Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 375

Thursday, February 17 2000

• Re: facts, please! Bias and the SE publication
• Re[2]: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: To read or not to read: is that the question?
• Re: What vs. Who
• Re: Re[6]: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• Mark Shapiro
• Re: Torah and Science / Dr. Shapiro and the SE - Friends or Foes?
• Re[4]: diyukim
• Re[8]: diyukim
• Re: Re[8]: diyukim
• Re[10]: diyukim
• Re: Response to HM
• Re: facts, please! Bias and the SE publication
• Siddurim
• Diyukim
• kaddish
• Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?

>>>I mention that I (and many others)
are aware of them, and therefore would not trust his excerpting or selecting of letters.<<<

I fail to see the causal relationship - if someone has
a bad pshat in chumash, is his reading of history
therefore suspect?  But again - why debate theory when 
we can get to the facts?  

Provide me with three examples (or more, of course!) 
of where Marc Shapiro failed to properly interpret 
historical evidence because of his bias.  

We are no longer talking about whether letters should
have been published.  We are talking about how they were
used to draw and present conclusions.  Since we both
have at least the TuM on our shelves, why not provide
some quotes where M. Shapiro used the letters/other 
historical data to support an erroneous claim, but a more objective reader (or a reader such as yourself 
with no agenda) can come to a radically different 
conclusion?

-Chaim Brown

RR Wolpoe wrote:

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

I think the gemara in Chullin 13b implies that also when it talks about most 
idolaters not being minim.

In a message dated 2/17/00 3:10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

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

Well, it is dealing with something that I think might be a little hard to 
quantify, published essays notwithstanding. BTW, you know which TuM journal 
that essay of which you spoke contains the article to which you referred. I 
better read it before I respond further:-)

Jordan Hirsch 

In a message dated 2/17/00 1:33:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

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

The Gemara says Kabeil ES Hoemes M'mmi Sheomroi, the distiction being made, 
is that when a person who is a living Torah makes a statement it carries the 
weight of the entire torah, much like in the example the reason the coach 
accepted his words is because he knows from previous experience that he can 
produce.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/17/00 1:34:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

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

There is much in the Poskim on changing Nusach Hatfila, and Minhag Hamokom, 
as a Lubavitcher I do Daven the Nusach of the Baal Hatanya.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

See SA 8:5 MB 8:10 Shaar Hatziyun 8:15 

wrt leshiateif b'tzitzis (shevo) vs. lehisateif BAtztitzis. (patach)

I would love to know who are the "rov acharonim"?

Richard_Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/15/2000 9:32 PM


There is an important point that I neglected to include in my post of a 
few minutes ago: The words of the Beur Halacha make it very clear that 
his *primary* source for the nusach of Al Hamichya was the Magen Avraham 
and other poskim, and one cannot just blindly follow what a siddur says.

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!??!

Yet, in some of those cases, the Mishna Brurah did allow the siddurim to 
be machria between the poskim. Amazing! Not the sort of mimetics we are 
used to seeing in the Mishna Brurah, is it?  :-)

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 2/17/00 12:41:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

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

Actually the Siddur mentioned in the M"A was changed because of research into 
the Poskim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

What is the title and who is the publisher of RMS's book on the Serida
Eish?

In a message dated 2/17/00 12:03:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

>  I would still
>  drink his wine :) 

That is with permission of course otherwise a Bracha could not be made :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Adn there is a machlokes between the English Artscrol land the Hebrew Artscoll 
of LO'omer vs. BO'omer

IIRC, the Hebrew artscroll still has LO'omer in the instructions but emended the
text to use a Beis.

Was this a concious change or a printing error?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


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

Actually the Siddur mentioned in the M"A was changed because of research into 
the Poskim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Questions:

Let's say You daven nusach Ari and this is how you davened for a LONG time.

Now your rebbe tells you to say Birschas Boruch Hasem L'olom for Maariv what 
would you do?

Better, your rebbe says nothing to you, rather he publishes a kuntros suggesting
that change,  do you change based upon that Kuntros?

We know that Kitniyos or gebruktz are only a minhag.  Can a rebbe tell is to 
alter our minhag on these manners?

What about when other gedolim say we should not make this change or simply 
refuse to make a change and continue - are they as living Toros have any opnion 
less worthy?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[6]: diyukim   


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

There is much in the Poskim on changing Nusach Hatfila, and Minhag Hamokom, 
as a Lubavitcher I do Daven the Nusach of the Baal Hatanya.

<snip>



The Gemara says Kabeil ES Hoemes M'mmi Sheomroi, the distiction being made, is 
that when a person who is a living Torah makes a statement it carries the weight
of the entire torah, much like in the example the reason the coach accepted his 
words is because he knows from previous experience that he can produce.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/17/00 4:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Questions:
>  
>  Let's say You daven nusach Ari and this is how you davened for a LONG 
time.  
>  Now your rebbe tells you to say Birschas Boruch Hasem L'olom for Maariv 
what  
>  would you do?

