Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 160

Thursday, August 12 1999

• Satmar, psychology undistracted by patients
• Re: eclipse
• Re: Pedants R Us: Qol qoreih and exegetical freedom
• Machlokes, Curses, Etc.
• Re: Avodah V3 #159: eclipse
• more on qol qore' bammidbar...
• (pas d'objet)
• Re: Re: Ma'aseh B'reishis
• once more qol qore'
• Re: divided community
• Turning down radio volume
• Electricity is not esh. Do we alter halakha?
• Re: Electricity is not esh. Do we alter halakha?

RYGB wrote and DDG followed up with::
<<< It would be interesting to hear from someone like our very own RMFrankel
his take on this, as he is me'beis the Satmar Rebbe >>> I will forbear from
characterizing this statement other than to note that, to my admittedly
limited acquaintance with the distinguished Frankel yichus, it is factually
inaccurate. However, we all know that Mechy is more than capable of speaking
up eloquently in his own defense. <<< 

I'm afraid I don't have much to add on the substance of this issue.  As far
as I know the rebbe's view remained reasonably consistent through his
lifetime.  The few times I saw him personally, always in the company of my
father a'h, he was always perfectly pleasant despite the fact of my father's
well known to him Mizrachist activism. I'm not much for psychologizing from
afar (or even up close since I'm not a psychologist),  let alone the post
mortem assertions to which we have been treated concerning the unknowable
states of mind of people we've never met and what they would have thought if
only etc. This seems like a patientless psychoanalysis, which if the
psychologists could only figure to whom to send the bill, would certainly
become quite popular. But ain lonu eloh mah she'eineinu roa'oas.  else we
may as well speculate whether the rambam would have voted liqud or one
israel in the last election.  (one suspects he wouldn't have voted degel.. -
ouch, now you're making me do it. it's a slippery slope indeed)  

The dor shivie's remark I initially found more puzzling since I had
perceived  - sensitive soul that I am -no particular thrusts in my direction
which would call for speaking up "in his own defense". And then I got it, I
think.   It must be that the good dr glasner took a passing reference
connecting me to "bais Satmar" - whatever the substance of the remark - as a
slur.  While i had thought that david had gotten all that stufff out of his
system,  it is tue tht some of my revered ancestors of certain persuasions
did make the odd attempt to ride some of DDG's revered ancestors out of the
occasional town on a rail, and - closer to modern times -  the continued
lack of civil discourse (at least according to the one-side report -guess
that would have been the dor shishi )  between some of the principals even
in extremis (the kastner train) did not do much to further endear the bais
harav to the doros  glasner. . But I at least do not consider mere mention
of such connection as a slur, and david, my advice here is - as one of our
more celebrated local ex-mayors was wont to say - get over it..

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

Speaking of the eclipse, does anyone know interesting legend, law, or lore
about Eclipses?

E.g. is it mentioned in Tanakh?  what's the bracha?  are you allowed  to
daven maariv during an eclipse?  what about doing a hefsek tahara or going
to the mikva?

Josh

--- Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:
> lulai
> dimistofinoh i might even advance the notion that the uniform
> poroshonus of
> the rishonim and the trope was itself a reaction to the by now -
> much later
> -publicly identified with christological exegesis. 
> 

I seem to recall that Dr. David Berger, in his course at Bernard
Revel Graduate School dealing with the Jewish-Christian debates
during the Middle Ages, made this suggestion with regard to certain
psukim which were used as proof-texts during the Medieval
Jewish-Christian debates.

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

In the recent spate of postings concerning the "vehement disrespectful" variety of machlokes among Torah leaders, as well as particular feuds among chassidic rebbes that may have involved curses or charomim, the discussion has focused mainly on questions of propriety, motives and accuracy of reports.  Little attention has been given to the spiritual meaning of these persistent phenomena, their religious significance to the individual (non-disputant) Jew or the proper manner of relating and reacting to their ocurrence.  

