Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 004
Tuesday, March 23 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:11:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Academy Awards
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> (I would like to thank him for saying academy and not university as that
> would have been a much more obvious stab at YU, but we are not that
> blind as to not notice).
>
THis is definitely not a stab at YU!
I do not think a single Rosh Yeshiva at YU woul disagree with my
understanding of yeridas ha'doros!
> I would like to ask RYGB about the mindset of a person asked to pasken a
> question. Does that person, that rav, merely rehash the ideas
> previously written, or does he try to reach an independent conclusion
> and then see how it fits with those who preceeded him?
>
It depends.
> The right wing world has lost the concept of hachra'ah, decision making,
Could you please define "right-wing"?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:12:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: definitions
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> RYGB,
> Sources please!
>
> EDT
>
Or Samei'ach Hil. TT.
Beis Yechezkel vol. 2 Sha'arr Chinuch v' TT.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:16:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Chazal's authority
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> I was away for 3 weeks, and I've just caught up now. 800KB of material
> takes a long time to read. Anyway, on the ruach hakodesh thread:
>
Thank you for taking the time to write over the taxonomies of RhK. As to
the other issues you discuss or raise, I have dealt with them all overr
the past couple of weeks here in diverse posts, and kashe atikta
me'chadta. My telephone number is 773 267 6963 and any nd every one is
wellcome to call and we can chat further.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:42:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Catholic Israel
I took out my Encyclopedia Judaica to check if this point has any
validity, but I admit that it may well be inacccurate, as I am not
intimately conversant with R' Solomon Schechter's philosophy, but you may
all correct me if I am wrong:
It seems to me that the models presented here for acceptance of Chazalic
authority, shorn of the high regard for Chazal equated with the concepts
of ruach ha'kodesh and yeridas ha'doros, are essentially congruent with
Dr. Schechter's model of "Catholic Israel" that was an outgrowth of the R'
Zecharia Frankel model of Historical Judaism and that led to the
development of Conservative Judaism.
If that is the case, the specific segments of "Modern Orthodoxy" - that I
identified, tentatively, as academically oriented, but choose whatever
sociological descriptor you like - are on a similar trajectory to the
early Conservative movement - but starting out some 100 years later, and
hopefully with less devastating results.
Refutations welcome!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:10:00 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: chesed alert
I would like to ask members of this list who reside on the upper (preferably) east or west sides of Manhattan if they could possibly provide hospitality to a friend of mine and a truly extraordinary talmid chacham now residing in Florida who is beginning a course of radiation therapy at Sloan-Kettering this week. He has access to a bikur cholim apartment on the east side for most of the time he will be undergoing treatment. However, he cannot stay there from Erev Shabbos Hagadol through Erev Pesach or immediately after Pesach from Erev Shabbos through Peach. If you or someone you know could provide hospitality for all or part of these time periods, please contact me as soon as possible.
Thank you very much in advance.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
202-326-3345 (W)
301-681-5099 (O)
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:14:39 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Tzibbur as an Authority
RYGB: >>
>> And can we extrapolate that Klal Yisrole as a whole ,as a Tzibbur
> ve certain Halachic authority? (consider Ezra's takknon being rejected:
Yes. That is why nispashta is an essential component of the authority of
takkanos d'rabbonon; why we have principles like: "puk chazei mai ama
dvar"; and, I might add, why I have not yet committed to keeping Chodosh.<<
Follow up. Could the tzibbur have been wrong/mistaken re: transporintg the
knives for the korban Pesach on Shabos Erev Pesach? IOW was there any implied
infallibity accompanying their Ruach haKodesh?
Simlarly, if a Minhog Yisreol were to evolve in the absence of a Rabbinic
statement or lomdus what would its validity be.
IOW, given that the tzibbur ratifies certain shitos, what about the case when
they come up with something in a vacuum?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:58:41 -0500
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject: a month of responses
Hi:
I got sensory overload last night catching up with several weeks
Avoda. I thought I'd take my lunch hour to send a response (saving
time, since I am bereft of reference books here).
1. With regard to the authority of our predecessors, see the Ramban's
comments in his introductions to Milhamoth HaShem and Hilchoth Nidda.
Contrast his attitude towards the Rif (deference) and the Raavad
(respect). For that matter contrast his attitude towards the Raavad and
the baal HaMaor - they were contemporaries and lived longer before the
Ramban than the Chazon Ish lived before us.
