Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 048

Wednesday, November 11 1998

• Avodah V2 #46 Benching Tune
• Criticizing the Avos A Fine Line
• Another peshat re: Avrohom and Yishmoel
• Justifying the Kli Yakar/Elie Ginsparg
• Akeda as Punishment/ criticizing the avot
• Re: eilu ve'eilu regarding history
• Zohar & R'Yaakov Emden
• Re: Avodah V2 #47 Zohar
• Emulation vs. Perfection - the Avos
• Re: Emulation vs. Perfection - the Avos
• Re: Emulation vs. Perfection - the Avos
• WTG & Kibud Zibor
• New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Re: New limitations on Parshanut by Contemporary Jews
• Lighthearted, for a change!
• Re; Right of Chidush by Moderns, Redux II, and Zohar

Does RYGB wish to reconstruct <pun intended> a new tune for benching?
Groans from the Garon, Rich Wolpoe     

Many years ago I interpreted Rashi on Vayeshev Yaakov (bikeish Yaakov Leishiv 
beshalvo, katzof olov rogzo shel Yoseif) as an implied criticism.  I.E. Yaakov 
should not have been complacent and therefore HKBH "punished" him via the 
Yoseif incident. When I shared this with a "yeshivsher" fellow, he indignantly 
scolded me fro criticizing the Avos, etc.

Yet, sometimes the criticism isn't really meant to denigrate the Avos, rather to
teach us a lesson, some mussar.  I can't say that Avrohom did anything wrong by 
sending out Yishmoel and Hogor with justt bread and water, nevertheless we see 
that the meforshim were concerned that it is not good middos to send out 
Ysihmoel and Hogor without generous provisions...

Similarly, it might not be respectful to criticize Yaakov Ovinu, OTOH we can 
take out a lesson that one should never be complacent...

It's a fine line to walk 1) to learn Musar 2) to do so at the "expense" of our 
Ovos.  So perhaps we can be melamed zechus on those who criticize Avrohom 
vis-a-vis Yishmoel; as not so much denigrating him chas v;shalom, but to teach 
us to be more generous. (And the obvious retort is, who is a bigger ball chesed 
than Avorhom?  And so Rashi points out that he had another agneda, that is to be
mocheh Yishmoel from going to Tarbus R'oh)  



Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

BTW, it occured to me that re: the Akeido, the possuk says Vayashkeim, that is 
faced with an unpleasant task, Avrohom davka resisted procrastination with 
Zrizus and got up early, etc.

Simlarly, re: sending out Yishmoel it says Vayashkem.  This was also a  most 
unpleasant task to Avrohom; at least until Hashem explicitly took Soro's side.  
At that point,Avrohom experienced  a "paradigm shift" and no longer perceived 
Yishmoel as a beloved (albeit a flawed) son, but rather as a negative influence 
upon Yitzchok.  Therefore (IMHO) Avrohom reduced the provisions  to a minimum 
pursuant to his Zrizus, I.E. he did not wish to delay the unpleasant task by 
giving Yishmoel a big send-off.  Rather, by keeping it simple he could complete 
the task quicker...


Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 

Courtesy of a CD ROM search:

The Zohar 1:166a critiques Ya'akov for remaining alone, and says that is
why he lost his "guardian angels".

YGB

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

> 
> > Well, let us begin to test this theory.  In an explanation that closely
> > resembles David Glasner's, Rashbam writes that the Akedah is a
> > punishment  of sorts for Avraham's entering into a berit with Avimelekh.
> >  Does this have a source in Hazal?  How about Ramban's comment in Lekh
> > Lekha (also echoed by David) that Avraham (and Sarah) commited a sin in
> > their treatment of Yishmael?

1. Towards the end of my contribution to Hazon Nahum (Ktav) I have briefly
referred to several sources that view the Akeda as a (possible)
punishment, including Rashbam, Shelah, Musar literature etc. A more
detailed discussion appears in "Resource" a new publication of the RCA
edited by Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg.

2. On the entire issue of criticizing the avot, see David Berger's essay
in my Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and
Limitations (Jason Aronson). While his focus is on the rishonim, the notes
are helpful for later writers as well.

