Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 038

Thursday, April 29 1999

• Re: Political Theories and Dina de-Malkhuta Dina (Avodah V3 #33)
• Re: Producing Gedolim
• Re: Kollel Stipends
• Integrity
• Objectivity and the Talmid Hakham
• Respect for Gedolim
• Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)
• Re: Respect For Gedolim
• Gedolim. Communities
• Re: Respect For Gedolim
• Re: Gedolim. Communities
• Re: Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)
• Re: Avodah V3 #37
• Re: Avodah V3 #37
• Exorcising a dybbuk

In a message dated 4/29/99 10:55:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 I.  The Ben-Noah Mitzvah of Dinim
 Rashi, Gittin 9b, s.v. hutz.
 
 II.  Popular acceptance of the King's laws
 Rashbam, Baba Batra 54b, s.v. ve-ha-amar Shemuel; Ri and Ramban, cited
 in Ritva, Baba Batra 55a, s.v. hani telat mili; Rashba, Baba Batra 55a,
 s.v. im makhru (but in Teshuvot Rashba ha-Meyuhasot la-Ramban, no. 22,
 he adopts the royal ownership theory; see below); Meiri, Baba Batra 55a,
 s.v. sadeh zeh; Tashbetz I, no. 158;
 
 This was a popular political theory in the Middle Ages.  Royal law
 reflected traditional practice and popular acceptance.  The king was the
 representative of the popular will.  See Fritz Kern's classic Kingship
 and Law in the Middle Ages.
 
 However, some Aharonim have tried to explain this theory on the basis of
 tenai she-be-mammon.
 
 II.  Popular Acceptance of the King's Sovereignty
 Rambam, Gezelah va-Avedah 5:18; Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mispat 369:2.
 This Medieval political theory -- whcih differs slightly from the
 preceding one -- predates the divine right of kings, as well as later
 social contract theories. >>


Just to add to R' Eli's excellent post, for those who may not know, the 
Divine Right of Kings is a relatively late theory, which doesn't reach its 
fullest expression until well into the reign of Louis XIV, most notably in 
the writing of Jean Domat, a French politician who was close to the court in 
the late 17th century.

Jordan

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Another hypothesis to test(and I have no idea if it's valid) would
> be that a 
> community that needs a gadol "makes" a gadol (ie to some extent you
> become a 
> gadol when enough people say you are one, if a community "needs" a
> gadol for 
> sociological reasons....)

Absolutely.  For example, was Rav J.B. Soloveitchik zt"l (z"l
according to the Jewish Observer obituary) a gadol?  Could Rav
Hershel Schachter ever become a gadol?  

In addition, what about the "gedolim" who become gedolim by virtue of
their political abilities, e.g. Rav Schach.  I heard from a Centrist
Orthodox "gadol" that Rav Schach, despite his lomdus abilities, is
not a gadol.  (The statement was made at the time that Rav Schach
said on national TV--in connection with Peres' "stinking maneuver" in
1990 to try bring down the national unity gov't-- that he could not
ally himself with the Labor Party because kibbutz members eat pork
and do other nasty things.)  (I also heard in the name of another
Centrist Orthodox gadol with respect to the machlokes of the
Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rav Schach: "I don't know who's right, but the
Lubavitcher Rebbe is a much greater talmid chacham.")

Now, before this erupts into a conflagration, let me note that I
believe in "e'lu  v'e'lu"--someone has the right to hold someone as a
gadol even if I personally disagree.  On the other hand, I expect
reciprocal treatment.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

"==> NO. this is considered a TRUE partnership.  That is, the "secular"
partner is entitled to 1/2 of the Torah learned and "developed" by the
"holy" partner.  I believe that R. Moshe has a Teshuva (that I saw a LONG
time ago) in which he says that a Yissochor/Zevulun arrangement MUST be a
50/50 arrangement ONLY.  That it is a special chiddush that one is even
ABLE to make such a deal because how can 1/2 of one's Torah be "equal" to
1/2 of worldy goods...
In any event, it seems clear that this is NOT Shlichus nor "remuneration"
(since the "Learning partner" is GIVING UP his Torah to the other person).
You may also want to reference the Mishna about "Shim'on Achi Azarya" (I
htink that I got the name correct) and note how the gemara attributes the
learning of the "learner" to the one who is supporting...

- --Zvi"

     I recall from a chaburah that it is actually a macholekes whether or
not the learning partner gives up his half of his Torah.  Some shitos held
that it is like a flame of a candle (like Rashi by Moshe giving, but not
losing to the 70 zekanim) in that  the financial partner receives, but the
Torah partner does not lose.

