Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 195

Thursday, March 18 1999

• Re: Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom
• Re: Avodah V2 #194
• Re: Yeridas HaDoros and Common Sense
• Re: Angels in the Bais Medrash
• Re: pi
• rabbinic discussions of pi
• Torah and Mesorah
• Re: Avodah V2 #194
• ruach hakodesh
• Yeridas Ha'Doros
• Niskatnu HaDoros
• Just What is Talmud Torah Anway?
• Re: Avodah V2 #194
• Abbreviations
• Re: Just What is Talmud Torah Anway?
• Binding Tefillo
• bar mitzvah age
• 3 part Torah
• CI double dare - and an unreasonable charedi?
• Yichezqel 29-32; reply to RYGB

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> HDRG utterly undermines your argument.  After all, Rabbenu Gershom's
> takkanot required a herem to make them "binding."  To my knowledge,
> takkanot Hazal did not. 
> 

Sorry - it is not the cherem that makes them binding,, anymore than the
chermei ha'kehillos in the 1st perek of BB are binding because of the
cherem - rahter, cherem is the penalty that is applied to the avaryan.

YGB

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

In Avodah V2 #194, Rich Wolpoe asks:   Question: What was R. Chaim Brisker's
point in being Meyasheiv the Rambam?  Could he have not said, based on Gemoro
X, that Rambam?  Forgot?  Misunderstood?  Overlooked? a Gemoro?  Is there
perhaps a presumptive "infallibility" of sorts at work here? 

Shu"T Chut haShani, no. 18 strengthens Wolpoe's point.  He observes, for
example, that Rambam, in his hakdamah to Peirush haMishnayos, writes that the
Tanna Chanina ben Chakinai is only mentioned in Maseches Kilayim, when in fact
he is also mentioned in the third perek of Makkos.  He lists other such
oversights by Rambam, Rashi (who six times admits eini yodeia or lo yadati),
and others.  He points out that even Moshe Rabbeinu forgot two halachos
(Rashi, parashas Mattos).    

Where manuscripts and scholarship point to mistakes of the "zettser", why try
to be masbir something that the Rambam didn't mean?  But where we have no
indication of such mistakes, trying to determine Rambam's sources and being
masbir his positions are among the stuff that are omeid b'rumo shel olam for
many bnei Torah.

Mark Dratch

In a message dated 3/17/99 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<<  The Gedoliom of pre-war Europe, 
 such as R. Moshe, or the Rav has passed on and our scholorship will 
 never even come close to theirs.  If we look on the horizen, there seems 
 to be a dearth of Tamidei Chachamim that come anywhere near  the Calibre 
 of the previous generations. To be sure we still have a few left of that 
 generation, R. Elyashiv comes to mind, but they are all elderly. I am 
 wondering if others agree with this assesment.
  >>

This is a fascinating concept, one worthy of a theread all its own. I am not
one to romanticize the world of European gedolim, but at the same time, the
Roshei Yeshiva of today , in both the "Black Hat" world, and the YU world seem
qualitatively different. And I don't mean they aren't as well versed, or
intellectually able. Rather, it seems that the very nature of the lives they
lead seem to result in a different kind of Gadol, less independent, or perhaps
less intellectually courageous. In some ways, I think the Kollel system as it
is presently constituted seems to be an issue, but I am not sure exactly how,
although I do think in some ways it unintentionally keeps some of the best and
strongest Talmidim from assuming positions of leadership in the general
community, where they could gain the perspective that gedolim like  R' Moshe
possessed. This is not a fully formed idea, I just think this point seems to
be hitting on something that leaves many of us vaguely uneasy about the
quality of leadership in our generation. 