3.1. A couple of general remarks on the larger issue. Nobody who knows me
will suspect me of opposing all hiddush and "treating the avot as
petrified statues of ossified tsidkus" (to use the phrase of one of my
revered teachers). At the same time, it is obvious that the Torah itself,
both Torah she-bi-ktav and Torah she-b'al peh, regard the avot as figures
of larger than life righteousness and sanctity. Whoever ignores this or
denies it, whether explicitly or implicitly, is perpetrating a monstrous
distortion of pshat.

3.2 When one considers a new idea it is often appropriate to ask why one's
predecessors didn't think of it (or write it down-- the two are not the
same) first. A mature thinking religious individual need not be frozen by
such a consideration. There may be good reasons why a significant question
or a worthwhile idea were not formulated by rishonim. Sometimes one
concludes that the failure of others to raise your point does cast a
shadow over the proposed hiddush. But not to permit this question at all
is a needless gesture of intellectual censorship. A genuinely creative
person is not afraid of questions, even "frum sounding" questions.

3.3 A genuinely creative religious individual does not only learn the
shittot of Hazal, rishonim, aharonim. He or she also strives to
internalize their way of thinking. (See my "Apology of Yirat Shamayim in
Academic Jewish Studies" in Torah uMadda Journal 2.) This forces one to be
very attentive to nuances of language. As I have written many times the
mastery of language is one of the most important reasons for the study of
the liberal arts. But it is deficient unless we also learn to pay
attention to the language of rishonim and aharonim. More on this later.

3.4 In our day, a gulf separates two camps. One group sees traditional
wortlach as sterile, mechanical, unthinking paeans to the good guys and
denigration of the bad guys which render the characters in Humash
lifeless, meaningless, inhuman. The alternative seems to be a with it,
psychobabbling frivolity, of the sort popularized on Bill Moyers' TV
program and its literary tributaries, up to and including the JTS
luminary who used nibbul peh about the Ribbono shel Olam and the Harvard
professor who observed that G-d is even less politically correct than
Hitler, because Hitler only wanted to kill one nation, while the Ribbono
shel Olam brought a mabbul on all humanity. In this supermodern version,
creativity is no more and no less than bringing the avot down to the level
of talk show victims, the objects of wisecracking humor and egalitarian
vulgarity.

3.5 Let me ask a simple question: Which of these groups is more in keeping
with the spirit of the Radak, the Ramban, the Netziv, the Alter of
Slobodka and anyone else deserving to be a role model? Would the Ramban
view much of what passes for "enlightened midrash" on the avot on the part
of contemporary discussants as legitimate extentions of his ideas, or
would he be disgusted? To be sure, the Ramban, on two occasions, says that
the avot sinned (hata avinu b'shgaga). This is unusual. Most of our role
models use more indirect language when they call our attention to flaws,
deficiencies and so forth. (And I wonder why the Ramban used the word
"het," when he could have avoided it and made the same criticism, ve-ein
kan makom l'haarikh.) For mori ve-rabbi Rav Soloveitchik zt"l the avot
were certainly vivid, living, dramatic personalities; he loved the Ramban
on Humash, with whom he cultivated an intense personal relationship; and
he was not afraid of hiddush! And yet, as far as I can tell, he was able
to penetrate the personalities of the avot again and again without
ascribing sin to the avot. (A colleague who read hundreds of pages of
notes from the Motsaei Shabbat Humash shiur in Boston confirms this.) Are
the psychotherapists and modernist clergymen who casually, and with
unrestrained glee, throw around their moral judgments, really more honest,
more insightful, more creative?

3.6 So the question to us, as individuals and as members of the community,
is which approach perpetrates a greater distortion of the truth? My own
judgment should be clear from the preceding paragraphs. But of course
there is a third alternative, that of humbly but fearlessly internalizing
the insights of our role models, even while we struggle to get the better
of words and to discover the language in which to say that which we, and
only we, can say.

Yisrael Herczeg wrote:

> Micha Berger writes:
> >As already pointed out, eilu va'eilu doesn't work when the topic is history.
>
> Not as simple as it may seem. See Pachad Yitzchok, Igros U'Ksovim, no. 30.

