Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 190

Sunday, August 29 1999

• Midgets criticising giants:Insiders vs Outsiders
• Objectivity in History
• Cheit as ratzon Hashem
• ein reshus l'isha l'daber bifnei ish
• Re: Avodah V3 #189
• Re: Preventing the preventer and Hendel's fans
• Reading newspapers
• Nakdimon be Gurion/Joshua
• Peer review
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V3 #189
• Rav Zevin
• Re: your mail
• Re: Cheit as ratzon Hashem
• Re: Midgets criticising giants

Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I agree that I am a consumate outsider (I rather relish that position,
> actually, because an insider is beholden to whatever he or she is
> inside, whereas an outsider, an "other" is, by definition, not.  Somebody
> I know made a comment about the Benei Banim - that he "calls them as
> he sees them", and he attributed that to the fact that he learnt only from
> his grandfather, and hence is not beholden to any yeshiva system.  I
> suspect there is probably a lot of truth to that.  I tend to think that being
> a certain kind of outsider actually gives one a vantage point to view
> proceedings "the watcher on the caste iron balcony" if you like,  which
> an insider does not have, but be that as it may).

Being an outsider does give a different perspective but one
which is not
necessarily accurate or useful. There have been/are  a number
of talmidei
chachomim/poskim who are not highly respected because they are
viewed as outsiders
who don't have mesorah of any recognizable group. Their
sensitivities are
different and consequently the weighting they give to
information does not
resonate well. A talmid chachom's  job is to facilitate the
continuity of
yiddishkeit. Someone who never went to yeshiva (and/or has not
mastered an
accepted mesorah) is not likely to be able to function as a
link in mesorah - no
matter how technically skilled he is at quoting and analyzing
material. This is
one (of many) issues connected to Rabbi Steinzaltz. An example
of "objective"
outsiders are the works of David Landau *Piety and Power* and
Samuel Heilman
*World of the Yeshiva*. Neither of them have accurately
captured the subject they
wrote about - though there is definitely an overlap. This is
also the problem of
the Bal Tshuva. His job is not only to master the material but
must learn the
deviations from the rules - he must learn when it is
appropriate to be wrong.
Similar to the electronic production of drum sounds. The
engineers had to
introduce errors so that it sounded right. A master musician
needs to know more
than accurately reading the notes.

Rav Baruch Epstein - the Torah Temima - was also somewhat of an
outsider in the
sense that he didn't have the rhythm quite right. Rabbi Nosson
Sherman told me [I
asked him about the statement that the Rambam made mistakes]
that there is no
question that  the Makor Baruch is an accurate description of
what Rav Epstein
recalls hearing and experiencing - nevertheless his statements
have to be
carefully read to be understood properly because his language
tends towards
hyperbole. On a side note - while *My Uncle the Netziv* is
often cited as an
example of heavy handed censorship there is more to the story.
When Rav Schach was
told about the controversy He is reported to have said, "I
don't understand the
problem. Makor Baruch is a standard work that yeshiva bachorim
have always read".
The turmoil apparently occurred at a much lower level.

This leads to another phenomenon. There is often a difference
between the middle
level talmid chachom and the gedolim on issues.
A gadol can be isolated by a group of hopefully well meaning
talmidei chachom -
who "know" what the gadol should hear and what the gadol should
reply. For example
I was told that certain gedolim wanted to meet with a group of
doctors concerning
controversial medical issues - their gabboim told them they
didn't "really want to
meet" and the conference was canceled. I was in the car with
Rav Elyashiv a number
of years ago when he was asked about the public pronouncements
of various Orthodox
rabbinic organization concerning giving back certain parts of
the West Bank. He
said" Well no one has asked me". Sometimes - gedoloim are also
outsiders.

> I am suggesting differently  - that is, knowledge itself does not
> demonstrate anything one way or the other.  The question is, how was
> that knowledge acquired?  Remember, in R' Daniel's son's world, the
> "average"  yeshiva bochur/kollelnik (regardless of yeshiva) does not
> have access to such information.  It is only the select elite within the
> yeshiva who do.

