Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 005

Tuesday, March 23 1999

• RE: Daf Yomi Pshat
• Administrivia: Volume 2 statistics
• Re: Save a Soul
• Tam
• Re-incarnation
• What is the reason for Tam?
• Catholic Israel
• Tzibbur as an Authority
• Adas Yisrael
• Re: Spirituality & Torah study
• Talmud Torah
• Re: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy
• Modern Orthodoxy and Catholic Israel
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy and Catholic Israel
• Learning machshava
• Re: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy and Catholic Israel
• Re: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy
• Re:
• Re: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy
• Brisk
• Catholic Israel and modern Orthodoxy (fwd)

> So altogether we make kiddush twice a day on four days of 
> Succos & Shmini
> Atzeres/Simchas Torah, four days of Pesach, two days of 
> Shevuos, and once
> a day on RH - 22 more kiddush's a year, 154 over seven years. In seven
> years there are approximately 365 Shabbosos, 730 over seven years. 
> 
> So, in seven years:
> 
> Shabbos Kiddush:    730
> Yom Tov Kiddush:    154
>                     ___
>                     884 = the amount of kiddush cups in the 
> "kosi revaya".
> 
> 
> YGB
> 

During the seven years, some yomim tovim will fall out on shabbos, thereby
reducing the required revi'iyos.

Also, why are you limiting the wine to kiddush; what about havdala (not to
mention daled kosos)?

Avi Pechman

From the end of Volume 1 until the end of Volume 2 was 128 days, of which
101 days of chol.

In that time, we received 3010 emails: 23.5 per day, 29.8 per day of chol. We
published 196 digests: 1.5 per day, 1.9 per day of chol. To give you an
idea of our growth, volume 1 received 11.9 emails per day of chol, and came out
three times every four days -- roughly half the traffic.

BTW, a new digest is produced whenever the oldest email is a day or more older
than the newest one, or when the total size exceeds 480K.

Avodah currently consists of 232 subscribers: 215 get the digest, 17 read
individual emails. That's up a bit from 200. The change in volume was not do
to expansion of the list.

127 people have posted in vol 2 (some of whom no longer subscribe). 9 of them
posted more than 100 times, 16 more than 50 times, 42 more than 10 times,
81 more than twice.

-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

For the public's knowledge, my wife (Siggy Berger) is very involved with the
issue of finding Jewish homes for Jewish children available for adoption. In
general, these are special needs children where finding a home could be
difficult.

Siggy does this as a volunteer for Heart-to-Heart, an organization aimed at
providing services for families so that they would be able to take care of
their special child themselves. If for some reason they don't succeed, the
job falls to my wife to find a home.

Our telephone number for adoption related calls (answered 7 days per week) is
973 473-8113.

Siggy's pretty well networked for this kind of thing. Please give her a call
if you hear of any other children made available. Unfortunately, I know of
only one other organization that works along these lines, the Jewish Children's
Adoption Network, run by Vicky Krausz in Denver -- 303 573-8113.

For the US, that's it. Ohel only handles adoption only if its one of their
foster children who is freed for adoption. Stars of David is a support group
for helping Jewish couples adopt, and isn't aimed at finding homes for Jewish
kids.

-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

	I thought that the tam was not seen as negative, but merely as a 
less-impressive version of the hacham.  IOW, the midrash of the 4 sons in 
the Haggada is like the 2x2 matrix midrash about the 4 species.  Just as 
the species are seen in that midrash as representing the various 
combinations of Torah and ma'asim tovim, the 4 sons may be seen as 
representing various combinations of Torah knowledge and ma'asim tovim, or 
derech eretz:  (1) The hacham has both; (2) the rasha knows his Torah, but 
rejects it; (3) the tam has an appropriately compliant attitude, but knows 
very little; (4) the sh'eino yodea lish'ol neither knows nor cares.

	Where this midrash varies from common understanding and representation 
(including illustration) is not with the tam, but with the sh'eino yodea 
lish'ol.  He's usually seen in a way that hardly differs from the tam; this 
midrash sees him as equally ignorant, but different in his lack of caring.

	I don't remember the source for this interpretation, but could 
probably find it.