Rav Hutner is discussing the arguments of Chazal concerning halacha  - which are
based on metzius. . He states that Emes is that which is G-d's will. The opposing
*halachic* positions - even though only one is accurate in describing Metzius -
are all considered Emes. He does not deal with arguments of Chazal concerning
Metzius which are not directly related to halacha ie. what happened historically.
Thus Rashi's (Kesubos 56a) position that historical fact per se is not covered by
eilu v'eilu is not contradicted by Rav Hutner.
In sum, Rav Hutner is expanding on the ancient view that contradictory halachic
positions can all be considered emes. He does this by defining the world emes to
mean anything which is G-d's will. This view is found also in Michtav m'Eliyahu.
For those who take the view that Emes is that which correspondes to Metzius (e.g,
Chinuch, Ran etc) eilu v'eilu would only apply to halachic disputes which are not
based upon metzius but rather on perspective .

                                                                Daniel Eidensohn

It was implied by a recent posting that Rav Yaakov Emden did not hold by
the authenticity of the Zohar.  This is not accurate. He did do an
exhaustive analysis of the text and concluded that there were a number
of statements which were written in relatively recent times - but he did
not reject  the validity of the Zohar. G Sholem writes "In Mitpachat
Sefarim (1768), Emden concluded on the basis of a large number of
specific errors in the Zohar that many sections, and particulary the
Midrash haNelam were late although he still assumed that there was an
ancient foundation for the main body of the book.....19-century scholars
of Judaism, Zunz...& Graetz went further that Jacob Emden and saw the
Zohar as a product of the the 13th century...." Rav Kasher wrote an
extensive article on the validity of the Zohar (published in Sinai -
Sefer Yovel) on page 51 he wrote "...I brought in the name of the
Yaavetz from his Sefer Mitpachat Sefarim that many statements and
terminology are in a later style and were introduced into the Zohar by
scribes during transcription. ...There is no doubt that the scribes
wrote these on the margin of the Zohar and it was integrated with the
text by the printer. These types of additions are often found in
medrashim. And even in the Babylonian Talmud there are additions and
comments of the Goanim which were inserted into the text itself. On this
basis the Yaavetz wrote to  explain all the places where the form and
style indicated that they were from a more recent period - that they
were inserted by scribes and thus remove the problem [ of the
authenticity of the Zohar] because the Zohar should not be judged
invalid because of these additions."

Finally the Mitpachat Sefarim was republished two years ago. I saw it in
a sefarim store in Meah Shearim and asked why they were selling such
"maskilidic" sefarim. The owner got indignant and said that the sefer is
important in *validating* the authenticity of the Zohar.


                                               Daniel Eidensohn

Basically wseveral points re: Zohar were brought up by several of my professors 
at YU.

1) Prof. Agus maintained that kabbolo in general was a repository of scientific 
data and technologically advanced material.  For example, we can easily 
understand how Sodom could be destroyed instantaneously since we live in the age
following the atomic bomb.  Question: how would one describe an atom bomb say 
during the era of the Civil War?  It would probably come across as visionary, 
ridiculous, or even mystical. Yet we all know today that an atom bomb is 
actually quite rational, once you have einstein, Teller, Oppenheim, etc.
So, the mysticism mentioned in Zohar is actually (on one leve) science for which
we do not yet understand the underlying technology or theory.  It's really not 
so mystical at all, it's jsut perceived that way.  So would a Personal computer 
be perceived as magic to an isolated aborigini.

2) Re: the Zohar and it's Yichus to RSBY, there is a middle of the road shito 
which echoes Micha's  (unfortunately I forget who originally postited this 
thesis).  It goes something like this, the core or the kernel of the Zohar was 
established by RSBY and preseerved orally for about 1,000 years.  Meanwhile, it 
was embellished, (maybe parallel to what Saboraim did to the Gemoro) and the 
Zohar De Leone published has all the layers interspersed.  So there are post 
RSBY chachomim quoted, but the essentia Zohar is RSBY.  (the Mishno quotes 
occasionally quotes Tannaim after Rebbe, including his grandson R/ Yehuda 
Nesioh).

