Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 230

Wednesday, December 29 1999

• Kollel and Sustenance - Rambam vs. Minhag
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• re: The Logical Response
• re: The Logical Response (humor alert)
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• Re: The Logical Response
• Re[2]: Prayer with insufficient Facts
• Re[2]: Avodah V4 #225
• Re[2]: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Re[2]: Jews of yesteryear and wigs
• RE: The Logical Response
• Re: Modernity
• Mah Shimo?
• RE: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re[2]: School visits/inspections -humor

I think there are several parallels wherein the Rambam paskens against the 
prevailing minhag.  The only one I recall off the top of my head is where the 
Rambam insists on reciting the individual Birchot Hashachar at the point that 
each chiyuv is incurred as opposed to "arranging" them to be recited all at once
in shul.

(and contrast this with the  MB who recommends deferring the brocho on Tallis 
Koton in anticipation of the Brocho on the Tallis Gadol which might be delaeyd 
by more that half-an-hour).

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
-- it is equally well-known that Rambam's view was never the majority 
one, not in his own day, as he acknowledges (Perush ha-Mishnah, Avot 
4:5), and not in later generations.   In fact, most of Rambam's examples 
are drawn from the Gemara, not from subsequent periods.  It is therefore 
striking to find the Rosh describing someone following the Rambam's 
example in the 14th century in (most likely) the Sefardic milieu.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark

Carl M. Sherer wrote:


> I admitted that may well be the case. The point that I think WAS 
> well taken (and I have found it to be true as well), is that as a 
> group, Sephardim seem to place a lot more importance on Minhag 
> than do most Ashkenazi communities (the Yekke's being a notable 
> exception).


There's a difference, though. Sefardi gedolim will not hesitate to speak
against a wrong minhag, while the impression I got here on the list is
that Ashkenazim are more inclined to allow a minhag to stand even if it
conflicts in some way with normative halacha.


---sam

On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 12:14:41PM -0500, Sammy Ominsky wrote:
:                               the impression I got here on the list is
: that Ashkenazim are more inclined to allow a minhag to stand even if it
: conflicts in some way with normative halacha.

Does this take us back to the notion that Ashkenazi practice did not
originate as conforming to any given text (in particular, Talmud Bavli)? If
so, it would explain why we are more reluctant to change general practice
to conform to what the texts say is halachic. Or, to put it the opposite way,
we have more confidence that common practice is somehow justifiable within
halachah even if we can't prove it through talmud Torah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Dec-99: Revi'i, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 10

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>  Perhaps the Meshech Chachmah intendes the latter kind of bechira-lessness. 
> That Moshe reached the level where there would be no choices left -- if one 
could
>  determine the real situation. But OhZ isn't Olam ha'Emes.

This is an interesting possibility, but it clearly is not what the Meshech 
Chachmah meant.
Here is a quote [translation mine]:
"And if so, how did HaShem command that they should believe Moshe forever? 
Everything is in the hands of Heaven besides awe of Heaven!" Perhaps, 
Challilah, Moshe could then choose to add on his own! We are forced to say 
that HaShem Yisbarach entirely removed Bechirah from Moshe, and Moshe 
remained forced as the Malachim are."

Further on, the Meshech Chachmah elaborates:
"Moshe, himself, strained and worked to such an extent that he raised himself 
to the highest possible levels of human perfection. Therefore, he merited 
that Bechirah should be annulled from him altogether."

It seems clear to me that HaShem adds something to Moshe's accomplishment.

Mordechai
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

RMBerger wrote: <<I'm not sure of either claim. Ghandi's attachment to
passivism was not necessarily an intellectual assessment. A smaller
violent act can prevent a greater one, and therefore be ethically justified.
>>

For the sake of historical accuracy, Gandhi's pacifism for most
of his mature life was not "passivism" or "passive resistance",
but rather a doctrine of political and moral  *activism* known as
"non-violent direct action".  E.g., his 240-mile salt march in the
face of British guns (interesting to consider what the results might
have been in the face of German guns). Even so, the doctrine did not
allow  for the use of  physical violence under any circumstances.  Such
an absolute veto on the use of physical force is  amenable to Hindu
and Christian religious beliefs (as M.L. King demonstrated),
but, as you pointed out, irreconciliable with the Torah.