Moshe

>>How does changing one's mind prove integrity?
Indecision, maybe. <<

I think the integrity is/was with regard to R. Schwab's openness in freely 
admitting that he changed his mind.

Rich Wolpoe

It is clear that Zvi Weiss believes I impugned R. Schwab z.t.l.  For
this I am sorry.  Clearly, that was not my intention.   Nor do I think
that is what I wrote.  But if someone who read my post received that
impression, I would like to disavow it here and now.

To move away from the specific issue which gave rise to Zvi's rancor,
however, it seems worthwhile to inquire further into the question of
objectivity, as applied to talmidei hakhamim generally.

If I understand him correctly, Zvi is suggesting that it is halakhically
prohibited to imply, let alone state, that any Gadol made any statement
other than based "upon a crytal-clear attachment to Emes."  To suggest
otherwise is to attribute a pesul in the Gadol in question.

Let us examine this question through a halakhic lens.  Generally, as we
all know, a karov is disqualified from edut.  The reason, presumably, is
negi'ut ba-davar.  Is anyone aware of any exception to this rule that
applies to talmidei hakhamim or gedolei ha-dor?

This rule, of course, is limited to the beit din.  What of other
matters?  Regarding matters of public policy, for example, is there a
clearly provable right and wrong answer?  If, for example, you and I are
debating whether the best way to foster a Torah community is by
isolating people from general culture or by allowing them to be exposed,
is there a clear way to prove one is right?  One can try to draw
empirical proof from past experience, but this opens one to the
objection that the circumstances of the past no longer apply.  In short,
I would contend that some topics do not readily lend themselves to
factual resolution.  At that point, one's personal evaluation of the
situation and one's subjective views and experiences are likely to bear
far more weight on one's conclusions.

In short, with apologies to Moshe Feldman, I am not discussing whether a
posek made a particular halakhic decision based on subjective, rather
than objective considerations.  Rather, I am wondering if a public
policy debate, where both options plainly fall within the halakhic
spectrum, can be resolved purely on the basis of objective facts?  I
would say not, but I am very much open to other views from this learned
hevrah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I think that RZW is equating (and confusing! <smile>)  Integrity with 
Objectivity.

It may be politically correct to say a Gadol treats every situation without any 
negio, but halocho tells us otherwise re: krovim.  EG Moshe is nogeia legabei 
his son.  I.E.  there is a medrosh stating that he wanted his son to succeed 
him.

I woudn't claim that RYEmden was DISHONEST legabei RYEibshutz, yet I would 
defintiely not call him objective!

Ki hashochad yeaveir einei chachomim.  Shochad can cloud the judgement of even 
what the TORAH calls a Chochom!  AAKVK what we call a Talmid Chochom.

I would say R. Schwab himself would have been honest enough <smile> to admit 
that he was not objective all the time.  

Rich Wolpoe

Re RRL's message below:

Yes, but molad zakein seems to be an exception to your statement because
of the Gemara in RH, no?

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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> 
> I think one must say, l'shittas ha'Rambam, that Chachmei EY are also bound
> by Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horo'oh, and if, as RABM did, they attempt to
> introduce a mode of reckoning that varies (in this case by 642 chalokim)
> from that authorized by the Talmud, they are to be disregarded. Since the
> Rambam holds their Kiddush is tacit, not active, this can then be done
> over their objections.
> 
> Comments, please?
> 
Please realize that there is NO MODE of reckoning found anywhere in the 
TALMUD as far as it relates to the LUACH. SO there is NO possibility of 
VARIATION from the TALMUDIC source.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I think RMFeldman is relatively new to the list, so you may not know of my
proposed "chiluk" between the yeshiva and academic world a few weeks ago.
While I would substitute "Yeshiva" in Line 1 below for "Charedi" and would
be prone to defend the Yeshiva world's postition (but will not do so
here), in general I think the dichotomy below is very similar to the one I
expressed.

