Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 240

Friday, December 31 1999

• RE: Bechira of Mosheh
• RE: Schlessingers Proof of God
• RE: Source for Agunah praying
• Shas or SA?
• Re: Avodah V4 #238
• Shas vs. Other
• Re: Shas or SA?
• Re: Shas or SA?
• Re: Avodah V4 #238
• Happy New Year...Some agreements
• Re: sefardi minhag
• Re: Happy New Year...Some agreements
• Re[2]: Shas or SA?
• Re: YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin (?)

Just some footnotes on the conversation
as well as a new theory of what Moshe did
wrong

1) And they will believe in your forever
----------------------------------------
See Rambam Yesoday Torah--this refers to
his status as a Navi. He still had the
bechirah to be a navi sheker.

2) The rock and negative feedback
----------------------------------
I wrote about the bechirah of Adam and David
in Torah forum and mail-jewish. There I posited
that the goal of Bechira is to overcome ones 
impetuousness. This has nothing to do with 
knowledge of Hashem. Thus Eve knew she wasn't
allowed to eat from the tree BUT IMPETUOUSLY
took from it (according to Sanhedrin she
could have eaten it in an hour). Similarly
David knew what he was doing was wrong but
his passions made him act impetuously.

In a similar manner..even with immedidate negative 
feedback Mosheh had the same bechirah as
the rest of us...he had to avoid impetuousness

3) A new theory on why Moshe was punished
------------------------------------------
In fact I once suggested that the hitting
of the rock AFTER Miryam's death is precisely
an example of an impetuous response to Death of
a loved one which Moses took out on other people

Perhaps this is why he was punished...if he was 
like other people and thought of himself he shouldn't
be an (eternal) leader

Russell

Thanks to Gil.Student for resurrecting this.

I never got back to Micah's questions. Here
is a brief summary which I think answers all
questions

1) WHOM IS THE ARGUMENT ADDRESSED TO
-------------------------------------
It is not addressed to the believer.
It is addressed to the person who has doubts
Doubts means that this person assigns a less
than 100% probability of God existing.

2) What are the assumptions
---------------------------
Background: Bayes theorem requires certain
----------- qualatative assumptions

2a) Doubtful existence of GOd
-----------------------------
As Gil pointed out 50% is adequate (to prove
Gods existence). In other words if you start
with a doubt of 1/2 1/2 you will end up
believing

2b) Probable existence of intelligent life if God exists
--------------------------------------------------------
Schlessinger points out that this is basically our
definition of God (For purposes of this discussion).
We define God as a kind benevolent being who wants
'residence in the lower worlds'. It then becomes
extremely probably (100% as Michah says) that life exists
IF God exists

2c) Highly improbably existence of life without God
---------------------------------------------------
Again this is addressed to the person with doubts.
Since assigning numbers confuses people let me suggest
a qualatative approach. If a person has doubts BOTH
...about Gods existence
....about the existence of life without God

then all that is necessary is that the person have
significantly MORE doubt about life without God then
about God Himself. 

3) Spreadsheets
----------------
Is that too vague? Then try a spreadsheet as Gil suggests
It is illuminating that with EVEN a 50% chance of God
existing and with say a 1% chance of life existing that
Gods existence is close to 100%.

To recap the theorem shows an interrelationship between
---a doubt about God
---a real doubt about life without God
---surety about life with God

Hope this helps
Russell Hendel;Phd ASA RHendel@Towson.edu,
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

Carl(&Richard) seems to have started going 
around in circles. I keep on stating the
source and Carl keeps on saying 
'why dont you state a source'
Perhaps Carl disagrees with my interpretation
of the source but let him at least say so

I am only repeating the source in this posting
If Carl asks me for a source again I will assume
he is not reading my email and ignore it. On the
other hand I consider this an interesting topic
and if he (or anyone else) wishes to discuss 
the source and its interpretation that is good

MAIN SOURCE: The sifray/sifray on the verses
---lest he call to God on you
---lest he not call to God (Ki Taytzay & Reay)
From the contrasting clauses (CALL, NOT CALL)
the sifray/sifra explicitly states
>>We infer from this that it is permissable
>>to call to God 'ON A PERSON'
>>(they are talking about a
>>a worker who didn't receive wages or a 
>>default on a loan

A secondary source is the sifray/sifrah on
>>Don't torture any widow (Mishpatim). 

