Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 136

Saturday, January 23 1999

• Avodas Hashem from the Rav
• RE: Yeshivat Shem ve-Ever
• Re: Avodas Hashem from the Rav
• Re: bitul
• Edah -- modern Orthodox
• edah
• Re: Edah -- modern Orthodox
• edah-left end of MO
• Chasam Sofer and Nusach Ari - Still Not

Please indugle me as I paste an interesting email I recently received from 
Yeshivas har Etziyon as part of a series about the Late Rav YD Soloveichik:

>>
THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE UPON EXPERIENCE

In Rav Soloveitchik's view of Judaism, which has its
roots  not only in Mitnagged theology but in the views  of Chazal  (the 
Talmudic sages) as well, talmud Torah  (Torah study) is a central, or 
perhaps THE central, component  of our religiosity.  Far more than being a 
guide to practical observance  of  Jewish  law, talmud  Torah  allows  us  
to penetrate  God's  infinite will  and  thus  informs  every aspect of our 
relationship to Him.  Rav Lichtenstein  sums up the Rav's approach as 
follows:
"Torah  study  gives the Jew insight - as  direct  and profound  as man is 
privileged to attain  -  into  the revealed  will of his Creator.  Through 
the  study  of Halakha   -   the   immanent   expression   of   God's 
transcendent  rational will - man's knowledge  of  God gains depth and 
scope.  Further, religious study is  a stimulus  to  the total spiritual 
personality.   Faith can  be  neither  profound  nor  enduring  unless  the 
intellect  is fully and actively engaged in the  quest for  God."  ("R. 
Joseph Soloveitchik," in  S.  Noveck, ed.,  Great  Jewish Thinkers of the 
Twentieth  Century [NY, 1963], p. 290)

In   light   of   this,  we  can   understand   Rav
Soloveitchik's insistence that one's sense  of  inwardness in  mitzvot  be  
based  not  on "cheap  sentimentality  or ceremonialism,"  but  rather on 
serious  familiarity  with halakhic  sources.  "...[W]ithout knowledge of 
Torah,  the Jew cannot attain the proper religious experience, nor can he  
fully  understand the beauty and  splendor  of  avodat Hashem (divine 
service)" (Divrei Hashkafa, p. 76).  Recall also  the  Rav's  claim that 
the laws of Halakha  are  the basic  data of Judaism, out of which any 
understanding  of Judaism must be derived.

Rav  Soloveitchik believed that  the  demand  for  a
strong  intellectual  component in  one's  avodat  Hashem, while  true  at 
all times, is especially relevant  in  our generation:
"With  keen  sensitivity to the malaise of  commitment affecting  
contemporary Jewry, the Rav concluded  that religious engagement of the 
intellect is essential  to the  cure... [T]he Rav deemed our time 
propitious  for the intellectual quest:
'The  young  American generation ...  is  not  totally engrossed  in the 
pragmatic, utilitarian  outlook  ... To  the  degree  that average people  
in  our  society attain   higher  levels  of  knowledge   and   general 
intelligence,  we  cannot imbue  them  with  a  Jewish standpoint  that  
relies primarily  on  sentiment  and ceremony.' (Divrei Hashkafa, p. 78)
If  R.  Kook  witnessed the alienation  of  Jews  from traditional 
religious commitment and decided that  his generation  needed exposure to a 
comprehensive  Jewish philosophy  deriving from the sources of Kabbala,  
the Rav  offered a simpler, more startling solution: renew the  covenant 
with the exoteric sources that  confront directly our concrete experience." 
(Rav S. Carmy,  "Of Eagle's  Flight  and  Snail's  Pace,"  Tradition  29:1 
[1994], pp. 26-27)

Talmud  Torah  is so central to the  Rav's  view  of
Judaism   that  he  interprets  many  seemingly  unrelated mitzvot  as  
actually being fulfillments of talmud  Torah. ....<<

IOW rigorous Torah Study Is one of the main derochim to shleimus...

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

The Torah Temimah addesses this question (though I cannot pinpoint a
citation from memory).  He postulates that the Torah of the Avot
included a vastly expanded discussion of hilkhot avodah zarah.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 1/22/99 9:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Please indugle me as I paste an interesting email I recently received from 
 Yeshivas har Etziyon as part of a series about the Late Rav YD Soloveichik:
  >>

The YHE  series on the Rav is one of many terriffic releases from their
virtual bet medrash.  If I may indulge in reinventing the Rav in my image,
it's been my reaction to the whole thread on chassidut/mitnagdim that it
reflects the dynamic tension that to my limited understanding permeated the
Rav's works. Adam I vs. Adam II , "victory" vs. "defeat", coming close to
hashem but keeping distant.....  How could one ever discount either the
emotional or intellectual components of yahadut? The proper balance is not
static nor subject to cookbook answers but the result of an ongoing struggle
within each of us and we should never denigrate someone elses honest attempt
to find balance. 