Let me add some more factors. As Rabbi Bechhofer has stated  -
a prime factor in
knowledge is the desire to know. The desire, however, does not
lead automatically
to knowledge.  There is the issue of the availability of the
information. There is
a much greater chance of finding someone with the answer in a
place like Ponevezh.
Contrary to the impression that Chana seems to have gotten from
my previous
posting - it doesn't mean that there is a committee that
evaluates whether someone
one will be allowed into the inner sanctum and given  the
password to the secret
data base. Often the information is obtained from a bachur who
might be the
grandchild or nephew of a gadol.

What happens if a bachur has a question?. He might get the
answer and than again
it might be perceived that it is better to tell him that" a ben
Torah doesn't ask
those type of questions". The elite are those who not only have
a interest in
information but  have a sensitivity to the meta issues and thus
recognize a
question. Furthermore they know as well how and when and whom
to ask. They are
therefore much  more likely to be answered or steered to
sources of information
than the outsider - as well as told information they hadn't
thought to ask about.
An outsider is more likely to accept the rosy picture as well
as not be aware that
there is more to the story. The elite build up information
which thus provides
opportunities and justification for more information. The
outsider is ignored or
labeled as a troublemaker or apikorus for even thinking to ask
for certain types
of information. As another of my sons said - the intelligent
student soon learns
not to ask the mashgiach any meaningful questions. When I asked
what a mashgiach
is for he said that in Israel "A mashgiach is a person who is
hired by the yeshiva
so that the students know what happens when a person doesn't
study enough". In sum
- someone who is going somewhere has his questioned answered
and is steered to
opportunities to develop this information. An interested
outsider can also acquire
some esoteric knowledge but is more like to being given the run
around or simply
not have the opportunity to talk with someone who knows.
Sometimes the insider
gets his information from an academic source or newspaper but
he than has a chance
of clarifying it with sources within the yeshiva. Again my
point was that the
existence of Artscroll biographies and laws of lashon harah
does not meant that
those who have need to know are denied the information (SEE
Letters of Chazon Ish
Vol II #133).

A few years ago - I participated in a conference of frum
psychotherapists which
was addressed by a well known talmid chachom. The issue was
raised concerning
domestic violence in the Orthodox community. The problem was
the rationalizations
sometimes expressed by a client for abusing his wife. Someone
mentioned a source
which seemed to justify it. The rav skillfully explained why
that interpretation
was wrong. I - then asked- "what about the Terumas Hadeshen?
The rav  - when he
saw I wasn't backing down  -  simply attacked me personally. He
said that I was
obviously someone who got his information from computer
searches and thus was
incapable of reading the material properly. He went on and on
to make sure that
everyone knew I was incompetent. Now the fact is I knew what I
was talking about -
and he could have simply explained why it was not relevant 
halacha l'maaseh. The
rav could have also simply said - he would talk to me privately
- but chose
instead to attack me because he perceived me as challenging his
authority by not
fitting into the accepted pattern of what is publicly
acceptable conduct. This had
happened before - when I was a freshman studying Judo. The
instructor was  a
Korean professor with a double Ph.D in physics and engineering
as well as a black
belt in Judo and Karate. He chose me to demonstrate a maneuver
which involves
doing a backward somersault while tossing your opponent over
your head. He grabbed
by uniform did a backward roll - but forgot to break my
balance. He was left
hanging upside down - holding on to my lapels - in front of the
whole group ( He
was about a 8 inches shorter than me). His response was not
"Gee I really botched
that one - lets try again". He demonstrated his superiority by
simply applying a
strangle hold which instantly caused me to collapse.
I eventually got the Terumas HaDeshen explained - by other
talmidei chachomim  who
don't view me as an outsider.

> In any event, as I previously mentioned, the only person on this list who
> could tell us with any kind of certainty of the view from Ponavitch is R'
> Daniel  via his son, and he appears to have clammed up for the moment.

Anyone who wants to learn more - the internet discussions are
not the place. My
son is willing to discuss the issue of information flow - but
doesn't have the
time to produce a coherent comprehensive description or have
any interest in
tossing off some generalizations. Anyone interested in
discussing the issue with
my son can contact me when they are in Israel.

                               Daniel Eidensohn

Shaul Weinreb writes:

> I am not a great defender of artscroll, but to make this claim requires
> more concrete examples.  I am tantalized by your suggestions and I would
> love to have another example of historical revisionism in the "right-wing"
> publishing camp, but I can't accept this without verification.