I suggest that the main source EXTENDS and
applys to the secondary source

I add two comments
1) I don't know the full extent of this law
But it certainly includes workers without
wages and  default loans. I suggest that it
includes all comparable people. Carl is free
to add or not add whomever he wishes. However
I don't see how he can avoid saying that this
applies to workers and defaults on loans.
My position is that it applies to at least
these cases so we have something new


2) I am certainly aware of all the sources
that one should not pray on ones enemies.
But we now also have a source that SOME
people (workers, lenders) can pray. 

In classical talmudic style I simply APPLY
the 'don't pray on your enemies' clause to
the non worker non lender cases. I think
this is a reasonable way to resolve the
contradiction (and is done all the time)

Again...if I receive another email saying
I haven't cited a source I will simply ignore
it. Similarly if I receive another email stating
I have ignored the sources prohibiting praying
against ones enemies I will ignore it also.On
the other hand Iwould really like to continue this
conversation

Russell Hendel; phd asa;rhendel@towson.edu,
http://www.shamash.org/rashi

FWIW R. M. Heinemaan told me much the same in 1968.

Permit me to expand this:

How about a program in which the sedr halimud is based upon the simonim in the 
Tur, the Talmidim cover the basics and THEN "refer backto the original suguos in
Shas?

At Riets, most of us in Yoreh Deio did NOT learn chulin, and many who 
did.learned it "bekios" style.

Many times r. Weiss introduced a given shiur by having us open the sugyo in the 
Gemoro as background before "attacking" the SA/TAz/Shach.

I also had a seder in Toras haBayis, and I found learning it and its nos'ie 
keilim as more-or-less as valuable as learning chulin inside.

Finally, there was a period during our history when TB was "off-limits" and the 
Rif was used as the text.  As I was taught, censors prevented Yidn from learning
TB, BUT since the Rif was called Hilchos or Halachos hoRif it was OK>

And that it how it came about that the Ran, and other no'sei keilim made a 
peirush on the Riv and not on Shas, and lomdus was preserved in those 
communities who were prohibitted from using TB!

One more point:  The TB in Bovo Metizo decries baalei Mishna as "menadeichem" as
I recall.  The TB points out that the Mishna w/o the Gemoro is mis-leading.

BUT

I have seen hakodomos such as "l'olom havei rotz achar Hamishno" that point out 
once the Bartenura and others made a periush on the Mishna based upon Shas, teh 
dnager was removed; adn therefore this admonition to learning mishna w/o Gemoro 
is longer applicabe, because the no'sei keilim have in effect removed the dnager
of mis-understandg the mishna

By analogy I say it can be extended to learn TUR/SA w/o gemor because the   BY 
brings down the Gemoro and the Rashi etc. whne applicable.  IOW, one can learn 
Gemoro indirectly.

No doubt that the "mainstream apporach is to master Shas, and it would be a 
disservice for me to promote any other agenda for the vast majority of talmidim.

However,  not every Talmid is a mainstream Talmid

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



In a message dated 12/31/99 9:13:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, Rich Wolpoe 
writes:
<< And perhaps some future Shach should be focusing on TUR/SA and no'sie 
keilim.
  >>
It is virtually impossible to write a sefer on halacha without being a boki 
gadol in all of 
shas, or at the very minimum on the specific sugya on which you are writing. 
Those who decide halacha from likut seforim without understanding the 
"yesodos" of the sugya from shas will almost certainly err. See the hakdomo 
of the kesef mishna. A cursory study of the Shach will show that although his 
seforim were written on Shulchan Aruch, he uses his mastery of all of shas to 
bring proofs to various opinions. The same is true with the large majority of 
great posekim that klal yisroel has had as a study of Shu"t Chasam Sofer, R. 
Akiva Eiger (see also his sons hakdomo), Nodah b'yehuda, Achiezer, Igros 
Moshe, all the seforim of r' yitzchok Elchanan and many others will show.

In a message dated 12/31/99 9:13:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, moshe rudner 
writes:
<< When did this idea of Gemara above all else become one of the Ikkarim? I 
am 
 surprised that even among non chareidim (many of us on this list) it seems 
 to be a sacred principle that Gemara learning is of ultra importance.
 