Jordan   

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
 to explain what Chazal did or did not do, when Chazal themselves
> did not explain this, puts the whole explanation into question.  If R. Tzadok,
> for example, is the first to mention a notion about how Chazal worked one must
> wonder why no one before him bothered to explain it as he does.  After all, he
> is not introducing new concepts, rather he is applying well known terms to
> prior generations.  Why didn't those very people to whom he attributes these
> ideas bother to explain themselves?  And to attribute these explanations,
> whether from later acharonim, or even rishonim, as being binding on Chazal
> that this is the only way we can understand the way Chazal worked is
> troubling.
>
I don't understand, why don't you see that chazal is full of indications
of how they worked, what element did R tzadok "invent" . Furthermore,
Chazal purposely hid some of what they were trying to convey so that the
info wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, R Tzadok, maharal, marasha etc
are revealing thes secrets to us--once again I ask you to read the
Ramchal's maamer haagados so we can be on the same page when it comes to
approaching aggadata
 
 we can not really know what Chazal intended, no matter how holy the
> person of a later generation is. 
Why can't we trust the mesorah and inspiration that the maharal etc has to
understand Chazal as much as we trust the mesorah and inspiration of R'
Akiva to undersatnd what Hashem says.

 What we can do is look at the interpretation
> and see if it satisfies our own logic.
does your logic really compare to the maharal's etc logic--or vast
backround.


  And yes, when it comes to aggada, why
> can't I be entitled to my own opinion, even if I am a daas yachid.  If it does
> not impact on halacha in any way (and if you insist, on hashkafa too), why
> can't I give my own interpretation to the Rabba Bar Bar Chanas?  Even maybe,
> dare I say, take them literally.
you have a right to be mechadash, but there must be intellectual honesty.
If you have an agenda don't try to fit it into a chazal where it doesn't
fit. 


Finally, I'm still waiting for the source for the ibn ezra. I lookes up
the ibn ezra by lot and he also says it was pesach, which ibn ezra were
you referring to.
Elie Ginsparg

>I am no expert on the history of science but I do not believe
>that a calculation of pi so accurate existed before the 20th century. 

Actually, no.  According to the Enclyclopedia Britannica,

"In very ancient times, 3 was used as the approximate value of pi, and not
until  Archimedes (3rd century BC) does there seem to have been a
scientific effort to compute it; he reached a figure equivalent to about
3.14. A figure equivalent to 3.1416 dates from before AD 200. By the early
6th century Chinese and Indian mathematicians had independently confirmed
or improved the number of decimal places. By the end of the 17th century in
Europe, new methods of mathematical analysis provided various ways of
calculating pi. Early in the 20th century the Indian mathematical genius
Srinivasa Ramanujan developed ways of calculating pi that
were so efficient that they have been incorporated into computer
algorithms, permitting expressions of pi in millions of digits."

The Taylor expansion that permits calculation of pi to an arbitrary level
of accuracy was discovered by the English mathematician, Brook Taylor, who
died in 1731.

Kol tuv,

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

A brief, but very thorough, historical overview of rabbinic discussions of
pi can be found in a paper by Shimon Bollag in Higayon 3 (5756). The same
volume includes a mathematical treatment of the material by David Garber
and Boaz Tzaban. (I can send the volume to anybody who wants it.)
Munk published his observation about KV/KVH in Sinai 51 (5722) and Hadarom
27 (5728). He did not attribute the observation to the Gr"a. Apparently,
the first published attribution to the Gr"a appears in a paper by
Posamentier and Gordan in The Mathematics Teacher (Jan. 1984) but no
specific reference is given and none has ever been found. Incidentally, far
more precise approximations of pi have been known for many centuries,
including techniques for computing arbitrarily precise approximations. In
Gevuros Hashem, Yashar (Italy, early 17th cent.) cites an expansion out to
20 digits.
Micha, can you check that Newton reference? Thanks.

-Moish

RYGB:>>"And the words of the Rishonim z"l even in Shikul HaDa'as are totally 
Torah and based on their words we must act... And all the words of the 
Rishonim are ne'emanim vis-a-vis us as if given at Sinai, and while we
are required to consider them and analyze them, that is not for ikkar 
ha'din, but to understand their holly words..."<<

How does it work that the Rishonim's words are as ne'emin as miSina?

LFAD nire'h, that just as we KNOW Sinai happened al pi Mesorah (see Avos 1:1) so
we extend that same Mesorah to all of our predecessors, (IOW Richonim)

And if we do not extend that ne'emanus to Rishonim, then what?

Then the mesorah is itself in question, and that COULD lead to questioning all 
the way back to Sinai itself.

IOW The Rishonim are part of the chain that validates Sinai itself!

Caveat: Given that the Mesorah is reliable, it does not neceesarily follow that 
every Gadol in the chain was infallible.