"El Hashofeit Asher Yihyeh Bayomim Hoheim" pervided he is Al Gabei Hoanok, 
(See  Sifrei Hakllolim (i.e. Yad Malachi, Sdei Chemed, etc.) on the Kllal of 
HIlchesah Kbasro'ee).  A point to be added in this particular issue of G'ulah 
Ltfila the Rav would have to rule whether Hatoras Ndorim is needed.

And the L. Rebbe has actually changed something (minor Lfi Erech) and it is 
done so.

>  
>  Better, your rebbe says nothing to you, rather he publishes a kuntros 
suggesting
>  that change,  do you change based upon that Kuntros?

If he Paskens it as Halacha "Lmaseh" then ditto.

>  
>  We know that Kitniyos or gebruktz are only a minhag.  Can a rebbe tell is 
to  
>  alter our minhag on these manners?

First Lhokeil is a different issue, and even then a ruling would be required 
WRT Hataras Ndorim.

I want to point out that we are talking Rav (a Halachik expert, not just 
Rebbe, even though that many wear both hats), 
>  
>  What about when other gedolim say we should not make this change or simply 
>  refuse to make a change and continue - are they as living Toros have any  
opnion 
>  less worthy?
>  
Basrei Dmar HIlchasoh Kmar. 

DISCLAIMER: there are many distictions in all of the above questions, see 
Sdei Chemed Veod.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Just to give this a twist.

My 9th grade rebbe pointed this out to me....

Boruch Hashem was in place of Tefillo at one time - hence the 18 sheim hashe  
bimkom shmoneh esrai, etc.

As such there is a closer semichah from Goal Yisroel to Boruch Hashem then there
is to the amido (which is in maariv after all originally a reshus) and COMES 
AFTER KADDISH.

Or iow it is arguable that it is a KULO wrt semcihas g'ulo to tefillor to skip 
Boruch ahshem and say kaddish (a hefsek) before shmoneh esrai.  By saying Boruch
Hashem l'olom, you have no such hefsek .

He probably had a source but I don't recall it

While Baer and others call Boruch Hashem a g'eulo arichto, I like to call it a 
tefillo arichto and show that (based upon this logic) that it is actually 
moveing the tefillo a step close rather than stretchign teh g'eulo a step longer


Which goes to show that a lot of kulos have chumros and vice versa.




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

>  Let's say You daven nusach Ari and this is how you davened for a LONG 
time.  
>  Now your rebbe tells you to say Birschas Boruch Hasem L'olom for Maariv 
what  
>  would you do?

"El Hashofeit Asher Yihyeh Bayomim Hoheim" pervided he is Al Gabei Hoanok, 
(See  Sifrei Hakllolim (i.e. Yad Malachi, Sdei Chemed, etc.) on the Kllal of 
HIlchesah Kbasro'ee).  A point to be added in this particular issue of G'ulah 
Ltfila the Rav would have to rule whether Hatoras Ndorim is needed.

And the L. Rebbe has actually changed something (minor Lfi Erech) and it is 
done so.


DISCLAIMER: there are many distictions in all of the above questions, see 
Sdei Chemed Veod.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> >>>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?

As I indicated, I did not read Dr. Shapiro's book.  I
was simply making an observation about his attitude
regarding a well established belief about the
literalness of the Mabul and took note of his serious
departure from the norm in stating that the Mabul was
allegorical. Holding such a view, I feel impacts at
least unconsciously, on the way a biographer views
history in general, and biographies in particular. I
cannot state that there are any "different
conclusions" that could have been reached becuase I
haven't read the book.  I simply raised the question
of natural bias in light of radical views. I DO NOT
impugn Dr. Shapiro's integrity.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> I fail to see the causal relationship - if someone has
> a bad pshat in chumash, is his reading of history

There is a long way between "a bad pshat in Chumash" and my understanding
of Prof. Shapiro's position on matters I consider germane to proper
interpretation of the spirit and meaning of Gedolei Torah.

> therefore suspect?  But again - why debate theory when 
> we can get to the facts?  
> 

We can't get to the facts unless we go to the restricted access collection
in JTS and read all the letters in the correspondence - which may make us
candidates for CDRG.

> Provide me with three examples (or more, of course!) 
> of where Marc Shapiro failed to properly interpret 
> historical evidence because of his bias.  
> 

I cannot, becaue I do not have, say, the etters from 1948-1954. Perhaps
Prof. Shapiro has excerpted letters that are entirely refelctive of the
SE's position - you and I will never know.

> We are no longer talking about whether letters should have been
> published.  We are talking about how they were used to draw and present
> conclusions.  Since we both have at least the TuM on our shelves, why
> not provide some quotes where M. Shapiro used the letters/other
> historical data to support an erroneous claim, but a more objective
> reader (or a reader such as yourself with no agenda) can come to a
> radically different conclusion? 
> 

Um, wrong, R' Chaim. We are still talking about whether this particular
excerpted correspondence should be published, but from another angle.