		Richard Friedman

>>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.<<

I just spoke to the re-incarnation of the Rambam and he told me there is nothing
to it <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

Micha:>>Why is it we assume the haggadah's use of the adjective "tam" in the 
negative?<<

Is that the same Tam as in Rabbeinu Tam?? <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

RYGB:>>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!
<<

No refutation, just partial agreement,

The WHAT he said is IMHO kosher (within limits).  The WHO is (prehaps) not so 
kosher.  I think Schachter was on to a good idea, but carried it too far. 
Nevertheless, I am NO supporter of his philosophy.  I just eclectically use 
pieces of it.

Then again, if pressed, I can show you articles tracing Conservative Judaism to 
such modern thinkers as RSR Hirsch and Gro, too. So what?

Rich Wolpoe 

RYGB:>>
Dubious. The status of Upsherrinish is a good example. Have you read Hil. 
Upsherin lately?

YGB<<

Dear Micha and others:
This goes along with my theory re: Rabbeinu Tam.  That a minhog instituted by a 
VIP Rishon such as RT could not be a simple minhog Taus.  The combination of his
psak and the Tzibbur's ratification makes that unlikely.  If it were mistaken, 
there would have been objections, eraly and often.

OTOH, a tzibbur's self-developed minhog could be overturned since it claims no 
original authority.

Lemoshol, lema hadovor dome? To a  field, after 3 years of no macho'o, it has a 
chazoko, BUT, if the squatter claims that he never bought it there is NO 
chazoko.  A chazoko is a RAYO that the occupant's purchase was valid, only the 
shtar might have disappeared.

Nimshal: A minhog started by RT might have lost its reason, its rationale, over 
500 year,s but it has a chazoko of having had a viable raiontale AT ONE TIME.  
IOW the fact that the Tzibbur bichlal ratified soemthing, is a rayo that it was 
a valid bona fide takkono or peshat or gezeiro, etc.

OTOH Upsheering - lacking a firm halachic source - makes no claim that it 
was instituted properly.  (My apologies if it has a valid textual source.  
Upsheering is only a straw man for my purposes.)

The question remains is what is the source for Kitniyos - at least among 
Ashkenazim? 

Rich Wolpoe

I don't think the concept of giving authority to Adas Yisrael (R' YB
Soloveitchik's term for the community of Jews who give eidus to ma'amad har
Sinai) is necessarily akin to Schechter's "Catholic Israel".

Schechter made CI unanswerable to any authority. I wanted to say that AY can
give authority to a p'sak halachah -- once a gadol actually produced a p'sak.
(Via a mechanism akin to minhag Yisrael k'din or gezeirah nispashta.) For that
matter, I wanted to eliminate this ratification is it's shown that the gezeirah
is b'ta'us. This idea gave me a mechanism for answering Rich's original
question -- a gadol can choose a neglected opinion over the accepted one
if he feels the accepted one is wrong in the sense of being outside divrei
Elokim Chaim.

In both cases the definition is somewhat circular. Both CI and AY are defined
(in part) as the observant community. However, they are also used to define
what is halachah -- ie what needs to be observed in order to qualify as a
member of the group. Schecher's definition of religious law therefore has no
grounding: as the population shifts, so do the religious decisions, allowing
CI to shift further.

I'm giving halachah a stable basis, by limiting AY's set of choices.

At this point, I fear I repeated myself one time too many. I'm still expecting
someone to take my conjecture and find its flaw (or perhaps even find a makor
that says something similar).

I also wonder if there is a single answer. It's quite probable that the subject
of when one may be choleik is itself the topic of machlokes.

As to why I think one of our suggestions could have validity, even if they
weren't discussed by Chazal, let me borrow an idea from Metahalacha by
list member Moshe Koppel.

A foreign immigrant comming to the US (for example), learns rules of proper
English. A native, however, relies on a sense of what "sounds correct". The
latter mode differs in two ways: 1- it requires being part of the English
speaking culture, an intuitive knowledge of proper English (or at least, NY
English <grin>); 2- It is more fluid. For example, poets often exercise
"poetic license" and test the envelope of the implied rules.

