Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 380

Sunday, February 20 2000

• Re: The Study of History
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Bad opinions by the SE
• History and Gedolim
• (no subject)
• Re: Response to HM
• Re: Re[2]: kaddish
• Re: Siddurim
• Re: Diyukim
• diyuk
• Re: kaddish
• Re: Diyukim
• Hat Cover
• Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• >From Today's "Israel Line
• Rashi
• Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Yeridas hadoros; was; Question
• Bava Metzia 58

On 18 Feb 00, at 7:56, Harry Maryles wrote:

> The Sridei Eish (SE) letters that  purportedly reflect
> very negatively on the SE are a case in point.  After
> all the discussion heretofore the question remains,
> did the SE want letters that he wrote and therefore
> obviously believed, to be published? These letters
> paint a picture of the SE that we might not otherwise
> have.  If he meant what he said and took the time to
> write down the words then perhaps he did want people
> to ultimately know his feelings.  Or was this a one
> (?) time polemic written in private correspondence
> which reflected a moment in his life that  did not
> really reflect the essence of the man. 

Have you ever written a letter that you would not want your children 
or grandchildren to know about, let alone all of Klal Yisrael? I'm 
sure most of us have. How would you feel if a letter like that got 
out? And before anyone tries to answer that there is no lashon hara 
on the dead, see Chafetz Chaim Clal 8 S'if 9.

> Another example, as I have mentioned several times in
> the past, the book, "My Uncle the Netziv" is a classic
> case how the best of intentions about what is
> appropriate information is highly subjective. An
> Artscroll "approved" author/translator wrote a very
> positive portrait about the Netziv only to be
> condemned by his peers for publishing what they
> considered negativities about him.  The book was
> "pulled from the shelves".

WADR to Prof. Shapiro, about whom I know little, I would have a 
hard time comparing him with the Torah Tmima (who was the 
author of the Mekor Baruch from which "My Uncle the Netziv" was 
translated) unless he can show me Torah scholarship (not just 
history) that RMS has published. 

> History is a very important educational tool.  One can
> and should learn a lot about how to conduct oneself
> through the biography of great individuals.  But when
> history is sanitized to fit someone's agenda, no
> matter how noble, it takes away the true lesson and
> replaces it with someone else's vision of what
> appropriate behavior is.  In the case of   "My Uncle
> the Netziv" , everything published was done with great
> love and admiration by the author for his uncle. If
> there was any behavior that the Netziv was not proud
> of , it did not appear in the book. Yet, certain
> individuals with great influence asserted that the
> book was incorrect in quoting behavior that even the
> Netziv himself wanted people to know about and
> pressured for it's removal from the shelves. 

I have not read the biography of the SE. But I have read My Uncle 
the Netziv, and I have it in my house (together with the letter 
offering to take it back from me with a full refund of whatever I may 
have paid or contributed for it). I think the difference between them 
is that "My Uncle the Netziv" was not published with the goal of 
changing anyone's perceptions of the Netziv (how could it have 
been? The Mekor Baruch was published many years before). 
Whether rightly or wrongly (I cannot judge that), from everything I 
have read about Prof. Shapiro's biography of the SE, it was 
published with the goal of changing how at least some people 
viewed the SE.

> To me this is clearly wrong. One cannot learn how to
> conduct oneself from historical sources if those
> sources are censored in the agendized fashion
> mentioned above.

Then how do you deal with Hilchos Lashon Hara? I don't recall 
seeing any exceptions in the Chafetz Chaim that allow speaking 
Lashon Hara for the purpose of learning history.

> But, what about mentioning the behavior of certain
> role models that they are not proud of. Let us say
> that a certain Rosh Hayeshiva committed adultery with
> a married woman.  The story has been successfully
> suppressed from public knowledge.  He is an admired
> figure in Charedei circles.  Should one who has
> absolute knowledge about the affair tell the story? 
> Should history not record those events?  Should the
> laws of Lashon Hara (LH) dictate what can be written
> historically? 

Halacha is supposed to govern a Jew's conduct, and therefore 
sullying that gadol's reputation by repeating such a story would be 
lashon hara. It would be assur, and one who knows about it would 
have a duty to keep silent.

> And when is it LH? How do we define it? 

The Chafetz Chaim writes in Clal 1 S'if 1:

"Assur le'saper bi'gnus chaveiro, AFILU AL EMES GAMUR." Why 
are we telling this story about this gadol? To make him appear a bit 
less in someone else's eyes? Isn't that "gnus"? 

