Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 107

Thursday, July 1 1999

• [Fwd: semichah]
• Kiruv?
• Sheep Mentality and Chareidi Schools
• Rationalizing Mamzeirus
• Re: Pig Born of Cow
• Re: Novi and Metizus
• Re: Shinuy hateva
• mamzer solutions via shifcha
• Re: Avodah V3 #106
• Re: Avodah V3 #106
• Re: Avodah V3 #105
• Esotreric Wisdome
• Chareidi Schools
• R. Lichtenstein on the humanities/Newman
• semichah

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2616338B5950F842451B542C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I posted this yesterday - but I did not receive it on the Avodah
list.. I apogolize if the rest of you have already seen it.

                         Daniel Eidensohn

--------------2616338B5950F842451B542C
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <37794A04.5FE38393@netmedia.net.il>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:34:44 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: semichah
References: <19990629194313.19643.rocketmail@send304.yahoomail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Moshe Feldman wrote:

> --- Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu> wrote:
> > 1. The Rivash has a long responsa on semicha (reinstituted in his
> > day
> >    in Germany to give some rabbis control over psak). Basically, he
> >    says what Moshe brings that semicha is permission from the rebbe
> >    to pasken while the rebbe is alive.
>
> Anybody have the cite for this tshuvah?  ...

The tshuva of the Rivash is #271.

There are a lot of half truths and misinformation being churned
out on this thread. The issue is equivalent to a secular law student
asking why anyone must obey any authority and what exactly is the basis of
authority.  There is no simple answer. As Berger writes in his
recent book on Rabbinic Authority the mere asking of the question is an
indication that there is an absence of authority or at least a
feeling of uncertainty about the validity of current authority. He concludes
the question is  bad i.e., - unproductive and ultimately unanswerable.
Instead he asserts we should focus on describing the accepted
processes of authority of those belonging to a particular "Interpretive
community".
During most of our history - the question was irrelevant. It was
simply accepted that a talmid chachom's conclusion carried more weight
than a bal habos. The problem was primarily knowing which talmid chachom
to follow. Today is different -for many reasons - one of the main
factors is the ready access to seforim - such as the Mishna Berura and 
igros Moshe - which any yeshiva graduate can read as well as summaries
of halacha which any grade school graduate can understand. Today
- seforim are our rebbes.

The Rivash's tshuva was written in response to a major conflict
involving a gadol in Austria who asserted that only he had the right to
decide the rabbinic authorities in France. The Rivash disagreed. The dispute
was never resolved.

There is much material on this subject and I don't think it can
be intelligently comprehended - much less summarized - without going
through the material in depth. (But I still don't think you are going to
find "the answer")

A good place to start is Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Handbook Volume 1
and go though all the footnotes on the chapters on Sanhedrin, Authority
and Halacha.

                                       Daniel Eidensohn


--------------2616338B5950F842451B542C--

It is painful for me to bring it up Lubavitch, but once again I was 
appalled by what I saw taking place at a wedding of a convert to 
Lubavitch.  Yes I say convert because it is almost that radical of a 
departure from tradition, and one can say that Lubavitch is almost 
outside the pale Orthodoxy.  The Chasan was mekurav by a fellow who is 
the head of Chabad of the Loop.  This Lubavitcher  Rabbi, one Meir Chai 
BenChiyoun, is a major Mashichist. He was Mesader Kiddushin.  His young 
sons all were wearing "Yechi" Kipot.  During the Chupah, Yechi was 
recited three times.  The Zimun before bentching included a reference to 
the Rebbe and there was a Harachaman added about the "Rebbe, Melech 
Hamoshiach".  Rabbi Chiyoun is in a position to do a great deal of Kiruv 
work.  In the past it had always bothered me that the Minhagim singular 
to Chabad were pushed onto the potential "returnee" ahead of almost 
other mitzvos, thus insuring that they would become identifiable 
Lubavitchers even before they knew how to keep some of the more basic 
halachos. The rebuttal by Lubavitchers was always, "We worked hard to 
make them frum, why shouldn't we teach them our minhagim".  Well, fine. 
 But, last night, this poor fellow who knows next to nothing about 
Yiddishkeit was telling the Caterer to make sure the Seudah (which was a 
chicken dinner) was Chalev Yisroel!  He had a full Lubavitcher beard and 
wore a kapote to the Chupah.  He also, kept refereeing to the rebbe as 
"Melech Hamashiach"!  Mind you this new Lubavitcher is no dummy.  He is 
an MD and a Psychiatrist.  Yet, he was going around saying this.  I 
wonder if he even realizes what he is saying.  I, also, wonder if he was 
taught,  that in order to be a Torah observant Jew, one must believe 
that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach.  Imagine the kind of Kiruv work 
that must be going on in Lubavitch now.  If the statistics floating 
around are true, than about half of the kiruv work  being done in Chabad 
are done by Moshichists. Remember that Chabad is likely the largest 
Kiruv organization in the world.  If last night's Chasan is an example 
of this type of Kiruv, the implications are frightening.