Do you own the Artscroll biography of R. Moshe Feinstein? Which 
edition? Which edition, you might ask? What a silly question! 
Actually, it isn't a silly question. Open the book to Page 141. In the 
first edition, there is picture of R. Moshe shaking hands with R. 
Aaron Kotler, with R. Yosef Dov Soloveichik sitting between them. 
The caption reads (I own the first edition), "Greeting Rabbi Aharon 
Kotler at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner; in the center is YIVLAC"H 
Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Rabbi 
Yitzchak Elchonon." In the later editions, you will not find Rav 
Soloveichik - his picture has been cropped out.

I have learned a lot of history about recent Gdolim from Artscroll. I 
have also learned to take what they write with a grain of salt.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Ksiva vaChasima Tova (or Ktiva vaChatima Tova, depending
on your preference). May you be inscribed and sealed in 
the books of life, health and happiness.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

M'inayana d'yoma: I have never understood R' Tzaddok's hagdara (Tzidkas 
HaTzaddik #40, #179) that through tshuva one can appreciate that cheit is 
also an expression of ratzon Hashem.

While defining cheit as ratzon Hashem solves the age old philosophical 
question of man's ability to defy the will of G-d, it leaves other serious 
philosphical problems in its wake.  How can not eating chazir be the ratzon 
Hasem as defined by the Torah and at the same time my eating chazir be a 
fufillment of  ratzon Hashem?  

Shavua tov, 

-Chaim

' mikan she'ein r'shut l'isha l'daber bifnei ha'ish'

Someone suggested that Rashi is a din in court cases only.  See Torah Temimah 
who  understands it as an extension of the general deference a woman must 
show to her husband/father (Rambam Ishus 15:20).  

Intrestingly, the specific din is not codified by Rambam or cited in Shas.  

I believe that another example of ArtScroll's tendency to translate a sefer 
to suit an ideological agenda is its treatment of Rav Zevin Ztl's work Ha 
Moadim BHalacha. R Zevin wrote that Hakamas HaMedina might be a sufficient 
basis for suspending the status of "arei yehuda bchurbana" and the neccessity 
for kriyah. ArtScroll deleted a comment by R Zevin (asreinu szachinu lchach!) 
and responded by claiming that R Zevin "changed " his mind. ArtScroll offered 
no basis for this comment , despite the fact this classic sefer had  been 
reprinted many times from 1956 to 1983 without any changes to the text.       
                  Zeliglaw@aol.com(Steven Brizel)

R' RJHendel writes:
>David Bannett nicely threw out my use of PREVENTING THE
>PREVENTOR. 

>:If David is away for awhile and no one else answers
>I will repost this.

Answering the last thing first: No need to repost. I'm back.

And now to the first:  I don't think you should throw out preventing the preventer.  I 
wrote sources to make you throw out "removal of the preventer".  I stated that you 
confused two things.  Removal of...  is hassarat moneya' preventing the... is mni'at 
ha-moneya'. As we now both agree to remove the removal of.. argument, You can't 
prevent me from finally going on to the mh"m argument

In my posting I asked why the Sh"A needs to tell us that it is permitted to close the 
window if we don't want to let the wind blow out the lamp. If someone wants to 
extinguish a light and I stop him from doing it what possible Shabbat issur did I 
perform?

As no one has commented, I'll have to do it myself.

When the wind is blowing on the lamp, the flame is blown to the side.  In the oil lamp 
of chazal, when the flame is blown away from the wick,  the resulting lack of fuel 
makes the flame smaller.  In a wax candle the flame blown aside melts more wax thus 
making the flame larger.  In both cases, when the window is closed to prevent new 
wind from entering, the flame will straighten up and return to its normal size. Both 
increase and decrease of the flame are obviously forbidden on Shabbat.  But the Sh"A 
275 tells us that this is permitted!  

The wind was preventing the flame from being its normal size.  Closing the window 
prevents new wind from continuing this preventive action and so the flame does what 
it wanted to do all the time, i.e., be normal.  IOW, we are told that it is mutar to 
prevent the wind from preventing the flame.  And the Sh"A Harav adds that this is not 
even gram hav'ara. This is very different from the removal of preventer which is a 
ma'aseh and even with koach sheni is grama. One could say that, like in English 
grammar, a double negative is positive.

