Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 150

Monday, August 2 1999

• Re: allegorization
• Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Disagreeing Disagreeably
• Re: divided community
• Re: divided community
• Wagner's music
• divided community
• Allegory and the Rambam
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: allegory - authority
• Re: Allegory and the Rambam
• munkacs
• pacifism
• Kol kore ba-midbar
• Re: allegory - authority

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> I have not read his approach (although I once heard parts of it, and
> IMHO it is Mufrach), I would just point to the Chazal Chagiga 12a Midas
> Yom Umidas Lailoh,
> 

While I am not fully acquainted (sic) with Einstein's Theory of
Relativity, Prof. Schroeder employs it to explain that from the
perspective of one travelling close to the speed of light, time passes far
more slowly than it does for one travelling at conventional speeds. Thus,
what for one from our vantage point of "normal speed" appears as several
billion years, from the perspective of "one" experiencing the events at
the time they would have been precisely 6 24 hour periods. Schroeder is
quite adamant that since there is no mekor in Chazal for anything other
than 24 hour days, that is the way it was (in Torah Shleima, BTW, there is
a mekor for 1000 year days, if I recall, but I am not sure).

> 1) What support is there to make distinction between days 4,5,6.? 
> 

There isn't, and he dooesn't, and it is that which causes me difficulty. I
proposed to him that onece the me'oros are in place perhaps time becomes
our 24 hour days, but he said that the math does not work out.

> 2) What is the meaning of 25 of Elul was the creation of the world?  (I
> am aware of the Shakloh Vtaryoh on this Vein Kan Mkoimoi). 
> 

Aderaba, l'fi shitaso it works out quite well.

> 3) Are all days divided equally? (what will be if science will "prove"
> that one period of time was longer then the other)? 
> 

It's hard to say. They are each 24 hour periods, but due to the slowing of
the speed over the six days, in terms of our perspective each "day"
contains less "years".

> 4) What is the meaning of "Nichnas Imoy Kchut Hasaaroh," or "Erev
> Shabbos Bein Hashmoshos?" 
>

Schroeder has "real time" begin with Kenisas ha'Shabbos.

YGB

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

> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

> In fact, I think there are very few of us who are turned on by Arba Minim,
> Tefillin, Tzitzis, Shilu'ach Ha'Ken, Pidyon Petter Chamor (I'm naming at
> random). I am told that some women are really inspired by Hadlokas Neiros
> Shabbos v'Yom Tov, but when I had to do it in Yeshiva, it wasn't the high
> point of my week.
> 
> In fact, I think we scions of the Misnagdic/Chassidic worlds find mitzvos
> ma'asiyos a bit of a hassle (who enjoys shopping for Arba Minim and then
> worrying about whether they will remain kosher?), and that is why we find
> most of our sippuk in Torah or Tefilla.

I think that R' Micha and R' Yosef have touched on something quite
fundimental here. Everything is of course colored by one's personal
experiences, so I see this as an effect of the Misnagdic/Chassidic
division, with the Misnagdic yeshiva world having modified the chassidic
tradition strongly.

For the personal coloration, my father is a product of pre-war Lita and
the Yeshiva community there. My maternal grandfather was the Sambor Rebbe,
and brought up completely in the Chassidic tradition. I was zocheh to
spend many Yomim Tovim with my grandfather. I can clearly remember the
intense joy that would come over him when he would first pick up the Lulav
and Esrog on the first day of Succot. While sitting in the Succah, we
would at times suddenly stand up and start dancing, exclaiming to us that
we stood surrounded by the holy names of God (the kabbalistic tradition
that the four walls are the shem Havayah and the floor and the sechach are
shem Adni and shem Alokim). Similar with Pesach and also items in Shabbat
and other mitzvot. To him, the mitzvot were an expression of Joy, Awe,
even wonder. 