> If someone was a Noef and then did Teshuva, should we
> in fact tell the story and show the level of public
> Teshuva that a Gadol is capable of and that Teshuva
> should be sought by anyone for any Aveira?  Or, should
> we not bring it up. Why tarnish  his name at all in
> the eyes of his admirers? 

Why are you telling the story? And why are the people who are 
hearing the story listening to it? Is it really to show how someone 
can do tshuva? Or is it for its prurient "value?" Do we really need to 
know that Gadol X is a noef R"L in order to know that tshuva should 
be sought by anyone for any aveira? Aren't there enough examples 
of that without sullying the name of a gadol?

> I take note of the many stories in the Gemmarah about
> certain of Chazal who were tempted by Aveirah or who
> actually did Aveiros.  The Gemmarah does not shy away
> from the truth.  Why did the Gemmorah have to tell us
> about the Cherem that R. Elazar was put in after the
> Maaseh with Tanur Achnai.  Surely we did not need to
> know that a Tanna was put in Cherem. But a lesson was
> to be learned about the severity of going against the
> Rov (majority opinion) and "Lo Bashomayim He" even if
> one had a Bas Kol (heavenly dictate) on his side.  

Yes, but you stated the toeles yourself. And R. Elazar's aveira 
there was not exactly an aveira that was typical of "amcho." How 
many times in the Gemara do you see a name attached to an 
aveira of gezel or niuf? I can't think of any off hand. In fact, I can 
recall Gemaras that talk about "planya gazlana" davka without a 
name. 

> This makes history almost impossible to know. 
> Halachic restriction combined with competing
> philosophies about which Hashkafa to emphasize will
> make a study of history almost impossible to know. 
> And as I've previously indicated one's striving for
> objectivity simply does not always work.

If anyone on this list has an email for Rabbi Wein, I'd be really 
curious to hear his take on this....

> This is why I like to read bios written by authors
> with varying viewpoints, and try to glean those
> elements that the books do not dispute, as truth, or
> as near truth as is humanly possible. 

For how many Gdolim (especially recent Gdolim) do we have 
multiple biographies?

OTOH I would agree with you that exaggerating a gadol's good 
midos, or leaving out his struggles to attain those midos, to the 
extent that he has chosen to discuss them with others during his 
lifetime, serves no constructive purpose. 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 19 Feb 00, at 20:19, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:

> 
> There are different versions of how "Mordechai" is pronounced in
> Megilas Esther.
> 
> 
> Is the correct pronunciation Mordochai or Mordachai???

I read it as a kamatz katan.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

<<<<<<The Sridei Eish (SE) letters that  purportedly reflect
very negatively on the SE are a case in point.>>>>>


Having read the letters posted by R' Dratch and all that the article by R' 
Shacter contains I am unclear as to why these letters reflect negatively on 
the SE. Because they contain feelings and thoughts which we don't expect 
"Gdolim" to have? Why are the concerns and beliefs expressed by the SE in 
these letters negative?

If I may requote the letters posted by R' Dratch (some might say that I MAY 
NOT but I'm just saving you the effort of going to the archives where they 
are available for all the world to see - unless they've been removed?)


<<<(R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg was greatly distressed by the morality of 
these
laws.  In a letter to his friend, Professor Samuel Atlas, published in Marc
B. Shapiro, "Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jabob Weinberg and Professor
Samuel Atlas", The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997, dated September 15,
1957, he wrote,
I have bitter thoughts about the very existence of the nation and its hopes
for the future.  The entire world hates us.  We assume that this hatred is
due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that we also
bear some guilt.  We regard all the nations as similar to an ass.  It is
forbidden to save a Gentile, it is forbidden to offer him free medical
treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life, his
sexual intercourse does not render a woman forbidden to her husband 
according
to R. Tam because their issue is like that of horses.  Can the nations 
resign
themselves to such a deprivation of rights?  It is permitted to deceive a
Gentile and cancel his debt as well as forbidden to return his lost object!
What can we do?  Can we uproot our Torah teaching with apologetic formulae 
or
clever deceptions.  God knows that I have written this with the blood of my
heart, the blood of my soul. (p. 112)
On November 15, 1965, he wrote,
In my opinion it is fitting to put an end to the hatred of the religions for
each other.  More than Christianity hates Judaism, Judaism hates
Christianity.  There is a dispute if stealing from Gentiles is forbidden 
from
the Torah, everyone holds that deceiving a Gentile and cancelling his debt 
is
permitted, one is not to return a lost object to a Gentile, according to R.
Tam intercourse with a Gentile does not render a woman forbidden to her
husband, their issue is like the issue [of horses].  According to 
Maimonides,
if a Jew has sex with a Gentile [woman], the Gentile is killed because the
Jew stumbled into sin through her.  The law of a Gentile is the same as the
law of an animal.  Maimonides derived this law on his own.  It is not found
in the Bavli or the Yerushalmi.  We must solemnly and formally declare that
in our day this does not apply.  Meiri wrote as such, but the teachers and
ramim whisper in the ears of the students that all this was written because
of the censor. (p. 118)>>>


Isn't it comforting to know that someone of teh magnitude of the SE grappled 
with these issues?