I believe this explanation is a hiddush of Reb Levi Yitzhak Halperin the head of the 
Institute for Science and Halakha in Jerusalem. He uses meni'at ha-moneya  to 
perform normally forbidden actions when necessary on Shabbat.

I know you asked three more questions, some of which I can comment on, but will 
leave it for tomorrow. This is enuff for one posting, so digest it and iy"H we can 
continue soon.

> I have been told by one of the "older" (i.e., pre-revisionist) 
> talmidim from Yeshivat Chaim Berlin, that Rav Hutner suggested that the
> talmidim of the Yeshiva to read the New York Times on a regular basis
and listen to WQXR Radio (the classical music station of the NY Times,
for you non-New Yorkers)
	I also understand that although he himself read newspapers on a regular
basis,  he did not want that fact to be publicized.  I wonder why.

	In any event,  I think we also need to realize that newspapers,  even
that one with all the news that fits,  are not what they used to be, 
particularly since the Clinton scandals.  I would never have thought that
I could not bring the Times into my house,  but I stopped my subscription
at that time.  Same for "all news" radio.  

	Rav Aharon Kotler z"l is quoted as describing something offensive as
being as "full of znus as the Morgen Journal" which was a fairly
innocuous Yiddish newspaper.  So I guess it depends on your point of
view.

Gershon

In the recent daf yomi the Gemara describes the miracles done for
Nakdimin ben Gurion. The implication is that it was already night
and that the sun reversed its course and became day again. In terms
of physics this would require the world to reverse its direction of
spin. All this accomplished without the world feeling any of the
momentous shearing forces.

As Micha pointed out G-d is capable of anything. The point is that on the
level of natural phenomena this was a greater violation of nature than
any of the miracles that happened to Moshe. The Gemara indicates that
a similar miracle indeed did happen to Moshe but was not recording.
The gemara learns this by gexara shava betwwen Moshe and sefer Yehoushua,
which by itself is unusual to use a gezerah shava outside of chumash.
Thus, the greatest of all miracles is given explicitly for Joshua
but onlu hinted at for Moshe and then reappears for Nakdimon.

Dov Shwartz has an article in Daat, 42:33-62 winter tet-shin-nun-tet
about debates whether  the story of the sun standing for Joshua should
be taken literally or as a methaphor. I will attempt to give a short
summary and the interested reader can read the article.

1. In the geonic region Ibn Gaktila says the story is not literal
   and is attacked for this by Ibn Balam. Rav Saadaiah Gaon also
   understands the story literally.

   Later R. Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon attacks some anonymous individual
   for asserting that the story is a parable. He too insists that the
   pesukim be understtod literally.

2. Ibn Ezra (Devarim 32:4) is ambigous and refers to his coomentary on
   Joshua which is no longer extant.
   Rambam (Moreh 2:32) is also unclear. The poisition of both of these
   are debated bt later generations.

3. Ralbag (Milchamot Hashem 6:2:12) is the clearest in insisting that
   the sun stading for Joshua is a parable. He insista that miracles
   cannot change nature, especially in the heavens and furthermore,
   there is no necessity for such a great miracle.

4. Ralbag's poisition was debated in the generations following his sefer
   especially by Franko and Altabiv (14th century).

5. Later generation also attacked Ralbag, for instance,
   Arama (Akedat Yitzchak Shaar 13).

6. This also got involved in general debates about miracles, and Rambam.
   Rambam says that the difference between Moshe and others is in the
   continuity of the miracles (Man lasted for 40 years) and in its
   strength and public nature, like Maamad har Sinai.
   Moshe's miracles were "le-enei kol yisrael".
   Ramban disagrees and says other prophets did miracles that were just
   as public, for example Elijah, and the sun standing for Joshua.
   Ritva, seems to defend Rambam.
   Alshakar also defends Rambam from attacks by Shem Tov.


7. R. Chisdai Krashkash also insists that Moshe's miracles were unique
   in their number, publicness and continuity. However, he insists that
   the sun standing for Joshua does not contradict this (or hashem 2:5:3).
   He seems to explain that the sun merely slowed down in its cycle.
   (However, this seems based on ancient physics of how the sun moves).

    Abarbanel, on Joshua, attacks this and insists that the sun actually
   stopped in its cycle and not merely appeared behind schedule.
   Abarbanel, insists on accepting the literal meaning of the pesukim.

