Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 191

Tuesday, March 16 1999

• RE: "deep thoughts" (Avodah V2 #189)
• RSZ and Nusach Ashkenaz
• Re: Avodah V2 #189
• diagreeing with gedolim
• Dirrering Perspectives
• Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Re: diagreeing with gedolim
• Re: Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Re: Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Changing Minhagim
• Re: pi
• Re:Magen David
• Hypothetical Halocho
• Re: Magen David
• TB and Rishonim
• Mitzvo and Machshovo
• Magen David
• Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Learning aggadah

They say a story about the Kotzker, the Baal Tokeiah kept asking him 
regarding the proper kavonos for Tekias Shofar. When he asked the 
Kotzker what the "shin+bais" (that follows the TShTrT in the Machzor) 
stands for, the Kotzker replied "Shoita bluz! Shoita bluz!"
--------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:21:41 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #188

<<On the other hand there are the numerous stories of the rav who was
looking for a baal tokeah and asked each one what he thought about
while blowing the shofar. Each applicant discussed his deep
thoughts and in the end the rav chose the one who said he concentrated
on doing the best possible tekiahs.>>

raffy: >>
One category of major changes tht R' SZ made, in accordance with Sefardi
siddurim, was to make sure that the phrase in long brochos "somuch
l'chasima" was "domeh l'chasima", which Nusach Ashkenaz apparently
doesn't worry about.  <<

What was RSZ's assumption wrt to Nusach Ashkenaz, was he fixing something that 
was broken or did he sipmly argue on Nusach Ashkenaz's pre-supposition that it 
didn't need fixing in the first place?

IOW, was Nusach Ashkenaz "breaking the rules" by not ending "mei'ein the 
Chasimo" or did Nusach Ashkenaz hold that this was not necesary?

Rich Wolpoe



  

> Subject: Pi
> 
> I'm sure someone from Chazal must have noticed this, but Sir Isaac Newton
> points out an interesting Gematria WRT the value for pi given in Milachim
> I 7:23.
> 
> The word for diameter "qav" is written "qvh". The gematria of the two words
> are 106 and 111.
> 	3 * 111 / 106 = 3.14150943396226
> which is actually the fractional approximation of pi possible with 3 digits.
> 
I have heard this several times in the name of many gedolim including
the Gra.
Does anyone know the origin the the derasha with sources?

Eli Turkel

Saul Stokar brings
> 
> While I accept and agree with the point made here, I would like to point
> out the "flip-side" of this. I recall reading an Israeli hagiography
> of Rav Shach a few years ago in which the author (whose name I can't
> recall) tells of how a young yeshiva boy asked R. Shach a question
> during his weekly shi'ur clalli in the Ponovich yeshiva that caused him
> (R. Shach) to stop, think and then announce something like "The boy is
> correct; the rest of the shi'ur is cancelled because it is not correct".
> (As I recall, this is alleged to have occured more than once over the
> years. In addition, there were cases where the questioner was quite a
> "junior" member of the yeshiva.) I have attended and participated in a
> large number of physics conferences and colloquia and I seen some quite
> devastating criticism presented to the lecturer, but I have never seen
> this kind of response, which apparently stems from a combination of a
> truly sincere thirst for the truth coupled with the utmost humility. I
> certainly hope the story is actually true, since it has made a great
> impression on me and I recall it ever since.
> 
A similar story is brought by the Rav about Rav Chaim Brisker.
When he gave his first public derasha at Voloshin as part of "checking
him out" half way through the shiur Rav Chaim said he just remembered
a Rambam that contradicts the shiur and stopped the
shiur on the spot.