 Taking this belief as an axiom, we then discuss the pros and cons of kollel, 
 problem children (those who for some crazy reason don't understand the 
 purpose of learning Gemara), and other issues. 
 I would be very interested to hear what exactly the purpose of intensive 
 Gemara study is - unless of course that is a principle which we must except 
 on faith. >>
Read thru Nefesh Hachaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin and you will see why 
traditionally there has never been an act that compares to the all 
encompassing nature of limud hatorah, specifically shas, among religious 
Jews. An excellent English study is Torah Lishmah by Dr. Norman Lamm, where 
he clearly and eloquently describes why there is such an emphasis on learning 
and knowing torah -- specifically shas. (R. Lamm did such a good job 
explaining torah lishmah that after reading his book it was hard for me to 
understand why he is such an advocate of torah umadda.)

It should not be surprising that Shas is so emphasized even among the 
Non-haredim on this list. There is no question that RYBS, who is the mentor 
and role model for much of the non-haredi community, was passionately in love 
with Limud haShas. He publicly proclaimed this love many times. It is 
therefore not surprising that many follow in his footsteps. 

Even among Chasidim, especially among those after the first generation, there 
was heavy emphasis on Shas. See hilchos Talmud Torah of the Baal hatanya.

Whatever the reason the following quote in the name of R. Yitzchak Twersky is 
unquestionably true "the study of the Talmud...achieved nearly exclusive 
emphasis during many periods of Jewish history."  And IMHO that is the way it 
should be.

It is also true - to echo Dr. RJ Hendel -that the Rav's approach to limud was 
used on other seforim, too.  RYBS took the same analytical apporach to Kinnos on
Tishah b'Av and to Chumash and Rashi,to Rambam's  Yad, etc.  

It is therefore arguable that the technique is more significant to learning than
is the specific selection of text.

BEH I will follow up with my spin on the Rambam.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #238 
 <snip>M
Read thru Nefesh Hachaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin and you will see why 
traditionally there has never been an act that compares to the all 
encompassing nature of limud hatorah, specifically shas, among religious 
Jews. An excellent English study is Torah Lishmah by Dr. Norman Lamm, where 
he clearly and eloquently describes why there is such an emphasis on learning 
and knowing torah -- specifically shas. (R. Lamm did such a good job 
explaining torah lishmah that after reading his book it was hard for me to 
understand why he is such an advocate of torah umadda.)

It should not be surprising that Shas is so emphasized even among the 
Non-haredim on this list. There is no question that RYBS, who is the mentor 
and role model for much of the non-haredi community, was passionately in love 
with Limud haShas. He publicly proclaimed this love many times. It is 
therefore not surprising that many follow in his footsteps. 

Even among Chasidim, especially among those after the first generation, there 
was heavy emphasis on Shas. See hilchos Talmud Torah of the Baal hatanya.

Whatever the reason the following quote in the name of R. Yitzchak Twersky is 
unquestionably true "the study of the Talmud...achieved nearly exclusive 
emphasis during many periods of Jewish history."  And IMHO that is the way it 
should be.

Dear Richard,

A few comments of the list as I still am deleting more then reading due to 
lack of time.

>  And that it how it came about that the Ran, and other no'sei keilim made a 
>  peirush on the Riv and not on Shas, 

The Ran actualy wrote also on Shas who doesn't learn the Ran in Ndorim?

>  By analogy I say it can be extended to learn TUR/SA w/o gemor because the 
BY
>  brings down the Gemoro and the Rashi etc. whne applicable.  IOW, one can 
learn 
>  Gemoro indirectly.

See Hakdamas Bnei Hamchabrim to the Shulchan Oruch HoRav.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I guess Bhasgacha (or is that in lack of such) it went to list.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/31/99 11:23:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< 
 Read thru Nefesh Hachaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin and you will see why 
 traditionally there has never been an act that compares to the all 
 encompassing nature of limud hatorah, specifically shas, among religious 
 Jews. An excellent English study is Torah Lishmah by Dr. Norman Lamm, where 
 he clearly and eloquently describes why there is such an emphasis on 
learning 
 and knowing torah -- specifically shas. (R. Lamm did such a good job 
 explaining torah lishmah that after reading his book it was hard for me to 
 understand why he is such an advocate of torah umadda.)
--------------------------------------
Or perhaps you might rethink why someone else who believes in Tora lshma is 
not?
-------------------------------------
 