YGB

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

And minhag HaGra and minhag Baal HaTanya aren't the result of research?
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:39:42 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: diyukim 
> 
> 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
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
>

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:09:29 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[4]: diyukim 

<<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>>



	It may be easy to see,  but IIRC,  RYBS didn't.  Maybe someone remembers
better than I do,  but I believe he spoke several times in Teshuva
drashas concerning the word ana in vidui.  I believe he held that you
have to say both E"V"A,  and ana.  Anyone recall?

	So I ask again,  is it restoration or emendation?  It isn't always
clear,  even if it appears so,  even if Birnbaum or anyone else says it
is.

Gershon

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:19:00 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: kaddish 

<<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>>

	The Sefaradim,  I believe,  say "amen" instead of Brich hu,  per psak of
Maran.  

	They,  or at least the Syrian Jews whose nusach I have heard,  have
their own responsive answer:  they say "yehe shelama raba",  followed by
a lot more "Sim Shalom" type of nouns,  shezava,  purkana, I can't hear
them at the speed they say them. Then,  at some point when the chazan is
about to say "verevach"  the kahal chimes in with him, much as we do for
brich hu.

Gershon

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

A distinguished scholar of Jewish texts (based on his posts) has posited 
something which makes little sense to me.

He (essentially) tells us that while he has not read R' Marc's book he has 
no need to for Marc is suspect - he has views which are non mainstream 
regarding the mabul.

I am confused on two accounts.

Firstly you are insinuating that he is pasul LiEidut because he holds a 
belief on the mabul which is unique. Your source in Shulchan Aruch mentions 
this eludes me. Certainly your having cast such aspersions on his Ne'emanut 
in a public forum should require your asking Mechila.

If I am correct, R' Marc raises very valid questions on the literal reading 
of the Chumash as there having been a world flood. The physical and 
historical evidence in favor of a world flood is extremely lacking. What 
Marc says today will very likely be the official opinion of Da'as Torah in 
25 years. When the Tiferet Yisrael discussed the possibility of the world 
being older than 5760 (minus ~100) years his opinion was denounced as being 
against the Mesorah. And it was against the Mesorah. Now it is (more or 
less) accepted.

Secondly, does the country of Burma exist? How can you believe that it does? 
I guarantee you that the people who write of their experiences in Burma have 
stranger Deot than R' Marc. Does R' Marc ask you to trust his conclusions on 
the Sredei Esh or did he write an entire book presenting the facts and their 
interpretation as he sees them?

Ad hominem attacks are not very convincing.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----- Original Message -----
From: moshe rudner <mosherudner@hotmail.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 9:05 PM
Subject: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?


> He (essentially) tells us that while he has not read R' Marc's book he has
> no need to for Marc is suspect - he has views which are non mainstream
> regarding the mabul.
>

If R' Moshe refers to me - I anxiously await an opportunity to read R'Marc's
book. I do not want to pay $40+ for it, so am trying either to get it for
free to review for some publication, or to get the HTC library to buy it, or
to get it on loan for someonw who has finished it.

I agree that his views on the Mabul are no reason not to read his book.

> I am confused on two accounts.
>
> Firstly you are insinuating that he is pasul LiEidut because he holds a
> belief on the mabul which is unique. Your source in Shulchan Aruch
mentions
> this eludes me. Certainly your having cast such aspersions on his
Ne'emanut
> in a public forum should require your asking Mechila.
>

No, it does not. By the way, this is not a matter of Eidus - he is not being
mei'id (for the most part) on anything in the essay consisting of the SE's
letters. He is, if anything, being dan (as in dayanus) - what to publish and
what to withold.

> If I am correct, R' Marc raises very valid questions on the literal
reading
> of the Chumash as there having been a world flood. The physical and
> historical evidence in favor of a world flood is extremely lacking. What
> Marc says today will very likely be the official opinion of Da'as Torah in
> 25 years. When the Tiferet Yisrael discussed the possibility of the world
> being older than 5760 (minus ~100) years his opinion was denounced as
being
> against the Mesorah. And it was against the Mesorah. Now it is (more or
> less) accepted.
>

I discussed this here in regard to R' Spero 's essay in Tradition. You may
find the material in the archives.

> Secondly, does the country of Burma exist? How can you believe that it
does?
> I guarantee you that the people who write of their experiences in Burma
have
> stranger Deot than R' Marc. Does R' Marc ask you to trust his conclusions
on
> the Sredei Esh or did he write an entire book presenting the facts and
their
> interpretation as he sees them?
>

I have no idea. I have not read the book. I have only discussed the letters.
I am hoping the book is a Kiddush Hashem that leads directly to enahanced
Ahavas and Yiras Hashem, a veritable sefer mussar, like R' Simcha Raz's "A
Tzaddik in Our Time" - the archetype of the type of biography that should be
written.

> Ad hominem attacks are not very convincing.
>

Indeed...

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

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


[ 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         ]