Daniel Eidensohn writes

> the general rule for disagreement with authority - is stated by the Baal
> HaMeor in his introduction to Berachos. The disagreement must be within the
> guidelines of authority that have been established and accepted by the one
> you wish to diagree with. Rav Hutner used to wear a special coat when he
> gave a shiur clalli because of the intense debate which generally ensused
> between him and his audience and he got very hot and excited. The Rosh noted
> that one could disagree with the gaonim - iff there were solid proofs. Reb
> Moshe was not upset by people disagreeing with him - as long as the person
> had proofs. He was primarily upset by people who dismissed his rulings
> without careful evaluation and study.see Even haEzer IV #18 page 40 in a
> letter to Rabbi Shabbtsai Rappaport at the end " but my dear grandchild
> don't refrain from writing chidushei Torah and even comments on my chidushim
> whether printed or not. but it appears to me that all that I have written -
> with G-d's help - are correct without contradictions from shas and poskim
> and commentaries and if you find a contradictions you should examine it very
> carefully. And if it is relevant to write please write and I hope to be able
> to reply as to what I had intended. But of course it is not correct to say
> that the I am always right but in fact all that I have written has been with
> great effort to understand the Truth and therefore I hope that G-d - who
> grants man intelligence - assists me.
> 
While I agree with this post in theory, in practice it doesn't go
that way - at least in many circles.

I have read many times complaints that Rav Chaim Naeh had the chuzpa
to disagree with Chazon Ish about Shiurim (yes Rav Chaim was first !).
When Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagreed with Chazon Ish about electricity
many people wanted to put him in cherem until others pointed out that
he had already written an important sefer before then.

I think the general attitude in many places especially in Israel
is that one is not allowed to disagree with chazon Ish in particular
and with gedolim in general. This is independent of the strength of
ones arguments.

There is a speech of Rav Schach in which he attacks the hesder yeshivot
for saying Hallel on yom haatzmaut. His argument is that Chazon Ish
didn't say hallel and therefore anyone who does say hallel thinks
he is better than Chazon Ish and therefore a fool.
There is no attempt at any rational discussion merely calling of
names against anyone with audacity to disagree with Chazon Ish.
A similar situation cam up when Rav Schach attacked Chabad for
introducing chumrot into their Mikvaot. If Chazon Ish didn't hold
of the chumra than no one is allowed to use that chumra because
it implies that he is better than Chazon Ish.

I personally feel that Rav Moshe was unique in his openess and that
is what made him into great posek that he was.

Eli Turkel

Eli Turke >>> R. Aaron Soloveitchik in his book demonstrates how secular 
studies can increase ones appreciation of hashem. He then asks the same 
question - does that mean that R. Chaim had less appreciation
because he didn't study these subjects? 
Basically he answers that in theory one doesn't need any of these tools. <<

The point re: R. Aaron S. and R. Chaim S. is might be better understood as not 
better and worse, rather from differing perspectives.  One perspective is depth 
of Torah, the other breadth of general knowlege.

Lemoshol: legabei eating on YK we have the perspective of a choleh, of the 
Talmid chochom and of the physician.  Each one contributes to the bottom line 
understanding of what should be done.  The doctor might say eat, and the Rov 
might say not so fast, let him eat pachos mishiur, etc.

Similarly, I understand there was a lot of "teamwork" between R. Moshe F. and 
his son-in-law R. Moshe T. wrt to biological/medical decisions.  IOW, ideally 
the 2 perspectives work together to determine the emes.

Rich wolpoe 

> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> 
> Did you all see the great story R' Meiselman relates in Tradition about
> the woman who came to his uncle asking to wear a tallis in Shul? 
> Brilliant! 

If we're talking about the same story, it seems to me that he set her up.
She did in good faith what her revered teacher told her to do and then he
slammed her.  Why are you rejoicing in this?

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I personally feel that Rav Moshe was unique in his openess and that is
> what made him into great posek that he was. 
> 
> Eli Turkel
> 

What about RSZA? And, none other than the CI himself (let us ignore his
successors for the moment)? Remember what he said about following R'
Kook's psakim?

I think the rigidity you (and I) detest is of Brisker origin...

YGB

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

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Freda B Birnbaum wrote:

> If we're talking about the same story, it seems to me that he set her
> up.  She did in good faith what her revered teacher told her to do and
> then he slammed her.  Why are you rejoicing in this? 
>

Not because of the human relations aspect. That was not the Rav - for
better or worse. I called it brilliant - not Rogerian (and I certainly
don't "rejoice" in it)! I see its brilliance in its succint capture of the
Rov's fundamental approach to ceremony and ritual - which, btw, stands in
stark contrast to Chassidus. 