HM

We currenctly have two threads that, as listowner, don't thrill me. In
"Sheep Mentality" it's being asserted that chareidim don't think for
themselves. In "Chareidi Schools" (and previous incarnations), the
claim is that the non-chareidim lack mesiras nefesh.

I have real problems with discussions that focus on another group's flaws.
That ideal for Avodah is to promoted one's own hislahavus. If you're busy
watching other people's problems instead of your own, that's just not going
to happen.

In either case, I believe both statements are false, and products of the
same mistake -- judging another hashkafah by how it meets your hashkafah's
ideals.

Mod-O places strong values on personal autonomy -- just read anything from
the Rav on teshuvah or metahalachah. In the yeshiva velt, logically enough,
the focus is on learning. (What else would be the center of a movement
socially centered on yeshivos and lead by roshei yeshiva?) 

So it doesn't surprise me to read mod-O comment on the others' reliance on
authority. That doesn't make them sheep, though. It makes them (the majority,
at least) people who get da'as Torah before dealing with the issues. They
struggle with the issues, albeit not with defining what the issues are.

Similarly, it doesn't surprise me to read a chareidi who measures mesiras
nefesh by what someone's willing to sacrifice to learn. To a mod-O mentality,
mesiras nefesh equally brings images of the person who sacrifices time and
energy to politically fight for the release of the Iranian sh'vuyim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Jun-99: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 334:8-14
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 103b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 6

First, and most importantly, mazeirus is NOT a social status. A mamzeir
who is a talmud chacham is of higher social standing than an ignorant
kohein gadol. Halachic Judaism is firmly a meritocracy.

The only thing halachah says about a mamzeir is that he can only marry
certain people.

However, in terms of providing an answer that will satisfy the non-frum,
you won't find one. Accepting mamzeirus requires believing that halachic
constructs are as real as the effects of thalidomide. However, outside
of the frum world, even in the eyes of Jews who observe Conservative
"halachah", halachah is a menral game, in which things are prohibited
or madated merely in terms of laws formed in reponse to social forces.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Jun-99: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 334:8-14
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 103b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 6

Eli Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> writes:
: I think the analysis of this question does not turn on the definition of
: halakhic "mamashut," which is a fairly elusive term.

However, I"m not trying to define it, I'm trying to extend a statement already
made by R' Dovid to a new context.

: In the case of a newly fertilized egg, in contrast, the egg does not
: have a status of a pig fetus.  Why?  I would suggest that this situation
: is governed by the well-known principle that during the first forty days
: of gestation, an embyro is "maya be-alma."

You'd first have to show that that idea includes non-human embryos as well.
After all, the neshamah enters as 40 days -- a statement that presumably
would not apply to pigs.

I was suggesting that the newly fertilized egg doesn't qualify as a fetus
because it resembled beitzei kinim, and therefore wouldn't qualify -- in
R' Dovid's opinion -- to be anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Jun-99: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 334:8-14
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 103b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 6

Rich Wolpoe writes (v3n99):
: Moshe was SO close to Hashem, he knew what Hashem would have wanted to do 
: (probably intuitively!)  Bechol beisi neemaon hu.

Nefesh haChaim says something similar but non-identical when he explains
how the avos kept Torah before Sinai. They were so in tune with their own
ruchniyus they were able to feel what their neshamos required and intuit
what HKBH would advise for their pyschospiritual health.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Jun-99: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 334:8-14
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 103b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 6

Rich Wolpoe writes (v3n99):
: Shinui hateva normally refers to physical changes and not social/socilogical
: changes (of course I am not denying both occurred just in terms of the
: phraseology).

Alternatively, we could go with R' Avraham ben haRambam's definition of shinui
hatevah -- that the scientific thought changed, not nature itself. In which
case, your question becomes one of arguing whether the soft sciences qualify
as "science" or "art".

