Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 050

Thursday, November 12 1998

• Re: Response to R' Eli Turkel's Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: Response to R' Eli Turkel's Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo
• Re: Response to R' Eli Turkel's Critique of the Lesson from Yeshaya
• Re: makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo
• On the Avot, reading Hazal and Rishonim
• Perfection of the Avot
• Historicity of the Zohar
• clarification
• Re: clarification
• Avos' Imperfection?
• Re: On the Avot, reading Hazal and Rishonim
• Re: Perfection of the Avot
• Re: Perfection of the Avos
• Role of aggadic sources in halachah
• Re: Right of Chidush by Moderns-last

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> So, how can I ever learn from the Avos? The Navi's advice, perforce, is
> predicated on the assumption that all of Avrohom's behavior is suitable
> for emulation.
> 

All?  Are you saying that everything the avos did was definitely the
right thing to do?  Are you arguing that the avos never showed
imperfection?  I don't know if I can accept that.  All I have been
saying is that if the imperfection is not clearly delineated by the
Torah -we have no right to introduce it.  I think the Avos definitely
had faults and are taken to task by the chumash, medrash and gemorah for
them.  Does anyone say that Yitzchak was right to want to give the
bracha of wealth and sustenance (and perhaps, even the bracha of
continuation of klal yisroel) to Eisav?  Can we say that Sarah was right
to persecute Hagar to the point where Hagar was forced to run away?  Was
Yosef right to parade his dreams in front of his brothers and parents? 
Was Yaakov right not to perform Kibud Av for all of the years he was by
Lavan(21?)?

Do we have to learn to do what the avos did, or can we learn FROM what
they did.  We can all agree that the Torah is not a history book - so
when it gives us details we have to be able to learn something from
them.  Sometimes we learn about the greatness of man and sometimes we
learn about his great failings (in order to be aware of the pitfalls of
olam hazeh).  I'm assuming that I misunderstood your statement above -
please reassure me or prepare to justify the above and many other
actions of the avos (Yehudah and Tamar, mechiras Yosef, etc.).  

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Joel Margolies wrote:

> All?  Are you saying that everything the avos did was definitely the
> right thing to do?  Are you arguing that the avos never showed
> imperfection?  I don't know if I can accept that.  All I have been
> saying is that if the imperfection is not clearly delineated by the
> Torah -we have no right to introduce it.  I think the Avos definitely
> had faults and are taken to task by the chumash, medrash and gemorah for

When did I say differently? If the Torah itself or Chazal critique the
Avos then that is legitimate, maybe even if the Rishonim do it.

> them.  Does anyone say that Yitzchak was right to want to give the
> bracha of wealth and sustenance (and perhaps, even the bracha of
> continuation of klal yisroel) to Eisav?  Can we say that Sarah was right
> to persecute Hagar to the point where Hagar was forced to run away?  Was

Cut. Only the Avos and Imahos. Sarah is an interesting issue, that I have
not explored. Care to expand im ra'ayos?

> Yosef right to parade his dreams in front of his brothers and parents?
> Was Yaakov right not to perform Kibud Av for all of the years he was by
> Lavan(21?)? 

YGB

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

Comments interspersed...

David Glasner wrote:
  Well, if you want me to be quiet, please answer my
> question, which is how do you justify the conduct of Abraham explicitly
> described by the Torah?  

I really thought that this question has been answered several times, but
here it is again:

1)Sara requested the action and told Avrohom what to do.  Avrohom was
vehemently against it until Hashem TOLD HIM to listen to Sara.  The
whole episode was al pi hadibur.  Isn't that pashut pshat enough?!  The
pesukim practically cry out that Hashem himself or through Sara
orchestarted the whole affair.

2)If one is not enogh to satisfy you - take a look at the sforno who
says that Avraham sent them out with a whole entourage and water was the
only thing they ran out of - but they had a whole caravan and I would
say that there is no expectation on Avaraham's part to have to give more
water than is necessary to get to B"Sheva.