8. There is a medrash that the sun stood for Joshua for 36 hours from
   before shabbat until after motzei shabbat.
   According to this medrash shabbat began and ended even though the
   sun never set (Is this used in the discussion of shabbat above the
   arctic circle?).
   It aslo implies that other parts of the world were in darkness for
   36 hours which is certainly not described in any legends of other
   nations.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

> 
> Ah, but let us not forget one of the reasons "My Uncle the Netziv" was
> "banned"! Because the Netziv says the Rambam made mistakes because he
> wrote in isolation, without "peer review". V'dai l'chakima.
> 
I remember that when I was in Rav Soloveitchik's shiur he mentioned
a few times that Tosaphot were clearer than Rambam because they were
roshei yeshivot who had to contend with students while Rambam did not.
He did not talk about mistakes but clearly prefered the ways of tosaphot.

Eli Turkel

R YGB writes 
<< Furthermore, the reality is that most of the "finds" that people like RJJS
publicize, including the Volozhin and Netziv stuff, is well known to all
of us, as to all members of the Yeshiva world. Stuff like R' dessler
reading secular material, while the specific tract might not have been
known, was generally known, and, that Agudah Gedolim used ot paricipate in
Mizrachi events is also old hat. >>

I think this is very unfair to RJJS. The whole purpose of the articles
is to justify all his claims with historical proofs. When someone
on this list makes an anti-Artscroll remark everyone jumps on him
to justify his remarks. When RJJS justifies his remarks he is attacked,
that we already knew that. Can't have it both ways.

Besides, RJJS in his article on Volozhin traces back the remarks that
Volozhin was closed because the Russian government wanted to 
introduce secular studies back to Rav Chaim Berlin!! Hence, saying the
stuff is well known is far from obvious. It could just be the word of
Rav Bar Ilan versus his brother Rav Chaim Berlin. Hence, RJJS brings
other proofs to justify his stand.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 8/28/1999 4:04:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< I would love to have another example of historical revisionism in the 
"right-wing"
 publishing camp, but I can't accept this without verification. >>

Here is another Artscroll example: In the Hebrew edition of Rav Shlomo 
Zevin's "Moadim B\eHalacha" he writes on p. 442: "The poskim write: The 
destruction of cities in Yehudah means that A"kum have dominion over them. It 
is obvious that with the liberation of the Judean cities from gentile 
dominion and with the emergence of the State of Israel (Fortunate are we for 
having merited this) the law of keriah over these cities is no longer 
appliacable." (my translation)

But in the translated Artscroll edition "The Festivals in Halachah" p. 294 
the words "with the emergence of the State of Israel (Fortunate are we for 
having merited this)" aredeleted without any explanation as to why and 
without any hint to the reader as to the fact that a deletion from the 
original was made. Now, this being the case, and in the absence of any 
further clarification from the publishers it is a safe assumption that we are 
dealing with historical revisionism.

chaim wasserman

Teo of our chaverim cited the following passage from Ha'Mo'adim B'Halacha
(hMbH) as "proof" of Artscroll's historical revisionism. I beg to differ. 
While RCSherer's notice of a change in picture in the Artscroll "R'
Moshe", purpotedly a historical text, may well be rvisionism, this is not. 

Artscroll, IMHO, is, in fact, to be commended for having deleted this line
from hMbH.

The translation of hMbH is not meant to be a historical analysis of R'
Shlomo Yosef Zevin (RSYZ)'s perspectives and views. It would be harmful to
RSYZ's image in the unsophisticated narrow-minded segment (UNMS) of the
right-wing community (a small, but vocal segment, very similar to the UNMS
of the left wing community :-) ) - much the way the publication of the
SE's letters in th TUMJ was - to detail RSYZ's Lubavitch/Mizrachi
connections (much the way the publication of R' Chaim Ozer Grodzhenski's
letter discouraging the Hildesheimer Seminary's move to Tel Aviv in 1934 -
while not assur as the publication of the SE's letters has, nevertheless -
harmed his image in UNMS of the left).

So, we are left with the question, what serves the greater purpose of
Avodas Hashem - to publish hMbH with the line that will not educate the
UNMS of the right, but, more likely, turn them off and casue them to
repudiate RSYZ and his works, or to publish the 99.99999999% of the work
that will educate them, open them up to RSYZ's ge'onus and tzidkus, and,
perhaps, lead some to expand their horizon in the works of RSYZ, this and
others, till graudally they are open to assimilating more and more of
RSYZ's perspectives.