2. R. David Cohen in Kol HaNevuah remarks that R. Shimon in the Zohar
follows his opinion in the gemara dorshin taamei dekra (which we reject
halachically). He implies (I don't recall if he says explicitly) that
the Zohar is not normally cited halachically because it adds no extra
weight to R. Shimon's views expressed (or unexpressed?) in exoteric
sources.
2'. We now know why R. Bechhofer is so opposed to dating the Zohar to
the times of the Rishonim - in that case studying Zohar would not be
Talmud Torah.
2''. Contrast R. Ginsparg's conviction about the authorship of the
Zohar with R. Ashlag's comment that he doesn't know whether the Zohar is
tannaitic, amoraitic, or by R. Moshe de Leon, but that he recognizes its
greatness from its content (a note to those who know me - my chavrusa at
work forced me to read R. Ashlag's introduction, I didn't do it
willingly).
Contrast also with R. Moshe Cordevero's comment about the authorship
of Sefer Yetzira at the beginning of Pardes Rimonim.
3. More about studying Rishonim not being Talmud Torah. The Rambam
says that a person who studies only two books - Tanach and Mishneh Torah
- will know the entirety of Torah. Does Rabbi B. really believe that
it's possible to learn what the Rambam considers all of Torah sheb'al
peh without fulfilling the mitzva of talmud torah?
3'. About the difference in our attitudes to Geonim and Rishonim see
the Netziv's introduction to his peirush on the Sheiltoth.
4. The continued fraction expansion of pi is a lot easier to compute by
hand than a Taylor's series expansion and was certainly available in the
nineteenth century (it's a simple consequence of the Euclidean algorithm
which - you guessed it - is at least as old as Euclid, i.e. the
Hasmonean period). There's a new series available recently which is
even easier if you're willing to use octal.
5. One of the things I read while offline was a book on indeterminism
and case law. The author (talking about American law, not Jewish law)
says that it's easier for disputants to decide on outcomes than on
reasons, so often ignoring reasoning makes it a lot easier to reach a
judgment.
Could this be related to the Beith Yosef's voting algorithm (discussed
several months ago)? It could also be related to the halacha that during
capital crimes each vote to convict must have a different source.
DR
or should I expand the acronym and say
David Riceman
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:49:53 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Tzibbur as an Authority
RYGB:>>> And can we extrapolate that Klal Yisrole as a whole ,as a Tzibbur
> ve certain Halachic authority? (consider Ezra's takknon being rejected:
Yes. That is why nispashta is an essential component of the authority of
takkanos d'rabbonon; why we have principles like: "puk chazei mai ama
dvar"; and, I might add, why I have not yet committed to keeping Chodosh.
> "sh'ein rov hatsibubr yochol laamod bo." Also consider the Rambam in
> HilchosTeshuvo that even if one follows halacha al tifrosh min haTzibbur
> is a "cardinal" sin. Could this be related to the Tzibbur's "power" to
> affect hanghogo? Could one cut off from the tzibbur be cut off from
> "Ruach haKodesh".
>
Sorry, I don't understand the last question. Peirush?<<
IOW, it seems that the tzibbur has a power in ratifying or vetoing halacho, or
at least hanhogo. (Remember, the concept of halocho v'lo lemaase?). Tzibbur
pretty much determines the long run maase of how a theoretical halocho gets
implemented (The NAASE). The theortical underpinnings are theh province of
lamdonim (the NISHMA).
OK given a frumme yid who wants NO part of any community. aparently the Rambam
is pointing this out as flawed. (there are a LOT of possible sevoros) I am
adding a Sevor to the aresnal, I.e. since tzibbur tells us HOW to do something
(Tefillin on chol Hamoed??) therefore one who cuts himself off tfrom the tzibbur
will invariably deviate. That sitting by one's self, even in a libaray full of
seforim, is prone to Missing out on ciritcal pieces of halocho lemaase.
EG You cannot do Mila/Shechita/safurs, etc. without hands-on instruction.
Conclusion: in order to plug into the koach haTzibbur, one may not be poreish
from it!
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:13:32 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Chag Kosher V'someiach
As I have been very busy lately I didn't have much time to actively
participate on this list.
