Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 374

Thursday, February 17 2000

• Re: Torah and Science / Dr. Shapiro and the SE - Friends or Foes?
• Yisgadel
• Re[2]: Diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: Response to HM
• Re[2]: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re[2]: kaddish
• What vs. Who
• Re[6]: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: kaddish
• Lashon Hara Issue
• Re[2]: Diyukim/nusach
• Re: To read or not to read: is that the question?
• Re: To read or not to read: is that the question?
• Re[4]: diyukim
• Diyukim
• Re: Re[4]: Diyukim

In a message dated 2/17/00 10:45:59 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< Were someone to bring me conclusive
 PROOF that the Mabul was only allegorical and never
 actually happened (something that is highly unlikely
 in that you would have to prove a negative) I would
 have to re-think my own position.  But it is his
 insistence that the Mabul must be allegorical because
 the rest of academia and it's intelligentsia do so
 based on their notions of scientific evidence without
 any regard to a Torah Hashkafa,  makes Dr. Shapiro
 somewhat suspect.  This is not to cast aspersions on
 Dr. Shapiro.  Any biographer has his natural biases
 and brings them wittingly or unwittingly to his work. 
 But it is likely that his portrayal of  an individual
 like the SE is done in a way compatible with his own
 Hashkafa, even though,  given his integrity,  I don't
 think he would do so intentionally.  There is
 virtually no such thing as objective history.
  >>

Since it is contrary to Avodah etiquette to waste everyone's time agreeing 
with a prior post, I've spent several minutes trying to find something wrong 
with the paragraph quoted above. Alas, I've failed. Even R'Maryles's grammar 
is correct, although I might point out, to justify this post, that "it's" is 
a contraction rather than a possessory form.

None of us *know* the truth of the Mabul. We *accept* its truth, in somewhat 
varying degrees of literalism, because we believe in the Revelation at Sinai. 
To reduce the Mabul to mere allegory is an enormous and dangerous leap. But 
to deny that the Mabul, solely as described in Parshas Noach, might contain 
elements of allegory (or at least metaphor) is ignore the fact that no 
narrative description of any act of HaShem can be entirely accurate, because 
all acts of HaShem are essentially beyond human comprehension and beyond the 
ability of any language to express. If the essence of G-d cannot be grasped 
by the power of thought (Likutei Amarim 86b), then the essence, meaning, and 
complete phenomenological truth of His miraculous acts, including the Mabul, 
cannot be grasped by linguistic reductive narrative analysis, either. 
Sometimes human language cannot comprehend the ruach of G-d unless used 
poetically, and that includes, I think, the language of Scripture.

(Aryeh Kaplan wrote a number of things that are useful to think about on this 
question.)

I've ordered a copy of Dr. Shapiro's book. I somehow doubt that it has been 
influenced by his views of the Flood.

David Finch 

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:40:26 -0500
> From: raffyd@juno.com
> Subject: re: Yisgadel
> 
<<This is what led the GRA to conclude that the two first words were
meant to be said in Hebrew.  I recall reading this in the Artscroll
"Kaddish", but may be mistaken...>>

	So far no disagreement.  The question I'm trying to pose is whether the
Gra meant to say that the first two words are Hebrew and should have a
tzereh,  but maybe some of the other words are also Hebrew (there are
other candidates,  not just the hispa'els under discussion. )  or did he
mean ONLY the first two words are Hebrew and should have a tzereh and the
rest are definitely Aramaic.

Gershon

I know this was said in jest, nevertheless it's a sensitive point for me.


EG, MB and Birnbaum both admonish us to say l'eylo lye'lo in Kaddish during 10 
dyas of Tehsuvo

Yet Roedleheim as l;eilo *U*l'eylo

So RYGB: if your congregation used Reodelheim, what would you do?  Follow the MB
or the accepted minhag hamakom?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Diyukim 
(and, of course, who can argue on the Roedelheim?) "La'zman."

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

I think one can make  chiluk between a plain vanilla siddur and one that was 
published specifically via research, eg Baer, Birnbaum, Heidenheim.


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 

> What surprised me --- shocked me, even --- was that the text of "our
>  siddurim" was even mentioned at all. Why even *bother* looking at the
>  decision of the local siddur-macher when you have the holy words of the 
>  rishonim and acharonim to choose from!??!
>  

See also M"A O"C 46:2.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>>Any biographer has his natural biases
and brings them wittingly or unwittingly to his work. 
But it is likely that his portrayal of  an individual
like the SE is done in a way compatible with his own
Hashkafa, even though,  given his integrity,  I don't
think he would do so intentionally.  There is
virtually no such thing as objective history.<<<

Can you provide some evidence?  Why not give us three examples where Marc Shapiro's judgement of historical evidence is influenced by his bias - i.e. three cases where he draws a conclusion, and you feel a different conclusion could have been drawn had the evidence been considered by someone of a different background.