This is not something I have seen in a manner that I find truely
convincing in those I see of the current generations. Maybe more of us
have spent more time learning than the average Jew of my grandfathers
generation (to be clear, my grandfather himself had a level of learning
that I doubt many today come close to, being a true baki in Shas, poskim,
halacha, aggada and kabbalah [as well as Greek and Latin, he was mavir
sedrah in Greek or Latin}), but somehow the move from home to Yeshiva has
failed to generate this intense feeling in most of our generation. This is
something that Rav Y.D. Soloveichick lamented as well in describing the
Yomim Noraim atmosphere that he remembered as a child.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
mljewish@shamash.org

I should begin by forswearing any and all pretensions of bekius.  My
response is based only upon my own limited knowledge.

Reb Daniel Eidensohn wrote the following:

"I guess that my problem is finding real life examples of a gadol
perceiving that his opponents views were a threat to yiddishkeit - yet he
disagreed vehemently though respectfully."

Let me turn this statement around into a series of questions.  At what
point can we characterize someone's behaviour as being unpleasant enough to
preclude his categorization as a gadol?  (This sets aside the entire
question of who gets to decide who the gedolim are, although the questions
are not unrelated.)

I am not trying to be cute here, but if we are prepared to accept otherwise
unacceptable (or anti-halachic) standards of behaviour because of whom the
actors are, then haven't we opened up another can of worms?

Meyer

> From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
> Subject: divided community
> 
> I still remember a TV news program from 40 years ago when there were fights
> between Satmar and Lubavitch in Brooklyn (pre moshicah days). They interviewed
> representatives of both communities and the Satmar reresentative stressed
> that they are fighting over the spiritual lives of their children
> as this correspondent is looking at amazement at the two hasidic clad
> gentleman.

A little bit of a belated response, I'm still trying to catch up on Avodah
while I keep mail-jewish going, takes a few hours here and there :-).
While I am a few years younger than Eli, so I do not remember the TV
coverage, that event also is something that I found enlightening. 

At that time, as part of the maklokas, a Satmar Beit Din put the
Lubavitcher Rebbi in Cherem. That greatly bothered the Rebbi, and he asked
my grandfather to intervene with the Satmar Rebbi. As my father was then
his new son-in-law, he took my father along. As I understand the story,
they met for quite some time with the Satmar Rebbi, discussing a number of
items and talking in Torah and learning. When my grandfather brought up
the issue of the cherem, the immediate response of the Satmar was that it
was "kinder speil" and he would rebuke those that had been involved in the
matter. 

I think this event was one that helped me understand that much of the
makhlokes we see today that many of the participants in argue is "leshem
shamayim" and especially that it is required of them by their leaders,
often the leaders really do not feel that way. Unfortunatly, matters
often progress where either the leaders do not fully know what is
happening, or may get to a point that the leaders feel that they are
trapped and cannot back out of a corner where their followers have trapped
them. For those of us who read secular newspapers, there is an interesting
article in this weeks Sunday New York Times magazine about New York Mayor
Guiliani (sp?) who is running now for US senator. In conversations with
his staffers, the writer shows how many of the long standing feuds are
more kept alive by the people who surround him, than by the mayor himself.

As has been mentioned by others, the case is often that the kanois that is
shown by the students is often not there with the teachers they claim to
be emulating. 

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
mljewish@shamash.org

In a message dated 8/1/99 8:39:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mljewish@shamash.org writes:

<< 
 As has been mentioned by others, the case is often that the kanois that is
 shown by the students is often not there with the teachers they claim to
 be emulating. 
 
 Avi Feldblum
 mail-jewish Moderator >>

I hope this is the case, yet with all the public media available, why do we 
not see disavowals by the teachers?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Reb Shlomo Godick quoted the following from an article from Arutz-7 "A certain
tension filled the air when he got up to speak.  They expected that Wagner,
like conductors Zubin Mehta and Daniel Birnbaum, would argue that people
should separate Richard Wagner's music from his pro-Nazi views." 
An added note: all of the "surprised" people in the audience probably
weren't that surprised.  I would imagine that this was an exaggeration of
the reporter.  In fact, Gottfried Wagner is world renowned for his disdain
of his greatgrandfather's racism.  The speech reffered to in the article
was given as part of his world tour promoting his most recent book.
"Twighlight of the Wagners: The Unvveiling of a Family's Legacy" was
printed in English in May 1999 by the St. Martins Press.  In it he reveals
his familys very close personal relationship with Hitler YMSHMO himself,
and how his music was written specifically to advance his despicabble
agenda.  He has written at least this one book and many articles and given
countless speeches around the world exposing his father for what he was.
Most interestingly, I heard him on the radio expressing disbelief at the
prominent Jewish musicians (Mehta and Birnbaum) who were so willing to
perform his music.  
Shaul Weinreb