A friend of mine once pointed out the Rambam in the beginning of hilchot
avodat zara where he mentions Avraham Avinu "finding"  Hashem at age 40. The
Raavad questions this based on a medrash saying he found him at age 3.  The
kesef mishna(I think) reconciles that he began at 3 but "finalized" at 40.
What was he inbetween? Perhaps searching for his balance as well?

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

<<
 >Maharal has a piece on this exact idea where he says that indeed there is a
 >higher level, bitul, where one negates his very existence to the glory of
 >HaShem.  He brings this in a discussion of Yir'as haRomemus (as opposed to
 >yir'as onesh).
 >
 
   Which is what kalos nefesh means. We merge with the source. I used the
   term walking, but the real term is "kalos nefesh"
>>

Sorry to disagree, but they are different.  Merging implies that I become part
with HaShem, a concept that seems very strange to me.  How can I in any
manifestation of existence become a part with HaShem?

Bitul means that I become nothing, I cease to exist as an entity, not because
of absorption by HaShem, but because of insignificance in relation to HaShem.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Avi Sacks writes:
>Since you suggested with your parenthetical question that the left end of
>MO is at the right end of Conservative Judaism, are you suggesting that
>that which is at the left end of MO is not really within the tent of
>Orthodox Judaism.  Or, are you suggesting that that which is at the far
>right end of Conservative Judaism, is really Orthodoxy?

One can reasonably argue that many of the labels we use with respect to
various flavors of Orthodoxy do more to sow division rather than clarify
valid theological debates.  On the other hand, labels serve as a
convenient form of shorthand and will no doubt persist as long as they
remain useful.  In my view, such labels can be handy in broadly
describing the approach of a group, but not the approach of an
individual.

One must also be careful when using a term that has different
definitions for different people.  The phrase "Modern Orthodoxy" is
prominently displayed on the Edah website.  Presumably, then, they
intend it in a positive sense, although many associate the term with
laxity in halakhic observance.  (A sociologist named Chaim Waxman once
described the Modern Orthodox community as having two components -- the
"sociological MO," i.e., the lazy ones, and the "philosophical MO,"
referring to those who are philosophically inclined to integrate
modernity into their religious worldview.)  It seems safe to assume that
Edah intends to represent the latter group.  However, Norman Lamm coined
a different label for this group, "Centrist Orthodox."

As the Orthodox community has moved to the right, it seems that those
who have always been or now find themselves on the left feel somewhat
isolated and I believe Edah was organized to strengthen themselves.  The
speakers at the conference (at least, those whose names I recognized)
all seem to have Orthodox credentials.  However, many represent the left
wing of the Orthodox community in that they are identified with some of
the following:

 - Feminism (e.g., women's prayer groups)
 - Interaction with Non-Orthodox movements (e.g. campus Hillel rabbis)
 - Territorial compromise by the state of Israel
 - Academia

That having been said, a few of the speakers are undeniably talmidei
hakhamim who probably do not share the agenda of the more radical
speakers.  Virtually all of the rabbis who are speaking are, I believe,
musmakhim of Yeshiva University, an institution that itself has moved
right in the last 20 years.

I honestly do not know exactly what the purpose of these conferences is,
except perhaps to garner publicity.  In any case, looking at the topics
to be discussed, no one is likely to confuse this conference with one of
Agudath Israel!

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli

without naming names, there are some panelists are known as at the outer
limits of  orthodoxy-orthopraxy

In a message dated 1/22/99 12:53:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 

One must also be careful when using a term that has different
definitions for different people.  The phrase "Modern Orthodoxy" is
prominently displayed on the Edah website.  Presumably, then, they
intend it in a positive sense, although many associate the term with
laxity in halakhic observance.  (A sociologist named Chaim Waxman once
described the Modern Orthodox community as having two components -- the
"sociological MO," i.e., the lazy ones, and the "philosophical MO,"
referring to those who are philosophically inclined to integrate
modernity into their religious worldview.)  It seems safe to assume that
Edah intends to represent the latter group.  However, Norman Lamm coined
a different label for this group, "Centrist Orthodox."