BTW, R' Avigdor Miller accepts this definition, at least WRT medicine. He
explains that the refu'os in the gemara really did work. Medicine doesn't
heal, Hashem does. The purpose of going to a doctor is to render that
healing a neis nistar instead of nigleh. Therefore, any medicine the people
of that era thinks would work can serve equally well.

I wonder if this would reflect on forms of alternative medicine that run
counter to theory or logic as well. And what about placebos?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Jun-99: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 334:8-14
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 103b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 6

Moshe Feldman wrote:

> It is my impression that the only way to "remove" mamzerut is to have
> the mamzer marry a shifcha (non-Jew who agrees to become the "slave"
> of a Jew).  The children of the shifcha are considered regular Jews.  
> Rabbi Tendler of Monsey did this at least once (that's what I seem to
> recall from Rabbi Mordechai Willig's shiur circa 1983).
> 
> Does anyone else have information on this?

What if the mamzer is a female?

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:45:32 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@columbia.edu>
> Subject: Jewish Sacramento Arson Update (fwd)
> 
> For those who are interested (wouldn't have forwarded this except for the
> question raised a while ago!)
> 
> Freda Birnbaum
> 
> - ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:21:41 -0500
> From: David Rosenthal <davidr@shamash.org>
> To: jewish-announce@shamash.org
> Subject: Jewish Sacramento Arson Update
> 
> I am forwarding this information: 
> 
>         On Friday, June 18, three Sacramento-area synagogues were the targets
> of arsonists. Want to help rebuild? You can make donations to "The Unity
> Fund" to aid in the repairs. Make your checks payable to "The Unity Fund",
> or to Knesset Israel  Torah Center, or to Congregation B'nai Israel or to
> Congregation Beth Shalom and mail them to:
> 
>         The Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region
>         2351 Wyda Way
>         Sacramento, CA 95825
> 
>         The Unity Fund has grown to $53,000 as of June 24, 1999 . Thank you to
> everyone who has contributed to rebuilding!
> 
>         From the Jewish Federation of Sacramento Home Page:
> http://www.jewishsac.org/index.htm.
> 
>         There are several stories on CNN On-Line about this arson.  Please see:
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/23/synagogue.fires.ap/
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/22/synagogue.fires.ap/
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/22/synagogue.fires.02/
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/18/synagogue.fires.03/
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/18/synagogue.fires.02.ap/
> http://cnn.com/US/9906/18/synagogue.fires.ap/ 
> 
> - -------------------- jewish-announce@shamash.org -------------------+
> Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Internet Consortium  http://shamash.org
> - -------------------- jewish-announce@shamash.org -------------------=

I did not notice the earlier article that Freda was referring to but in 
case anyone is interested in what is happening here is the latest (at 
least regarding KI)

The shul suffered very severe smoke damage.  They are deciding what to do 
in the long term.  Temporarily they davening in a vacant house on 
weekdays and Friday nights and Shabbat mincha and using a public school 
on Shabbat morning. 

Chabad offered them use of their old facility (currently used as the 
Chabad social hall) but Rabbi Rosen said he wanted nothing to do with Chabad.

The Sifrei Torah are okay, but all of the books suffered major smoke 
damage.  The OU sent replacment siddurim and chumashim which they charged 
at cost.

If anyone is intersted let me know and I will keep them informed of 
developments.

	My masochistic side would not let me hold back from commenting on
the quote from R' Lichtenstien's article (even though I am obviously a
minority view in this discussion!) that Mechy Frankel was so kind to
provide. I took  the liberty of cutting it down for brevity's sake. I
must admit I felt more comfortable with the fish suggestion, (I guess
that shows my own prejudice).

	 I am somewhat shocked to hear that in order to grow and develop
my spirituality I have to read avodah zara, which is exactly what Saint
Augustines writings are, (I do believe all major poskim agree that
CHristianity is avodah for Jews) as of course Milton and Dante are
heavily based upon the same sources. Should I perhaps try to dig up some
treatises from the Baal worshippers, I am sure that they had some
brilliant followers also! Do I really need to learn ethics from Plato,
the same man who argued in one of his dialogues why homosexuality is
better than heterosexuality. Is this really what Torah is lacking? Does
the lucidity of Aristotle include his belief that Hashem did not create
the world, nor directly interacts with it, nor that man has no soul that
exists beyond the body. Is this what my knowledge is lacking. Or perhaps
all of his treatises on science that are notable for this inaccuracy. It
isunnecessary I am sure to quote all things that the Rishonim said about
Aristotle (especially people like the Ramban), although admitedly not
universally agreed upon.