KT,
Shlomo Godick

RMBerger wrote: <<
OTOH, keeping a chiyuv in a she'as hashmad is a halachic question. Briskers
can get pretty cerebral about those. No?  >>

Reminds me of the following joke:

Once a Brisker was walking to the Kosel when he was suddenly
attacked near Damascus Gate by a terrorist threatening him with a
knife.   Sensing that his end was near, he recited the Shma, then
exclaimed in a heart-rending voice: "Boruch oto HaShem ... v'tzivanu lamus
al kiddush ha-shem"!   Totally unprepared for this behavior, the shocked
terrorist started fleeing in the opposite direction.  The Brisker finished
the bracha, and, looking up and seeing his attacker in flight, starting
chasing after him, crying out: "brocha l'vatolo, brocha l'vatolo !!!".

KT,
Shlomo Godick

In a message dated 12/29/99 10:54:57 AM US Central Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< First things first.  As R. Gil correctly notes, Scholem was not
 observant nor, as his writings reflect, did he believe in Torah mi-Sinai
 (about which more will be said).  So far as I know, the same is true
 regarding B. Netanyahu.  I think it is also valuable to draw
 distinctions between Orthodox academics who are talmidei hakhamim, such
 as the late R. Isadore Twersky z.l., and those who are not (I shall not
 name any).  Neusner is not Orthodox and never has been.  He studied at
 JTS.  While some of his early work was highly regarded in academic
 circles, he has sullied his reputation in recent years.
  >>

True enough, up to a point. R'Twersky's work was brilliant not only because 
he was a talmud hakham, but because he was willing to use his intellectual 
gifts to explore and compare many corners of medieval thought, Moslem and 
Christian as well as Jewish. I doubt he worried whether his scholarship posed 
a threat to his emunah, or the emunah of his readers. 

Scholem is a special case, because his explanations of mysticism are tied up 
in his depressing skepticism. But at least as to learning for learning's 
sake, it shouldn't matter whether Benzion Netanyahu, Jacob Neusner, or other 
academics of their ilk have formed any heartfelt views on Torah mi-Sinai or 
need to lay tefillin every morning. It certainly shouldn't matter whether 
they took classes at JTS instead of YU (either Yale or Yeshiva), or whether 
they learned historical detail from original sources or from sidebars in 
Tosofot.

For example, Netanyahu's oft-revised analysis of Abravanel is painstaking (if 
highly opinionated). His work on the Spanish Inquisition is thought by some 
to be the best ever written. He heart is clearly Jewish, and so's his head; 
I've come across nothing in his work that suggest his supposed non-Orthodoxy 
has affected the quality of his scholarship. Two other examples, apropos the 
JTS issue: R'Abraham Joshua Heschel and Raymond Scheindlin. Heschel is a 
non-person in the Orthodox world. If one mentions his name in Orthodox 
circles, one gets perplexed frown, or more politely, a quick change of 
subject. But his work, qua work, reflects an extraordinary spirituality that 
is in every sense Torah-true, even if it emphasizes aspects of prayer and 
connection to HaShem that are not traditionally discussed within the mesorah. 
(Personally, R'Heschel was punctiliously observant.) Scheindlin, who teaches 
at JTS, has written some brilliant things on medieval Hebrew poetry. His 
commentary and translation of the Book of Job is an eye-opener. It should 
open maybe even the eyes of the Orthodox. It may be at odds with the 
"traditional perspective" on Job, but not by much, and what it offers is 
quite enriching.

And what about the current example of Leon Wieseltier? From what I gather 
about his background, as an adult he has been about as frum as Joey Bishop 
after a big show in Vegas. There are all sorts of things wrong about 
Wieselteir's "Kaddish," but what is right in "Kaddish" is extraordinarily, 
powerfully insightful. Do we have to ignore him entirely, too?

<<Second, almost all academic writing
tends to locate its subject within a broader context; when applied to
matters of Torah, this inevitably diminishes the sense of the uniqueness
of Torah. 
>>

The same could be said of the the works of the greatest of Jewish scholars. 
In the Guide, for example, Rambam pines for the loss of the older Jewish 
metaphysical tradition, and brings down Alexander of Aphrodisias, of all 
people, to support his analysis. Rambam's thinking is permeated with Muslim 
and Greek thought. Did this diminish the sense of uniqueness of Torah in the 
Rambam's eyes, and cause him to lose emunah? To the contrary, it allowed 
Rambam to understand that uniqueness. It might be said to have helped create 
his emphasis on emunah. 