If these are not satisfying, please explain why.


> And I admit to being utterly appalled by Elie Grinsparg's rebbi.  Do you
> mean to say that a rebbi who cannot think of a way to refute a
> suggestion made by his student can simply dismiss his suggestion by
> engaging in a personal attack? 

At first blush I might agree with you and perhaps Elie should not have
quoted his Rebbe without giving you a 100 page biography so that you
might understand the special person he is and the special relationship
he has with his talmidim.  I know who Elie is talking about and I
guarantee that the comment was probably not unwarranted.  Either it was
said in a joking fashion or the answer that it was refuting was said
without thought or deference.  I can undersatnd how the quote could be
understood in the fashion you paint it - out of context.  However,
please refrain from being dan lkaf chov a person on one commented that
was presented here in a vacuum.

> The Gemara says clearly that one may not reject a hidush offered by a
> scholar (I gladly assign to Rabbi Riskin that role for purposes of this
> discussion) by saying, in essence, you are not frum enough to be
> listened to or if this hidush were true someone would have already said
> it.  Now the question is whether if the Gemara applies this principle to a
> hidush in d'var halachah, is it more or less applicable to a hidush in
> parshanut.

Perahaps we can say this when there is a definitive link that seems to
point no other way.  Or to make the situations equal - what about a
halachik chidush that would matir an established issur.  Or at the very
least, distort a long-standing halachik perception.  I don't think that
we would have to accept it then.  So to here, you are taking some
textual nuances and deciding that they must be there to show us that the
Torah does not approve of Avrohom's actions in his matter - even though
we know a)in general the Torah approves of his actions b)there may be
other ways to darshan the pesukim.  If alternatives exist tht teach us
something positive, somehting to learn from - how can you ignore them? 
From above, I think it is clear that the episode can definitley be read
in a positive manner vis-a-vis Avrohom Avinu.  Why go against that? 
What do we gain - we learn not to throw our wives out of our houses? 
Does the Torah need to teach us that? Or just maybe the Torah is
teaching us about the need to listen to Hashem even against your best
wishes. (or any of a number of pshatim tied to your textual analysis
that have been given over the past few days) 

Take care,

Joel


-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> When did I say differently? If the Torah itself or Chazal critique the
> Avos then that is legitimate, maybe even if the Rishonim do it.

I was referring to this quote that you made:
"The Navi's advice, perforce, is
predicated on the assumption that all of Avrohom's behavior is suitable
                                  ^^^ 
for emulation."

It's good to know you did not mean what I thought.

> 
> Cut. Only the Avos and Imahos. 

Aderaba - don't we learn that the avos were imperfect until the Shvatim
were born?  Avrohom had a Yishmael in him, Yitzchak had an Eisav, only
Yaakov was able to create 12 perfect sons.  Shouldn't their failings be
all the more surprising?  

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

In a message dated 11/12/98 2:52:59 PM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

Ksheim Shemikablin Sechar Al Hadrisho Kach Mkablin Shchar Al Haprishoh, but to
clarify the points of contention.

Mforshim explaining the Chet Hamiraglim ask after all were they not sent to
spy the land, if so what kind of Taanoh can there be to them, to which the
answer they give is true they were supposed to spy but they were not told to
make any conclusions, their Chet was that they concluded that Lo Nuchal Lalos,
likewise in our case any valid question is legitimate, the issue here was that
there was a conclusion, and one which instead of explaining that nothing wrong
was done here, which BTW is supported by Pshutoy Shel Mikroh when HKB"H told
AAO"H to follow everything Sara said she used the term "GOREISH" not Shalach,
and HKB"H told him Al Yeira Beinecho Al Hanar, so PS"M seems to indicate that
the sending here was Al Pi Hadibur, so the conclusion to the opposite without
any support in Chazal is troubling.


>  But how does this justify Abraham's not providing Hagar
>  and Ishmael with an escort or guide to lead them safely to their
>  destination?  