Similarly, in the letters quoted by R' Shacter the SE states a clear opinion 
that he sees Midot as being more important than Chumrot - despite the fact 
that many Rabbinical leaders in Israel favored Chumrot. Why does that 
opinion reflect negatively on the SE?

Perhaps the letters which I have not read reveal horrific things (chas 
vishalom) but teh letters which I have seen and which have caused so much 
contention do not appear to me to necessarilly reflect negatively on their 
writer.

Moshe

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

(Snip from Harry Maryles)
>This is why I like to read bios written by authors
>with varying viewpoints, and try to glean those
>elements that the books do not dispute, as truth, or
>as near truth as is humanly possible.
Immanuel Etkes takes this approach in a new book about the
historiography and images of the Gra.  It is expecially apparent in his
treatment of Chasidic/Mitnagdic controversy: If the Baal Hatanya and the
Mitnagdim agree on certain facts, these facts are most likely true and
should be accepted as such.
Daniel Schiffman

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:50:07 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Rashi

>I have heard off list from 2 people regarding Rashi on Chumash:
>1) Rashi always is saying peshat
>2) Rashi is always saying peshat except when he notes otherwise.
>Any Klalei Rashi or articles or other sources that speak to these
assumptions?
>Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Kehot has published the book "Klale Rashi, befeirusho al hatorah." from
the Sichos of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z"ya.  One of the best academic
works on the subject is Sarah Kamin's book, published by Hebrew Univ.

>The gemor says yiphtach bedoro kishmuel bedoro. Since Yiphtach came
first >was he
>the greater of the 2 and is this what is implied?
Surely not.  This phrase is often quoted in isolation from the preceding
phrases.  the gemara in Rosh Hashana 25b says, "Yerubbaal bedoro keMoshe
bedoro, beDan bedoro keAharon bedoro,   yiphtach bedoro kishmuel
bedoro."
It is clearly stated that three "kalei Olam" are being given the same
weight and authority as three "chamure Olam."  Chronology is not what
determines the meaning here.

Daniel Schiffman

On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 01:08:25PM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: >>>Any biographer has his natural biases
: and brings them wittingly or unwittingly to his work. <<<

: Can you provide some evidence? Why not give us three examples where
: Marc Shapiro's judgement of historical evidence is influenced by his bias...

Because the listowner would throw a DNA flag on that play. It is one thing
to make a comment about the nature of biographies. It's another to question
the integrity of a given biographer.

FWIW, I am currently sitting at RYGB's computer after having enjoyed a
wonderful (albeit snowy) Shabbos here. I finally got an opportunity to see
the TuM article, and to compare it to the biographical notes in the begining
of the SE. See for example, the impression one gets about the SE's opinion
of Chassidus from the two sources. (RYGB did this excercise with David Finch
and myself this evening.) There's a setirah there.

I'm inclined to believe that his letters to Dr. Atlas are meant as letting
off steam and frustration to a friend, the sharing of hava aminos, and really
has little to do with his conclusions on many issues. They really have little
value in analyzing the shitos of the SE.

OTOH, as David Finch pointed out, there is much to be learned from the
struggle with the conclusion. Think how much less valuable Iyov would be,
if we didn't deal with his railing against G-d before coming to terms. I
think that had the article not tried to draw a portrayal, but had presented
the letters in this light, I would have better agreed.

Both biographies therefor show some bias. One uses a single, perhaps
questionable, source to draw conclusions on the SE and TuM, not noting where
he disagrees in print. The other is a hagiography, and pretends the man
had no internal struggle with the issues.

Neither point deals with the halachic issues of lashon hara and cheirem diR'
Gershom. I'm just discussing the pragmatic usefulness of the material.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:55:06AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 	When I read the Torah,  people are always "completing the phrase".  Of
: course,  they have their favorites-EVERYONE likes ka'eileh with the azla
: geresh in the maftir of Pesach.