 It should not be surprising that Shas is so emphasized even among the 
 Non-haredim on this list. There is no question that RYBS, who is the mentor 
 and role model for much of the non-haredi community, was passionately in 
love 
 with Limud haShas. He publicly proclaimed this love many times. It is 
 therefore not surprising that many follow in his footsteps. 
--------------------------------------
Lulay toratcha......  However-being a dyed in the wool lover of limud hashas 
doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand that not everyone is like 
you. Each of us has a different "face" and it's unfair to brand someone whose 
avodat Hashem runs toward parshanut(for example) as being inferior. 
------------------------------------
 
 Even among Chasidim, especially among those after the first generation, 
there 
 was heavy emphasis on Shas. See hilchos Talmud Torah of the Baal hatanya.
 
 Whatever the reason the following quote in the name of R. Yitzchak Twersky 
is 
 unquestionably true "the study of the Talmud...achieved nearly exclusive 
 emphasis during many periods of Jewish history."  And IMHO that is the way 
it 
 should be.

----------------------
Exclusive? To the exclusion of Tora shebektav?(or as the old joke goes - 
learn chumash as a perush on the gemora)

Shabbat  Shalom
Joel Rich
 
  >>

Since I seem to sometimes develop a reputation of arguing
with people(I am not really that way) I thought
I would share the following 2 private emails
from Richard Walpole
-------------------
And here (FWIW) I agree with your distinction...

>>>>>
To be a frum Jew you need the ACT of Talmud 
but it need not be applied to Shas. 
EG IF you read the SA and also read the Tur. I myself have had some
delightful chevrutas with sifray sifrah
>>>>>>>>

So you shouldn;t think that I always agree or disagree <smile>
------------------
Regarding Agunoth Richard writes

---------------------------------
OK let's concede theh sources.

I stil lthink it's an eitzo ro'oh 
to encourage people with grievances to not 
consult objective 3rd parties.  I speak as one from both sides

I had bosses whom I hated, but others found they were ok. Perhaps *I* was
wrong 
 

AND otoh I had tenants who thought it was my fault we had roaches in an
paartment. But I taaned that 
they did not even admit my exterminator, so how can
you blame ME!  and the tenants complained to a Rav.  Now imho how can you
complain about roaches when you refuse to admit the exterminator for his
monthly visit!  But they DID, they made me a LOT of trouble and
complained to me anyway.

I think your point only serves to foster this behavior.
--------------------------------------------

Again... I **always** urge consulting with 3rd parties
etc. My real point was

---eg if a person is so anguished that they have symptoms
of withdrawal and depression (eg they are drinking or
leaning on their wife more than usual because of their
boss) then (and only then) I would strongly encourage
them to pray on their tormentor.

---a 2nd real point is that bosses and tenant anguish are
really respected by halachah as 'non babyish'

---a 3rd point..perhaps Richard missed this...is that if
the parties are arguing and talking then they probably
don't need to pray....prayer happens when you are so
helpless that their is no one left to talk to.

Finally...on a more humorous note...I think both Richard,
his tenants and the Rabbi should pray for THE DEATH OF
THE COCKEROACHES. This would be acceptable to all.

Happy new Year

Russell; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

 

I commented yesterday that I had picked up a sefer by R' Ovadiah Yosef on
the Ben Ish Hai. I was mistaken about the name, though. It is Halichot
Olam.

Interesting. I was skimming the first perek, and found a case where
R' Ovadiah agrees with the BI"H against the S"A.

If you remove your talit, to attend to bodily functions or for some other
reason, both the BI"H and R' Ovadiah agree that you don't say a beracha,
even though Maran says you do. Safek beracha lehakel.

The BI"H comments about the AR"I, who writes (through R' H Vital) that one
should say a beracha when putting the talit katan back on after tevila,
that that is only if one is on the level of the AR"I, who was in the
mikveh for quite some time and was involved in kavannot, and thus had a
hesek hadaat for his talit katan.

So it would appear that it is neither a return to stricly S"A nor a push
away from kabbalistic influence that drives R' Ovadiah in his efforts. Now
I'm curious as to his motivations. Rabanit Boublil, do you have any
insights?


---sam

My point is that anguish might be cause by PERCEIVED wrongs and not REAL wrongs.

I have been "b'roygez" with people because of MY misperceptions and people have 
been "b'roygez" with me because of THEIR misperceptions.

I don't see how/where this is addressed in your reply.