Another note,  Even Gedolim whose views are rejected lehalocho lemaase are still
transmitting valid Torah.  Beis Shammai in his dor is such an example.

Rich Wolpoe

> concept of Yeridas Hadoros, which tells us in effect that previous 
> generations were: 
> (A)closer to Maimad Har Sinai, and, therefore,
> (B)more knowledgeable about the Emes of the Torah, 
> (C) smarter than us, 
> (D)had less transmission of mesorah (by this I mean that each time one 
> generation transmits mesorah to the next generation there is a factor of 
> error introduced)and, consequently
> (E) less confused by millenia of debate on what original halacha was. 
> 
There is an assumption here that amoraim cannot disagree disagree
with tannaim and similarly rishonim with amoraim becuase of
yeridas hadoros. This is far from clear, Rav Elchanan Wasserman implies
that an amora could in fact disagree with a statement of a tanna if
it is not in a mishna or an authenticated beraisa.
Similarly Rambam states that the gemara is closed because all
scholars accepted it - not because of yeridas hadoros.

While we frequently quote the Gra as diasgreeing with rishonim he
is not unique. The shaagas aryeh an contemporary also disagreed.
In fact R. Moshe Feinstein also disagreed with rishonim eg Meiri.
If the reason is yeridas hadoros was is the difference between
Meiri and Rashba?
How does halacha ke-basrai square with yeridas hadoros.
In fact since nondisagreement with previous generations
only works on eras not individual generations implies that it has
nothing to do with yeridas hadoros.

I personally see no reason to assume that early doros were smarter
than us. Were most tannaim smarter than Einstein - I have no way of
knowing. However, if each generation of gedolim is smarter than
the next one it follows that tannaim were thousands of times smarter
than us. This gives a problem of the relation of tannaim to their
contemporaries. Either the Romans are not smarter than us which implies
that tannaim were thousands of times smarter than their contemporaries.
We are told how Rabbi Yehoshua outwitted the Greek philosophers. This
is not much of a trick if he was thousands of times smarter.
In fact how could there be debates with all sorts of groups if the
tannaim clearly vastly outclassed everyone else. The other choice is
that the goyim of that era were also smarter - which seems unlikely.

In fact the Nodah beYehuda in his famous teshuva on the size of
measurements assumes that previous generations were physically larger than
us. I find that even harder to understand. For the middle ages we
have the metal of knights and they appear quite small. I recall reading
that Roman graves that were uncovered also showed smaller people than
today. Are we also to assume than the tannaim physically towered over
their Roman contemporaries?

Many people associate yeridas hadoros more with points
(A),(D),(E) above.
The question than arises how much is yeridas hadoros affected by
printing? I have heard claims that today the concept of rebbe
muvhak almost doesn't exist since most of our learning is
from printed books rhather than verbal communication.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> 
> By the way, there is one article you definitely should read.  A.J.
> Heschel published a Hebrew article in the Alexander Marx festschrift
> which compiles all of the statements and anecdotes ascribing various
> level of ru'ah ha-kodesh and visions to Rishonim.  There is a great one
> in the hakdamah of the Semag (to mitzvot aseh, I believe), regarding how
> he left out a mitzvah and was told in a dream to include it.  The
> article was recently translated into English and published as a separate
> volume (together with an article on nevu'ah and Rambam).
> 
see also maharatz chayot in the collected works.
Eli Turkel

Perhaps we have reached an even greater crux than that of ruach ha'kodesh.
The difference between the Torah as perceived by the Academy - on this
list, including RET and others; and Torah as perceived by the Yeshiva (as
I mentioned previously, black or white and the infinite shades of gray in
the middle).

The world of the Yeshiva is suffused with intellectual humility, the world
of the Academy with intellectual haughtiness.

This humility is indicated most poignantly in the defrence that the Rav,
RYB Soloveitchik, displayed vis-a-vis his father, whom others, such as R'
Gilbert Klapperman in his history of YU, regarded as an inferior scholar
to his son.

(I am not interested, for now, in the objective truth of that matter, but
rather in the conceptual framework of humility involved.)