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
 
> From the perspective of the Charedi world, an assertion of "negius"  is
> an insult.  From the perspective of the University world, "negius"  is
> part of the human condition.  (E.g., when Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik
> disagreed in class with [Ta Shema's (?) / Agus' (?)] article regarding
> Rabbeinu Tam, Dr. S. still implied that R. Tam was a product of his time
> and that R. Tam's "mekil" chiddushim met the needs of his time.)  People
> cannot be expected to be "malachei hashares" and have some sort of
> nevuah, even if they are great people who strive with all their might
> for the truth.  (Otherwise, how can you explain machloktot of gedolim,
> let's say between Rav Schach and the Satmar Rebbe regarding the status
> of Israel?  If the next Satmar Rebbe were to come out and say that the
> State of Israel is a creature of the "sitra achra," wouldn't it be
> obvious that that Rebbe was influence by growing up in a Satmar
> community and would not have that opinion if he had grown up in a YU
> community?) 
> 
> If we take the University approach to "negius," it is a common sense
> conclusion to posit that Rav Schwab would truly believe that his derech
> was the best in almost every way. 

YGB

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

our esteemed moderator Micha: >>I think it interesting that the community that 
places the greatest premium on gedolim produces the most gedolim.<<

I'd like to add that different communities valued different "specialties".  One 
community might value "lomdus".  Another Middos.  Another master of mysticism.  
Another synthesis of Torah with Society.  Another p'sak.  Another Drash.

Wwithout taking sides as t owho is "superior" we still need not homogenize the 
whole world into some imaginary melting pot!

One head of a yeshiva high School bemoaned to me that the way "gedolim" storeis 
are propagated today, you can cahnge the names of the gadol like interchangeable
parts!  Take a wonderful touching story and substitute the chofetz chayim or the
Chasam Sofer - one size fits all!  On the contrary, he wished to see stories 
that contrasted individuality.

Similarly, communities had unique characteristics.  Vive la difference.

Rich Wolpoe

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I think RMFeldman is relatively new to the list, so you may not
> know of my
> proposed "chiluk" between the yeshiva and academic world a few
> weeks ago.
> While I would substitute "Yeshiva" in Line 1 below for "Charedi"
> and would
> be prone to defend the Yeshiva world's postition (but will not do
> so
> here), in general I think the dichotomy below is very similar to
> the one I
> expressed.
> 
Actually, I was being diplomatic when I used the terms "Charedi" vs.
"university".  I truly believe that the Centrist Orthodox version of
Yeshiva (e.g. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's Yeshivat Har Etzion, the
Centrist Orthodox Roshei Yeshiva at YU) accords with the University
view I described.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 4/29/99 3:19:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 One head of a yeshiva high School bemoaned to me that the way "gedolim" 
storeis 
 are propagated today, you can cahnge the names of the gadol like 
interchangeable
 parts!  Take a wonderful touching story and substitute the chofetz chayim or 
the
 Chasam Sofer - one size fits all!  On the contrary, he wished to see stories 
 that contrasted individuality.
  >>
I believe R' Aharon Lichtenstein made a similar comment re: hespedim

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Catching up on some back issues, I came across this.

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>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. 
>

For those not in the know, the story is that a woman had asked her rabbi
if she could wear a tallis in shul. He referred her to the Rav, who told
her to wear one WITHOUT tzitzis for three months and come back and
discuss it again.  When she did, she described her "magnificent
religious experience" in wearing it.  The Rav said that since wearing it
without tzitzis lacked any element of a mitzvah, her sense of "religious
high" was inappropriate and forbade her from wearing a tallis with
tzitzis.

If you had told me that this was from a regular Brisker, then I would
have understood, but to me it seems a surprising position for the Rav.
Is this not the same Rav who has been cited on this list as a strong
supporter of Yiddish? And yet where is the mitzvah or kedusha in
Yiddish?  It is a Germanic language, the twin of that of the Nazis
(Ya'akov and Esav one might say).  Its only kedusha is that for the last
few centuries, it has served as, dare one say it, the garment on which
the mitzvah of Talmud Torah and the observance of the shtetl has hung.
Likewise the form of a tallis, recognisable even without its tzitzis, is
the form associated most, not only with Jewish prayer, but in some ways
with Jewish religious identity.  I don't know about you, but I for one
was offended when a German designer decided to use tallesim as
accessories for her catwalk show, although I would bet my bottom dollar
that if they had tzitzis, they were not, and had never been, kosher.
Likewise the evocativeness of the design is what prompted the early
Zionists to put it on the Israeli flag (and, lets face it, is what is
prompting Robert and I to use one as our chuppah).