HKB"H said "GOREISH" not escort.

>  Well, if you want me to be quiet, please answer my
>  question, which is how do you justify the conduct of Abraham explicitly
>  described by the Torah? 

Since it was Al Pi Hadibur there is no question on Avrohom, just like there is
no question how Avrohom listned to HKB"H when he thought that he told him to
actualy sacrifice Yitzchok, he did it with Zrizus, couldn't he have thought
I'll do it tommorrow in the meantime Yitzchok will get a wife and try to have
a child, and other such arguments, (which BTW many Mischadshim pervert the
whole Akeidoh Rachmono Litzlan Midatoh Didhu).

>   At most there is an inyan here of "dan l'chaf   z'chut."

I present much more he was Mtzuvoh to do so.

>  If someone doesn't understand a p'sak of the
>  Rambam is he told, "well, if you were frumer you wouldn't ask such a
>  question"? 

No!  But if he suggested the Rambam was wrong he would Chap A Shnell.

>  And I admit to being utterly appalled by Elie Grinsparg's rebbi.  Do you
>  mean to say that a rebbi who cannot think of a way to refute a
>  suggestion made by his student can simply dismiss his suggestion by
>  engaging in a personal attack? 

Perhaps a little Dan Lkaf Zchus, after all he was his rebbe, perhaps what he
said was obviously wrong (and perhaps he even showed him how) he noticed
however in this student that he took Rab Akiva Eiger too lightly.  

>   And if he
>  studied more diligently and with greater enthusiasm do you think it is
>  possible, just possible, that he might, just might, eventually have been
>  inspired to come to minyan a little bit earlier every morning? 

And perhaps just perhaps his rebbe knew him very well and he saw his learning
is Al Mnas Lkanteir, and/or that untill Hamo'or Sheboh Machziroy Lmutov, he
would do a Tochocho Miyadis.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

This discussion has taken what I think most people would consider a
truly bizarre turn.  A rule has been proposed that prohibits Rishonim
and Aharonim from making negative comments about ma'asei Avot unless
Hazal have already done so.  In order to defend this rule (which, so far
as I know, appears nowhere except in postings to this list), we have a
number of "broad" readings of Hazal, which go out of their way to
interpret Hazal as criticizing the Avot.  Thus, to provide a basis for
the Keli Yakar, Elie Ginsparg has proposed that the Gemara Hullin 91a is
actually criticizing Yaakvov Avinu.  To provide a basis for criticism of
Yitzhak, R. Eidensohn has proposed a broad reading of a midrash on Ber.
25:27.  Irrespective of the merits of these readings, it is ironic (as
R. Mechy already pointed out) that they are originating from the camp
that opposes criticizing the Avot unnecessarily.

RYGB has proposed none of these "broad" readings.  He is content to
criticize the Kli Yakar for violating this "rule" and dismiss R. Hirsch
and Malbim's deviations as errors (not to mention poor Dayan Swift).
Regarding Ramban (who apparently is immune to criticism and error), it
seems one does not need to find sources in Hazal;

RYGB writes:
>The citations of the Zohar merely indicate that the Ramban, as a Rishon, and
a
>Mekkubal to boot, may have had access to sources that we do not.

A point that conveniently removes the issue from the realm of proof.

It is also ironic that, as the debate continues, I have become less and
less clear about what RYGB actually thinks.  Chaim Brown thought it was
about infallibility of the Avot:
>> it is YGB's assertion that Chazal
>> dictated the Avos to be infallible

But this is denied:
>Pray tell when YGB asserted this. YGB's memory seems to be failing...

But to me he writes:
>That was not the point of those citations. I regret that you did not note
>that my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated, but
>rather that they were perfection personified, with all that implies.

I would have thought that, among other things, perfection personified
does imply infallibility.

Mechy had written that

>>infrequently poh veshom the torah informs us of errors by the ovos

and RYGB asks:

>If the Torah informs us of such, great! Where?

See Ber. 29:26.