YGB

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

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> > If we're talking about the same story, it seems to me that he set her
> > up.  She did in good faith what her revered teacher told her to do and
> > then he slammed her.  Why are you rejoicing in this? 
> 
> Not because of the human relations aspect. That was not the Rav - for
> better or worse. I called it brilliant - not Rogerian (and I certainly
> don't "rejoice" in it)! I see its brilliance in its succint capture of
> the Rov's fundamental approach to ceremony and ritual - which, btw,
> stands in stark contrast to Chassidus.

Okay, I see your point, but it did seem to me there was a bit of glee at
the woman's having been "properly" put down.  I'm glad to stand corrected. 
(I still think he set her up.) 

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu

As I mentioned about a week back, far too many minhagim have been willfully
changed by far too many people for me to believe there's no standard mechanism
for doing so. OTOH, that mechanism must be clearly defined, or else ein ladavar
sof ("slippery slope" argument).

My idea was that the concept of "minhag ta'os" not only applies to customs but
also to piskei halachah traditionally followed (which are also often called
"minhag"). I therefore wanted to suggest that when the Gr"a differed from the
p'sak being followed, it was only when he felt that p'sak was provably wrong.
(And not just "less mistaver".)

So, for example, I'd argue that the Gr"a thought that having three matzos
for the seder was a ta'os in that it violates lechem oni. It's not just
that he found the concept of unifying lechem oni and mishneh lechem (so that
one needn't have two sh'leimos for the seder) more logical -- he found the
alternative to be wrong.

In discussing this idea in personal email with another Avodah reader, a
doubt arose whether the mechanism for nusach hatfillah was the same as
for other piskei halachah, or whether it's more fluid.

I invite that other reader to present his side of the conversation.

This implies that it's possible for ba'alei Tosfos to make mistaken piskei 
halachah. If I'm correct, then the Gra changed the definition of sh'kia
back because he thought Rabbeinu Tam made a mistake.

Which gets us back to our most argued unresolved question: defining what a
"p'sak halachah" is. My whole supposition is based on the idea that there
are two kinds of halachic criteria, a p'sak must be (1) divrei E-lokim
Chaim [DEC] (or a g'zeirah or takanah); (2) the derech that Chazal chart for
us.

To me, emunas chachamim is about #2. We trust that our chachamim will chart
the derech that best fits k'lal yisrael as we evolve through history. There
is no guarantee, though, that the p'sak is correct -- only that, given two
correct piskei halachah, they will find what's best for us.

After all, they ignored even nissim giluyim in the TsA story. Truth was not
the point of their machlokes, but rather proper derech. I thought that story
would put the whole question of whether ruach hakodesh lends authority to
p'sak to sleep. Also, I'd want to reiterate my observation that the S"A's
oft-cited methodology eliminated the maggid's role in his piskei halachah.
Again, it appears that p'sak is about the derech, not some objective "truth".

Because piskei halachah that choose DEC over non-truth are incredibly rare.
It's nearly always DEC vs. DEC.

Because this is where I'm coming from, it therefore makes sense to posit that
the "preferred p'sak" can change when someone feels it violates #1, that it's
not DEC, but not over number 2.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 304:7-305:6
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 50b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 17-20

Do you have the URL for the mail-Jewish site you mention?

Ari



Dr. Saul Stokar wrote:

> In V2, no. 189, Micha Berger points out the interesting approximation
> for pi ( 3 * 111 / 106 = 3.14150943396226) that can be obtained by
> comparing similar words in I Kings 7:23 and II Chronicles 4:2, ascribing
> this to Isaac Newton. A thorough analysis of this exegesis can be found
> in an article entitled "On The Rabbinical Analysis of an Enhanced
> Biblical Value of PI", by Shlomo Edward G. Belaga. A postscript version
> of this paper can be found at the mail-jewish site (entitled pi.ps). The
> paper states that the "discovery" is quite modern, being made by Rabbi
> Matityahu Hakohen Munk". I am not aware of any evidence that Newton was
> aware of this proof, despite his (Newton's) "obsession with the temple's
> plans and dimensions" [R.S. Westfall, "Never at Rest", Cambridge Univ.
> Press, 1987 p. 346-348]. Last year I heard this exegesis repeated on
> Israeli radio (Arutz 7) in the name of the GR"A. Again, as far as I
> know, there is no evidence for such an attribution. As stated in the
> Talmud, "He who attributes a source correctly bring redemption to the
> world".
>
> Saul Stokar