	I have learned much from Reb Daniel Eidensohn's erudite and incisive
posts. However, I beg to disagree with his recent postings on the subject of
"divided community". In his posting in V3 # 146, Reb Daniel takes Reb Moshe
Feldman to task for implying that the doctrine of "Eilu VaEilu", exemplified
by the mutual tolerance shown to one another by the members of the Schools
of Shammai and Hillel in Yevamot 1:4, exhorts us to condone viewpoints that
we find heretical and inimical to Yahadut. Reb Daniel claims that our Sages
have always been willing to stand up against heretical views, "to fight for
what is right" unless there are "mitigating factors such as preservation of
the community". To support this he cites an alternate picture of the
relationship between the two schools, viz. the  story in Massechet Shabbat,
where, since "they viewed their opponent as a threat, they were ready to
kill". Since R. Daniel has acccused R. Moshe Feldman of "selective
citation", let us examine whether his own citation passes the same litmus
test.
 
	In the Yerushalmi to Shabbat I,IV (which refers to the 18 decrees
promulgated in the loft of Hanania b. Hizkiah on the day that the members of
the School of Shammai outnumbered the members of the School of Hillel) we
read:
 
	"That day was as difficult for Israel as the day on which the Golden
Calf was 	erected. R Eliezer said: On that day they overfilled the
se'ah. R Joshua said: On 	that day they smoothed off the measure
(se'ah) .... R. Eliezer expressed himself 	in a parable. What does it
resemble? A basket filled with cucmbers and gourds. If 	one puts in mustard
seed, the basket can still hold it. R. Joshua said: What does 	it resemble?
- A trough full of honey. If one puts into it pomegranates and 	almonds, the
honey overflows. It was taught by R. Yehoshua Onnia: The 	students of
Shammai surrounded them from below and killed the students of 	Hillel. It
was taught: Six of them went up [to the loft] while the others stood below
against them with spears and swords."
 
	It is indeed difficult to know precisely what transpired that day,
or even when this event occured. However, it is apparent that Gemara should
not be taken allegorically; a geniza segment of a medieval calendar of fast
days contains the line: "On the fourth of Adar the argument betwen the
students of Shammai and Hillel occured, and many were lost" (see Yisrael Ben
Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealot's Struggel Against Rome
[Hebrew], Yad Ben Zvi Press, 1993, ch. VII) 
 
	Thus while R. Eliezer (ben Hyracnus, Shamuti) sees the event in a
positive light, R. Yehoshua sees it in a negative light. In fact, it is
possible (and likely) that R. Eliezer's praise is for the decrees themselves
(they overfilled the basket) rather than for the ensuing events. In any
case, the redactor of the Yerushalmi saw the event in such a negative light
that he compared it to the erection of the Golden Calf! In sum, I think this
example proves the opposite of Rav Daniel's point. Indeed, the fact that R.
Yehuda HaNasi chose to canonize in the Mishna the positive relationship
between the two schools rather than the adversarial relationship shows us
which model he wished us to emulate.

	Another source quoted by Reb Daniel is the Maharshal. He writes:

	"If you read the whole Introduction you will find the Yam Shel
Shlomo says some 	not respectful words about the Rambam and especially
the Ibn Ezra. This - 	despite the fact that obviously knew about the
concept of eilu v'eilu"

I believe R. Daniel is referring to the R. Shlomo Luria's introduction to
Yam Shel Shlomo on Baba Kamma. While the Maharshal indeed has some fairly
harsh things to say about ibn Ezra, he still maintains a certain degree of
respect for him (he refers to him with the honorific "Rav") and says "since
he was a great Sage and one does not contradict the lion [after his death]".
Note that he does not call for the burning of ibn Ezra's commentary on the
Torah, despite his characterization of it as "aiding heretics, Sadducees and
the weak of faith".