Which do you think RSYZ himself would have preferred? 

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 Chaimwass@aol.com wrote:

> Here is another Artscroll example: In the Hebrew edition of Rav Shlomo
> Zevin's "Moadim B\eHalacha" he writes on p. 442: "The poskim write: The
> destruction of cities in Yehudah means that A"kum have dominion over
> them. It is obvious that with the liberation of the Judean cities from
> gentile dominion and with the emergence of the State of Israel
> (Fortunate are we for having merited this) the law of keriah over these
> cities is no longer appliacable." (my translation) 
> 
> But in the translated Artscroll edition "The Festivals in Halachah" p.
> 294 the words "with the emergence of the State of Israel (Fortunate are
> we for having merited this)" aredeleted without any explanation as to
> why and without any hint to the reader as to the fact that a deletion
> from the original was made. Now, this being the case, and in the absence
> of any further clarification from the publishers it is a safe assumption
> that we are dealing with historical revisionism. 
> 

YGB

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

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I think this is very unfair to RJJS. The whole purpose of the articles
> is to justify all his claims with historical proofs. When someone on
> this list makes an anti-Artscroll remark everyone jumps on him to
> justify his remarks. When RJJS justifies his remarks he is attacked,
> that we already knew that. Can't have it both ways. 
> 

Funny, I perceived our list as biased towards RJJS and ilk and against
Artscroll and ilk :-).

> Besides, RJJS in his article on Volozhin traces back the remarks that
> Volozhin was closed because the Russian government wanted to introduce
> secular studies back to Rav Chaim Berlin!! Hence, saying the stuff is
> well known is far from obvious. It could just be the word of Rav Bar
> Ilan versus his brother Rav Chaim Berlin. Hence, RJJS brings other
> proofs to justify his stand. 
>

RJJS is entitled to write anything he wants (within limitations, of
course, as for example, it was not permissible to publish the SE's letters
:-) ). It is to publicize that this is intentionally "repressed"  or
"revised" history that is wrong. This is doubly a case in point:

1. Because the alternate history was well known well before RJJS "found"
it.

2. Because R' Chaim Berlin - who could, legitimately, be expected to know
much more about the closing of Volozhin that R' Meir Bar Ilan - being much
older at the time - had stated that Volozhin was closed because the Netziv
would not introduce secular studies.

YGB

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

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> While defining cheit as ratzon Hashem solves the age old philosophical
> question of man's ability to defy the will of G-d, it leaves other
> serious philosphical problems in its wake.  How can not eating chazir be
> the ratzon Hasem as defined by the Torah and at the same time my eating
> chazir be a fufillment of ratzon Hashem? 
>

Why is this any more difficult than the asra of R' Eliezer versus the rest
of the halachic world vis a vis korsim eitzim la'asos pechamim...? 

YGB

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

RYGB wrote <<< Information flows to those interested, and those
interested flow to the sources of information. Thus, for example, already
at the age of 17 in Sha'alvim I knew that R' Meir Bar Ilan said that the
Netziv did introduce secular studies in Volozhin. I did not have to wait
for RJJS's big "find" much later. Yet, I wager, many people who were at
the same discussion where the Rosh Yeshiva talked about this interesting
historical tidbit immediately forgot it - because most people couldn't
care less! The elite is defined, therefore, by those who want to know -
they seek out the information, and, more importantly, retain it. >>>

I agree that those who want to know seek out the information, and then
when they find it, they will retain it. But there is an important step
between those two, which I think you are missing.

Namely, ACCESS to the information. Will they know where to look? And if
they stumble upon a source, will that source be willing to share the
information?

For example, a typical person who wants to know the real story of what
went on with secular studies in Volozhin -- Who will he ask? Where will
he go? Specifically: How did you come across that tidbit at age 17, and
do you think that other 17-year-old are capable of doing the same? Or
perhaps, being a student at a prominent Hesder yeshiva, you simply
accepted a different piece of propaganda than is being fed to the
students at the Agudah yeshivos? (The point I am making is that everyone
at all yeshivos is fed the official party line, and NOT everyone has
access to more complete versions of the stories.)

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.

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


[ 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         ]