R' Dovid Willig taught me to lein for my bar mitzvah. The parashah was
Peenichas. RDW made me a tape to practice with. On the tape, he says "Here
you pause for a few seconds for the older generation, and then repeat after
them Ka'eileh ta'asu layom..."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 07:24:28PM -0500, perzvi@juno.com wrote:
: And minhag HaGra and minhag Baal HaTanya aren't the result of research?

... which is why I want to distinguish objective scholarship from
subjective limud haTorah.

Lishitasi, you're confusing kinds of "research".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:40:15 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:

<<So then you think he held that LAomer and BAomer were both 
> required? How about Zeicher and Zecher in Ashrei (where he also 
> held to say both)? I think that at least in these two cases he 
> believed there was a safek that couldn't be resolved, and therefore 
> he held we should say both.>>

	I was not aware of these practices.  Is it possible that he
distinguished his lomdus from his own personal practice?

Gershon

In aleinu,  we say "ki lecha tichra kol berech tishava kol lashon".   If
the word lecha ends in a heh (actual or virtual),  this removes the
dagesh from the beged kefes following.  Therefore it should be "sichra
kol berech".  However,  in the posuk in Yeshaya where the phrase
originates,  the preceding word (li,  since it is Hashem speaking) has a
ta'am mafsik.  Therefore,  the tov has a dagesh.  Do we follow the same
pattern in aleinu,  or do we remove the dagesh since we are saying it
bederech tefila,  and not as a posuk?

Gershon

On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:42:19PM -0500, Rayman, Mark wrote:
: There are some melodies which cause the tzibbur to violate halakha, like the
: amain in the yontef shmoneh esreh, the melody causes people to answer an an
: amain chatufa (hamevarech es amo yisrael ba SHA...OMEIN).  Can anyone think
: of any others?  Is there a limud zchus?

Not a limud zechus, but... My cousin repeated the following from R' Herschel
Schachter, said in shiur around 12 years ago.

You know why so many Jewish men are overweight? It's because every Yom Tov
we literally ask HKBH for it. "Hamvareich es amo Yisrael bash-omein!"
<grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

On 19 Feb 00, at 23:14, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:40:15 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
> <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:
> 
> <<So then you think he held that LAomer and BAomer were both 
> > required? How about Zeicher and Zecher in Ashrei (where he also held
> > to say both)? I think that at least in these two cases he believed
> > there was a safek that couldn't be resolved, and therefore he held
> > we should say both.>>
> 
>  I was not aware of these practices.  Is it possible that he
> distinguished his lomdus from his own personal practice?

I don't know. But I would add to that list that he used to tell baalei 
kriya to say any pasuk with the name Yissa(s)char in it twice; 
once saying the name Yissachar, and once saying it Yissaschar. 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

About a year ago, I heard that there was a new hat cover available 
that also serves as a real hat (by covering part of your face), and 
therefore avoids the MB's prohibition on wearing hat covers in 
places without an eruv. I heard this a few days before I was leaving 
on a trip to an area without an eruv, but since it was spring here 
already, I was unable to find one. However, since then, I have still 
not been able to find them here. Does this hat cover really exist? If 
so, does anyone know where I can get one? (Preferrably in 
Yerushalayim; if not, then elsewhere). TIA.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:25:23 EST
> From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?

<<He says that history must be learnt with the cognizance and stress of
yad Hashem. >>
 
<<That is a very good reason to learn history. It is not the only
reason.>>

	What are the others?

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:18:05 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta

<<Please forgive my Derash: Job still teaches us that what might at first
appear to be sordid detail -- hateful pain, cries of suffering that
challenge 
G-d to His face, the temptation to immolate one's self in despair -- 
can ultimately reveal the depths of one's holiness. It in fact can stand
as proof of holiness. So . . . how can we mine the subtle depths of
thought 
among Gedolim if we don't consider factors that Scripture itself might
rely upon to help us, in individual cases, to understand such depths? >>

	Consider the example that has been mentioned here,  but in a Scriptural
"mode".   We learn many things,  about teshuva, about ruach hakodesh, 
etc.  from David Hamelech's reaction to being "told off" about Bas Sheva.
 Does this mean that we should presume to expose whoever this gadol was
who was nichshal in a similar aveirah in order to learn what we may from
the incident?

	The Gemara (Shabbos 96b) quotes Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira "telling off"
Rabbi Akiva for saying that Tzelofchod was the mekoshesh.  Since the
Torah did not say so explicitly,  Rabbi Akiva would be punished either
for Lashon Hara or for Motzi Shem Ra.  Is our judgement whose foibles to
expose better than Rabbi Akiva's?

