkel cites the Rambam saying that the Mishnah was accepted
by all the Gedolim.  That sounds more like the ratification process of
the Shulchan Aruch and of the Talmud than an official Sanhedrianic 
imprimatur.  And if post-Lishkah Sanhedrin made decrees and the decrees
were accepted, is that necessarily any different than, say, the Takkanah
of Rabbenu Gershom being widely accepted?  People can accept anyone to
be a judge, people can accept books as being authoritative without the 
books having been approved lechatchilah by a sitting Sanhedrin.

>However, this answer goes too far. As Sanhedrin were still representatives
>of the people when in galus. R' Gamliel had those charts of the moon for
>questioning eidim. So, for rosh chodesh, the lishkah wasn't required, yet they
>represented the eidah.

So?  Everyone seems to agree that the Sanhedrin still had to do kidush
hachodesh.  It is an open question, apparently (I haven't heard one
definitive answer) what powers the Sanhedrin had beyond that.

Hmm.  There are a number of people who would like to reconstitute
the Sanhedrin on the Rambam's formula (L. Aaronson, for one).  What
powers would such a Sanhedrin have, aside from kidush hachodesh?
Could the community of observant Jews in Israel, simply by forming
it ex nihilo, be giving consent to be ruled by their decisions even
if legally they have no lechatchilah authority to rule on matters of
law in a conclusive way?

>assume you mean within the synagogue precincts.  If so, I believe 
>that the rav of a new shul has the authority as mara de-atra (with
"atra"
>used in a fairly limited sense) to establish the minhagim to be 
>followed in the shul with respect to tefillah and related hanhagot.
	I think that given a new **Kehil** ,  not a new shul,  these minhagim
should probably be decided by the Rov,  not by democratic vote.    I
emphasize that this is for a situation,  rare in this day and age,  of
all people in the area being part of one shul,  no options available, 
including walking a few more blocks.  

>new rav should have the authority to change these.
	Here I disagree.  Once the minhagim have been established,  as a minhag
with a mekor,  by the original Rov,  they may not be changed as they are
minhag hamakom.   Minhag hamakom has a strong power to it in halacha, 
when the minhag has been established al pi gedolim.  It should not
thereafter be changed when the Rov changes,  or the president,  or
whatever.  On the issue of New York,  I would venture to say that IMHO
the 
Ashkenazim were probably not justified in setting up their own kehila, 
and the remark someone made in jest about how it fostered the shtibl
phenomenon,  is unfortunately probably true.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In a message dated 98-10-23 15:59:46 EDT, you write:

<<   If so, I believe 
 >that the rav of a new shul has the authority as mara de-atra (with
 "atra"
 >used in a fairly limited sense) to establish the minhagim to be 
 >followed in the shul with respect to tefillah and related hanhagot.
 	I think that given a new **Kehil** ,  not a new shul,  these minhagim
 should probably be decided by the Rov,  not by democratic vote. >>

This point was mentioned by several posters. Does anyone have a source for the
Rav being the source for minhag? Interestingly many minhagim were in fact
initiated by a democratic vote-vnahagu is taken to mean that the people
established something nd the Rabbis accepted it(see taanit 26b). 

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:

<<< My apologies to those Rabbanim, Chaveirim, or whatnot who I don't
call by title. I can't use titles I don't know you hold. I know in
general, on the net, titles aren't used. Somehow, though, that "feels"
<grin> halachically wrong. >>>

I've made this comment many times, but I go even further. It "feels
wrong", because we are being denied the opportunity to do the mitzva of
showing kavod to those to whom we are chayav to show kavod to, by
addressing them by their title, "Rabbi". Yes, I've heard many stories of
gedolim who would answer the phone or whatever by saying "Hello? This is
Xxxxx", using only their last name. I can understand that as their
personal effort towards modesty. But that is a situation where the caller
knows who the rabbi is, and the caller can then adress him as such. It
seems very different on these mailing lists, where learned rabbis are
masquerading as laypeople. That's false modesty, in my view. [As a
compromise, may I suggest what I have seen some do: They sign their name
with no title, but the next line indicates "Rabbi of Xxxxx". (That won't
work for those who have no official position, but it's a something, at
least.)]

Yisrael Herczeg writes:

<<< The Chazon Ish discusses titles at length in Kovetz Igros, cheilek 2,
no. 87. According to him, whether one is considered a "rav" or not
depends on whether that title is used when he is called to the Torah,
irrespective of whether he has semichah. The Chazon Ish states explicitly
that if one is mekadesh a woman on condition that he is a rav, if he is
called to the Torah by that title the kiddushin is valid and otherwise it
is not. >>>

This answers the original question behind this thread, which concerned
"Titular Inflation". The Chazon Ish seems to say that a Rav is anyone who
introduces himnself to the gabbai as such. But this does not address my
question, which asks the meaning of semicha, when the Mishna Berurah is
written by someone who did not have it.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Can we define our terms, please? Exactly what is the difference between a
Rabbi and a layperson? Is there any real nafka amina between a person who
has semicha, and one who doesn't?

I used to think that without semicha, it is assur to pasken (either
totally or to some degree or another). But from the stories which have
appeared here in the past few days, it seems clear that there have been
many prominent and popular figures (I am avoiding the words "gadol" so as
not to get bogged down in defining it!) who have paskened on all sorts of
issues without having semicha. None of those stories ever mention anyone
who declined to voice an idea on the grounds that lack of semichah made
him unqualified.