It seems we all agree that the Avot are worthy of emulation.  Less clear
to me is whether all of us also believe that we can learn from the
errors of the Avot.  I think Hazal believed this.  See Shabbat 10b and
the Seforno at the beginning of Vayeshev, which is based thereupon.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>>>Pray tell when YGB asserted this [perfection of avos]. YGB's memory seems
to be failing...<<<

To quote-"my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated, but
rather that they were perfection personified".  No source exists for such a
statement.  The very fact that the Rishonim were open to crticizing the Avot
shows that they did not view them as perfect, but as the highest level of role
model, with the greatest gravity given to such a statement.

>>>No one has shown here, to date, a Rishon that critiques one of the Avos
independently of a source in Chazal.<<<

However, one can justifiable argue that these sources merely represent
parallel lines of thought, not a 'matir' for the Rishonim.  Why make such a
case?  Because (1) the Rishonim don't mention any of the sources cited, such
as Zohar (2) they often make their own case on completely different grounds.
Where is the mention of the 'yodei chein' the Ramban ususally cites when he
wants to bring up sod?  Where is the mention of these Chazal's as the
justification for pshat?  Ikar chaseir min hasefer of one takes YGB's
approach.

>>> Yes - we must try to find the BEST approach.  I would say that the general
practice of praising the avos, as well as our mesorah, and the halahosof
Lashon Horo (of which motzi shem ra is a subset) tends to make itmore likely
that a pshat that degrades/criticizes the avos is not theBEST pshat.  <<<
 
I tend to agree with you Joel.  However, we both arrived at our conclusion the
same way - by evaluating D. Galssner's pshat based on the evidence of Chazal,
Rishonim, etc. - the usual methodology of T"T. If you reject any form of
modern chiddush you are in effect saying our very consideration of the pshat
was an act of bittul Torah (and perhaps worse).  Whether D. Galssner's pshat
is correct or not was never my issue; my concern was the flawed methodology of
rejecting such a pshat de facto because of false limitations on who/what may
be mechadesh/mechudash.   

Good Shabbos - Chaim B.

Our fearless listowner writes:

>My basic problem is that at this point much of yahadus is based on the
>Zohar. (For example, how did the Yaavetz wash neigl vasser or netilas
>yadayim? Was he makpid to wash hands in the order we do -- which is based
>on the Zohar? Was negel vasser necessarily within 4 amos of his bed, as per
>the Zohar? vichulu...) The Zohar itself claims to be quotes of tannaim. So,
>if we don't go with an old Zohar, we are left with a pious fraud, a very
>poor contributor to halachah lima'aseh.

This is an interesting point, because it exposes the uncomfortable gap
that sometimes exists between what halakhic sources tell us and
non-halakhic sources tell us.  In a sense, this resembles the issue of
the clash between Halakhah and modern science, although here the
conflict is with historical theories rather than scientific ones.

Upon reflection, however, there are many strong influences upon our
halakhic practice that, in retrospect, may not seem to deserve the
authority ascribed to them.  In this category I would include the Sefer
Hasidim, which includes a variety of statements that have no basis in
halakhic sources and sometimes conflict with Halakhah outright.  (Those
persuaded by Dr Haym Soloveitchik's reading of the work will have even
more difficulty subordinating themselves to the authority of the Sefer
Hasidim.)  Yet, its influence on much of our contemporary halakhic
practice is undeniable.

Regarding the pious fraud issue, I can think of another example of a
work considered by many to be a literary fraud, which has nevertheless
been treated as a respectable halakhic authority.  The Besamim Rosh,
which purports to be a collection of teshuvot from the Rosh, is
generally believed to be a hoax perpetrated by R. Shaul Berlin.
Nevertheless, it is quoted by some Aharonim, primarily Sefardim.
Indeed, I believe it was R. Ovadya who notes that, though the work may
not be that of the Rosh, we can cite it as the work of R. Berlin, who
was also a talmid hakham !