The Rishonim were natives. They knew the rules without having to analyze them.

-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

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

 One would not bring
> a question from Newton or Velikofsky to Tosfos in a halachic discussion. According
> to you - why should it make a difference? A question is a question.
> 
> In sum, there are two types of critical questioning. One assumes the *spritual*
> superiority of previous generations. A critical question can surely be asked - but
> with humility and reverence. The alternative is to ask a question - with the
> implied assumption of equality.

Ultimately, whenever a legitimate question is asked it must be answered. 
I think you have to separate the legitimacy of a question from the 
attitude of the questioner. Emes is Emes!  That being said, however, I 
think it is of utmost importance to the one answering the question to 
know what the attitude of the questioner is, and that should determine 
the way in which the question is answered to that particular individual.

HM

	On March 19th, in response to my asking whether Rabbi Bechhofer has a 
source for his definition of Talmud Torah, or whether he is (in his words) 
"the original source" for his definition, Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:
 
"I think you misunderstood. I am not presenting an opinion based on any
specific ra'ayos. I actually first inquired of REC if had a ra'aya that
definitvely classifies the study of Acharonim as TT. RRD and RRW, and
perhaps others I don't recollect, brought sevaros to indicate that it is.
Since I enjoy learning Acharonim bery much, I would like to say so as
well. I think, however, it needs a source, and a precise definition: Is
every sefer of pshetlach on Chumash also included in the mitzva of TT?"

	I am very confused, because I do not understand what I misunderstood.  
After Rabbi Bechhofer disputed various postings concerning what constitutes 
Talmud Torah, someone asked Rabbi Bechhofer for his definition of Talmud 
Torah.  In response, he offered a definition.  All I asked was whether 
Rabbi Bechhofer has a source for his definition, or whether he is the 
original source for it.  (Rabbi Teitz has now -- in V3 #3 -- also asked for 
Rabbi Bechhofer's sources.)  

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Avram Sacks wrote:

> 	 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

And neither do several of our listmembers. See today's post by R' Eli
Turkel.

> 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. 


That is very interesting. If I understand you correctly, RDH held that the
Schechter model could properly be applied to rabbinic laws, not to Torah
laws. That is precisely the opinion I ascribe to the academy-segement of
MO!

YGB

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

Putting on my Sociological hat for a second, one might agree with Avraham
Sacks -- particular communities have always adjusted the stringencies of
particular rules to coincide with communal needs -- facial hair, wearing
tzitzis out, and Rav Moshe's heter allowing those who wished to to drink
cholov akum are examples of this phenomena at work.  The problem, to some,
including myself is when the heter becomes defined as normative halachah
to the point that folks who drink cholov Isroel, wear tzitzis out, and
grow beards are branded "right-wing extremists".  But still this is a
social basis of differentiation which has always existed.  Where I detect
folks have a problem with certain aspects of Eidah's philosophy is when it
is argued that the yeshivishe and chassidishe world are inherently incapable
of fostering interaction with the "modern" world and when it is argued
that sociological factors should be at least equal to if not supersede
torah when dealing with things like the agunah issue, feminism, modern
science, etc.  From an Orthodox perspective, Torah is the ultimate truth
and the final basis of authority;  any other perspective, while well meaning
is not an Orthodox perspective.

Alan Davidson wrote:
> 
> Putting on my Sociological hat for a second, one might agree with Avraham
> Sacks -- particular communities have always adjusted the stringencies of
> particular rules to coincide with communal needs -- facial hair, wearing
> tzitzis out, and Rav Moshe's heter allowing those who wished to to drink
> cholov akum are examples of this phenomena at work.  The problem, to some,
> including myself is when the heter becomes defined as normative halachah
> to the point that folks who drink cholov Isroel, wear tzitzis out, and
> grow beards are branded "right-wing extremists". 

By the same token, the reverse bothers me... i.e. when chumros become 
normative and accepted kulos (e.g. mixed seating at weddings) are now 
looked upon as "krum". 