	I am sure that no one disagrees that one may, indeed must, "fight
for what is right". The question is, what means are legitimate in this
fight? There is quite a distance between adamant opposition and book
burning, excommunication and "informing".

Saul Stokar 

> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> I should note further on the Moreh that RJJB cited this morning, that here
> the Rambam also presents us with his opinion that the yearts of the
> individuals mentioned in Bereishis and Noach are actual lengths of time,
> only that they were limited to the people mentioned. Were the Rambam to
> have held of some notion of "para-hisotry" which is all "allegory", he
> might have far more readily dismissed these verses than grappled with
> them.

I must say that I do not understand what R' Yosef is trying to show from
this Rambam. It appears to be quite clear to me (but I'm willing to admit
that I am probably in the small minority here, so have mostly kept quiet)
that the Rambam's shita is that there is no reason to try and re-interpret
items in the Torah (what I think many have been calling Allegory and
para-history) in the absence of compelling reason to do so. However, I
believe that the Rambam is also clear that were there to be compelling
evidence that the "simple" reading of the text is not possible to be
correct, he had no theological opposition to re-interpreting the text. The
most compelling evidence of the Rambam's position is a letter where he
discusses the question of the age of the universe, it's state as a created
object and the theory of Aristotle. In that letter, he makes clear that
since he finds Aristotle's arguements not logically compelling, and he has
both the text of the Chumash as well as many divrei Chazal, he continues
to argue vehemently against the Aristotalian position. But should he be
shown compelling proof that Aristotle is correct, that would not be a
theological disaster, and he would be able to re-interpret the pasukim and
Chazal, if neccessary. It is many years since I saw this teshuvas
harambam, so if someone knows the one I am refering to and can check to
see if I have it correct or all wrong, I would appreciate it.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
mljewish@shamash.org

Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz wrote <<< What we do, and what halacha is, is OUR
acceptance of Chazal.  If a Sanhedrin were constituted today, it could
overturn vast parts of what was already accepted.  And how do we
re-institute said Sanhedrin?  But OUR accepting upon ourselves people as
authoritative, by restarting s'micha.  It is really all up to US.  What
we accept is what we follow. >>>

I believe that several people have misunderstood this. I too
misunderstood it, on my first reading. R. Teitz is NOT advocating a
conservative-style pick-and-choose attitude to halacha. Chas V'chalilah!

When he wrote "US" he did not mean the Avodah mailing list, nor the RCA
or Agudah. I beleive he meant that if ALL OF KLAL YISROEL, both in Eretz
Yisrael and Chutz Laaretz, would find the unity to accept the halachic
authority of certain individuals, *they* would constitute a Beis Din with
real authority, at least enough to guide us in the right direction, and
even enough to pasken on whether or not semicha can be reinstituted, in
which case they might very well be able to form a Sanhedrin, with the
vast powers as described.

But it won't happen unless WE ALL accept their authority.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
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.

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> When he wrote "US" he did not mean the Avodah mailing list, nor the RCA

Is there any more exalted forum in today's Jewish world than Avodah? :-)

> or Agudah. I beleive he meant that if ALL OF KLAL YISROEL, both in Eretz
> Yisrael and Chutz Laaretz, would find the unity to accept the halachic
> authority of certain individuals, *they* would constitute a Beis Din
> with real authority, at least enough to guide us in the right direction,
> and even enough to pasken on whether or not semicha can be reinstituted,
> in which case they might very well be able to form a Sanhedrin, with the
> vast powers as described. 
> 

But this too is not true! Ironically, the new Beis Din (based, however,
only on EY - we in Chu"l do not count) could well overturn derashos based
on the yud gimmel middos, but not takkanos d'rabbonon, unless, as someone,
perhaps RCB, earlier pointed out - they are gadol b'chochmo u'b'minyon.
And, as we know, that is an impossibility.

YGB

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

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Avi Feldblum wrote:

> I must say that I do not understand what R' Yosef is trying to show from
> this Rambam. It appears to be quite clear to me (but I'm willing to

Let me reiterate then, that the Rambam's shitta is that allegory is only
applied to idioms and phrases that are clearly figures of speech and
exaggerations for stylistic reasons, not to any event or sequence clearly
indicated by the Torah to be descriptive of history or fact. The Rambam
also does not hold that the understanding that an event took
place in a prophetic dream constitutes allegorization of an event, as
nevuah is *the* reality in which malachim are beheld.