Torah sources do speak to these latter issues.  For example, treatment of such issues (as they relate not only to strife between Torah leaders, but also to derisive attacks by "lamdanim," "misnagdim and reshoim") form a thematic thread that runs through parts of Rebbe Nachman's Likutay Moharan, some of whose teachings on the subject are summarized (with primary source citations) in Likutay Eitzos, especially erech Machlokes u'Merivah 1, 11 and 22, and erech Tzadik 8, 12 and 18.  (I would be grateful for other mareh makomos on this subject, especially non-chassidic sources.)

I mention this because the insights in such sources can help us redeem the positive in unfortunate episodes of strife and discord, and salvage a measure of real value from them (both individually and communally), by focusing us on their inner meaning and teaching us to extract lessons from them in middos, yiras shamayim, emunas chachamim and the like.  This is far more uplifting and constructive than fixating on the surface negativity of such affairs.  In light of Rebbe Nachman's teaching that machlokes partakes of the character of the primordial chalal hapanui (Likutay Moharan 64:4) - a vacancy, as it were, or concealment that is yet the harbinger of all creativity and disclosure - such negative fixation may be viewed as spiritually equivalent to discading the donut in favor of the hole. 

David Nadoff 

>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
>Subject: eclipse
>
>Some reports from todays total sun eclipse
>
>Most Lebanese heeded government warnings to stay home during the
>four-minute eclipse, which generated widespread panic in Lebanon where it
>was
>described as a precursor to the Apocalypse.
>
>Some devout Muslims flocked into mosques for special eclipse prayers to
>ward off the event's dire consequences. Others said they had barricaded
>themselves in their homes to avoid even looking at the sun's rays.
>
>Eli Turkel
>

Israel Broadcasting TV News on showed many people at the Kotel saying
special tefilot written (de novo?) on the occasion of the eclipse, that it
should not be a bad omen etc. etc. etc.

What's that line about glass houses?

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

just to add a couple of further observations to the discussion:

1) it is not clear that _NO_ Jewish interpreters read qore' with
bammidbar. R. Yosef Qara (Rashi's talmid-haver, not the Mehabber) writes
(and I'm quoting the standard M.G. text; there is no critical edition
based on kitvei yad) "Qol qore' bammidbar: beZiyyon shehu' midbar." I know
that one could argue that the comment is only meant to modify the final
word of the lemma (dibbur hammatchil), but in that case why did the
author, copyist, editor, printer, yihyu mi sheyihyu, include the words
"Qol qore'" in the lemma? Even if I had kitvei yad here and the lemma was
abbreviated, i would argue that that is the result of the overwhelming
body of jewish interpretation affecting the copyist or editor. So I assume
that r.y. qara interpreted "a voice calling in the wilderness."

2) regarding the "christian" interpretation found in matthew etc., the
greek text there is quoting the text of the septuagint, the jewish greek
translation. it actually reads "a voice of one crying in the desert...."
not "a voice crying in the desert." in general, most of the authors of
early christian scriptures employed the greek text rather than the hebrew
for their interpretations, but the greek text derives from jewish sources.
ve'im timtzei lomar that the later christian usage influenced the text of
the septuagint which has come down through christian hands, i should point
out that the translation of Aquila (Aqilas to those of us who remember him
from the yerushalmi in megilla etc.) differs from the septuagint only in
the choice of the verb used to translate "qore'" not in the syntax of the
verse (and i don't believe in massive conspiracies, vehamevin yavin.)
 
furthermore, and probably very significant, is the fact that there is no
guarantee from the greek of the septuagint or the christian texts that
there is no strong punctuation mark after "qore'" since greek had no
punctuation marks at that time.  It could be rendered "The voice of one
calling: 'In the desert...." It is interesting in this regard that the
Anchor Bible translations of both Matthew and Mark translate the Greek "A
voice crying: 'In the desert make ready...." and "A voice calling, 'In the
desert make ready...." respectively.  John's actions in the desert
apparently do not make him the "voice calling in the desert" according to
those interpreters.

ve'ein ka'n maqom leha'arikh.

moshe bernstein

With the recent decision by the Kansas Board of Education not to teach
the evolution in schools, we need to be strong in our belief about the
creationist theory. I'm trying to build a list of books which deal with
the jewish (orthodox) answers to the evolution theory. I'd appreciate
any idea.