>But  Where I detect
> folks have a problem with is when it
> is argued that sociological factors should be at least equal to if not supersede
> torah when dealing with things like the agunah issue, feminism, modern
> science, etc.  From an Orthodox perspective, Torah is the ultimate truth
> and the final basis of authority;  any other perspective, while well meaning
> is not an Orthodox perspective.

I don't think anyone on this list would dispute this last point. I don't 
think Edah would disagree with you either. The only people who advocate 
the above position that: "sociological factors should be at least equal 
to if not supersede torah when dealing with things like the agunah 
issue, feminism, modern science, etc." are people who are ignorant of 
the concept of the primacy of the Torah.

HM

Learning machshvah doesn't fit the Rambam's definition of T"T: it's neither
mikra (unless the seifer machshava happens to be Iyov, one of Sh'lomo
haMelech's sifarim, or the like), mishnah or gemara. His definition appears to
be limited to Tanach, halachah, and the origins and mechanics of the halachah.

I think that's because to the Rambam it's part of another mitzvah. See Yesodei
HaTorah 2:1-2 -- studying machshavah (and teva -- but then in those days,
physics and philosophy weren't as sharply separated) is the pe'ulah the Rambam
gives to the mitzvos of Ahavas Hashem and Yir'as Hashem. "... shemitoch kach
ata makir es mi she- 'amar vihayah ha'olam'".

Personally, I feel the most neglected part of machshavah is ta'amei hamitzvos.
I think my avodas Hashem would be with much greater hislahavus if I could have
some personal ta'am (NOT sibah!) to have in mind when performing it, something
that makes the mitzvah "mine".

I think that's why the minhagim started by the Gaon or the various
Soloveitchiks caught on to the extent that they did. The innovator has to
give a reason for breaking from minhag. So we know a ta'am for that variant
and it thereby holds greater appeal than the original minhag.

-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

>That is very interesting. If I understand you correctly, RDH held that the
>Schechter model could properly be applied to rabbinic laws, not to Torah
>laws. That is precisely the opinion I ascribe to the academy-segement of
>MO!
>
>YGB
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659

You may have misunderstood me.  If I understood Rabbi David Hartman
correctly, he said that there were SOME rabbinic laws that were period
dependent, and some rabbinic laws that were not.    However, I don't recall
that he suggested a manner in which the period dependant laws could be
changed if the conditions that brought about their promulgation were no
longer in existence.   The suggestion that nitkatna hadorot does not to
these period-dependent takanot is my latter day speculation only as to the
natural consequence of what Rabbi Hartman said.   I don't recall if he ever
spoke to that issue.    

//Avi

Avram Sacks
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com

In a message dated 3/23/99 7:47:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU writes:

<< Where I detect
 folks have a problem with certain aspects of Eidah's philosophy is when it
 is argued that the yeshivishe and chassidishe world are inherently incapable
 of fostering interaction with the "modern" world and when it is argued
 that sociological factors should be at least equal to if not supersede
 torah when dealing with things like the agunah issue, feminism, modern
 science, etc.  From an Orthodox perspective, Torah is the ultimate truth
 and the final basis of authority;  any other perspective, while well meaning
 is not an Orthodox perspective. >>

Somehow I doubt that anyone who considers themselves orthodox(eg edah) would
say that 'sociological factors are at least equal to if not supersede torah'.
I would guess they would argue that tora takes these factors into account(as
it does all factors) when reaching a conclusion and that changes in the
outside world mean that the halachik process must take these changed factors
into account. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that we would all agree on this
last statement but might well disagree as to the actual outcome of the
process.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 3/23/99 8:25:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Avram_Sacks@cch.com writes:

<< 
 >That is very interesting. If I understand you correctly, RDH held that the
 >Schechter model could properly be applied to rabbinic laws, not to Torah
 >laws. That is precisely the opinion I ascribe to the academy-segement of
 >MO!
 >
 >YGB
 >
 >Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
 >Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
 
 You may have misunderstood me.  If I understood Rabbi David Hartman
 correctly, he said that there were SOME rabbinic laws that were period
 dependent, and some rabbinic laws that were not.    However, I don't recall
 that he suggested a manner in which the period dependant laws could be
 changed if the conditions that brought about their promulgation were no
 longer in existence.   The suggestion that nitkatna hadorot does not to
 these period-dependent takanot is my latter day speculation only as to the
 natural consequence of what Rabbi Hartman said.   I don't recall if he ever
 spoke to that issue.    
 