I know this may not sound like a quesion befitting such an "exalted"
group, but I'll ask asnyway:   Does anyone know the origin of the Magen
David as a Jewish symbol?  

Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

RYGB:>>Of course we do. For example:
1. We do not eat kitniyos.
2. We will not force a get where the woman claims "ma'us alai" without
great raglayim la'davar. (RT)
3. We will not marry more than one woman nor be megaresh ba'al korcha.
(RGMH)
4. We do not institue takkanos of afke'inhu. (Rashba)<<

Bizman hazeh, What prevents us from instituting Tefillin derabbinu Tam as the 
Tefillin?  Can't we be someich onhimn as a Rishon?

Rich Wolpoe

There is an excellent little book on this by Plaut printed by Bnai brith.

ari




raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> I know this may not sound like a quesion befitting such an "exalted"
> group, but I'll ask asnyway:   Does anyone know the origin of the Magen
> David as a Jewish symbol?
>
> Raffy
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>>R' Yisroel in the Or Yisroel put it succintly: For us, the Gemara is the
TSBK and the Rishonim TSBAP. <<

A good reason NOT to take the TB literally when Rishonim tell us not to...

Another model is to see the Gemoro as equivalent to the SA and the Rishonim as 
the Mappo (at least in the way Ahskenazim se ethe SA/Mappo).

It also makes sense that Rishonim knew when to pasken like a Tosefta or a TY 
over the TB, analogous to the TB knowing when to disregard a Mishno (or at least
peshat in a Mishno) in favor of a braiso.

RW

R. Chaim: >>Of course you are - mefurash in Rambam Temurah 4:13.  The point of 
learning machshava is so WE can perfom mitzvot better (as you wrote), not, 
however, to understand what goes on in shamayim which is beyond our control.  <<

Perhaps, too, by understanding what we do, we perhaps improve our character, or 
elevate ourselves spiritually.  Odom nif'al lefi maassov (sefer haChinuch), this
perhaps can be extended by our further contemplation of what we do.

And this goes along with "Naaseh v'Nishma", that the Nishma is a reflection on 
the already done Maaseh...  

Rich Wolpoe

Here's a compendium of answers I gave to this question on other fora...

* * *

Magein David means "shield of David", not "star of David". David, in the
role of Psalmist, repeatedly calls Hashem "magini -- my Shield". The REAL MD,
is HKBH.

According to the Mekubalim, the star is a subset of the Eitz Chaim, showing
the relationships between the lower 7 sephiros, which correspond to the days
of the week.

In Gevuros HaShem, the Maharal notes that physical objects have 6 sides. In
addition, there is a central point which is different in that (1) it is a
point; (2) in the center, unreachable from the outside.

This is why, the Maharal explains, the seventh is the spiritual that is
inherent in the physical world. Creation is described as taking place on
7 days -- in 6 days the physical world is laid down, and in the seventh
spirituality is added.

According to the Maharal, the days of the week correspond to the six spatial
directions -- up, down, left, right, forward, backward. The middle point,
being a hidden thing of 0 dimensions, represents the spiritual inherent in
every object. This is the Shabbos of the week.

I would presume that the same symbolism could be said of the central pane
of the MD, and the six triangles around it pointing out the directions.

So, in a sense, the MD is an illustration of the belief that G-d rules
everywhere. Whether the arrows represent metaphysical directions, or more
mundane ones.

* * *

The oldest secularly documented use of the MD is around the time of the Bar
Kochva revolt. Being the "Son of the Star", it would make sense to have a
star emblem.