To the Yeshiva-ensconced Ben Torah, who knows that R' Moshe Feinstein went
through "gantz" Shulchan Aruch well over a hundred times, while few of u
have gone through it one, who know that R' Pinchos Hirschprung could
recite Shas, Rashi, Tosafoss & Rosh by heart, as if reading from the page
suspended in front of him in midair, while most of us b'koshi have ggone
through Shas once or twice with the Daf Yomi cycle, who have sat back
awestruck by the keenness of the Chazon Ish's Kuntres Yud ches Sha'os and
been dazzled by RSZ Auerbach's teshuvos on electricity and electronics -
ALL IN THE LAST GENERATION! - and realize that they regarded their Rabbeim
as infinitely greater than themeselves, and so on and so forht back
through the ages - must lead inevitably and conclusively to the
realization of yeridas ha'doros.

The Academy-ensconced Ben Torah, has, on the other hand, a very different
perspective. A pity. What is the beauty of Torah without the validation of
the chochmo, tevuno and da'as - zeh ruach ha'kodesh - of those who were
its standard bearers.


On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I personally see no reason to assume that early doros were smarter than
> us. Were most tannaim smarter than Einstein - I have no way of knowing.
> However, if each generation of gedolim is smarter than the next one it
> follows that tannaim were thousands of times smarter than us. This gives
> a problem of the relation of tannaim to their contemporaries. Either the
> Romans are not smarter than us which implies that tannaim were thousands
> of times smarter than their contemporaries.  We are told how Rabbi
> Yehoshua outwitted the Greek philosophers. This is not much of a trick
> if he was thousands of times smarter.  In fact how could there be
> debates with all sorts of groups if the tannaim clearly vastly
> outclassed everyone else. The other choice is that the goyim of that era
> were also smarter - which seems unlikely. 
> 

YGB

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

A big Yasehr kaoch to HM on his overview.  Let me fill in a few details... 

Dr. Agus illustrated how niskatnu hadoros worked.  Let's take the hadrianic 
persecutions that took the life of R. Akivo.  TB relates the story of the 5 
"junior" talmidim getting Semicho from R. Yehuda Ben Bovo:
R. Yossi bar Chalafto
R. Shimon bar Yochai
R. Yehuda bar Iloy
R. El'ozor
R. Meir
As great as these 5 were, it is conceivable that many talmidim of R. Akivo who 
did not survive were even greater!  It's conceivable that as much has RSBY knew 
about kabbolo, that R. Akivo knew vastly more, and  that he did not get a chance
to teach it to these younger Talmidim. (and taht is why we mourn during Sefiro, 
that layers of Torah Knowledge were lost - Chaval al d'avdon!)

As a rationalist who strongly believed in Kabbolo Professor Agus would say that 
highly rational explanations for relatively obscuresugyosm have been lost.  All 
we are left is with a practice, or a medrash, or a memor that seems to be out of
place etc.

It's not that we are prevented or bound from arguing against earlier doros.  
it's more of an issue of not having all the pieces of the puzzle in our hands.
When I was in Ner Yisroel, I was told that one MAY argue with Rishonim, but it 
is foolish to do so.  This rational explanation of Niskatnu hadoros tells us how
that works, that we do not have all the Torah the Rishonim have.  

The Medsrash wrt to the loss of halochos at Moshe's death is similar. I suspect 
that Brisker Torah, and pilpul and other methods are an attempt to restore those
missing layers of knowledge.

u

Rich Wolpoe

Dear RYGB:
Can you provide us a definition (at least according to your shito) of what is 
and isn't Talmud Torah?  I for one am both curious and a bit fuzzy as to what 
you mean.

Rich Wolpoe 

Eli Turkel wrote:

> There is an assumption here that amoraim cannot disagree disagree
> with tannaim and similarly rishonim with amoraim becuase of
> yeridas hadoros. This is far from clear

The era's may overlap.  The phrase "Rav Tanna Upalig" shows that: (A) 
while Rav is considered an Amorah in most cases, he is often considered 
a Tanna when he disagrees with a mishna and (B) the very fact that this 
must so be stated implies that without such dispensation, an amorah 
could in fact not argue on a mishna.
 
> While we frequently quote the Gra as diasgreeing with rishonim he
> is not unique. The shaagas aryeh an contemporary also disagreed.
> In fact R. Moshe Feinstein also disagreed with rishonim eg Meiri.
> If the reason is yeridas hadoros was is the difference between
> Meiri and Rashba?