I still owe RYGB a response, to his question what to we make out of the Gilyon
Hashas and S"M Psochim (relevant Tractate) 94b, The Rebbe once asked the
Ragitchover Gaon about the Chazal's view of T'chunoh, mentioning among others
this Gemoroh, the Ragitchover answered (printed in the Reshimos) that the
Chazal's view of T'chunoh is "Omoik Omoik Me Yimtzoenu..Noikeiv Ad Hatihom,"
with a slew of Maarei Mkomos Kdarkoi Bakodesh.
WRT the Shakloh V'taryoh regarding Ruach Hakodesh etc. I don't know if it has
been mentioned yet on the list, but see the Hakdamah of R' Ruvein Margoliyos
to his edition of SHUT Min Hashomayim, also see Toras Nvi'im from the
MaHaRaTZ Chayos, also Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech, Bas Kol and Divrei
Chalomos.
Wishing everyone and all together a Chag Kosher Vsomeiach we should merit yet
this year, to the fulfillment of our prayer at last years Sdorim "Vnochal Shom
Min Hazvochim Umin Hapsochim," and Lshonoh Habooh Beyrusholayim, (or as we
begin the Hagadah Lshono Habo Baro'h Dyisroel).
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:18:12 -0500
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Chag Kosher V'someiach
In last week's Jerusalem Post (available on line) there was a very strange story
about a woman
who claims to be a reincarnation of Anne Frank. Could some of the knowledgeable
folks out there
provide some sources and discussion of the Torah's view on reincarnation.
chag kosher v'samaach,
Ari
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:01:57 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: On humility, haughtiness, and yirat shamayim
Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
<<<
> I believe that the halachic decision making process is perforce a rational
> one, but that it was conducted by those who possess ruach ha'kodesh
> b'kirbam, as the Ramban says.
> I do not know why people equate the possession of ruach ha'kodesh, or
> da'as torah, or whatever term - usually pejorative, unfortunately - to
> connote the profound and HOLY perspective that Chazal (and, to a lesser
> extent, Rishonim, perhaps even Acharonim) bring to bear in the rational
> process of psak, thus rendering decisions, through their rational
> processes, that have very holy and holiness-generating implications - with
> infallibility. ...
Would appreciate hearing - from anyone who disagrees with the above - an
explanation of the gemora (Sanhedrin 106b) concerning Doeg and Achitofel.
It states that G-d said to Dovid HaMelech "We should bring Doeg to Olam HaBah"
Dovid HaMelech cited verses against this . G-d said, "At least let Torah be
cited in his name in the beis hamedrash?" Rejected. "At least let his children
be Rabbi?" Rejected.
The gemora continues "Doeg and Achitofel raised 400 questions and none were
answered. Rava commented, " What's so great about being able to ask a
question?" He then notes that the main thing that G-d wants is the heart. In
previous generations they were not so learned but rain fell more readily for
them. Another opinion asserted that Doeg and Achitofel were incapable of
learning properly. This is decisively rejected. The gemora concludes that
despite their tremendous erudition in Torah, they did not *merit* [Rashi] to
have the halacha follow their view because 'the secret of G-d is with them
that fear him [Tehilim 25:14].
What does Yiras shamayim have to do with the Halachic process? These former
gedolei hador could tie anyone one of us in knots in a Torah discussion - but
their halachic conclusions are irrelevant - why?
>>>
I think that the answer is clear. Yirat shamayim is an essential quality for a shofet or posek, because of the potential adverse spiritual (or physical) consequences of a mistaken p*sak. If the posek does not fear heaven, how do we know, especially if he is much smarter than us, that he is not deliberately misleading us? The p*sak of one who fears heaven may be mistaken in some sense, but if the p*sak was rendered sincerely, we are entitled to rely on it, nevertheless. To use a somewhat simplistic analogy, would you allow Dr. Frankenstein, a highly competent physician and an excellent researcher by all accounts, to perform brain surgery on yourself or any loved one? Similarly, it would not be wise to rely on a p*sak that was not rendered sincerely. Emunat hahamim means that we trust that our Hahamim, despite the virtually unlimited authority granted to them by the Torah to determine what the halachah is, would not abuse their discretion and would pasken only l*shem shama!
yim. Without that faith, we would be without anchor or compass in a stormy sea of doubt and perplexity.