Wouldn't that be a more fair than making a sweeping generalization about bias?

-Chaim Brown

To state this another way,

We may need to differentiate between the way a jesuit Scholar sees his shituf 
and that of the "typical" lay Catholic.

It is quite possible that the sophisticated teachings of Catholic Scholars may 
minimize the objectionalbe aspects (whtehr or not this is apologetics is yet 
another ebatable topic)

But

Let's remember that the real person we deal with may lack the sophistication to 
see those sublte distincions and see G-d as (CV) having three personas mamosh.

similarly, l'havdil, I had a boss who was an upper-caste Hindu who told me that 
the so-called Hindu gods are merely forces (something akin to malochim or sarim,
like sar shel eisav, etc.) and that they too believed in one G-d but that that 
Unity was then in charge of many forces.

I cannot and do not dispute my ex-bosses comments; and since either way the 
average Hindu might not "Khap"  that ditintion - therefore does it matter? Note:
the Rambam himself notes the discrepancy between the clergy and lay peoplem in 
his "history of Avoda Zoro".

I think this distinction is very useful in understanding which Catholic or Hindu
you are talking about (or to).

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Shittuf (was:gezel akum) 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/15/2000 4:03 PM


> I think what makes most Christian religions complex to 
> analyze in this regard
> is that they embrace a paradox, refusing to deal with the 
> contradiction
> inherent in 3 = 1 by considering it beyond human reason.

The standard answer (as taught by my Jesuit professor) is that they are 
manifestations of attributes -- l'havdil like HaShem vs Elokim.

Akiva


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

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

Similarly, note that we Asheknazim are {apparently} mafsik between

Umakdishim umamlimlichim es Shem Ho'keil

Should be one phrase
BUT

we say umakdishim umamlichim *:* (underline the colon as a prompt FROM the 
chazan TO the k'hal to yell:)

ES SHEM HOKEIL...

AFAIK Sfardim don't have this responsive interactive prompting.  This prompting 
creates awkward phrasing when seen in a certain context... I suspect taht this 
evolved out of some kind of responsive davening model whose parameters I am 
still uncertain of.

another eg, see Hertz's commentary on Boruch she'amar in which he claims that 
the prhase boruch hu and the prhase boiruch shmo wer not parts of the text but 
were responses that got meleded in somehow.  I once knew HIS source but I 
forgot it.

IF Hetz is on the money about the Borcuh Hu in Boruch se'omor than we have yet 
another case of Boruch hu - albeit in aramaic - with Brich Hu.  we find this 
awkawrd in reading the kaddish as prose.

HOWEVER

When we see the kaddish as an interactive responsive function - and after all 
it requires a minyan so listeners are presumed to be part of this function 
-then it begins to make more sense.

I think that Birnbaum  makes some statement to the effect that the main goal of 
the kaddish is to elicit the response yehai shmai rabbo.  Im kein, elicting a 
Brich Hu becomes a type of secondary goal

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: kaddish 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
Date:    2/15/2000 4:17 PM


In Avodah 4#369, MBerger wrote:
> BTW, when Chazan, I prefer saying "shmei diKudsha B'rich Hu" rather than 
"shmei diKudshah, b'rich Hu" -- IOW, acknowledging that Kudsha B'rich Hu is 
an idiom, even though Ashekanzim have the kahal reply "B'rich Hu" alone. < 
Actually, I think you're correct in reciting them together (does anyone 
posit a pause?) -- that an Ash'k'naz minyan responds "b'rich Hu" is, I 
believe, an echo of what the kaddish-reciter is saying rather than 
indicative of a split between "Kudsha" and "b'rich Hu."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NY

Estemmed moderator Micha:
<<We're really back into the territory of why people with greater gedulah
in da'as Torah (i.e. "gedolim") can produce piskei halachah of greater weight. 
I'm not talking about your own research and your own tephillos. We're 
discussing what's right for a community. And communal nusach shouldn't be 
overturned by just anyone.>>


I am forwarding this to the list with permission.  It touches upon the essence 
of the "what vs. who", and its timing was  - imho - no co-incidence.