	Does the  profundity of Shakespeare include his descriptions of
Jews in the character of Shylock, and is Romeo and Juliet the model for
Jewish morality that we need Shakespeare to teach us? (I would mention
Newman but I also have no idea who he was!)

	I am just curious, now that I have been told that the gentiles
have better cultivated almost every field of study, (I guess Jewish
thinkers have some value, although I guess not in the field personality
development, however I would love to have seen Saint Augustine try to
answer a shver Rambam. Thank goodness the gentiles left  us with
something that we can still excell in), I have been told that books that
both preach and are based upon avodah zara are necessary for my spirtual
growth, what am I to do with the Mishna in Sanhedrin the forbids me to
learn Seforim Chitzonim. I am just curious, what exactly should I be
careful not to study? I am also a little bit curious, now that I have
heard the praises of Aristotle and Plato, the essence of Greek cultural
thought, what exactly is this terrible horrible awful Hellinistic culture
that we always here about around Chanukah time that the Chashmonaim were
so much against? (Of course I won't bother mentioning the issur that the
Gemora has against learning Greek philosophy in Bava Kamma, because then
I will just hear choruses about the Rambam and the Ralbag, however it
makes one wonder....?)

	Shraga



>
  Secular studies possess immense intrinsic value insofar as 
>they
>generally help develop our spiritual personality....
, much of that best is of
>foreign origin, we must expand our horizons rather than exclude it. 
 They have, furthermore, their 
>own
>wisdom, even of a moral and philosophic nature.  Who can fail to be 
>inspired
>by the ethical idealism of Plato, the passionate fervor of Augustine, 
>or the
>visionary grandeur of Milton? Who can remain unenlightened by the 
>lucidity
>of Aristotle, the profundity  of Shakespeare, or the incisiveness of 
>Newman
 There is chochma bagoyim and we ignore it at our 
>loss.
>Many of the issues which concern us have faced Gentile writers as 
>well. The
>very problem we are considering has a long Christian history, going 
>back to
>Tertullian and beyond.  To deny that many fields have been better 
>cultivated
>by non-jewish rather than jewish writers is to be stubbornly - and
>un-necessarily - chauvinistic.  There is nothing in our medieval 
>poetry to
>rival Dante 

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Please do NOT quote indiscriminately.  I had 15 pages of repeat
material!!

Gershon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:21:06 -0400
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject: Chazal, science, esoteric wisdom
....,  That said it seems like a non-sequitor to my
assertion that there is not the slightest reason to credit chazal with
modern scientific insight.  i would not presume to equate esoteric wisdom
with the latter nor would i suggest that some of my former extremely
distinguished but alas, card carrying goy, professors, had attained
"esoteric wisdom", or even that I myself had done so, just through a
different route than RSBY and RA. ..

Mechy Frankel                                W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil                H: (301) 593-3949<<

Dear Mechy, there was NO non-sequitor.

Professor Agus claimed that Kabbalic esoteric wisodm either contains (or is 
identical to) advanced science/tehcnology. 

Kabbalists I knew told me that the Zohar refers to wireles communcations (ie 
radio) and men walking on the moon.  You MIGHT se this as fortune-telling teh 
future 

OR

You might interpret is as being privy to advanced science.

DaVinci drew pictures of helicopters centuries before Sikorski got them offf the
ground.  I would humbly suggest to this list, that Chazal - expecialy those into
the esoretic aspects - were privy to much more advanced intuitive concepts than 
was DaVinci. 

I would speculate that the late R. Aryeh Kapland AND the the Lubvicher rebbe, 
(both groudned in physics and engineering respectively) held similar views that 
esoteric wisdom is all about science that we do not yet comprehend.

And I suspect that the Gro and the Maharal held that way do. Chcohmas Eloki, 
Divine Wisdom is the term the Maharal uses.  I do not think the Maharals - as 
bright as he was (a personal acquaintance of Tycho Brahie)  - had more esoteric 
knowldge than the Chazal of the Talmud.

(And granted the RambaM probably did NOT hold this way)



Rich Wolpoe

>>
From: "MARK FELDMAN" <mfeldman@CM-P.COM>


Richard Wolpoe states that there is mesirat nefesh involved in sending 
one's child to a board school where the child will learn yomam v'laila, and 
that many parents aren't willing to make such a sacrifice.  I wonder 
whether--in the case of parents who are themselves "serious" Jews--this is 
the case.  My personal concern is that mentioned by Eli Turkel--sacrificing 
the total development of the child (being "moser" his complete "nefesh") 
for the narrow goal of promoting his Torah education.