3) In addition, I have a theory that De Leone might have been a gilgul of RSBY, 
which might explain away the kashos Gershon Scholem introduced that were 
attirbuted to Mrs. De Leone.  Aparaently, De Leone entered into a trance state 
and started transcribing the Zohar.  This led to an understanding 
(mis-undertanding??) that De Leone was being original and simply writing down 
(automatic writing?) what he was experiencing while in an altered starte of 
consciousness.  The way I see it, he might have been in contact with RSBY via a 
previous Gilgul and the trance opened up that door, and he was able to write 
down the ogirinal Zohar, (perhaps with some additional embelishments that RSBY 
himself might have concurred with).  Remember this is only a theory. 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 
(a history major who claims to know little kabbolo but a lot about how masorah 
gets transmitted)        

Kudos to David H on his exposition.  Why is there a need to conflate two
obviously differernt issues: (1) the fact that the Avos are worthy of the
highest emulation (Chazal's cited repeatedly by YGB) (2) the Avos had failings
- irrelevant to #1and supported by the places the Rishonim chose to criticize
them.  Why in the world does proving #1, which all agree to, automatically
lead to #2 - non-sequitor!  Aderaba - it is YGB's assertion that Chazal
dictated the Avos to be infallible which is suspect because it leaves open the
question as to how Rishonim such as Ramban flatly contradict this Chazal (1)
without mentioning it, (2)without citing any sources like the Zohar (which I
can't recall Ramban ever quoting), (3) without referencing sod, yodei chein or
any such terms used by Ramban when he wants to reference a kabbalistic
concept, (4)when Ramban himself tells us his source is a Midrash B"R.  There
is certainly no 'school'' of thought out to specifically criticize the Avot,
but there certainly is openness to chiddush, analysis, and new ideas.  The
crucial point is we never find any limitations in the methodology of any
Rishonim in parshanut other then finding the BEST approach to the text.  The
general approach of the Parshanim to Midrash (as E. Clarke touched on) bears
out this point.  It is the 'modern' notions of artificial boundries to such
intellectual inquiry that is disturbing.

-Chaim B.

Pray tell when YGB asserted this. YGB's memory seems to be failing...

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> lead to #2 - non-sequitor!  Aderaba - it is YGB's assertion that Chazal
> dictated the Avos to be infallible which is suspect because it leaves

YGB

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

C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
  The
> crucial point is we never find any limitations in the methodology of any
> Rishonim in parshanut other then finding the BEST approach to the text.  ... It is the 'modern' notions of artificial boundries to such
> intellectual inquiry that is disturbing.

I think that at least I can come closer to you on this one.  Yes - we
must try to find the BEST approach.  I would say that the general
practice of praising the avos, as well as our mesorah, and the halahos
of Lashon Horo (of which motzi shem ra is a subset) tends to make it
more likely that a pshat that degrades/criticizes the avos is not the
BEST pshat.  I made the same exact point in my original post.  If we are
backed into a corner, I can accept someone criticizing the avos as
opposed to saying I don't understand.  I don't know if I feel that is
preferable - but I can accept it.  The avos were people and if we have
no mesorah to explain an inexplicably poor act - I think we may have
license to recognize the act as being a poor choice (I'm not very
commital - am I).  However, if we do have a mesorah that shows us a way
to interpert the situation positively - I don't see any pischon peh to
introduce new failings to our avos (emphasis on _new_ - clearly if you
have a source it's ok).

As an example- The pshat that started this discussion does not seem to
meet the criteria of BEST approach.  Several people have offered other
explanations that would give reason to connect the episode of the
akeidah to the episode of shiluah Yishmael v'hagar.  Additionally we
have classical parshanim who explain the parsha in a very positive light
(See Sforno bmakom).  In light of these facts - I personally don't think
we have license to criticise Avrohom for this act (Not to mention, of
course, I'll say it again - this whole thing was Al pi Hadibur. 
Additionaly - Avrohhom new that Yshmael would be taken care of by
Hashem) 

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

I continue to find myself failing to understand the halachic objections to
Women's Tefila Groups.

It used to think that the issue was simply that since women have an
exemption of Z'man Gramah and we require obligated rather than elective
acts, such was wrong. But I have learned that this is not so.

I understand from the Gemora in Brachot and the Mishna Berurah's take on it
women are exempt in Sh'ma but obligated in the shmona-esray of shachrit and
mincha.

Futhermore I learn from The Gemorah in Barachot Mem Het amud aleph in the
tosphot and a Mordechai page 173 that Rabbinu Tom evidently believed that a
woman could serve as the tenth in a minyon.

Now if a woman can serve as the tenth then why not the ninth or the eighth
etc. And doesn't the fact that she can be in a minyon make it possible for
her to say d'varim b'kadosha.

We know that a woman could be called to read the Torah except for "Kibud
Zibor."