<<Here the issue is what does the academy have to teach us about Torah.
In some cases, the answer is things that we, as ma'aminim, do not want
to hear.  On the other hand, sometimes the answer is things that we need
to know.  Only someone with the sophistication to distinguish between
the two should be reading the authors listed by R. David.
>>

How does one acquire the requisite "sophistication" to read scholarly works 
unless one starts out by reading scholarly works (hopefully under some sort 
of guidance)? As a child, Wayne Gretsky spent thirty or forty hours a week 
flipping pucks against his father's garage. That's where he got his 
wristshot, the most sophisticated in the hockey business. There's no such 
thing as a "natural."


<<At a minimum, the book demonstrates that the Rambam did not merely
restate the halakhah as it appeared in the Gemara, but often introduced
his own ideas.  This should be evident to anyone who has read Hilkhot
De'ot and represents a major theme in R. Twersky's writings as well.
>>

Right. But didn't you also say that academic scholars "sometimes come to 
conclusions that are at odds with the mesorah or, at least, with the 
traditional perspective on a particular issue. Such a divergence can easily 
pose a challenge to one's emunah." Now you accurately point out that Rambam's 
creativity -- his non-traditionalism -- enhanced his sense of emunah. You 
can't have it both ways.

David Finch

On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Pawshas@aol.com wrote:
:> Perhaps the Meshech Chachmah intendes the latter kind of bechira-lessness. 
:> That Moshe reached the level where there would be no choices left -- if one 
:> could determine the real situation. But OhZ isn't Olam ha'Emes.

: This is an interesting possibility, but it clearly is not what the Meshech 
: Chachmah meant.

: Here is a quote [translation mine]:
:                                                   ... We are forced to say 
: that HaShem Yisbarach entirely removed Bechirah from Moshe, and Moshe 
: remained forced as the Malachim are."

This was exactly the line that got me thinking. According to RYGB (and I'm
sure he'll correct me if I misunderstood), the Or Samei'ach holds that
mal'achim who lack free will do so because their place in Shamayim gives them
sight through an aspaqlaria that is so me'irah there are no choices to be made.
However, RYGB suggested that when they come to OhZ they do have a measure
of bechirah. I was adding that we could say this is the choice between emes
and sheker. The term "bechira" often is used in the limited sense of choosing
between tov vara.

(And doesn't the Meshech Chachma tend to agree with the Or Samei'ach?)

: Further on, the Meshech Chachmah elaborates:
: "Moshe, himself, strained and worked to such an extent that he raised himself 
: to the highest possible levels of human perfection. Therefore, he merited 
: that Bechirah should be annulled from him altogether."

: It seems clear to me that HaShem adds something to Moshe's accomplishment.

I'm not sure how you see it. But then, I tend to view "zechus" in more
causal terms than most people do. See my earlier comments on sechar va'anosh
from Avodah volume 1.

Also, contrast this with the Ramban on "hichbadti es leiv Par'o". Leshitascha
is would appear that the Meshech Chochmah could justify this as a punishment,
the inverse of Moshe's reward. But the Ramban doesn't take that route.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Dec-99: Revi'i, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 10

I highly recommend the following Shu"t:

Tzitz Eliezer, section 11, siman 84  -- it is a lecture
given at a Siyum for Ketuvot.

He starts with the well known Pasuk from Yechezkel:
"Ve'Atem Harei Yisrael Titnu Pri" which is used in Perek
Chelek of Sanhedrin as a pointer for us to know when the
time of Mashiach is nigh (btw, this is the pasuk used as the
reason for the placement of several of the berachot in
Shmoneh Esrei in the order we have them), and referring to
another G'mara on the issue of the way Talmidei Chachamim
will be treated at that time [just read the papers] and to
the Rambam who states that the above pasuk, as are all the
others on the Ge'ula, is a Mashal -- and he continues to
give the Nimshal (with proof).