I believe that the concept of Yeridos Hadoros refers to era's and not an 
actual generation of about 25 years or so. My understanding of the 
situation of the GRA is that he had so much genius and was such an 
outstanding Yiras Shomayim that we accept only his disagreemnts with 
Rishonim, and no one elses.  I did not know that the Shagas Aryeh also, 
disagrees with Rishonim.  TZarich Iyun.  In any case, (not withstanding 
the above)  I admit that I don't quite understand the dispensation given 
to the GRA (and perhaps others)

> How does halacha ke-basrai square with yeridas hadoros.

Halacha KiBasrai does not mean that we are allowed to disagree with 
Teshuvos of Rishonim,  It simply means that we follow the Psak of the 
most recent Posek because, knowing and factoring in all the relevant 
Teshuvos of Rishonim as well as current scientific and cultural 
patramenters etc., he will be better able to paskin in our own time, 
Shailos relevant to today's circumstances.

> In fact since nondisagreement with previous generations
> only works on eras not individual generations implies that it has
> nothing to do with yeridas hadoros.

Unless you define Doros as eras, the way I do.

> I personally see no reason to assume that early doros were smarter
> than us. 

This is one area where I am not certain.  How do you define smart?  If 
you define it as raw intelligence, i.e. IQ scores, You may be right.  
How would Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabenu, Dovid Hamelech, Shlomo Hamelech, 
Rabi Akiva, Rabi Meir, The Rambam, Ramban, GRA, R. Chaim, The Rav do on 
standardized Intelligence scales, adjusted to their own era etc.?  How 
would their scores compare to those of Aristotle, Galileo, Beethooven, 
Kant, Einstein or Stephan Hawking?  I don't know but I suspect they 
would probably be on par, more or less with each other.  But if you 
define smart as a combination of raw intelligence, determined study 
(i.e. Hasmada) accumulated knowledge, combined with Yiras Shomyim and 
perhaps Ruach Hakodesh in some (if not all) of the above cases, then 
perhaps previous generations were smarter.  

Bottom Line...I'm not sure.  I know there is a school of thought that 
says that Yeridos Hadoros applies to even raw intelligence alone and 
includes even Goyim. The argument goes... that whatever we know today 
includes the knowledge discovered by the even more brilliant minds of 
the past and that we stand on the sholders of giants.

 
> In fact the Nodah beYehuda in his famous teshuva on the size of
> measurements assumes that previous generations were physically larger than
> us. I find that even harder to understand. For the middle ages we
> have the metal of knights and they appear quite small. I recall reading
> that Roman graves that were uncovered also showed smaller people than
> today. Are we also to assume than the tannaim physically towered over
> their Roman contemporaries?

Good point which raises into question all the chumros on achilas matzah 
and Shtias Riviis at the seder, and re-establishes the Nodah BeYehuda's 
question of a stirah between the two ways chazal described the size of 
shiurim Kezayis and Beitza. 

> 
> Many people associate yeridas hadoros more with points
> (A),(D),(E) above.
> The question than arises how much is yeridas hadoros affected by
> printing? I have heard claims that today the concept of rebbe
> muvhak almost doesn't exist since most of our learning is
> from printed books rhather than verbal communication.

Another good point which has been addressed Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik and 
by members of this list.  It has yet to be resolved as an issue.

HM

<Can some one provide a dictionary for all the abbreviations being
used here. I am getting lost fast.
Eli Turkel>

IMHO, My GF RDPET's post is  just the TTOTI and fingers a broader problem
which CV could bring meaningful communication to a GH!, RL. Perhaps
contributing stalwarts, E.G,  RYGB, REC, RMB, and yes, even that odd couple
DDG (DS) and REG, might take the lead here, IOW stop this senseless abuse of
RT!  BTW - there is even an halochic vector to this as it impedes being
miqayeim a dovor B'SO, so if you wish to be maqpid, CYLOR before posting -
unless IYHO  you've got a BI.