BTW have their been any psychological studies done comparing children 
raised at home with those raised in a boarding school?

Kol tuv,
Moshe<<

time for my soap box again.

Given the choice of:

1) getting well-rounded  at a young are, and getting intense later
OR
2) getting an intense Gemoro background FIRST and then getting well-roudned 
later.

which one would YOU pick?

I remember that Professor Hyman Grinstein, former Dean of TI, pushed young men 
to NOT concentrate in gemoer, but to diversify into Tanach, etc. as well.  As My
professor in his old age, he said that he realized the imporatnace of getting in
a LOT of gemoro in while young (IOW he was choazer at least a bit re: his own 
well-rouned hashkofo!) 

I think the Remo says finish Talmud first before being well-roudned. I think the
Gemoro talks about molei kreiso in several contexts.  The generally accepted 
haskofo that I have heard throughout is, get as muc hshas and poskim in as early
as you can (kirso deyankuso).  

As a YU grad and a relatively modern type, I do not subsribe to a charidi torah 
only hashkofo.  

BUT,
if you blow the early oppurtunity to get an intense Gemoro education, you may 
never get a chance to overcome that. (Unless you are Rabbi Akivo or some 
outstanding illuy)

Dr. Belkin was Torah ONLY before he went to Brown University. Similarly the Rav 
had an extremely intense chinuch from his father.

Rich Wolpoe

R. Mechy Frankel writes:

> I thought  it worthwhile as well to emphasize the uniqueness of R.
>Lichtenstein's work - and perhaps the more recent publication mirrors this
>as well - in that it is the only essay on the subject that I've seen that
>very specifically focuses on the perceived worth of the humanities as a
>course of study, rather than the sciences.

I hope that Mechy has the opportunity to read R. Lichtenstein's more
recent and more comprehensive essay, because it does, in fact, expand on
the earlier one's argument in favor of the humanities.  And this in two
ways.  First, in discussing the value of culture, he address the
humanities as well as the sciences.  Second, in discussing the potential
dangers of culture, he gives full attention to the liberal arts.

Thus, in discussing "Culture as Supplement," R. Lichtenstein points out
that secular learning aids both our understanding and our implementation
of Torah.  By way of illustration, he mentions linguistics, philology
and history, as well as literary criticism, as tools in elucidation of
Torah.  In terms of implementation, he notes that, not only biology and
physics, but also psychology, sociology and economics are valuable.
Turning to "Culture as Complement," R. Lichtenstein argues that history,
no less than the natural sciences, is a manifestation of God's
handiwork, and also lends insight into human character or tzelem Elokim.
 What follows is a thorough refutation of those who limit their advocacy
of madda to the natural sciences.  He quotes Sidney: "Nature never set
forth the earth in so rich tapestry as diverse poets have done . . . "
R. Lichtenstein writes: "To those who extol chemistry because it
bespeaks the the glory of the Ribbono Shel Olam but dismiss Shakespeare
because he only ushers us into the Globe Theater, one must answer,
first, that great literature often offers us a truer and richer view of
the essence -- the "inscape," to use Hopkins' word  -- of even physical
reality.   Second, says R. Lichtenstein, the study of the humanities is
itself the study of an aspect of God's creation: "Far from diverting
attention from the contemplation of God's majestic cosmos, the study of
great literature focuses upon a manifestation, albeit indirect, of His
wondrous creation at its apex."  "To the extent that the humanities
focus upon man, they deal not only with a segment of divine creation,
but with its pinnacle."  "In reading great writers, we can confront the
human spirit doubly, as creation and as creator."

What does all this have to do with Torah?  "The dignity of man is a
central theme in Jewish thought, past and present.  Deeply rooted in
Scripture, copiously asserted by Hazal, unequivocally assumed by
rishonim, religious humanism is a primary and persistent mark of a Torah
weltanschauung.  Man's inherent dignity and sanctity, so radically
asserted through the concept of tzelem Elokim; his hegemony and
stewardship with respect to nature, concern for his spiritual and
physical well-being; faith in his metaphysical freedom and potential  --
all are cardinal components of traditional Jewish thought. . . .  How
then can one question the value of precisely those fields which are
directly concerned with probing humanity?"