Think about it, power of personality vs. the "truth" in what is said.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


> Subject: [ListeningLeader] for Mon, Feb 14, 2000 
> Author:  <Rick@ListenCoach.com> 
>
> THE LISTENING LEADER
> 02/14/00
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> THE LAW OF E.F. HUTTON
>
> Dr. John Maxwell, called America's expert on leadership, has coined
> the term "the law of E.F. Hutton".  In a nutshell, this law states that 
> people listen to what someone has to say not necessarily because of the
> truth being communicated in the message, but because of their respect for 
> the speaker.  The law reveals itself in just about every kind of
> situation.  A story about the former NBA player Larry Bird illustrates it well
.
> During the final seconds of an especially tense game, Boston Celtics coach 
> K.C. Jones called a time-out.  As he gathered the players together at
> courtside, he diagrammed a play, only to have Bird say "Get the ball out to me
> and everyone get out of the way."
>
> Jones responded, "I'm the coach and I'll call the plays!"  Then he
> turned to the other players and said, "Get the ball out to Larry and get out 
> of his way."  It just shows when the real leader speak, people listen.
>
> Once you learn the Law of E.F. Hutton, you'll never have trouble
> figuring out who the real leader is in just about any situation.  For example,
> go to a meeting with a group of people you've never met before and watch
> them for 5 minutes.  You'll know who the real leader is.  When somebody 
> asks a question, who do people watch?  Who do they wait to hear?  The
> person they look to is the real leader. 
>
> Source: The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell<<


Here is my "permission slip" 


richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Dear Rick
> I'd like to post this in a public forum and I'd like to attain your permission
.
>
> Regards
> Rich Wolpoe
>
Rich: Fine with me! - Rick

And if that Rav tells you to change how you daven, then what?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[4]: diyukim  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/17/2000 10:53 AM


In a message dated 2/17/00 9:03:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Isn't this the path to a "personality" cult?  

Doesn't the Gemara say and brought in Rambam (Hil. T"T 4:1) that Im Horav 
Domeh Lmalach Hashem...

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/17/00 12:20:42 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< I think that Birnbaum  makes some statement to the effect that the main 
goal of 
 the kaddish is to elicit the response yehai shmai rabbo.  Im kein, elicting 
a 
 Brich Hu becomes a type of secondary goal
  >>

I think Leon Wieseltier, whose book "Kaddish" is truly amazing, would agree. 
He argues that the Kaddish is less a prayer than a statement of defiance and 
solidarity with HaShem, particularly in the face of inevitable but ultimately 
unknowable loss. It is interactive because the strength of the statement -- 
its poetry, really -- comes from community instead of personal isolation. 

David Finch 

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:38:12 -0500
> From: raffyd@juno.com
> Subject: Lashon Hara Issue
 
<<Would someone on the list please help me locate marei mekomos, probably
in the "Chofetz Chaim", though other sources are fine, for the issue of
the permissibility of speaking loshon hara to let off some steam; as well
as the permissibility of listening to the lashon hara so that the speaker
will feel better. >>

	AFAIK there is absolutely no such heter,  neither for the speaker nor
for the listener.  Letting off steam is not a greater good to be pursued
in the face of loshon hara;  it is in the category of kol hako'eis ke'ilu
oveid avodah zara:  someone who gets angry (and does things he would not
otherwise do as a consequence of being angry) is considered like an
idolater.
 
<< I would appreciate a private response since I receive Avodah in digest
form and don't want to wait so long.>>

	It isn't usually very long to wait.

Gershon

I never heard that 

BUT

I heard that R. Nosson Adler was "thrown out" of Frankfort for insisting on 
duchening everyday.

I can furnish my source privately

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Diyukim/nusach 
:

Apparently the original Rodelheim  machzor came out with the 
brocho for bircas cohanim corrected to "Asher kidshonu 
*Bikdushas* Aharon" and as a result was taken out of 
circulation.

If this story is true it would show how seriously previous 
generation took to fixing the nussach.

- Danny

In a message dated 2/16/00 8:49:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< Personally, let me note again, that I have not criticized Prof. Shapiro's
 book, and have consistently limited my critiques and criticisms to the
 letters published in the TuM Journal. I am not aware that my comments have
 been too "trenchant." I have made them all in full cognizance that both
 Prof. Shapiro and Rabbi Schachter - both of whom I admire, in different
 ways - would read all comments posted here, and have attempted to be civil
 at the same time as expressing my views on the letters and their
 publication. >>

You have, however, caleed into question Dr. Shapiro's Emunos v'Deios, 
something I think is outside normal discourse. 

Jordan Hirsch  

I have not called them into question - I mention that I (and many others)
are aware of them, and therefore would not trust his excerpting or selecting
of letters.

But, let me ask you, why is query into one's emunos v'dei'os outside of
normal discourse?

I would think that Prof. Shapiro himself would disagree with you,
considering his major essay on the 13 Ikkarim some years ago in the TuM
Journal.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: To read or not to read: is that the question?