> admit that I am probably in the small minority here, so have mostly kept
> quiet)  that the Rambam's shita is that there is no reason to try and
> re-interpret items in the Torah (what I think many have been calling
> Allegory and para-history) in the absence of compelling reason to do so.
> However, I believe that the Rambam is also clear that were there to be
> compelling evidence that the "simple" reading of the text is not
> possible to be correct, he had no theological opposition to
> re-interpreting the text. The most compelling evidence of the Rambam's
> position is a letter where he discusses the question of the age of the
> universe, it's state as a created object and the theory of Aristotle. In
> that letter, he makes clear that since he finds Aristotle's arguements
> not logically compelling, and he has both the text of the Chumash as
> well as many divrei Chazal, he continues to argue vehemently against the
> Aristotalian position. But should he be shown compelling proof that
> Aristotle is correct, that would not be a theological disaster, and he
> would be able to re-interpret the pasukim and Chazal, if neccessary. It
> is many years since I saw this teshuvas harambam, so if someone knows
> the one I am refering to and can check to see if I have it correct or
> all wrong, I would appreciate it. 
> 

I am sure someone will find it relatively quickly, but I believe it is  in
the Moreh. If I understand correctly, the Rambam is not suggesting the
pesukim are allegory, however, rather that they can be reinterpreted to
indicate an Olam Kadmon: For example, one could say that the mayim over
the eventual yabasha always existed.

YGB

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

> 
> Subject: Munkacs:  Tshuvo in Minchas Elozor and
> 
> 
> This seems to be a classic case for
> 'Chachomim Hizharu B'divrechem'. There is a huge difference in
> the words first posted by R' Eli Turkel (>> "The Agudah wanted
> to have a fast day in the 1930s because of the worsening
> situation in Germany. They requested various rabbis to join in
> the  proclamation of the fast. The rav from Munkacz refused on
> the grounds that German Jewry deserved what was happening to
> them as the overwhelming majority of German Jews were not
> religious. 
> 
> It is obvious to anyone reading  the Tshuvo in ME,  the hurt and pain that
> the Munkatcher Rebbe felt ("mamesh nechlesi") for the suffering
> of the German Jews - despite his sharp and unbending Kanous. I
> respectfully suggest to those who have been following this thread
> to take the time to read it.
> 
> However I am surprised that even RDE has not mentioned that
> the truth is quite the OPPOSITE to RET's quote. The
> Munkatcher  Rebbe clearly states, that, notwithstanding his (well-
> known) opinions on the entire spectrum of Jewish political
> groups - which therefore does not allow him to add his signature
> for an "international day of fasting"  - and even though that
> according to the Mogen Avrohom and Chasam Sofer,  in such
> situations a Taanis Tzibbur should not be called, and despite the
> fact that  most of the businesses suffering the Nazi boycott are
> Mechallel Shabbos (and fasting for the removal of the boycott
> could be seen as an approval of the Chillul Shabbos),
> nevertheless every rav should declare a fast in his town (''al ken
> bevaday ro'ui ligzor taanis...kol rav b'iro'').  These words are
> quite the reverse to the original quote by RET.
> 
> Not having Krischner's book, I can't say if he censored the

First of all I quoted only part of Krischner's translation and so all
selections were mine and not his. Sorry if that was not clear.
In terms of the destruction of Eastern Jewry I quoted from memory
and apologize for the misstatement.