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:18:22 -0600
> From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
> Subject: Re: From Today's "Israel Line"
> 
<<Is this "Maddah?">>

	Not unless you have a very vivid imagination.  The purpose is to help
people find jobs.  I am pleasantly surprised to see even this,  but Mada?
 Maybe a loose interpretation of TIDE at most.

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:50:07 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Rashi
	 
<<I have heard off list from 2 people regarding Rashi on Chumash:
 
 1) Rashi always is saying peshat 

 2) Rashi is always saying peshat except when he notes otherwise.

 Any Klalei Rashi or articles or other sources that speak to these
assumptions?>>

	A related observation:  Rashi in parashas Bereishis,  in several places,
 says that he is only interested in pshat.  He abandons this protestation
fairly soon,  and he mentions many medrashim throughout Chumash which are
not strictly pshat.  Has anyone else noticed this?  Any thoughts?

Gershon

> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:19:19 +0200 (IST)
> From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Megilas Esther -  Reading the word Mordechai
 
<<There are different versions of how "Mordechai" is pronounced in
Megilas Esther. 
 
Is the correct pronunciation Mordochai or Mordachai???
Reuven Miller  (for my son-in-law R' Ashi who is a baal kriya)>>

	I think we have hit up against the shortcomings of transliteration.  I
have read the Megila many dozens of times, and am interested in the
proposition that there are alternate pronunciations for Mordechai.  
	
	However,  I cannot understand the two choices.  Can you elaborate with
some objective terminology?

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:32:42 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Question 

<<The gemor says yiphtach bedoro kishmuel bedoro. Since Yiphtach came
first was he the greater of the 2 and is this what is implied?>>

	Baruch shekivanta;  Rabbi Reisman mentioned this in a Navi shiur several
years ago.  I don't recall whom he quoted although I'm fairly sure it was
not his own idea,  but that is exactly the point.  Although the
generational entropy is a constant,  it is not a universal constant as
every once in a while (to continue the physics terminology) a singularity
appears in the form of a gadol whose stature far exceeds those in his own
and most recently preceding generations.  The Gemara is meant,  according
to this interpretation,  as a nechama ketzas within the idea of yeridas
hadoros.

Gershon

<<How come we pasken against R. eliever ben Hyrkanos dspite a bas Kol
supporting him?>>

The Chinuch Mitzvah 496 says (free translation - I suggest looking at the
original):
		Hashem decreed that human authorities decide Halacha based
on the guidelines given to Moshe at Sinai and that their decision shall
stand even in the few cases where an error is made. In the case of Rabbe
Elazar his minority view happened to be correct, but the Chachamim failed to
grasp the depth of his argument. Accordingly, even after the bas kol
supported his position, they continued to reject it, citing the rule that
the Halacha follows the majority. They thus used Hashem's own rule to
enforce an erroneous Halachic decision and in this sense, it is as if they
"prevailed over G-d." Hashem therefore laughed, so to speak, as if to say,
they use my own Torah principle to "prevail over" the truth!

   Rabbe Yehosua's statement in Bava Metzia 59 articulates a very
fundamental principle of Torah: A remarkable corollary to the principle of
the immutability of the Torah is the principle that, following the
revelation at Sinai, halachic questions can no longer be resolved by
Heavenly interdiction. Clarification and elucidation are themselves forms of
change. Since there can be no new revelation, a prophet who claims the
ability to resolve disputed legal points by virtue of his prophetic power
stands convicted by his own mouth of being a false prophet. After Sinai, the
authority of the Torah can never be superseded, either in whole or in part,
by any other authority whatsoever - including even such as might have been
rendered by the Almighty Himself. Once the Torah was given at Sinai, Hashem
wanted man to interpret it without paying attention to supernatural
intervention. Indeed, were supernatural phenomena allowed to influence the
decision of Halacha, the entire structure of Torah study - the pillar upon
which all of Judaism rests - would collapse. The above episode was a test.
Had the Chachamim agreed to accept Rabbe Elazar's opinion because of the
voice from Heaven, they would have misunderstood the basis of revelation:
the Torah is not in heaven. Everything man needs to know concerning the
Torah was given to him at Sinai. It is man's responsibility to use this
knowledge to develop the system of living the Torah demands. Interpretation
of Halacha was entrusted to the human intellect and it must therefore
proceed in its own dispassionate way, uninfluenced and unprejudiced by
supernatural phenomena. The Sages did not, for a moment, question the
authenticity of the bas kol; they simply had no choice but to disregard it
for man's understanding of Torah must prevail!

See also Ohr HaChaim Vayikra13:37 for a fascinating explanation of Menachos
29

B'virkas HaTorah,

Y. Dovid Kaye

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


[ 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         ]