MF                                                              

I would assume that it means engaging in the study of either Torah
she'b'Ksav or Torah she'b'al Peh. TSBK is easy = Tanach. TSBAP is more
tricky. I assume it definitely includes everything up to "Rav Ashi
v'Ravina sof Horo'oh" but I do not know how it extends betond that.
Nevertheless, the understanding of Talmudic texts and opinions inherent in
the study of Rishonim and Acharonim is likely TT l'kol ha'dei'os, but
what, indded, would the struggle to understand a passage in the Ktzos that
did not relate to Rishonim and Acharonim constitute? I think it still
fulfills the mitzva me'divrei kabbala of "V'higeisa ba yomam va'lyla",
i.e., to occupy oneself with thoghts that relate to Torah.

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Can you provide us a definition (at least according to your shito) of
> what is and isn't Talmud Torah?  I for one am both curious and a bit
> fuzzy as to what you mean. 
> 

YGB

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

>>To apply this principle, you seem to be saying that
> there is no qualittative distinction between our obligation to recite
> shemoneh esreh (based on the shitah that ke-neged temidim tiknum)  and
> our obligation to recite Av ha-Rahamim.  Am I understanding you
> correctly? 
> 

RYGB: No, you are not. Av HaRachamim is not an enactment. Were a Rishon, indeed,
to have enacted the saying of AhR, and his takkana was nispashta, Yes.<<

Lich'ora a BETTER example might be Maariv Bizman hazeh.  While chazal knew of 
it, it was Reshus only until the time of the Rishonim. 
So let's rephrase it a bit:
Q: Is Maariv - which was was nispashet during the time of the Rishonim - as 
obligatory as Shacaris?

(the lack of Chazoros haShatz is not a problem per se because it was never 
included in the original model for Maariv).

Rich Wolpoe

I was recently reading "A tzaddik in our time: The life of Rabbi Aryeh Levin" whose
30th yahrtzeit is next week and came across a strange line. On page 95 it says:
"When a certain orphan boy became bar mitzvah (on his twelfth birthday rather than
his thirteenth, because he was an orphan), Reb Aryeh went to the ... ."

Is there such a concept as a bar mitzvah at 12? That orphans are different than non
orphans? Is this a common belief?

Ari

>>> Rambam's system, Torah is not divided in to two parts, it's divided in to
> three:  Mikra (the words of Tanach) , Mishna (meaning Halacha) and
> Gemara, everything else connected to learning , including Talmud Bavli,
> Pardes, two chevrusas arguing about a Ktzos etc...<<

Mishna includes Halocho, andt I would logically expand it to any learning of 
Torah she'bal peh wihtout analysis.  IOW, today SA is "Mishna" until one dclves 
into it.  In fact I saw that the term re: Toeh bidvar Mishno nowadays is 
applicable to a Talmid Chochom overlooking the SA.  I think learning Daf yomi 
without iyyun is also a form of "mishna".

Once we get into Nosai Keilim, then dovor mitoch dovor would (lihc'ora?) take 
over.

Rich Wolpoe

>(BTW, There may be those (c"v not on this list!) who will say (afra
l'pumyhu): "Eh, the Chazon Ish - a right winger. Bechhofer - a charedi
[albeit, according to RMF, a reasonable one]. This is sheer nonsense, of
course.>

i had a feeling that was going to come back and bite me. just curious - was
RYGB's "sheer nonsense" characterization meant to modify just the former
reference to the CI or also the latter reference to himself - in which case
is he rather protesting some perceived (but by no means intended)
wimpification and asserting his own claim to membership in that more
prevalent species, the unreasonable charedi?(:-). 

However, to continue:  <The CI's perspectives on psak are as normative as
they come - and I chaleenge [double dare!] anyone to come up with a contrary
perspective form any Gadol b'Torah from any camp.> 
hmm. hard for any of us kids to resist a double dare. but to at least
continue the conversational thread. It is hard to get one's conceptual arms
around the meaning which one might invest in the notion of "normative
perspectives on pisaq" - so rather than treat that directly and then find
we're discussing apples and oranges, let me frame the response around a
specific question. does RYGB consider the CI's perspective on the utilzation
of the "fifth" cheileq of SO for such matters as army service or (i think)
she'rus li'umi for girls to be the normative perspective of all gidolim from
whatever hashkofic camp?  As a methodological issue addressing the
"perspective on pishat" - whether or not you like the specific application-
one could ask further whether this flows from CI's appreciation of "eis
la'asos" or perhaps less dramatically from some concept of powers inherent
in "da'as torah" even if not quite contained in the usual 4 chaloqim.  If
the latter, does RYGB  think that there is some universal godole consensus
on legislative powers of da'as torah? And does he think there's a consensus
on its applicability to matters like sherus li'umi?   