Now I don't know exactly what "Kibud Zibor" means. But if we want a
non-cohen to have an aliyah and if the cohen steps outside and closes the
door he ceases to be part of the zibor.

So why in the case of a Women's Tefila Group where there can be no problem
of "Kibod Zibor" cannot the women not only pray together but do the regular
Torah reading with the brachot and say Kaddish and do Kidusha. And
futhermore why would not this be encouraged in the case of a woman,
especially one without brothers, who has lost a parent and who has a hiyuv.

Richard Fiedler

Some of the issues discussed in this thread are addressed in an article
by David Berger in  Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah (S. Carmy,
ed.).

Given that the the lines of disagreement are fairly clearly drawn, there
is probably very little that can be added that would change people's
minds.  Therefore, I restrict myself below to addressing some more
technical points that have cropped up.  However, I would like to note an
irony in this debate.  As ma'aminim, we all believe, as Hazal state,
that the actions of the Avot are to be emulated.  This motivates some of
us to discourage any new interpretation which casts a negative light on
the Avot.  On the other hand, those who feel justified in making such
interpretations claim to be emulating the example of the Rishonim.  So
we have a clash of sorts between Avot emulation and Rishonim emulation.
(Of course at least two ways have been proposed to resolve this clash:
(1) We shouldn't emulate the Rishonim on this issue and (2) we can
emulate Avot who are great though not infallible.)

Regarding the Rashbam's interpretation of the akedah, Yzkd@aol.com
writes

>If you will be Mayein he clearly backs up his words with a Medrosh Shmuel,
and
>proof to his Teitch of "NISOH"..

Yes he does.  But he cites no source in Hazal for his characterization
of Avraham's brit with Avimelekh as a bad thing to do.  And the peshuto
shel mikra certainly gives no indication that Avraham angered Hashem.
Indeed, as you earlier pointed out, Hazal's approach is to view the
Akedah as a test, not a punishment.  Isn't this an example of being
mehadesh a failing of Avraham beyond what Hazal have taught us?

Also regarding the Rashbam, Joel Margolies writes:

>Take the
>  Rashbam's staement as it is.  Think about it if you want - but don't
>  think it gives us license to extrapolate his thory onto other situations
>  arbitrarily.

I think that no one here believes that interpretations of the Humash
should be made "arbitrarily."  This applies to positive as well as
negative interpretations.  The question I think is whether one can ever
extrapolate a theory that is negative.

Several posters have raised questions regarding the "motivation" of an
interpretation which finds a failing in one of the Avot (and the yirat
Shamayim of a person who woud propose it) .  Regarding members of this
list, I think we should all assume that the motivation is the quest for
amitah shel Torah.  The intimation of any other possibility would, I
think, violate the list's canons of darkhei noam.

R. YGB spent >5-10 minutes of research and memory

to cull sources praising the behavior of the Avot.  Had I known
beforehand, I would have told him not to bother.  I am certain that
everyone on this list believes that the Avot were spiritual giants and
their actions are to be emulated.  What we disagree about is whether
this idea somehow translates into a restricition on legitimate parshanut
by non-Rishonim.  On this point we have seen no evidence from an
authoritative source.

Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com> writes:
>However, the fact that the
>Torah does show us this can also be used as a ra'ayah that the Torah was
>not afraid to inroduce us to the failings of our avos and we can
>possibly hypothesize then that if the Torah did not specifically show
>us  (or even lead us easily to the conclusion) a particular failing - it
>did not exist.

I do not think this is a very strong hypothesis.  After all, there are
many ma'asim tovim of the Avot that the Torah does not specifically
describe, but we do not hypothesize that the unspecified ma'asim tovim
did not occur.  And there are many actions of the Avot that appear
negative in the Torah but Hazal go out of their way to justify.  The
Torah is often silent on the question of whether an act was good or bad,
leaving us to achieve the best understanding we can.  (Consider the Dor
ha-Haflagah, where no sin is mentioned and the Rishonim argue whether a
sin in fact occurred.)

R. YGB asks:
>what is the basis for a
>school of thought that runs counter to almost all sources in Chazal,
>Rishonim (and most Acharonim), to be dan the Avos l'kaf chova and find
>their "flaws"?

Though I know this will not change your mind, I re-submit the Rashbam on
the Akedah for your consideration.  On the broader point, I think you
are seeing a uniformity that simply does not exist.