Now that we know how greatly impressed Rabbi Bechhoffer is with the spirit of humility that suffuses the Yeshivah as opposed to the hautiness of the academy, I cannot resist quoting once again the words of the Dor Revi*i. This time from the hakdamah to Dor Revi*i (5a-b)
*The reader of this work should not suspect that I imagine that in every place that I have criticized rabbis who came before us that I have discerned the truth, for such a haughty spirit would be incomparably ignorant. . . .[I]t would contradict my approach completely, for whatever I have dared to achieve is built on the principle that every person . . . is liable to err. . . .[Others] will find many mistakes that I have made, because man is misled by his own words and ideas. I, too, could not be safe from the snare of error that lies beneath the feat of all men. But this is the way of Torah: one builds and another comes after and examines his words and removes the chaff from the wheat in order to find truth, which is beloved above all.*
I am curious. Are these words an expression of the spirit of humility of the Yeshivah or the spirit of haughtiness of the academy? Of course, there may be some (not c*v on this list) who will say, *Eh, the Dor Revi*i, a Tzioni. They don*t even study him in the yeshivos, except maybe a Rosh Yeshiva will look at his own personal copy, b*chadrei chadorim, before giving a Chulin or a Yoreh De*ah shiur, but certainly not to quote him as an authority. Besides, you can*t even believe what he himself wrote in his own books, because he was just engaging in polemics not in dispassionate analysis.* That of course is sheer nonsense. Forget that Rabbi Kook (a highly suspect source I admit) considered the Dor Revi*i to be the gadol hador. but R. Chaim Ozer (whose Haredi credentials are unassailable) said that the Dor Revi*i*s bekius in the Rambam was unsurpassed in his generation (a generation that included R. Chaim) and R. Meir Simcha (another impeccable Haredi) whose words after bei!
ng introduced to one of the Dor Revi*i*s sons-in-law were: *Fun ungarische rabbonim halt ich nisht, ober fun dein shver halt ich yoh.*
Finally, at the risk of further prolonging a thread that has already been drawn out excessively, I cannot help making the following observations about where we started and where we have come to. As best as I can remember the thread got started when Rabbi Bechhoffer inquired of me why, given my view that Chazal were error-prone (which, just for the record, I should note, is a term so elastic that it can mean almost anything), I felt bound to obey the decrees of Chazal such as yom tov sheni and other enactments for which blessings are recited b'shem u'malkhut. Rabbi Bechhoffer seemed to find the willingness to follow Chazalic decrees inconsistent with a view that Chazal were error-prone. If I recall correctly, Rabbi Bechhoffer suggested that unless one viewed Chazal as the beneficiaries of ruah ha-kodesh, it was difficult to understand why Chazalic decrees should be venerated to such an extent.
In the context of that exchange, it does not seem to me unreasonable to have inferred, as many on the list besides me apparently did, that Rabbi Bechhoffer meant by ruah ha-kodesh a kind of virtual infallibility, not quite the infallibility of the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, to be sure, but perhaps a close approximation thereof. I admit that I am guessing here, since it was not I who originally juxtaposed the concepts of error-proneness and ruah ha-kodesh. But given that juxtaposition, would it not seem reasonable to suppose that ruah ha-kodesh, except in some very restricted set of exceptional cases, would exclude error? And would not that inference be reinforced by Rabbi Bechhoffer's rather insistent and repeated invocations of the Ramban's statement that hahamim yodim et ha'emet b'ruah ha-kodesh she'b'kirbam?
As I read his latest pronouncements on the subject, however, Rabbi Bechhoffer is no longer arguing (if he ever was) that there is any necessary connection or even correlation between ruah ha-kodesh and factual inerrancy. Rather ruah ha-kodesh is a quality of holiness and the ruah ha-kodesh of Chazal was such that their decrees, independent of the factual accuracy of the premises on which their decrees rested, were possessed of a derivative holiness. I am happy to say that, if I now understand him correctly, I am in perfect agreement with Rabbi Bechhoffer on the question of the ruah ha-kodesh of Chazal (though perhaps not that of Beethoven).
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:04:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: On humility, haughtiness, and yirat shamayim
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:
> possessed of a derivative holiness. I am happy to say that, if I now
> understand him correctly, I am in perfect agreement with Rabbi
> Bechhoffer on the question of the ruah ha-kodesh of Chazal (though
> perhaps not that of Beethoven).
>
Wonderful!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:05:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tzibbur as an Authority
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Follow up. Could the tzibbur have been wrong/mistaken re: transporintg
> the knives for the korban Pesach on Shabos Erev Pesach? IOW was there
Yes.
> any implied infallibity accompanying their Ruach haKodesh?
>
No.
> Simlarly, if a Minhog Yisreol were to evolve in the absence of a
> Rabbinic statement or lomdus what would its validity be.