David-Itzhak Troin
Université du Québec à Montréal
Département de Sciences Politiques
Montréal, Québec
Canada

In v3n159, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> asks:
: What is the Yesod that M"B cannot be Kipshutoi, (Brias Yesh Mayin is Bkoach 
: Haborei who is Ein Soif) ?

See the first intro to Gevuros Hashem (just in case there's more than one,
I mean the Maharal's). He discusses "ein dorshin" and "chachmah unvu'ah,
chachmah adif". In short, nevu'ah can only describe those things for which
the navi can see an image or the image of a mashal for. It must be similar
to something in human experience. Chachmah allows for extrapolation. Except
that the material discussed in "ein dorshin" is beyond that too.

(BTW, this is my standard answer to science vs. creation: they're both wrong.
However, since he calls B'reishis 1 "nevuah", I guess chachmah can get a
closer approximation of the historical side of the question.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 12-Aug-99: Chamishi, Shoftim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 355:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 21b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 5

sorry for the second posting, but i found these just after i sent the
first.

two further jewish sources which seem to imply the qol qore' bammidbar
reading:

zohar 1.118a (column 2) reads qol tehiyyat hametim dikhtiv qol qore
bammidbar mai ba'ei hakha qala bemadbera ella amar rav zeriqa...

aggadat bereshit par. 68 (p. 133 - BUber edition; Etz yosef edition
par. 67, p. 91)
after citing yeshayahu 40:3-5 the mdirash continues "qol qore' amar r'
[levi] lama bamidbar alla benohag shebaolam mi shehaya beyado margalit
ve'ibbedah heikhan hu' mevaqqeshah lo bammaqom she'ibbedah, kakh hqb"h
ibbed et yisrael bammidbar shene'emar bammidbar hazzeh yittammu vesham
yamutu. ulsham hu' holekh umvaqqesh qol qore bammidbar."

moshe bernstein

Appropos to our discussion of the tenor of debate between opposing
groups, I thought I'd quote part of an interview with the Chief Rabbi
of Great Britain, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.  The interview appeared in
Hamevaser, Tevet 5759.  I am not writing this in connection with our
discussion of Lubavitch messianism.  I am writing this to show an
example of how someone who disagrees with a position (messianism)
nevertheless deals positively with a group which has been associated
with the position.

<<
Q: How do we deal with the phenomenon of Lubavitch messianism?

A: I can't answer you that question because by and large, in Britain,
the Lubavitch presence is not a messianic presence; I love the
British Chabadniks very much, as I loved the Rebbe, of blessed
memory, very much.  I regarded him as my Rebbe.  Messianism is very
distressing, and your Professor David Berger asked me to be involved
in his protest, and I said to him very candidly, "I have a pastoral
responsibility to the Lubavitch rabbis who work within my community;
it is my job to support them in the trauma they are going through,
and therefore it is not my job to criticize them or attack them." 
And I actually refused. . . . [M]any of the Chabad rabbis, whether
they work or they work independently, have even to this day, been
traumatized by the absence of the Rebbe, and I have to give them
emotional support, and therefore they have to be able to fell that I
see and sympathize with the 99% in Chabad which is a positive force,
and a very positive force.
>>


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

In my posting I stated that the issur in electricity is molid,tikkun and/or boneh (lehalan 
MT"B) Activating the device is the issur, i.e., imbuing the device with the ability to fulfill 
its function. 

RYGB made a gigantic deductive leap from my generality to a specific case and 
wrote:

>L'or our modern understanding of electricity and electronics, succinctly
>summarized here, I think it is fair to state that if your clock radio goes
>off on Shabbos, there is no question that you may turn down the volume,
>provided you do not turn off the radio altogether, nor cause any lights to
>go on or off.

RYGB's basis is evidently that turning down the volume is a change in an operating 
device and so not a creative act of MT"B.