 There are various derakhim in parshanut, and the derekh of Hazal is to
treat the Avot and later Jewish figures with great deference.  The
derekh of some of our most important Rishonim is to treat the Avot (as
well as later personalities) without this deference, and this derekh
does not appear to have raised any issues of lashon ha-ra or motzi shem
ra (the laws of which do, I think, apply to Rishonim).  Indeed, someone
who is familiar with Rashbam, Ramban, and Abravanel will see many
statements that are ke-neged Hazal, both regarding the Avot and other
personalities.  (Interestingly, the Rambam justifies his divergence from
Hazal (regarding dates) by citing Rashi (!) as an example.  See his
perush on Bereshit 8:4.)
These statements are made notwithstanding the ma'amar in Tanna De-Vei
Eliyahu Rabbah and the Gemara in ha-Zorek (which shows that Hazal's
deferential approach is not limited to the Avot).  It seems to me that
these Rishonim saw no contradiction between finding a behavioral flaw
and still viewing the person in question as a moral and spiritual giant.
 Obviously some people on this list disagree.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I feel deeply frustrated by this post, but will attempt to respond with
restraint, as:

1. R' Shalom Carmy already eloquently responded to the major points.

2. Obviously the message is not getting through, and "k'shem she'mitzva
l'hagid."

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> interpretations claim to be emulating the example of the Rishonim.  So
> we have a clash of sorts between Avot emulation and Rishonim emulation. 
> (Of course at least two ways have been proposed to resolve this clash: 
> (1) We shouldn't emulate the Rishonim on this issue and (2) we can
> emulate Avot who are great though not infallible.) 
> 

There is a third way:

No one has shown here, to date, a Rishon that critiques one of the Avos
independently of a source in Chazal.

> Yes he does.  But he cites no source in Hazal for his characterization
> of Avraham's brit with Avimelekh as a bad thing to do.  And the peshuto
> shel mikra certainly gives no indication that Avraham angered Hashem. 
> Indeed, as you earlier pointed out, Hazal's approach is to view the
> Akedah as a test, not a punishment.  Isn't this an example of being
> mehadesh a failing of Avraham beyond what Hazal have taught us? 
> 

This is, simply, not true. There is an explicit Chazal that says the
Akeidah was the result of the Bris with Avimelech - guess where! Yup!
TDBER, end of Chap. 7.

So, the Ramban is a Zohar, the Rashbam is a Tanna d'Bei Eliyahu. What
other Rishon is there that I have missed?

> to cull sources praising the behavior of the Avot.  Had I known
> beforehand, I would have told him not to bother.  I am certain that
> everyone on this list believes that the Avot were spiritual giants and
> their actions are to be emulated.  What we disagree about is whether
> this idea somehow translates into a restricition on legitimate parshanut
> by non-Rishonim.  On this point we have seen no evidence from an
> authoritative source.
> 

That was not the point of those citations. I regret that you did not note
that my point was not to prove that the Avos are to be emulated, but
rather that they were perfection personified, with all that implies.

> R. YGB asks:  > >what is the basis for a > >school of thought that runs
counter to almost all sources in Chazal, > >Rishonim (and most Acharonim),
to be dan the Avos l'kaf chova and find > >their "flaws"?  > > Though I
know this will not change your mind, I re-submit the Rashbam on > the
Akedah for your consideration.  On the broader point, I think you > are
seeing a uniformity that simply does not exist.  

Sorry the justification of the previous paragraph got messed up. It was
not intentional, but is symbolic :-). The Rashbam is no longer relevant. I
once more query, and suspect I shall receive no answer:

Where is the basis and precedent for this "School" of Parshanut - in
Chazal, or even in Rishonim?

YGB

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

From the R' Shlomo List...

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-Id: <199811112128.XAA11114@alpha.netvision.net.il>
From: "Micha Odenheimer" <mzo@netvision.net.il>
To: "shlomo" <reb-shlomo@shamash.org>
Subject: Shlomo and Orthodoxy
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:36:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



The whole debate about asking a Rav and the larger, surrounding questions
vis a vis Orthodox belief reminded me of a conversation I once had with Reb
Shlomo (Zecher Tzaddik LeVracha). I heard him saying that it was wrong to
learn just Mishna and to think of your own pshat; you had to learn the
gemorah's pshat on the mishna, and the gemora had to be understood through
Rashi, all the way down to the achronim. I was with him at the Ramada, I
think, keeping him company as he got things together to go somewhere, and I
said to him, "But Rebbe, what you are saying is so frum (devout, here
meaning frum by keeping to the the ideology of Orthodox doctrine), I mean,
didn't you teach us that we have to be apikorsim sometimes?" So Shlomo
looks at me with this expression of combined wildness and holiness, like
one of those far out geonim might have, in his eyes, and he says, in total
wild seriousness, "mamash all the time". 