To summarize he discusses the importance of Yishuv Ha'aretz
and it's influence on the jewish people in general and much
more.

It's a wonderful article and I truly recommend it.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 08:40:00PM +0200, Shlomo Godick wrote:
: RMBerger wrote: <<I'm not sure of either claim. Ghandi's attachment to
: passivism was not necessarily an intellectual assessment. A smaller
: violent act can prevent a greater one, and therefore be ethically justified.
: >>

: For the sake of historical accuracy, Gandhi's pacifism for most...

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant pacifism (which my mouth would render identically).
Hopefully the paragraph you quote now makes more sense.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Dec-99: Revi'i, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 10

2 points.

1) even if the husband is WRONG in following his rebbe's advice he might not 
REALIIE he is wrong until told so by a BD.  In effedt you are saying it's OK to 
pray for the death of someone who is beshoggeg following orders.  And I am NOT 
so sure people have the right to willy-nilly reject the psak of their Rav.  have
you a source for this?

2) I don't see how you are distinguishing Torture from any other grievance.  Why
not just throw out Beis din and we'll all pray for what WE think G-d ought to do
to right our wrongs?  In other wordws why bother with any subjective intervening
bodyh.  If Ploni hars me, let me just turn to Hashem and let Him do His thing?  
Or does v'dorashto v'chakarto Hieteiv mean that just PERHAPS my PERCIEVD 
greievance is in error in the eyes of objective 3rd parties?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


Richard continues
2nd EG, what if a husband refuses to give a GET because he is following 
the 
orders of his rebbe or his parents and furthermore he assumes that he has 
not 
right to disobey THEM?   

ANSWER
A person who under advice from his Rebbe has placed a women in a living 
agunah situation has done as much wrong as his Rebbe. A Rebbe doesn't 
have the right to order you to torture someone and you can't blaim him 
(alone)

Finally...Richard is avoiding the **issue**. The issue is that a women is 
being
tortured. She has the right to take the torturer at face value and pray 
against him
unless the torturer is a legitimate deputy. If the torturer is an 
illegitimate deputy
she should pray against both.

Rich Wolpoe
RUSSELL
________________________________________________________________ 
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit: 
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Doesn't the Gemoro discuss about Levi'im that they start trainging at 25 to work
at 30, and therefore 5 years is the amount of time alloted to discern "success" 
in one's study's?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #225 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/28/1999 2:01 PM



> 
> I agree with you. I don't think there is one correct route to produce 
> a Gadol. But much of Israel and many quarters of the States are
> sold today on the Desslerian philosophy (or so it has been 
> characterized here - does someone have a cite? Is it in the 
> Michtav?) that 1000 go in for each one that comes out as a
> justification for not making a selection at some point in time. 
> 

I find it hard to accept that that is the justification. 
Even if one accepts Rav Desler it is obvious at some age
(lets say 30 though probably much earlier) who has a chance of 
becoming a gadol

Eli Turkel.

Hashem sentenced him immediately.  he served that sentense on a deferred basis.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/28/1999 8:04 PM


R' Rich Wolpoe wrote: 
>  Simlarly, Moshe Rabbeinu was deprived of Bechira.  Not that he was a 
robot, 
>  rather if he introduced any deviation on his own, he would face 
> instantaneous  negative feedback, (remember Nodov and Avihu!)

One problem - it wasn't instantaneous, at all!
Of course, you could respond that the Jews needed Moshe to bring them to the 
edge of Eretz Yisrael.


Mordechai
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave 
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library 
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

Does head covering d'oraisa ipso facto make it unfathomable?

I don't think so.

The Torah is perhaps merely implying what the expected standards of tznius are 
by an olbique reference.  Is tznius unfathomable?

There are quite a number of cases in which d'oraisos are extended and those 
extensions are treated together with the original core d'orasiso.  I heard 
beshim the Rav that generally all derabbonons follow a d'oraiso structure.

Point #1. head covering is aboslute - not necessarily unfathomable/

Point #2, HAIR covering is relative, but in a makom where it is common, that too
might be d'oraiso.  D'oraiso MIGHT be constructed as any "pirtzas geder".