I have heard formulations similar to the position cited in the name of
the Rav about other kinds of clothing, but usually it is from people who
consider themselves modern Orthodox, and who are dead set against the
wearing of the garments of Polish noblemen of the 17th century.  There
is no mitzvah in such garments, they cry, hence that they make you "feel
Jewish" is an improper motive.  But hashkafically such people seem very
far from the Rav.  It is a surprising position from somebody whom I
always understood saw himself as much a homo religiousis as an ish
halacha (and, for that matter, as somebody who was strongly influenced
by Chabad Chassidus).

>YGB
>

Shabbat Shalom

Chana




-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

I don't think I agree with RRL's statement below, but am forwarding it
nonetheless.

An interesting diebar on this:

If the Gemara in RH 20b is discussing Molad Zakein, and if we then accept
as possible the rationale that RRL proposed earlier, i.e., that RABM was
approximating the latest Molad that would still allow for later Molodos in
the year not occurring on the second day of the month, and that RABM held
that this was the pshat in the sugya, then we have another Rishon who did
not learn this Gemara as having any bearing on the International Dateline
issue.

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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar (fwd)

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Yes, but molad zakein seems to be an exception to your statement because
> of the Gemara in RH, no?
> 
There is no MOLAD ZAKEIN rule stated anywhere in the Talmud.

R. Zera's statement in RH 20b (I believe) does not lead to the MZ dehiyyah.
It says something which has remained a puzzle for better calendar 
scholars than me.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Respect For Gedolim 
> 
> >From the perspective of the Charedi world, an assertion of "negius"
> is an insult.  From the perspective of the University world, "negius"
> is part of the human condition.  (E.g., when Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik
> disagreed in class with [Ta Shema's (?) / Agus' (?)] article
> regarding Rabbeinu Tam, Dr. S. still implied that R. Tam was a
> product of his time and that R. Tam's "mekil" chiddushim met the
> needs of his time.)  People cannot be expected to be "malachei
> hashares" and have some sort of nevuah, even if they are great people
> who strive with all their might for the truth.  (Otherwise, how can
> you explain machloktot of gedolim, let's say between Rav Schach and
> the Satmar Rebbe regarding the status of Israel?  If the next Satmar
> Rebbe were to come out and say that the State of Israel is a creature
> of the "sitra achra," wouldn't it be obvious that that Rebbe was
> influence by growing up in a Satmar community and would not have that
> opinion if he had grown up in a YU community?)
> 
> If we take the University approach to "negius," it is a common sense
> conclusion to posit that Rav Schwab would truly believe that his
> derech was the best in almost every way.

===> "Negius" has a certain meaning in Halacha.  I do not know of ANY
instances where it is considered a "positive".  IF there is a reference to
some sort fo "sociological" factor in terms of growing up with a Shitta, I
think that a different term should be used.  In any event, there is --
thgen -- no reason to mention it since it is not "ma'aleh or morid" as far
as the validity of the material that R. Schwab asserted.
Also, given that R. Schwab WAS willing to put TIDE under a microscope to
the point that he WAS willing to "repudiate" it (at least for a
significant amount of time), I am not sure if even the "academic" concept
applies here.

--Zvi

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:22:28 EDT
> From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Respect For Gedolim 
> 
> In a message dated 4/29/99 10:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
> writes:
> 
> <<   As for R. Eider SHLIT"A, how much of his
>  gadlus was "delayed" simply BECAUSE he went to YU??
>   >>
> explain please

===> I meant that he may not have been RECOGNIZED by "the right" simply
because he had attended YU.  I did NOT mean that YU did not provide a
solid Torah basis -- on the contrary, I would have thought that YU *did*
provide such a basis and the delay was "sociological"...

--Zvi


> 
> Kol Tuv
> Joel Rich
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:44:18 EDT
> From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Respect For Gedolim 
> 
> In a message dated 4/29/99 10:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
> writes:
> 
> << No it does not.  The point is that unlike the "Dessler Derekh" where
>  EVERYONE was "supposed" to go to Yeshiva (and which is why R. Dessler
>  opposed the set-up of a Frum Seminary in B'nei B'rak!), the Frankfurt
>  Derekh was that MOST people did not "need" to continue to YEshiva and a
>  "few" would "further" thier education as needed.  This is hardly support
>  for " all must sit and learn".  As for R. Eider SHLIT"A, how much of his
>  gadlus was "delayed" simply BECAUSE he went to YU?? >>
> 
> 
> As a paranthetical point, I wish to point out that bringing up R. Eider in 
> this context is not the best way to prove the point, but it does allow the 
> more right wing elements on this list to take gratuitous shots at YU. For 
> that, I cite the above quoted post. R. Eider's emergence as a Posek is 
> problematic at best. While he is certainly very knowledgeable, and his books 
> are useful guides, I would not say that all agree with his definitions of 
> halachik terms, nor certainly with his highly opiniated Psak in some of his 
> guides. As far as him being a posek, for many years the Posek at Lakewood was 
> someone else entirely, a renowned Talmid Chacham, even after Eider acheived 
> some fame as the author of his Halacha Guides. I think that bringing in this  
> controversial figure to make the point that YU held back the education of a 
> Gadol,not unlike the experience of the Gedolim of Frankfort, who had to learn 
> in Eastern Europe to give them the proper Torah education, is nothing short 
> of silly.