 //Avi
 
 Avram Sacks
 sacksa@cch.com
 achdut@enteract.com >>

Isn't it generally agreed that takanot for which the reason was given at the
same time the takana was made can be changed if the reason no longer applies?

Kol Tuv,
Joel RIch

In v3n3, Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> wrote:
: 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).

I somewhat disagree with the first statement, and strongly disagree with the
second. (The third, avout is koach hahesber, I'll leave to people who learned
by enough other gedolim to make such a survey.) I received much criticism
when I said this on mail-jewish, but I still think it's true. The Rav was
not a true Brisker, and I mean that lishevach.

Getting back to the soapbox I was on about an hour back... ta'am hamitzvah
is the often overlooked key to hislahavus.

So yes, those who followed stricter Brisker derech, where everything revolves
around chakiros, tzvei dinim, focussed on finding where different rishonim
placed the envelope of categories. To them, an answer was that the Rambam saw
a given chiyuv as being on the gavra (or cheftza) or determining that the
chalos wasn't simultaneous with the pe'ulah.

The Rav was enough of a philosopher to want to go beyond that. If a given
chiyuv, which appears to be on the cheftza is really on the gavra -- why?
I remember the Rav once going back to the historical begining of barter in
order to explain a halachah in kinyan. And why its shoresh is that of konei
-- maker.

An example from R' Arnie Lustiger's seifer: the Rav explained the halachah
of shofar not just in terms of the categories of nosei and nisa, but also
went further and tied that duality to the very mechanics and purpose of
shofar.

By now you've read me repeatedly quote Hirsch's comment on Graetz's "Science
of Judaism" (that it's really alchemy, the experiment [halachah] was thrown
away to conform to theory). What the Rav did was truly a scientific study
of halachah. Some arcane halachah that might never apply lima'aseh ends up
being key to understanding the ta'am hamizvah.

-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

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Isn't it generally agreed that takanot for which the reason was given at
> the same time the takana was made can be changed if the reason no longer
> applies? 
> 

Certainly not. The only source to that effect that I am aware of is the
Tosafos vis a vis Mayim Acharonim. The GRA argues strenuously, and most
Poskim follow the GRA's model that even if batel hata'am lo batla
ha'takkana.

YGB

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

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> The Rav was enough of a philosopher to want to go beyond that. If a
> given chiyuv, which appears to be on the cheftza is really on the gavra
> -- why?  I remember the Rav once going back to the historical begining
> of barter in order to explain a halachah in kinyan. And why its shoresh
> is that of konei -- maker. 
> 

Perhaps, but, coming to an example I just discussed today in a shiur while
explaining th Brisker approach, I was taken by complete surprise when I
came to the Rav's Shiurim in Boston in 1980, by the term "kiyum" - to the
best of my knowledge, a concept not employed by any other school of
lomdus. As one participant in the shiur today said, it is a term that
serves to deny spirituality or cognate areas validity in and of itself and
"reduce" it to a manifestation of halacha. 

YGB

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

I believe this was meant to go out to the list. As previously, I have
obliterated identifying lines in case I am mistaken.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:40:28 EST
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Catholic Israel and modern Orthodoxy

There are strains of thought within certain intellectuals who are rabbanim
, professors of Judaic Studies that push " the envelope" of acceptability
within the Modern Orthodox camp. However, one cannot generalize. Rav David
Tvi HoffmanZ'ls commentary rebunked the documentary hypothesis using its
own terminology. This is a far cry from a recent article in Tradition
which attempted to justify womens' prayer groups. Rav Lichtenstein once
commented that there is a silppery slide from critical studies in Tanach
to the same analyais in TSBP. The worst offenses are committed by students
of the Rav Z'l who are attempting to recast his image in a left wing mode.
Again, I refer all on the list to Rav Lichtenstein's letter which sets out
the proper lines of demarcation. 

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


[ 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         ]