 As the Orthodox community has moved to the right, it seems that those
 who have always been or now find themselves on the left feel somewhat
 isolated and I believe Edah was organized to strengthen themselves.  The
 speakers at the conference (at least, those whose names I recognized)
 all seem to have Orthodox credentials.  However, many represent the left
 wing of the Orthodox community in that they are identified with some of
 the following:
 
  - Feminism (e.g., women's prayer groups)
  - Interaction with Non-Orthodox movements (e.g. campus Hillel rabbis)
  - Territorial compromise by the state of Israel
  - Academia
 
 That having been said, a few of the speakers are undeniably talmidei
 hakhamim who probably do not share the agenda of the more radical
 speakers.  Virtually all of the rabbis who are speaking are, I believe,
 musmakhim of Yeshiva University, an institution that itself has moved
 right in the last 20 years.
 
 I honestly do not know exactly what the purpose of these conferences is,
 except perhaps to garner publicity.  In any case, looking at the topics
 to be discussed, no one is likely to confuse this conference with one of
 Agudath Israel!
 
 Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
 
 Eli
  >>
Again, without taking a position on edah, why do the OU and Aguda have
conferences? perhaps to garner publicity or perhaps, if we're dan lkaf zchut,
to engender intelligent discussion of the inyanei dyoma? 

The program  list topics of interest to all orthodox jews, the only shame is
that to the best of my knowledge there are no programs that address all these
issues with speakers from all 'wings', perhaps then we could have some real
interchange of ideas. While we may not agree on the answers, the challenges
are ones we all face.

Kol Tuv and Shabbat shalom 
Joel Rich

PS A Sociologist named Joel Rich :-)once described the charedei orthodox
community as having two components-the "sociological charedei", i.e. the lazy
ones and the philosophical charedei, referring to those who are
philosophically inclined to exclude modernity from their religious worldview)

some issues at the 'left end' are controversial in terms of psak--where a
rav has some innovation that's  not [yet?] widely accepted.   e.g. women's
minyanim,  the female synagog interns, etc. 
i've wondered who 'police' the rabbis--meaning how iconaclastic can you bee
and still be in the fold. I asked R Butler at the recent west coast ou
convention, and he said that this obviously toucy issue is best left to the
RCA.  But i think it's an interesting question---how left is too left, and
who decides?

R. Clark writes:
<With all due respect to R. Mechy Frankel, and notwithstanding his
citation to the well-known teshuvah of the Hatam Sofer, there exists a
sefer detailing the minhagim of the Hatam Sofer.  Some time has passed
since I last consulted it, but I remember distinctly that it notes that
R. Moshe Sofer did use nusah sefarad in his private tefillah though not
while serving as shali'ah tzibbur.>

With equal respect for R. Clark's memory - and let's mayniach in the hava
aminoh that it is accurate - then we are confronted with a methodological
problem.  On the one hand we have a reported sefer minhogim by somebody (and no
doubt R. Clark will fill us in on whom), clearly written by someone other than
the chasam sofer, who either personally observed the CS's minhog here, or heard
about it from someone else.   On the other hand we have the Chasam Sofer's
personal testimony as recorded by himself in the tishuvoh, OC:15.  I quote the
following passages; (he was discussing the minhog of his rebbe r. noson adler) 
"..because only they (referring to both r. adler and the ba'al haflo'oh, r.
pinchos horowitz) davened in nusach ari, but not a single other person in the
minyon davened anything but ashqenozic.. and even his son, the gaon baal
machaneh levi ztl did not change from the ashqenqzic. ..".  Now since the CS
himself practically lived with r. adler, we may assume that he himself
participated in this minyon in which no other person davened nusach ari.  if
that is too much of an inferential leap, we may also cite this  explicit
passage a few lines later in the tishuvoh "and the bottom line here is that
those who daven in sefardic (nusach) undoubtedly have been initiated into the
divine secrets...(i.e qabbolists).. but those who have not, such as ourselves,
that which we daven according to those who formulated the nusach ashqenaz...". 
Hard to get more explicit than that.

I also relooked at the Chut Hamishulosh, the official family biography of the
CS written by his grandson.  While note is taken of r. adler's minhog tom daven
in nusach ari, the chut hamishulosh seems completely unaware that his
grandfather the CS is also purported to have davened nusach ari.  

So the methodological issue is clear.  How to decide between such competing
sources.  Absent other information, it is almost inconceivable that we should
choose someone else's's second or third hand rendition of the CS minhogim over
his own clear (first hand) articulation here, backed up by the (ex silencio to
be sure) evidence of the chut hamishulosh.

I'm wondering whether the dor shivie's citation of a source, also from possibly
impaired memory, that the CS davened nusach ashqenaz, but actually held the
siddur ari while doing so might not explain the bilbul in the sefer haminhogim.

Mechy Frankel	frankel@hq.dswa.mil		frankel@dtra.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 ]