I think there is a big gap between my klal and his prat that would need filling in.   First 
do we consider only the device as a unit or do we have to examine sub-assemblies 
and components for MT"B.  For example, RShZ"A (Kovetz Ma'amarim p. 23) states 
that he believes that the Hazon Ish would consider the connection of a refrigerator to 
the  electric outlet to be boneh as this is what "creates" the device's ability to fulfill its 
function. But the
refrigerator motor going on and off to maintain proper temperature is simply shimush 
of an existing device. ('AK"D)

The stopping and starting of the motor is simply normal refrigerator operation, but is  
there MT"B of the motor as a motor.  Similarly, changing radio volume is not MT"B of 
the radio.  But is there MT"B of some internal component?
 

During his ramble, R' Rich Wolfe questions :

>Warning: A bit of rambling... 
>Hypothetical Question #1: Rabbi XYZ becomes a physicist and via modern tehcnical
>advances realizes that electricity is totally different from Aish.  Now what?  
>Do we alter halocho?  Does the matter become re-open for discussion?

I seem to be quoting R' ShZ Auerbach whenever I post to Avodah, this time from p. 54 
of the same  K"M.  After an explanation of why he believes (in theory) that answering a 
telephone call should not be assur he states "But what can I do, kvar hora zaken, the 
Gaon R' Yitzhak Shmelkes in his Shu"t Bet Yitzhak..."  He also quotes from Tzitz 
Eliezer who quotes from the Bet Yitzhak's son in law who wanted to permit but didn't 
because kvar yatza le-issur.  

In other words, to go back to the beginning of this thread, without going into halakhic 
questions such as esh MT"B or other issurim, the ban on electricity  is at the least a 
minhag 
that has been generally accepted (and cannot be proven to be a minhag shtut or 
against  halakha).  And there is no method to amend or repeal a universally accepted 
minhag. The term "universal" does not include Conservative, Reform or mechalelei 
Shabbat who, today, make up the majority of 'Am Yisrael.

biv'rakha,

David

--- D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net> wrote:
> I seem to be quoting R' ShZ Auerbach whenever I post to Avodah,
> this time from p. 54 
> of the same  K"M.  After an explanation of why he believes (in
> theory) that answering a 
> telephone call should not be assur he states "But what can I do,
> kvar hora zaken, the 
> Gaon R' Yitzhak Shmelkes in his Shu"t Bet Yitzhak..."  He also
> quotes from Tzitz 
> Eliezer who quotes from the Bet Yitzhak's son in law who wanted to
> permit but didn't 
> because kvar yatza le-issur.  
> 
> In other words, to go back to the beginning of this thread, without
> going into halakhic 
> questions such as esh MT"B or other issurim, the ban on electricity
>  is at the least a 
> minhag 
> that has been generally accepted (and cannot be proven to be a
> minhag shtut or 
> against  halakha).  And there is no method to amend or repeal a
> universally accepted 
> minhag. The term "universal" does not include Conservative, Reform
> or mechalelei 
> Shabbat who, today, make up the majority of 'Am Yisrael.

I agree that if a minhag has been accepted by klal yisrael (as you
correctly define it), then we cannot uproot it.  However, if a
mistaken psak was accepted, once the correct facts are established, I
don't see why we cannot uproot the psak.  In the case at hand, it was
mistakenly believed initially that electricity is aish. 
Consequently, electricity was prohibited on Shabbos.  Today, we know
this not to be the case.  So, why not reverse the psak?  Moreover, we
are not talking about reversing a psak that is hundreds of years old.
 Surely, we have examples of rishonim and achronim who reversed older
psakim which were based on erroneous information.

Here's an analogy.  When I was growing up, I didn't brush my teeth on
Shabbos because I was told it was assur.  Most people I know don't
brush their teeth on Shabbos.  When I was in Rav Hershel Schachter's
shiur (or perhaps somewhat before, when my roomate was in his shiur),
I was told that R. Schachter & R. Soloveitchik believed that it was
permitted and not memarei'ach (see Nefesh Harav for a discussion).  I
went through the sources and now brush my teeth on Shabbos. 
Interestingly, (as I recall) Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss believes that
brushing teeth is uvdah d'chol.  I haven't seen the tshuvah recently,
but as I recall, it sounded that to him tooth brushing is not
shabbosdik because it's completely foreign to shabbos--it's just not
done (like electrical use).  Obviously, Rav Soloveitchik didn't buy
such reasoning.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]