>
Dubious. The status of Upsherrinish is a good example. Have you read Hil.
Upsherin lately?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:06:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tzibbur as an Authority
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> OK given a frumme yid who wants NO part of any community. aparently the
> Rambam is pointing this out as flawed. (there are a LOT of possible
> sevoros) I am adding a Sevor to the aresnal, I.e. since tzibbur tells
> us HOW to do something (Tefillin on chol Hamoed??) therefore one who
> cuts himself off tfrom the tzibbur will invariably deviate. That
> sitting by one's self, even in a libaray full of seforim, is prone to
> Missing out on ciritcal pieces of halocho lemaase.
>
Might well be!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:01:43 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Tam, ma hu?
Why is it we assume the haggadah's use of the adjective "tam" in the negative?
Is there any other case where "tam" means simple? After all, "Yaakov ish tam
yosheiv ohalim" is a complement!
LAD (IOW, IMHO <grin>), the "tam" could be seen as a different kind of good
kid than the chacham is. It's not that he's less bright, he's less cerebral.
While the chacham is asking for pilpul in hilchos Pesach, the tam wants to
know the tachlis, the shoresh hamitzvah. (The chochom aspires to be a Brisker,
while my version of the Tam wants to be a Chassid or Baal Mussar.)
Unfortunately for my p'shat, though, the common translation of "tam" is "the
simple son". The Maharal understands him to be inferior to the chacham in
that the chacham seeks Torah, the tam isn't provoked to ask until there's a
"zos" before him that is unlike "kol haleilos".
Since I raised the subject of the sons...
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: OK given a frumme yid who wants NO part of any community. aparently the
: Rambam is pointing this out as flawed. (there are a LOT of possible
: sevoros)
Note that in the Rambam's Haggadah, the reaction to the rasha is prefaced with
"l'fi shehotzi es atzmo min haklal kafar bi'ikar" (as opposed to vikafar
bi'ikar). According to the Rambam, p'rishah min haklal makes one a kofeir!
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 23-Mar-99: Shelishi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 307:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 54a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari I 33-36
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:14:22 -0600
From: Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com>
Subject: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy
I respectfully disagree with R. Bechhofer's comments that suggested
a similarity of thought between R. Solomon Schechter ( and by extension
other founders of Conservative Judaism) and the modern orthodox. (Full
disclosure, however, requires that :I confess that I haven't read all the
postings on this thread, so I am not sure what the original issue was.)
I have done extensive original research into the origins of the
Conservative movement. I believe a fundamental difference between both
the founders of Conservative Judaism and R. Solomon Schechter on one side
and the proponents of "modern orthdoxy" on the other, without defining what
"modern" is, is that the founders of C.J believed that the fluidity and
creativity within the halacha had been artificially crystallized by the
publication and dissemination of the Shulchan Arukh. The founders believed
that the halacha was binding but that their generation was just as competant
as preceding ones to engage in the same kind of decision making that had
taken place in earlier generations. They did not subscribe to the
philosophy of nitkatna ha-dorot [which I gather from the subject line of
some postings that I have read has been the subject of some discussion on
Avoda]. These themes are repeated over and over again in the editorials
of and articles in the American Hebrew, a 19th century newspaper whose
editorial board was comprised of the founders of the early Jewish
Theological Seminarry. However, I don't believe the "modern" orthodox
(however you define the term) accept such a loose attitude towards halacha.
Can anyone point me to any writings or speeches of modern orthodox
expounders that suggest otherwise? I do recall that in a class that I had
years ago with Rabbi David Hartman, he made a distinction between those
rabbinic laws which were takanot that were dependent upon extant
sociological conditions and those which were not, and it was the former that
were subject to change (and presumably not subject to the parameters of
nitkatna hadorot. ) However, in all fairness to Rabbi Hartman, that was
more than 20 years ago and I wouldn't presume the extent to which his
thinking has remained the same or changed on this point.
//Avi
Avram Sacks
Chicago
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> on 03/23/99 08:42 AM EST
To: Highlevel Torah Discussion Group
<avodah@aishdas.org>@SMTP@cchntmsd
cc:
Subject: Catholic Israel
I took out my Encyclopedia Judaica to check if this point has any
validity, but I admit that it may well be inacccurate, as I am not
intimately conversant with R' Solomon Schechter's philosophy, but
you may
all correct me if I am wrong:
It seems to me that the models presented here for acceptance of
Chazalic
authority, shorn of the high regard for Chazal equated with the
concepts
of ruach ha'kodesh and yeridas ha'doros, are essentially congruent
with
Dr. Schechter's model of "Catholic Israel" that was an outgrowth of
the R'
Zecharia Frankel model of Historical Judaism and that led to the
development of Conservative Judaism.