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

To clarify (and thanks to joel for beginning the clarification process)
The Rabbi who made the statement was my Rebbi but it wasn't said to me---I
try not to be late for minyan and don't try to answer R' Akiva Eigers
question without giving it long and serious thought. The rebbi responded
because the student gave an answeroff the cuff and it was easily disproven
from obvious fact in the gemara--the lesson the Rebbi was teaching, as
well as the reason I added it to my post is that we must be very careful
before we respond to the greatest minds who proceeded us. The student was
rebuked for treating the statements of a gadol lightly. Since we're
discussing making statements which run counter or avoid Chazal I thought
the story was appropriate--as it will help explain where I'm coming from.
I'm sorry that I made the statement vague which led to The great
distortion of the truth (I apologize if I was niksahl anyone) I just
figured that we'd treat people, especially rabbeim with the same level of
Darche noam that we request from each other.
Elie Ginsparg


                       

In a message dated 11/12/98 6:43:38 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

>  The rebbi responded
>  because the student gave an answeroff the cuff and it was easily disproven
>  from obvious fact in the gemara--

Boruch Shekevanti it was self evident in the story.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Joel Margolies wrote:

> > Cut. Only the Avos and Imahos. 
> 
> Aderaba - don't we learn that the avos were imperfect until the Shvatim
> were born?  Avrohom had a Yishmael in him, Yitzchak had an Eisav, only
> Yaakov was able to create 12 perfect sons.  Shouldn't their failings be
> all the more surprising? 
> 

Source?

I believe that we understand, on the contrary, they themselves were
perfect, any dross was shunted to their imperfect children. 

YGB

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

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> RYGB has proposed none of these "broad" readings.  He is content to
> criticize the Kli Yakar for violating this "rule" and dismiss R. Hirsch
> and Malbim's deviations as errors (not to mention poor Dayan Swift). 

Correct.

> Regarding Ramban (who apparently is immune to criticism and error), it
> seems one does not need to find sources in Hazal; 
> 

Inaccurate. He is not immune to either. But as he is a Rishon I am
compelled to *try* to understand him, as opposed to Acharonim. I am
willing, if all else fails, to remain b'tzarich iyun.

> But to me he writes:

> >That was not the point of those citations. I regret that you did not note
> >that my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated, but
> >rather that they were perfection personified, with all that implies.
> 
> I would have thought that, among other things, perfection personified
> does imply infallibility. 
> 

Perhaps you do not like the translation of "tachlis ha'shleymus" used by
the Rambam as "perfection." Supply yourr own translation. Shleymus does
not imply infallibility.

> See Ber. 29:26.
>

Huh, Lavan?
 

YGB

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

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> To quote-"my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated,
> but rather that they were perfection personified".  No source exists for
> such a statement.  The very fact that the Rishonim were open to

That is absolutely unture. This is almost a direct quote from the Moreh
3:51!!!!!

> crticizing the Avot shows that they did not view them as perfect, but as
> the highest level of role model, with the greatest gravity given to such
> a statement.
> 

I wonder what R' Chaim does with that Rambam?

YGB

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

R' YGB quotes and writes:
:> To quote-"my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated,
:> but rather that they were perfection personified".  No source exists for
:> such a statement.  The very fact that the Rishonim were open to

: That is absolutely unture. This is almost a direct quote from the Moreh
: 3:51!!!!!

Opening my copies of the Moreh, I did not get the same impression.

The Rambam talks about the high level of perfection that the Avos and Mosheh
reached. He does not speak in absolutes, that they were perfect.

	I think these four reached that high degree of perfection in their
	relation to G-d, and enjoyed the continual presence of Divine
	Providence, even in their endeavours to increase their property,
	feeding the flock, toiling in the field, or managing the house, only
	because in all these things their end and aim was to approach G-d as
	much as possible. (Trans. M. Friedlander, 1881; hyphenation in "G-d"
	is mine.)

This is a far cry from the claim that the Avos were perfection personified.