So what is it? I would have to invoke one of Reb Shlomo's (its hard for me
to write the Reb part, because Shlomo insisted on being called SHlomo and
really didn't like it if someone called him Reb...although he did not mind
when lovingly called heilege rebbe) 13 hermeneutic principles: "Its mamesh
both."

R. E. Ginsparg writes:  
<Can you tell me (iyho) how you know that the statement of R. Eliezer about
pachim katanim agrees with the statement of R. yitzchak about not going
out at night, maybe they argue..>

I'm afraid we're getting to the repeating stage so I'll state my understanding
of the pishat here one last time and,  hey,  it's a free country, you may
continue to ignore it.   We'll just have to agree to disagree. There is no
indication in the text itself that they argue.  Indeed R. yitzchoq is basically
discussing a completely different topic - the advisability of tzadiqim to go
out at night.  There is not the slightest attribution of sin to this action. 
Even the potential sin which you have suggested reading into this text, that he
has somehow made himself unnecessarily vulnerable to maziqim, has absolutely
nothing to do with the sin clearly identified by the Kili Yoqor, which has
everything to do with greed.   Thus, contrary to your claim, even if we wanted
to grant the (strained imho) interpretation that R. Yitzchoq was finding a
chait in yaacov's actions (which I don't) it still would not provide any source
for your suggestion that  <..One hand he was meritorious because he went back
for pachim katanim but on the other hand he was wrong for going back alone> 
The Kili Yoqor specifically rejects the going back for pachim as  a meritorious
act, the going back in fact was the essence of the sin of greed. 

R. Ginsparg writes further: <I think the Ramban poskens this lahalach--hilchos
deos perek 9 halacha five. Since I believe that the kli yakar has legs if not
at least one leg to stand on and the Ramban has the authentic Zohar to hold by,
and the Rashbam has a medrash shmuel, I'm wondering if there are any examples
where legitimate miforshim contradict--or hav no basis in chazal when
critisizing tzaddikim.>

The rambam's halochoh in de'os: pereq 5, hal'9, differs from the gimoroh's
formulation in a significant way. The rambam adds the explanation that this is
because of "chashad". As is well known the rambam was almost unique in
rejecting the notion of the existence of maziqim as unworthy for intelligent
people to believe in. and thus chashad implies a maris ayin for sexual
impropriety.   Absent such a maris ayin, there would seem little wrong with
going out at night.  I suspect that you too are quite familiar with talmidei
chachomim who leave their houses quite frequently at night on various errands. 
Hence my characterization of this as "advice." As it is hardly ever nogeiah
li'halochoh.  (unless you want to inform me some highly disconcerting news
about Chicago, I'll continue to assume a chezqas kashrus).  As noted above the
Kili Yoqor stilldoes not have anybody else's leg, even one, to stand on.  But
then he doesn't need any, since  his own two legs will do fine.  As for other
miforshim, see my post to RYGB.  Though I notice you've added a further
qualifier to RYGB's rules of "legitimate" miforishim. I hope dayan Swift made
your cut.

As for the Zohar and R. yaacov Emden and stuff like that.  I would prefer not
to get into a public discussion of the various arguments since, after a few
hundred years of continued development it is quite difficult to do al regel
achas, and I fear/sense the potential for more fruitless debate. (if the
scholars and chachomim having at it all this time haven't convinced each other
we're not likely to do so here). R. Emden is hardly the only one, even within
the solidly frum community, who had problems with this notion.  If you want to
do further checking yourself, or even talk off line, I could point you to some
appropriate references.  R. Emden's criticisms, by the way, are contained in
his sefer mitpachas siforim, an anti sabbatean work.  For a quick english
review of mostly philological arguments by a (or perhaps the - greatest of all)
modern scholar(s)  see chapter 5 of Gershom Scholem's Major Trends book which
is probably carried in any local bookstore.  

Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]