Regarding the need to look outside Torah for inspiration, R.
Lichtenstein posits that an account of R. Akiva's spiritual odyssey
would no doubt eclipse Augustine's.  But one left us his confessions and
one did not.  Poignantly, he writes, "Our Johnsons have no Boswells."

[Footnote for techies: In the 18th century, James Boswell wrote the
celebrated biography of Samuel Johnson, the famous English critic.]

R. Lichtenstein writes of the comfort he took, after his father was
struck blind, from Miltonic passages in Samson Agonistes, Paradise Lost
and On His Blindness.  "I suppose some will regard these ruminations as
a symptom of of spiritual weakness.  Why hadn't I thought of our own
spiritual giants who had suffered a similar fate -- of patriarchal avot
ha-olam, blind Yitzhak and dim-sighted Yaakov?  Or, among Amoraim, why
hadn't R. Yosef and R. Sheshet come to mind?  The answer is that of
course they had....  The point is, however, that the respective
recollections were not mutually exclusive, but, rather, reciprocally
resonant.  The stature which the avot or amoraim enjoy in the eyes of a
ben Torah is of course, qualitatively, different from that of even so
great a poet as Milton. . . .  But, whereas Milton's response was
recorded for posterity, their response (i.e. those of the avot and
amoraim) can only be conjectured."

There is more -- the essay runs over 70 pages -- but I hope these
excerpts serve both to represent R. Lichtenstein's thoughts, as well as
tantalize the interested readers to digest the entire essay.

Two footnotes:  R. Mechy writes:
>I remain unmoved by the incisiveness of Newman, but possibly only because
I've never
>heard of him - my excuse is that I was kind of a techie student and not
>really expected to wield graceful english sentences, philosophical insights,
>or eat with a fork.

John Cardinal Newman was a towering intellectual figure in 19th century
England.  His biography should resonate: Newman was a gifted theologian
who became an Anglican bishop.  He was a theological liberal who
delighted in critiquing the Catholic church.  In mid-life he "did
teshuvah," joined the Catholic church and became a cardinal.  His
autobiography, Apologia pro Vita Sua ("Justification for His Life"),
details his journey.  He was also a committed humanist, author of "The
Idea of the University."

Second, harking back to a very early thread on this list: in his essay,
R. Lichtenstein speaks of the author of the Tosefta Ki-Fshutah as
"Professor" Saul Lieberman.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>>------------------------------

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> 

... There is no simple answer. As Berger writes in his
recent book on Rabbinic Authority the mere asking of the question is an 
indication that there is an absence of authority or at least a
feeling of uncertainty about the validity of current authority. He concludes 
the question is  bad i.e., - unproductive and ultimately unanswerable. 
Instead he asserts we should focus on describing the accepted
processes of authority of those belonging to a particular "Interpretive 
community".
During most of our history - the question was irrelevant. It was 
simply accepted that a talmid chachom's conclusion carried more weight
than a bal habos. The problem was primarily knowing which talmid chachom 
to follow. Today is different -for many reasons - one of the main 
factors is the ready access to seforim - such as the Mishna Berura and 
igros Moshe - which any yeshiva graduate can read as well as summaries 
of halacha which any grade school graduate can understand. Today
- - seforim are our rebbes.

The Rivash's tshuva was written in response to a major conflict 
involving a gadol in Austria who asserted that only he had the right to
decide the rabbinic authorities in France. The Rivash disagreed. The dispute 
was never resolved.

There is much material on this subject and I don't think it can
be intelligently comprehended - much less summarized - without going 
through the material in depth. (But I still don't think you are going to 
find "the answer")..


                                       Daniel Eidensohn<<

I posted something several months ago re: rabbinic authority.
Let me summarize Dr. Agus' theory which he called "Tutorial Authority": 

Question: Who was the first Tanna to use the title Rabbi?
Answer: Rabban Yochonan ben Zakkai (any use with the first Gamliel and Shimon 
ben Gamliel are tous Sofrim)

Question: What produced that title?
Answer: the Churban and the loss of the Sanhedrin in the lishka left an 
authority vaccum. The title Rav (master) came about in response to the loss of 
the Beis Din in the Lishka, as a new means of making halachic decisions binding.
(ad kahn Dr. Agus summary)

Our titles of Rav and the system of psak, mesorah, binding minhog, are 
descendents of this authority, and our halachic evolution exists within these 
confines until the Sanhedrin is restored.

Perhaps the major break was Reform which appropriated the title rabbi.

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]