> In a message dated 2/16/00 8:49:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>
> << Personally, let me note again, that I have not criticized Prof.
Shapiro's
>  book, and have consistently limited my critiques and criticisms to the
>  letters published in the TuM Journal. I am not aware that my comments
have
>  been too "trenchant." I have made them all in full cognizance that both
>  Prof. Shapiro and Rabbi Schachter - both of whom I admire, in different
>  ways - would read all comments posted here, and have attempted to be
civil
>  at the same time as expressing my views on the letters and their
>  publication. >>
>
> You have, however, caleed into question Dr. Shapiro's Emunos v'Deios,
> something I think is outside normal discourse.
>
> Jordan Hirsch
>

There are tehcniques critical scholars use.

1) Research into existing documents
2) Patterns of typial errors.  (it's almost like a chazaka, chazak a scribe will
not insert or omit more than x or less than Y etc.)

I think that R DZ Hoffman and SE were sensitive to this; and realized that both 
printing and scribal errors have led to some bad assumptions and to some 
unecessary (albeit entertaining) pilpul.

With the siddur, many printing and scribal errors were incorporated and 
perpetuated.

AFAIK the Gra sensed that certain transpositions were made w/o actaully seeing 
the documents first hand.  I don't know for a fact that he did not do 
documentary research; OTOH, I didn't know it was a pre-requsite either.

All you have to do is find text a.  See a deviatoin in text b and come up with a
plausible explanation for the deviation.  Many of those plausible explanations 
are based upon recurring patterns.  

the Gemoro already tells us we are not beki'im im mlei and choseir.

Take the phrase chayim arukim or chayim arukhim

If the vov got there because the siddur was w/o nekudos but it is really a 
kubutz then you have arukim as THE correct pronunciation and you explain away 
the vov as symptomatic of printing w/o vowels, and in those instances shuruks 
were used.

You don't have to be a gaon to find these things out.  All you have to do is be 
familiar with the patterns invovled with writing and printing with and w/o 
neukoddos and seeing how mistakes creep in.

Here's another:

Two nushcaos for the preamble to ashamno.

Elokeinu veilokei Avoseinu

vs.

Ano (aleph nun aleph)

I don't need to be a gaon to see how they are connected

Typically elokeinu v'eilokei avoseinu is abbreviited (see old old siddurim) as 
Aleph VOV Aleph

it is really easy to see how scribes or pritners mixed up the abreviation of 
aleph NUN aleph with aleph VOV aleph 

What requires a gaon or a scholar is to know which came first and when did the 
mistake creep in!?  the rodelhim has aleph nun alph as a nusach acheir, so I 
suspect it was aleph vov aleph.

This is what a critical text struggles with, nun vs. vov, shuruk vs. kubutz

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: diyukim 

	You would definitely need to define those terms. How do you know you are 
restoring rather than emending?

Gershon

The Roedelheim. But they don't, so I advise "l'eylo u'l'eylo."

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <ygb@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:37 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Diyukim


> I know this was said in jest, nevertheless it's a sensitive point for me.
>
>
> EG, MB and Birnbaum both admonish us to say l'eylo lye'lo in Kaddish
during 10
> dyas of Tehsuvo
>
> Yet Roedleheim as l;eilo *U*l'eylo
>
> So RYGB: if your congregation used Reodelheim, what would you do?  Follow
the MB
> or the accepted minhag hamakom?
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
>

Whoops! typo!

Should say:

> The Roedelheim. But they don't, so I advise "l'eylo l'eylo."

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: Re[4]: Diyukim


> that's why I like lomdus but only upt to a point.  I am VERY relutant to
change
> a minhag based upon a sevor, even one from a Gra or a MB
>
> I respect the sevoro, but I like to keep the minhag
>
> In my case the Rodleshim IS our minhag, it's the MB that is the problem
>
> KT
> Rw
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Diyukim
> Author:  "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> at tcpgate
> Date:    2/17/2000 3:07 PM
>
>
> The Roedelheim. But they don't, so I advise "l'eylo u'l'eylo."
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Cc: <ygb@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: Diyukim
>
>
> > I know this was said in jest, nevertheless it's a sensitive point for
me.
> >
> >
> > EG, MB and Birnbaum both admonish us to say l'eylo lye'lo in Kaddish
> during 10
> > dyas of Tehsuvo
> >
> > Yet Roedleheim as l;eilo *U*l'eylo
> >
> > So RYGB: if your congregation used Reodelheim, what would you do?
Follow
> the MB
> > or the accepted minhag hamakom?
> >
> > Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.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         ]