If that is the case, the specific segments of "Modern Orthodoxy" -
that I
identified, tentatively, as academically oriented, but choose
whatever
sociological descriptor you like - are on a similar trajectory to
the
early Conservative movement - but starting out some 100 years later,
and
hopefully with less devastating results.
Refutations welcome!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:20:31 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tam, ma hu?
In a message dated 3/23/99 4:11:17 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> the "tam" could be seen as a different kind of good
> kid than the chacham is
Vyaakov Ish Tom (Breishis 25:17), however in the context of the Hagadah see
Rashi Shmos 13:14
Chag Kosher Vsomeiach (especially as moderator of this list)
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:28:32 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: [none]
Subject: yeridas hadoros
Having just returned to the holy land I haven't had time to research
this. There come to my mind 2 gemaras that deal with yeridas hadoros.
One is the chamor of Pinchas Ben Yair and the other is Abaye's
comparison of his generation with Rav Yehuda.
In both cases yeridas hadoros has to do with sprituality and not with
psak halacha or smartness and certainly not with physical qualities.
Are there other places where the gemara uses yeridas hadoros with
respect to learning?
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:28:38 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: [none]
Subject: Brisker learning
From my own limited Brisker epxerience, I got the feeling that the Rov didn't
>so much outlearn his fellow Briskers as out-articulate them. His Sevoros were >very similar to other Brikser lamdonim; it was his koach hahesber that was
> unequaled by any other Contermporary Gadol (at least so far as I could tell). > When he finished his shiur, the Gemoro was crystal clear and you were
> convinced there could be no other way fo seeing the peshat.
They tell the complaint about Rav Chaim Brisk that when someone asked him
a question he explained the Gemara with such clarity that that the
questioneer felt it was a silly question and R. Chaim felt he had just
explained the gemara rather than answered a difficult question.
> RET = R' Eli Turkel
Not to be confused with Rav Eliyahu Teitz (REDT ?)
Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:28:46 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: [none]
Subject: Cherem dRGMH
>Who has the power to make takkanos and gezeiros in the absence of a Sanhedrin?
>Is it possible that RGMH had no other way to create a new din (legislate,
>as opposed to interpret) other than the cheirem?
The power of Rabbenu Gershon has nothing to do with the cherem. It was
initially issued by a gathering of the kehillot and so formed the
universal consensus of all the local communities. It is associated with
Rabbenu Gershon only because he was a gadol hador. Its power had nothing
to do with his personal ability to impose a cherem. Similarly, for
the takanot of Rabbenu Tam.
BTW it is historically unclear about the origin of the takanah against
marrying two women and also divorcing ones wife against her will.
It seems that there are several versions brought down about the various
takanot of that time and most of the versions do not include these two
in the takanot! It was only many years later that this takanah was
associated with Rabbenu Gershon.
Of course this is irrelevant as to the force of the takanah.
Similarly, there were several takanot of the Gaonim which were accepted
because they were the undisputed leaders of their generation.
Thus, the conclusion is that today takanot can only be issued for
the communities that accept that gadol/bet-din. No gadol or bet din
has the power to issue a takanah or cherem on other communities that
do not accept that authority.
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:37:56 -0500
From: Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com>
Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: Save a soul]
> >
> >>Please forward this message to anyone you can.
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>From: JFS
> >>Re: Adoption
> >>
> >>An 8 year old Jewish girl in Baltimore who has been in foster care is up
> >>for adoption. She has been living with an Orthodox family in Baltimore
> >>for
> >>the past two years, but they are unable to adopt her. We are told that
> >>she
> >>is a good girl, but mildly retarded. A non-jewish family is trying to
> >>adopt
> >>her. If you or anyone you know might be interested in adopting her,
> >>please
> >>call Ben Levy at Jewish Family Services of Baltimore, 410-466-9200 Ext.
> >>309.
> >>"He who saves a single Jewish soul, it is as if he has aved an entire
> >>world"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--------- End forwarded message ----------
> >
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-761-1404
Go to top.
*******************
[ 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 ]