===> Again, I want to make the point that my citation of YU was in terms
of the "perception" that MAY have worked against R. Eider.  I did not mean
to imply that his Torah education was deficient at YU.

--Zvi


> 
> Jordan Hirsch  
> 
> ------------------------------

> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:24:58 -0400
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Kollel Stipends
> 
> Zvi:>>> Question: in this quid pro quo is it allowed to be done despite that
> > beshito you
> > oppose taking money for Talmud Torah?  or since this is a form of
> > shelichus, it 
> > is not considered remuneration for learning?
> 
> ==> NO. this is considered a TRUE partnership.  That is, the "secular"
> partner is entitled to 1/2 of the Torah learned and "developed" by the
> "holy" partner.  I believe that R. Moshe has a Teshuva (that I saw a LONG
> time ago) in which he says that a Yissochor/Zevulun arrangement MUST be a
> 50/50 arrangement ONLY.  That it is a special chiddush that one is even
> ABLE to make such a deal because how can 1/2 of one's Torah be "equal" to
> 1/2 of worldy goods...
> In any event, it seems clear that this is NOT Shlichus nor "remuneration"
> (since the "Learning partner" is GIVING UP his Torah to the other person).
> You may also want to reference the Mishna about "Shim'on Achi Azarya" (I
> htink that I got the name correct) and note how the gemara attributes the
> learning of the "learner" to the one who is supporting...<<
> 
> Questions:
> 1) Were such Yissachar/Zvulun arragnes used in Europe in the time of the 
> Rishonim? Acharonim?

===> I do not know.  However, the limited support that a father-in-law
provided MAY have relied upon this concept.  I.e., the son-in-law would
learn and the Fatehr-in-law would support him and receive a portion of the
Torah.


> 
> 2) Would there have been a difference in approach between the Ashkenazi
> shitos 
> re: remuneration for Torah and the Sefardi shitos?

===> I don't know -- but I do not think so.  Y/Z was recognized in the
Gemara.  I do not see the Sefardim in opposition to THAT.



> 
> 3) Would such a Y/Z arrangement of those days be equivalent to Kollel?  Would 
> supporting todya's  Kollel be euqivalent to a Y/Z arrangement
> (That is putting 
> aside R. Moshe's Teshuvo).


===> At first glance, I would say that this is NOT a Y/Z arrangement since
Y/Z implies a one-to-one correspondence.  HOWEVER, it seems that one COULD
organize a Kollel where all the participants were Y/Z "members".  This
would imply (to me) that each person would be paid individually by "his"
Zevulon".  HOwever, I saw not long ago in the Responsa put out by the
Skeverrer Kollel that support of a Kollel is *preferred* to support of an
individual "Yissochor"(!).  I will try to locate the copy of "Zera Yaakov"
(it is a recent one).

--Zvi



> 
> Rich Wolpoe 
> 
> ------------------------------

R. Ari Zivotofsky asks about dybbuk exorcism:

>anyone care to explain in more detail how Judaism views this?

The term "Judaism" is a bit broad, and I cannot speak for it.  But I
know this:  The dybbuk concept is a variation on the theory of gilgulim.
 Rather than having the soul of a sinner transmigrate into the body of
an animal or human, the dybbuk theory views the neshamah as trying to
escape torture at the hand of angels by taking refuge in the body of
another.  In most cases, the spirit is that of a man and the body
entered is that of a woman.

These views were widely held among the Kabbalists in 16th century
Tzefat.  Unsurprisingly, the Ari was considered a great exorcist.  In R.
Hayyim Vital's Sefer haGilgulim, there is an extensive account of an
actual exorcism; the truth of the account is attested to by several
eyewitnesses, including R. Shelomoh Alkabetz.  An English translation of
the account appears in Raphael Patai's On Jewish Folklore.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

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         ]