I also don't recall the Avos being on the list of the four "who only died
because of the snake". We know they sinned in some way, at some point in their
lives.

I stand by my earlier theory, that although the avos as people were imperfect
(as all people are), the avos as presented in the Torah are archetypes,
presented as ideals to be reached. Therefore, the idea that the Torah
describes an event that stresses their imperfections seems unrealistic to me.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5976 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 12-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I parenthetically commented:
>        (For example, how did the Yaavetz wash neigl vasser or netilas
> yadayim? Was he makpid to wash hands in the order we do -- which is based
> on the Zohar? Was negel vasser necessarily within 4 amos of his bed, as per
> the Zohar? vichulu...)

Eli Clark replied:
: This is an interesting point, because it exposes the uncomfortable gap
: that sometimes exists between what halakhic sources tell us and
: non-halakhic sources tell us.

Here, the gap is pretty comfortable. The Zohar recommends a particular way of
fulfilling the halachah. Although the Zohar's requirements are more
restrictive, they don't violate the rulings of any halachic sources.

: Upon reflection, however, there are many strong influences upon our
: halakhic practice that, in retrospect, may not seem to deserve the
: authority ascribed to them.

As I see it, there is only one halachic authority -- acceptance by the
observant community (what the Rav would call "Adas Yisrael"). As the whole Dor
Revi'i thread exposed, the authority of any halachic code is based on its
acceptance by the masses, and that of the Sanhedrin is quite probably because
of its role as the representative of the Eidah.

So, if we choose to follow the Zohar's recommendation, what makes it less
authoritative than a book whose focus is more halachic?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5976 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 12-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

RYGB writes:
<The Ramban cannot critique the Avos without source in Chazal either. The
citations of the Zohar merely indicate that the Ramban, as a Rishon, and a
Mekkubal to boot, may have had access to sources that we do not.>

Sorry, but I honestly read that as the assertion of a rule which doesn't seem
codified in the classical texts and is essentially unprovable (I think).  My
assumption is that the various moderns and not so moderns (kili yoqor) would
not have "strayed" even in the instances which might cause you to characterize
their pishat as "out of line" if they were aware of such a rule. Clearly they
were not.  I think we'll just have to disagree.  But what has not been brought
out very clearly in this discussion, and I am at least as guilty as anyone, is
the countably rare instances which even those who have loosely been implicated
as belonging to a fault finding school have called out as errors.  In fact, I
would submit there simply is no such school in the frum world.  The early
acharon kili yoqor after all has a single "extra" critical instance, the
ramban, three.  Ditto for the acharonim.  Which, even if you're willing to
accept these criticisms, and clearly there are other rishonim who don't, is
well within anybody's parameters of "ain tzadiq bo'oretz asher ya'aseh ha'tov
etc. 
 
<Without defending the persuasiveness > of this pishat, is dayan Swift too to
be accused of championing some > fault finding school.?  I also found reference
yesterday to the B'chor>
<I guess so. There are. Although for one error I would not commit him to
the "Fault-finding" School. I believer RSR Hirsch and the Malbim commit
the same error in their discussion of Yitzchok's parenting. Slip-ups happen. No
one is infallible.>

There simply is no such thing as a "Fault Finding School" and absolutely no one
in the frum world ought be accounted a member. I think this is qorove to a
motzih laaz on kisheirim were we to identify anyone in the frum world as a
member - very specifically including the membership of this list. No one is
looking for faults and those identified were few and far between, and in no way
detract from the special position as role models assigned them by the Torah.
The very title is prejudicial (and I'm also guilty of too flippantly utilizing
a variant of this loshone as well).  I would say that rather than ascribing the
very few instances of error identification by a RSR Hirsch, a Malbim, a dayan
Swift, a Kili Yoqor or whomever (and probably etc, though I haven't taken the
time to really look ) as "slip ups" because even these respected and needless
to say frum individuals are not" infallible", it is more sensible to me to say
that, in principle, these individuals saw no barrier to arriving at the
conclusion where their dedication to emes as they understood it led them. And
it only led them to such conclusions extremely rarely.  While they were
doubtlessly aware of the many affirmations a'suring  disagreement of later
authorities with chachmei hatalmud in matters of halochoh, they were clearly
unaware of any similar formulation for parshonus, or the expansion of a rule to
put rishonim on the same footing with chazal. 