A BD  - in theory - should be doreish vechkoer and cleara up any potential 
mis-udnerstandings.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Happy New Year...Some agreements 

Again... I **always** urge consulting with 3rd parties 
etc. My real point was

---eg if a person is so anguished that they have symptoms 
of withdrawal and depression (eg they are drinking or 
leaning on their wife more than usual because of their 
boss) then (and only then) I would strongly encourage them 
to pray on their tormentor.

---a 2nd real point is that bosses and tenant anguish are 
really respected by halachah as 'non babyish'

---a 3rd point..perhaps Richard missed this...is that if 
the parties are arguing and talking then they probably 
don't need to pray....prayer happens when you are so 
helpless that their is no one left to talk to.

Finally...on a more humorous note...I think both Richard, 
his tenants and the Rabbi should pray for THE DEATH OF 
THE COCKEROACHES. This would be acceptable to all.

Happy new Year

Russell; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

Please expand for the list...

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Shas or SA? 


See Hakdamas Bnei Hamchabrim to the Shulchan Oruch HoRav.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB writes:  <YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin the same
as any other (at least, RIETS is, not the other branches). It is not
the equivalent of RYY Reines' Lida. The derech in YU is precisely that
of Rav Dessler and the CI, only with formal limudei chol (as opposed
to the informal at Volozhin and Slabodka) thrown in. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer>


the perception of voloshin as the mother of yeshivas, or the first yeshivah,
generally obscures the true chidush of voloshin – and thus blur the nature
of the debt that other litvish and non-litvish yeshivas alike owe voloshin,
and obscures as well the very major differences between a place like
voloshin and, say, a slobodka, which nobody a 100 years ago would have
casually grouped in the manner done above.  

There been yeshivos mi’qadmas di’noh. countless numbers of yeshivas before
(and after) voloshin as well. voloshin’s true chidush was entirely organizational
and financial. it is the first “modern” ashqenazi yeshivah independent
of the local inhabitants, not financially or administratively beholden
to the local townsfolk and the local rov. it was the first “national”
yeshivah which essentially invented (at least for educational institutions)
the system of far flung fund raising and its associated infrastructure
of people “connected” to the yeshivah. (I’m ignoring the much earlier
models of the “two yeshivos” in gaonic bovel which shared many of the
same attributes, but which most people would, properly, have difficulty
perceiving as a continuum with the 19th century versions. of course other
pan-national fund raising models were well established, most notably
the proto-UJAs for support of israelis). for  for the first time ever,
it essentially turned the tables on the local town, becoming an independent
economic and spiritual force with substantial local leverage. The voloshin
difference as perceived by both those both inside and outside the yeshivah,
as compared to the more common low-status arrangements where the bochurim
would “eat taig” (as my father a”h was still doing more than a hundred
years later in the hungarian world) represented a revolutionary increase
in real status. 

But Slobodka was not voloshin, though it did follow the new administrative
mold of “independent” yeshivas (though the real power, i.e., control
of the purse, was, in slobodka, vested in the masgiach, rather than the
rosh yeshivah as in voloshin). The learning in slobodka was radically
different, as slobodka developed into a “mussar’ yeshiva and not without
great opposition (leading to at least one breakup of the yeshiva – whereby
the mussarniks, who were a distinct minority – but no matter since they
controlled the all important funding – actually left and restarted a
new yeshivah).  Other litvish yeshivas developed their own chidushim,
such as the introduction of “classes”, “advancement”, “tests” etc. generally
all foreign to the real voloshin. in my days at YU, mussar (in the sense
of a formal educational program I hasten to add) was little in formal
evidence, though an individual rosh yeshiva or so may have learnt there,
and in that sense it might be considered in the voloshin mold. But the
differences extend well beyond the grafting of a secular program on a
yeshivah.  – every thing else associated with the formal structure of
class hierarchies, regular metrics, etc was decidedly un-voloshin like.
perhaps we should rather cite telz as an inspiration for yu (a completely
innocent suggestion unfortunately likely to produce symmetrical revulsion
in NY and cleveland). and it was most definitely even further from the
great mussar learning enterprise of slabodka.

Mechy Frankel				H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		W: (703) 325-1277		


-- 
Michael Frankel
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com - email
(202) 777-2641 ext. 1299 - voicemail/fax



___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com

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


[ 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         ]