Point #3 is simple, Shas and poskim often state explicity that s'oros are ervo 
and do not refer to Rosh.  How then can I then fall back on the din of "roshoh" 
of the Torah?  My answer is that the s'oros are lav davka m'ikkar hadin rather 
those poskim were referring to their societies which defacto made no distinction
between hair and head.  However, in the far less tznius society of today, 
unocvered heads are common. Which means that exposing hair is not a pirtzas 
geder and is not a relative problem of tznius.  For that matter, an uncoverd 
head is not a relative problem, BUT we now fall back to the core ikkar hadin of 
ufora es rosho.  so even though it might not arouse us in the USA circa Y2K, 
it's still ossur, because the Torah has that expectation.

If we moved to a society such as Saudi Arabia in which women covered their hair,
then hair covering would be required. and since unocvered hair in that makom 
would be untzinus, therefore that uncovered hair might be ossur mi'oraiso

The minhag hamokom in other words is not defining the severity of the issur, 
rather it is defining the local metzius of tzinus <smile>.  And we can say that 
tznius is mid'oraiso, and that there are torah set standards and that there are 
societal set standards.

I think the MB makes a similar argument re: shokaim of an isho.  that even in a 
society that permits skirts aboe the knee shokaim are mi'orasio ervo.  OTOH if a
society demanded dresses down to the ankles then a skir tabove th ankes woul be 
relatively ossur.

I hope this helps

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Jews of yesteryear and wigs 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/28/1999 9:16 PM


Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> wrote:
: 1) *Head* covering is d'oraiso as it is ipmlicit in uforah es rosha, implying 
: a woman's head is covered by default

: 2) *Hair* covering is dependant upon minhag hamokom, and in a place where all 
: hair is covered it would be ossur and coudl be a d'oraiso extesnion of the 
: above.  

: 3) When poskim refer to women's hair instead of head, it is imho, because 
: typically all of the hair was covered and therefore there was no need to make 
: the distinction  between hari and head.
..

Actually, #1 and #2 suggest that #3 is false. Head covering is di'Oraisa, 
and therefore unfathomable. Hair covering is defined by tzenius. I could 
therefore understand the position that a wig that is indistinguishable from 
her own hair doesn't satisfy tzenius. However it does follows the (lack of) 
parameters of head covering as per the d'Oraisa.

-mi

Historical background from
http://www.netreach.net/~zoa/columns/Nov96/gandhi.html

>>
Even after the Kristallnacht pogroms in Nazi
Germany, Gandhi wrote (in a letter to Martin Buber) that German
Jews were morally obligated to remain in Germany and practice
"satyagraha" (non-violent protests) rather than move to Palestine.  In
an interview with the author Louis Fischer (in 1938), quoted in
Fischer's book Gandhi and Stalin, Gandhi proposed
that the Jews in Germany commit collective suicide in order to
"arouse the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence."
<<


Akiva



A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I think R. Moshe hit it.  let's not fool ourselves.

We should use the adage or respect AND suspect (kabdeiheim vechashdeihem)

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Modenity 


>The more Arabs are extracted from their primitive and 
>insulated world through contact with the world outside 
>of Islam, the more that tolerance will be come a way  
life.



Do you really believe this?!

Has history not shown us that "halacha limoshe misinai - eisav soneh et 
ya'akov" is a truism?

I'm not advocating paranoia. The gemara's statement that in every generation 
we will have at least one nation backing us has been shown to be accurate, 
but the hagada's "shebichol dor vador..." has been shown to be at least as 
true.

<snip>

So please, don't fool yourself that our problems will be solved if only the 
Arabs became less primitive.

Moshe
______________________________________________________ 
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Moshe Rabbenu is self-described as have kvad peh,  kvad lashon,  and aral
sefasayim.  These are different parts of the process of speech formation.
 I wonder whether the expression "Shechina medaberes mitoch grono"  has
relevance here.  Any thoughts?

Gershon

> (Personally, R'Heschel was punctiliously observant.)
>

The only reason R' Heschel took a job at JTS was because he couldn't get a
job in an Orthodox yeshiva (Jobs in Chinuch were hard to come by back then).

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Avodah? <smile>

Rich W.




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
, can you think of any activity that hones the human
intellect better than limud hatorah?

KT,
Shlomo Godick

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


[ 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         ]