Mechy Frankel		michael.frankel@dtra.mil

RYGB has now complained more than once that : < I have cried BB 12 over and
over again, but have yet to see anyone cogently refute the reference.
reminds me of the utter lack of response to my cries of Yechezkel 29-32 in
the 420 years debate.>

 I shall remedy that by responding  to the latter issue.  On the former, I
don't think lack of response is an issue, as I recall the dor shi'vie sent
in a peirush of one of the BB maymirim which, though ignored,  seemed imho
as viable as other alternatives.  In any event REC (and perhaps RCB?) sent
in a more extended BB response - which RYGB blew off with a "we are not
impressed".   I shall invite the same fate by reporting that I have taken up
his invitation to <Open your Tanach and take a look>.  RYGB continues: <
there is a Tanach problem here - that ofYechezkel 30. Open your Tanachs and
take a look, please. Yechezkel promises an Egyptian Holocaust at the hands
of Nevuchadnezzar. Historians cannot conceive of such.>

My summary response to this QED line is: sez who?, I certainly can.  But to
expand on that a bit - what's going on in yichezqel 29-32 is a series of
nivu'os against mitzrayim, apparently culpable as a faithless ally with
negative character traits.   The only guy mentioned by name is
nevuchadrezzar.  Nothing very surprising here.  yichezqel was probably
brought over to bovel by nevuchadrezzar in the early shift about 11 or 12
years before the churbon in -586 (yup,  I'm taking sides but lets pass on
that for now) and was intimately and painfully familiar with
nevuchadnezzar's subsequent career moves.   In the year -568 the same
nevuchadnezzar launched a major invasion of Egypt, a fact well accepted by
historians and documented in external sources.  While we are not cognizant
exactly what the result of this invasion was,  we do know from external
sources that the conquest of Egypt was finally completed about thirty five
years later by Cambysus.  Lulai dimistofinoh I would say that the historical
record as understood by the historians and scholars conforms quite nicely,
indeed is a realization of nivu'as yichezqel, or at the very least the
external historical information is completely consistent with yichezqel.
However, not being mai'eze in such matters, I leave that assessment to those
listmembers who seem more sensitively attuned to this-world manifestations
of ruach haqodesh than myself.  In any event, RYGB's citation of these
passages as support for a radical revision of the length of the persian
period is puzzling, to say the least. 

And since we've segued over to this topic again let me also note that REG
wrote recently : <..just like the assumption that seder olam is wrong not
herodotus>  apparently the first few (3?) times this was mentioned it didn't
take.  the problem with the pashtus of the seder olam account is
signifcantly broader than herodotus.  let me repeat that - broader than
herodotus - (who to be sure is also a problem unless you hold he was blessed
with nivuoh )- so why keep repeating this theme? to not notice that
disturbing evidence might even exist, after references, is surely a hecherer
madreigoh in ha'olomas ayin..

Strawmen: On a somewhat different  tack - RYGB also wrote: <I would like to
note the even more important aspect of the Velikovsky/Cheifetz/Aaronson
approach, which is, that while some feelChazal can, for some odd reason I
cannot fathom - be discounted at will>   I don't recall anyone saying chazal
could be discounted at will.  Need to refute that which people actually said
rather than easy to scorn but false strawmen.   I made a similar comment
when the DS was attacked for supposedly saying that ovos - or was it chazal
- were "prone" to error as well as other times.  Since these tend to be
charged subjects with some listmembers getting pretty lathered up it is that
much more important to both quote accurately and, when laying on
interpretive gloss, to don li'zichus.

Finally, I note RYGB's use of the word "cogent" as in <but have yet to see
anyone cogently refute the reference.> this opens to an interesting
methodological issue which I shall not explore here re the acceptability of
"proof".  Cogency certainly is a subjective metric which has led me to
previously note a "raising of the bar" problem and the ease which proofs may
be blown off, but oad chazone lamoeid. 

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@dtra.mil

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]