Then I used to think that the nafka mina is what happens when the p'sak
is in error. I had thought that if I ask a shaila to a layperson, but he
is wrong, then I am responsible for any subsequent aveiros, because of my
negligence in relying on that person. But if I had asked a rabbi, then
the answer I get is genuine Torah for me, and I am obligated to follow
it, and if it happens to be in error then I need not worry about it. ---
However, I was mistaken in believing that, as became clear in a
discussion in the early issues of Rabbi Bechhofer's "Bais Tefila" email.
The conclusion reached there was that even if the Sanhedrin itself (which
was composed ENTIRELY of people who had REAL semichah) was in error,
korbanos were brought to atone for the people who sinned in following
their p'sak.

Now it seems to me that even if the people need kapara for following the
Sanhedrin's erroneous p'sak, they were nevertheless obligated to follow
it. Thus, I want to make a distinction between two different obligations:
The obligation to do the right thing, and the obligation to find out what
that right thing *is*.

So let me suggest this as the nafka amina between the rabbi and
layperson: Suppose I am uncertain what b'racha to recite over a certain
food. Ideally, I should learn the relevant halachos, and then I will know
the right answer myself. But if that is not an option, I may ask the
shaila. If I ask a rabbi, then I have met my obligation of finding the
right answer (although I run the risk of actually saying the wrong
beracha). If I ask a layperson, then I am guilty of failing to properly
find the answer (although I might get lucky and say the correct
berachah).

If I am correct in the above (highly UNlikely!), then what do we say of a
person who tried to do the right thing, by avoiding that food until he
had completely learned the relevant halachos in great depth, from a
widely accepted sefer, but it turned out that this sefer had been written
by someone who did not have semicha? Like, oh, let's say... the Mishnah
Berurah?

Thanks again,
Akiva Miller


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> Can anyone tell me who I should call Rabbi? Choice A: someone who has
> dedicated his life to Torah and yiras shamayim, learning parts of shas as well
> as the parts of halacha which is relevant to day to day life,and has a kesher
> with a rav who he can ask sheilos to, or choice B: someone who is in a three
> year s'micha program in a yeshiva somewhere in new york , where he has a TV in
> his apartment and partakes of the finest elements of American culture.
> >>
> 
I am sorry that Rabbi Teitz took this  as a slight to YU. It was meant to
express my point that The passing of a couple of tests doen't neccassarily
make someone a Rabbi over someone who learned for a while and didn't take
the formal tests. I included the comment about TV because I believe (and
I'm intitled to my opinion) that thoswe who limit there exposure to Tv are
better off then thiose who don't. Thus I was expressing my opinion against
indioviduals who partake in this practice NOT YU as a whole. It just
happens that YU has more respectable Rabbis than any other institutiopn
who have TV's--thus my reference to a Yeshiva in NEW YORK. I don't want to
open up a yu vs. the right debate because I recognize YU plays an
important role for many jews--even if I dion't see eye to eye with all its
philosophies. The point that could be debvarted is the evil of TV,but I'm
not here to even discuss YU as an institution as a whole. I apologies to
all offende and grant them mechila foe attacking me as well. Finnally, I
didn't mean to say that the rabbi thread was "bad" per say, my comments
were made in reference to the sygtatement that the angels thread wasn't
good---RABBI MECHY I wasn't judging ypour thread at all--just defending my
thread from the attacks of CB. I hope I didn't offend anyone, but
something must be donr about the South Park minyan :)
good shabbos
Elie Ginsparg
P.s. sorry for all the type o's but shabbos is starting in about twenty
minutes and I wanted to get this off my chest

1. Regarding YGB's assertion that if by way of studying grammer one comes
across pesukim or gemera that this too is a kiyum of T"Y, I' quote a teshuva
of R' Ephrayim Luntshitz, AB"D of Prag, which I saw in R' Aharon Kahn's
article (beit Yosef Shaul vol. 3 p 326), in which the AB"D of Prague
criticizes a melamed who used pesukim as a vehicle for teaching 'lashom
kodesh', writing, "...he could have taught lashon kodesh without a text as one
learns any foreign language.  I am suprised if the teaching of lashon alone
should be considered talmud Torah.  Is this Torah?!"  While R' Kahn puts his
own spin on the teshuva, may we not infer that the mere citation of pesukim
agav teaching other subjects is not T"T?

2.  Even were one to argue that there is a kiyum of T"T in reading various
works of mussar, hashkafa, etc. one cannot ignore the assumption of ALL
achronim that there is a heirarchy of importance in what should be studies to
fufill T"T.  The simplest proof to such a position is the well known gemara in
Megillah that 'Mevatlin T"T to hear mikra megilla".  While there even exists
extreme shittot who argue that mikra megilla is indeed NOT T"T (e.g. R' A.Z.
Margoliyos, see Avnei Nezer 517:10), we most temper the approach and argue
that relative to the obligation to learn gemara etc. mikra megilla is of
secondary importance.  For a similar apporach see NEfesh HaChaim on saying
Tehillim vs. learning (4:2) or the Chazon Ish in Emunah U'Bitachon on reading
sifrei mussar.  Even were one to grant that contemplating the bechira of
angels is T"T, can one honestly say one has mastered all of Bavli, Yerushalmi,
etc. and can spare the time to delve into such matters?  

3.  To quickly answer Eli: Chovos HaLevavos, Mesilas Yesharim etc. are
peirushim on the mitzvot of Ahava HAshem and other mitzvot bein adam
l'chaveiro (see hakdama to Chovos HaLevavos), and are T"T as such.  The goal
is to understand our CHIYUVIM from these mitzvot.  Contemplating angelic
bechira in no way relates to any CHIYUVIM on our part either in the sphere of
strict halacha or middos tovos.  As far as I know T"T is about understanding
chiyuvim within the framework of halacha, not about working out the mysteries
of the universe.    

-CB

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]