Until that era, Judean shields were reinforced by a triangle of bars,
since triangles are particularly rigid. (An idea B Fuller made well known.
It's because the lengths of the sides define the angles, so the corners of a
triangle can't narrow or widen.) The Greeks had developed what they called
"double delta" shields, but we first find our ancestors using them in this
much later era.

David, when transliterated into Greek, would be two deltas with a couple of
vowels and a semi-vowel (for the waw) between them. (Actually, in Canaanite
script, the dalets are triangles as well.) So, this two delta star would be
called the more mnemonic "David".

BK's followers used the new design, so that when they held their shields,
they saw a Magein David. However, by using a term that referred to G-d,
they were reminded that the true source of protection was not the Sheila in
their hand, but the G-d above them.

Once the symbol was introduced, it was found to be useful in illustrating
abstruse esoteric concepts. It survived only in this capacity, much like
the Eitz Chaim Life still does.

* * *

We have no indication that the MD was used to represent Israel or the Jewish
people, however, until the early 19th century. About that time it started
appearing in synagogue ornamentation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 304:7-305:6
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 50b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 17-20

RYGB writes:

>Let us not get emotional here. Who rejected this distinction. OK, you
>don't like the word "Perhaps" - a figure of speech. Of course there was a
>difference, and there remains an objective difference. For the GR"A there
>still was a difference, as evinced in his guidelines to R' Chaim
>Volozhiner about the extent to which one can argue on Rishonim. For the
>Chasam Sofer, already (sof Chiddushe Kesuvos) there was not: The Rishonim
>are now unassailable.

I think we may have a misunderstanding.  Either that or the subject of
this discussion has shifted when I wasn't looking.  If you believe the
issue to be whether we can argue with a Rishon on a halakhic issue, then
we are in complete agreement.  However, in my view, this does not
transform the Rishonim into Hazal, nor does it elevate their
pronouncements on non-halakhic issues to divrei Hazal.  (Which, I
thought, was the issue.)  Moreover, I am hard-pressed to believe that
the Hatam Sofer was referring to comments of the Rashba that Hazal had
ru'ah ha-kodesh.

>While R' Chaim Brisker wrote no Hashkafic works, this is evident from his
>work and those of his contemporaries: The analysis of shittos rishonim is
>now - universally and unapologetically - no less TT than Limud HaGemara.
>R' Yisroel in the Or Yisroel put it succintly: For us, the Gemara is the
>TSBK and the Rishonim TSBAP.

True, but not relevant.  The analysis of shitot Aharonim is also talmud
Torah.  In fact, a discussion of my analysis or your analysis of
Halakhah is also talmud Torah.  What does this prove?

>We do not only because the Rishonim themselves - such as the Ramban in
>Sefer Ha'Viku'ach (see R' chavel there for the other MM's) - told us that
>such areas do not have the binding authority of Halacha.

Aha.  This reminds me of the story I once heard of a person who asked a
Lubavitcher many years ago if he thought the Rebbe was Mashi'ah.  The
Habadnik replied, "We used to, until he told us he wasn't."

>1. We do not eat kitniyos.
>2. We will not force a get where the woman claims "ma'us alai" without
>great raglayim la'davar. (RT)
>3. We will not marry more than one woman nor be megaresh ba'al korcha.
>(RGMH)
>4. We do not institue takkanos of afke'inhu. (Rashba)

I am not sure how this answers my question.  Do you view these takkanot
as equivalent to, say, yom tov sheni?  Or shevu'at heiset?  To the
mitzvah of eating marror bi-zman ha-zeh or taking lulav kol shiv'ah?  I
don't.

In any case, as you know, the Sefardim are not bound by a number of
these takkanot.  Yet, to my knowledge they are bound by the takkanot of
Hazal.

>> I feel compelled to point out as well that neither Maharsha nor Maharal
>> qualify as Rishonim.

>A minor quibble. If you'd like I'll concede it, but vis-a-vis perushei
>aggadata, these are primary sources - certainly vis-a-vis us.