In terms of the basic opinion of Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira I have
seen nothing in the additional portion quote by  Daniel Eidensohn that
changes my mind. His pain is that all Jews are not observing the Torah.
That is a pain we all share. But then he accuses everyone else for not
sharing his pain. Only he is the true tzaddik

<<However the legions of the sitra acher and amongst them the many leaders
and many hypocritical Admorim etc etc are despoiling all of Israel >>

A reminder that the call for a public fast was called by the Augudah and
that he did refuse to sign their declaration. I assume these leaders
knew the various halachik opinions and also knew the situation.
<< But I cannot consent to sign my name to the proclamation ... Will
the Zionists, Mizrahists, Agudists and the like return to G-d and his
religion? >>

<<that they should return back to G-d and close their stores and businesses 
on Shabbos....then we will pray for them and decree a public fast to pray 
for their rescue and success amongst the rest of Israel. >>
....
<< If the German Jews do not repent their sin of profaning the Sabbath
then [to ordain a public fast] would be to reinforce their behavior of
profaning the Sabbath. >>

i.e. we will pray for them to be rescued from the nazis only AFTER they
close their stores on shabbat. 
The fact that they are persecuted for being Jews is not enough to pray
and fast for them as long as they mechallel shabbat.


Sorry, but this teshuva is one of hate for all Jewish leaders. Only he
cares for the defense of G-d and every else is a hypocrite. His pain is
that German jewry desecrates shabbat. One certainly does not see the
love for each Jew that comes from other admorim.

<<Now they are being paid back measure for measure>>.

To translate his teshuva to modern terms, I have been in a number of
shuls recently that instituted a special prayer for the captive Jews in
Iran. According to this teshuva we should first ascertain how religious
this community was. Perhaps these Jews keep their shops open on shabbat
(I say perhaps because I haven't any idea - I have no reason to suspect
them my statements are theoretical not practical) and then we should
not pray for them

I am sorry but punishment should be decided by G-d. It is not our job to
decide who should be punished by G-d.

Eli Turkel

Daniel Eidensohn writes
> 
> I think you are greatly oversimplifying the issue of disputes. There are
> definitely dangers and harm that can come from fights - but there are also
> severe dangers from not defending what you consider sacred. 
> 
> In sum. You seem to be asserting that pacifism is the best approach. I
> don't think pacifism is a Jewish concept. 
> 

I am not advocating pacifism or any lack of a rigorous defence.
In the past I have come out strongly against some Chabad practices
(and been attacked for it). No one expects Agudah to agree with the RCA or
vice-versa and certainly not with conservative and reform movements.

Nevertheless, the tactic for disagreement is to prove your point.
Ad hominen attacks only hurt ones cause and does not help. As was pointed
out by someone else Rav Soloveitchik would use the title "rabbi" when
pubically speaking about a reform rabbi. Did this mean that he recognized
person's semicha? certainly not - it is a form of gentlemanless that 
wins more sympathy than the gorilla attacking his enemies.

Again, are their defenders on this list for the burning of Rambam's books
or for false accusations against hasidim to send them to prison (or vice
versa).

I assume that everyone on this list disagrees with the policies of the
various anti-religious parties in Israel. However, religious politicians
have learned, sometimes the hard way, that screaming and ranting and raving
only does mor harm than good. I have seen numerous confrontations on TV
between religious and anti-religious politicians that remained a reasoned
calm debate. This did not prevent the religious person from forcefully
stating his viewpoint. It did however, prevent him from throwing the other
side outside of the jewish community.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

I -- and I am sure many others -- found RYGB's plaintive lament
touching.  But I happen to think that RYGB is not a da'at yahid on the
issue of allegorizing the flood, not on this list and certainly not
within the larger halakhic community.

Rather, I think this thread -- and others like it -- demonstrate a
primary weakness of our virtual bet midrash: a simple debate on an
important point of halakhah or hashkafah can escalate into a ritualized
and repetitive back-and-forth, sometimes with unintended shrillness.
Usually, this is because a strong view on an issue tends to evoke a
response from those who feel equally strongly about the opposing view.
In other words we are caught in a metaphorical expression of Newton's
law that each action has an equal and opposite reaction.  (There, now I
have allegorized science . . . )

In addition, one stray comment can draw other voices into the fray,
prolonging the debate, but not always illuminating the topic.  Finally,
all of the usual limits on a debate that are imposed in a non-virtual
context do not apply here, allowing a single issue to burn for weeks,
generating more heat than light.  (Sometimes Micha has come in as the
referee to break up the sparring and call for a cooling off period, and
often the participants halt the debate themselves.)