> Finally, RYGBs quotation of the above radak to the effect that we should
> indeed look to avrohom and soroh as role models has the same startling
> impact as the next dog bites man news break.  Unless RYGB is suggesting
<1. That is not a particularly nice comment.>

Hmm. I apologize for that. I didn't really mean it to come out as sharply as it
may sound now on a reread.

<2. You missed my point.
The point is that the Novi says look to Avrohom and Soroh as models of
behavior. If there are countless flaws in their behavior, there is a
problem with the Novi unqualifiedly making such recommendations - next
thing you know, everyone will be "cruel," just like Avorhom and Soroh.>

I think this is rather unfair in that you are again knocking down a strawman
which no one, certainly not I, ever suggested.  Nobody has ever suggested
"countless flaws in their behavior".  What has been suggested is a few rare
instances where the Torah is implicitly providing additional moral instruction.
 This hardly detracts from the special position of the ovos as heroic humans
and not malochim.

> I think a problem one (i.e. me) has with RYGB' shitoh is that he is
> constantly coming up with new rules and distinctions she'loa shiarum
> avoseichem.  Thus we have the rule that rishonim couldn't come up with a
<Again, this kind of comment is quite pejorative - unnecessarily. I do not
think, however, I need respond, as R' Shalom Carmy has done so eloquently>.

I apologize to RYGB if this criticism came off pejoratively.  I did not mean it
that way.  I did take the opportunity to reread R. carmy's submission and don't
take it as a clear vindication of your notion (though doubtless he can speak
for himself).  In fact I found myself agreeing more or less with what I thought
the thrust of his comments.  Thus I rather read his note as a caution to those,
perhaps seized by the thros of an au courant urge to literary deconstruction
and sound bite analyses, who might too readily find fault with ovos, who might
indeed be characterized as a fault finding school and thus mitashteish the very
special position the ovos were meant to hold as moral exemplars (or something
like that - hope I haven't misrepresented his position by too much, but ain
laqoreih eloh mah she'einov nosein boa).   I.e. be careful and consider whether
there are good reasons for a rishon not to have michadeish something before
leaping to exegetize. I specifically didn't read it as the affirmation  of your
absolute rule that one might never under any circumstance, identify "new" error
unremarked by a rishon/chazal, but R. Carmy can correct me on that.  

< R. Shimuel B. Nachmani in Shabbos 55-56- he didn't have distinctions
> between people - nobody was choteh), then there's the claim that
> acharonim couldn't dispute the pishatim of rishonim.  I've probably
<You just added one. Never claimed that. Bal Tosif!>
Oops. Sorry about that. But now that I did whaddaya think?

I too think that the tone of some of these exchanges has occasionally gotten
out of hand. Where I have been the choteih, I apologize.  I will also try a
little preemptive tishvoh by bowing out of this particular thread.  This is
admittedly convenient because I don't really know that I've got much more to
add without starting to repeat myself.  I would hope that controversial issues
might continue to be discussed in the future without getting either "upset' or
"distressed". At least to the point where such initial upset may lead to our
jumping all over someone who has innocently and honestly posed an issue or
perspective which may be new to our experience - or outside the haskqofic
mainstream of our own communities.  And there are a surprising number of things
which have similar potential for inciting incredulous outrage if one's
educational orbit hasn't intersected them before (a good example perhaps being
the earlier and thankfully finished thread on the integrity of the torah text,
but I can think of others with even more heartburn potential).

Mech"y" Frankel			frankel@hq.dswa.mil		

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

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


[ 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 ]