Maybe vis a vis you, but not vis a vis me.  My rebbe was once asked a
question about Maharal.  He replied, "I've never read him."  (For more
on perush aggadah, see my response to Elie Ginsparg.)

>I think this is surely a shegags me'pi ha'shalit. I have cried BB 12 over
>and over again, but have yet to see anyone cogently refute the reference.
>reminds me of the utter lack of response to my cries of Yechezkel 29-32 in
>the 420 years debate.

Okay, I will try to refute Baba Batra 12.  I will start by pointing out
that I find a total of four statements reflecting on the neviut on that
daf.  Let us examine them seriatim, then weight the evidence.  The first
is the comment of R. Yosi regarding Sumkhus, "Ein elu ela divrei
neviut," which both Rashi and Tosafot make clear is an insult.  The
second statement -- which I presume is the one you are thinking about --
is that of R. Avdimi de-min Haifa, that nevuah was given to the
hakhamim, which the Gemara revises to say that nevuah was not taken away
from the haakhamim.  The third is Amemar's comment that Hakham adif
mi-navi.  The fourth (on amud bet) is the well-known statement of R.
Yohanan that nevu'ah was given to the shotim and tinokot.  Read
together, I find the weight of the evidence of the sugya leads to the
following conclusions:  R. Avdimi's view is directly contradicted by R.
Yohanan, and was apparently not shared by either R. Yosi or Amemar.

>As the Chazon Ish says:

>"And the words of the Rishonim z"l even in Shikul HaDa'as are totally
>Torah and based on their words we must act... And all the words of the
>Rishonim are ne'emanim vis-a-vis us as if given at Sinai, and while we
>are required to consider them and analyze them, that is not for ikkar
>ha'din, but to understand their holly words..."

>(OC 64. There's more, also about their Ruach HaKodesh, ach dai bazeh)

As I wrote before, there is a vast difference between Hazal claiming the
mantle of ru'ah ha-kodesh and a later authority ascribing it to them.
The same goes for the Rishonim.  There is simply no comparison.
Moreover, this is not a statement about pesak, it is a statement of
theology, and the Hazon Ish is neither the first nor the last word on
the subject.  Indeed, although I am not certain I can find an explicit
statement to this effect, I would venture to say that most Aharonim read
the Rishonim for ikkar ha-din, rather than to be neheneh from their
kedushah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
>> Back to the original point.  No matter how much authority we ascribe to
>> Rishonim, R Teitz is correct that the silence of Hazal on this point is
>> far more important than the words of certain Rishonim.


Elie Ginsparg asks:
>Does this mean that you never learn aggadata? since Chazal wrote in a
>cryptic fashion and didn't reveal what is liteeral and what isn't , let
>alone the real interpretaion--you can never know what chazal meant. I can
>learn chazal and get their message through the interpretation of gedolim
>who A. either had a mesorah of what the chazal meant or B. using their
>brilliance figured out a plausable explanation for the aggadatta. we can
>quibble whether or not the explanation takes on the din of chazal or is
>only as strong as the one giving it but I can feel comfotable that this is
>what chazal meant as interpreted by gedolim. Your model doesn't allow that
>because ultimately chazal's silence is more important than any
>interpretation---leaving the realm of aggadata useless--is this really
>what you suggest?

What a quaint interpretation of my words!  No, I suggest nothing of the
kind.  What I am suggesting is that when Maharsha interprets aggadah he
is giving his own interpretation.  It has his authority, not Hazal's.
Similarly, le-havdil, if I interpret aggadah, it has only my authority.
This does not make aggadah useless, it just means it is more open-ended
than, say, explicit halakhic statements.

You are welcome to feel comfortable that Maharsha was mekhaven to
Hazal's real intent.  And I will feel just as comfortable judging the
Maharsha's explanation on the basis of its persuasiveness or, to use
your term, "plausibility."

I find it surprising (and telling) that you consider it possible that a
text without an authoritative interpretation might be "useless" and not
worth learning.  However, given that much of mikraei kodesh falls into
that category, I suggest you rethink your assumptions.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

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


[ 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         ]