In this case, though, we saw a more disturbing dynamic.  The intial
criticism of the methodology of allegorization was accompanied by
disclaimers to the effect that this was not an issue of kefirah or ikkar
emunah, but a serious issue nonetheless.  Sadly, after the boxing match
had progressed a few rounds, the debate had ratcheted up to a point
where, indeed, talk of emunah and kefirah were bandied about.

For my part, I agree wholeheartedly with R. Chaim Brown that allegorical
exegesis, though not entirely unprecedented in pre-modern sources, is a
potent and flammable technique that should be applied, if at all, with
hesitation, caution and sensitivity.  Measured by these standards, in my
view, Prof. Spero's article on the flood is an utter failure.

One final, largely pedantic, point, addressed to the ba'alei keri'ah,
medakdekim and anti-missionary activists on this lists:  The phrase "Kol
kore ba-midbar" does not reflect the cantillation (trop) of our mesorah.
 The pasuk reads: Kol kore: ba-midbar panu derekh Hashem.  (In other
words, we are clearing the derekh hashem in the midbar; the voice itself
is not in the midbar.)  This is an important debating point with
missionaries, because the New Testament describes Paul as wandering
through the desert proclaiming the advent of you-know-who, and says this
is a fulfillment of the nevu'ah.  However, our reading of the navi
indicates that the nevu'ah is paying no attention to where the kol is
calling out.  Nevertheless, the term "a voice in the wilderness" has
become deeply imbedded in western culture.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

All of the below is said with a single caveat: I need to understand R' ZY
Kook's text which was cited as saying that the historical portion of the Torah
begins with Lech Licha. This appears (to me) to be the only one whose
understanding of mesorah is far clearer than mine (i.e. "a gadol") about whom
it was actually claimed that he rethought the historicity of the mabul.

(Please don't be offended by my use of "cited as" and claimed. I'm suspending
my judgement not because I disbelieve our chaver who did the citation, but
because I don't know if that's the only way to read R' ZY Kook's words. As
I haven't caught up with the past weekend's volume, it's possible someone
already gave an alternate understanding. An exact citation, so I could
judge for myself, would be nice.)


As I see it, the question isn't the authority of Chazal, but the nature of Torah
sheBa'al Peh. IOW, not Chazal as thinkers, but as links in mesorah.

HKB"H gave us the text of the mabul, along with TSB"P about how to understand
it. We have NO record that that TSB"P included the notion that the story was
not historical. (I prefer that to saying "was allegorical", since history can
serve as allegory as well. I tried in the past "pure allegory", with little
success.)

By saying that Chazal's constructivist role had something to do with their
positions of what is or isn't historical, I'm afraid I must agree with RYGB
that it sounds like the Conservative/historical school's approach. There's an
implied denial that some spectrum of ideas actually came from Sinai. That's
the only justification for saying that a new idea, one which is outside the
currently existing spectrum, ought to be considered.

Also, there's a retreat to meta-issues: the claim that while Chazal said the
mabul was historical, their methodology is such that they'd have concluded it
wasn't given today's secular knowledge. While this retreat isn't necessarily
flawed, it should raise a red flag. The more liberal movements claim ties to
tradition by saying they are tied at more abstract levels than we are. (For
example, Reform claims that reformation of ideas and practice is and was a
permanent feature of Judaism.)

-mi

PS about aggadita and allegory: Before the Mahrshah, Maharal and Vilna Gaon
(aside from the other nosei keilim found in the `Ein Ya'akov) is the Rambam,
Peirush haMishnayos, right before his list of the ikkarei emunah. The Rambam's
opinion of people who take these things literally is amusing.

PS about the "kol korei": My apologies to RYGB if my playing devil's advocate
(which /I/ thought I labeled clearly as such) made him feel lonely. Hopefully
this post will end that misimpression.

PPS about Tradition: Perhaps if I closed Avodah for a week, someone would
use the time saved to actually would write a response for publication in
Tradition. I noted to one chaver here that his writings in print appear to
have fallen off since he started spending his time here. I'm sure he's not
alone.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Aug-99: Levi, Re'eh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 346:3-9
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 16b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari V 21-24

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


[ 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         ]