Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 205
Wednesday, September 8 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:04:41 -0400
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
Subject: Hendel's Fan
I thank David Bannett for his posting--BUT HE DIDN"T ANSWER
MY MAIN QUESTION which is
>If we throw away from electricity
>>>>>>fire
>>>>>>light
>>>>>>circuit completion
is there any issur Torah.
In particular if I remove a shield that runs a hand held solar operated
small fan (no problem of sparks) is it Mootar.
Russell Hendel;
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
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.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:10:53 +0300
From: Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>
Subject: torture
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEF9E2.6F9FAFF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling forbidding the use of physical
force (torture) in Shabak investigations:
Has anyone seen anything about the permissibility of using torture? I would
submit that saying "its permitted if it saves lives" is a bit too loose to
be practical. Is it permitted if the goal is not to save a life but say to
extract critical information about the Hamas infrastructure? Is it permitted
if the suspect is Jewish? (should thre be a difference at all) Is it
permitted when the torturers don't care about halacha? If one assumes that
if torture is permitted in situations where there is a "ticking bomb" then
inevitably it will be used in situations where there isn't a "ticking bomb"
(a very good assumption IMHO) - can it be permitted?
Ben Waxman
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEF9E2.6F9FAFF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>torture</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling forbidding =
the use of physical force (torture) in Shabak investigations:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Has anyone seen anything about the permissibility of =
using torture? I would submit that saying "its permitted if =
it saves lives" is a bit too loose to be practical. Is it =
permitted if the goal is not to save a life but say to extract critical =
information about the Hamas infrastructure? Is it permitted if the =
suspect is Jewish? (should thre be a difference at all) Is it =
permitted when the torturers don't care about halacha? If one =
assumes that if torture is permitted in situations where there is a =
"ticking bomb" then inevitably it will be used in situations =
where there isn't a "ticking bomb" (a very good assumption =
IMHO) - can it be permitted?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ben Waxman </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEF9E2.6F9FAFF0--
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:29:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: More on R'RJH's fan and questions
In v3n204, David Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net> writes:
: We must first differentiate between koach sheni and koach kocho. The example
: from the Rambam is where the stone hit a fruit which then hit the baby. Note
: that the stone finished its job when it hit the fruit. The fruit continues on
: by itself without additional help from the stone and acted on a third party.
: This is koach sheni.
: If the stone was still necessary for the fruit to act, i.e., it continues to
: push the fruit ahead of it, this would be koach kocho.
David then speak on whether is is "dependent on the initial force", and the
word "force" in context of the Rambam raises flags in my head. The Rambam's
physics was that of Aristotle, not Newton. (See v2n25 or v3n126 where I
touch on the impact of this on his notion of "mal'ach" -- making the same
point twice. Sorry.)
To summarize: A taught that action starts with an intellect that imparts
impetus to an object. The object then moves until the impetus is exhausted.
(So they didn't need to invoke air drag or other forms of friction as we
do to explain the loss of momentum.)
Here, when the Rambam talks about his koach vs. a second koach, it is quite
likely he's using "koach" to mean impetus. Therefore, the Rambam applies a
test from Aristotilean physics to see if the impetus carried by the second
object (the fruit) is the same impetus the person gave the fruit, or one
caused by that first impetus. Since impetus doesn't split, if there is still
impetus in the first object, the impetus of the second object must be a
new one.
Whether this "bad physics" renders the Rambam's position less authoritative
is a bone of contention I'd rather not pick up yet again.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:41:28 EDT
From: MSDratch@aol.com
Subject: 600,000
Someone sent this question to me. Any suggestions on how to respond?
Thanks,
Mark Dratch
"In the time that the Torah describes for the Exodus, the land of Goshen
where the jewish people lived (parshas Vae'ira 8:22, 9:26), not including
the mixed multitude, was approximately 38 miles long x 3 miles wide.
In parshas Bamidbar 2:32, the men of israel over 20 are counted,
amounting to 603,000+, except for the Levite men. the number of firstborn
sons numbered in 3:43 is 22,273. I just want to have all the numbers in
one place for easy reference for both of us.
through out most of history, the land of goshen has not been hospitable.
According to every rabbi I have inquired of, the estimate for the number
of the whole people, excluding the mixed multitude who were not (or not
yet), Israelites, is about 3 million or more. the area of the land, even
if it were lush with vegetation, is a little small for a group of such
size to sustain itself, as well as those non-israelite Egyptians who would
undoubtedly be living there. At the time, egypt had a population of about
5 million people. if the population of the people israel ALONE numbered 3
million, NOT including all the other enslaved peoples (here, there is
even an issue as to the meaning of "slave", as used for the israelites),
Egyptians, etc., there would be some indication of their presence and
subsequent absence, not the minor allusions that the archaeologists have
pieced together (and decided the people israel, if they even existed
outside of Canaan, were little more than a large band). they would be the
large majority of the population! One rabbi, after I had told him about
this complication, also mentioned that several MORE million Israelites
STAYED in Mitzraim! I would like to know how this is resolved, hopefully
including sources and archaeological sources as well if possible.
the next issue is a matter of math and birthrates. there is, in
most cases, a 50/50 chance in firstborn children will be male or female.
given the number of firstborn sons, there would have to be about 44,546
mothers among the people israel, only the first born of the mother being
counted. which would mean that, speaking, only one in every 14 women were
mothers. the ratio on average for firstborn sons in any given male
population is 1/4; here it would be 1/45. Each MARRIED man would have
fathered roughly 39-44 sons. this poses an obvious problem for us now, and
a rather painful one for 1 in 14 women then! I would like to see how this
is resolved. thank you"
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:49:45 -0400
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject: Re:Subject: Missing Words Vs Letters in The Torah
RRhendel writes that:
<Mechy asserted that the meaning of "we have the same torah today"
refers to the words ???> and <Mechy asks some questions and they should be
answered. 1) But how can Prophecy have errors...2) But you are assuming a
miracle?
So are you. You are assuming we WILL never lose a word and I am assuming
that the error rate will never become too high. We each have an assumption.
Why is yours better than mine3) What about the present errrors?..>
Without re-entering the issue, I nowhere "ask" any of the above questions
attributed to me above, nor ever "asserted" those that are brought in
quotes. these are entirely R Russel's formulations. he is more than free to
pose questions and answer them in a way he personally finds satisfying -
but not attribute them to me or attribute assumptions which i have not
assumed. perhaps R Russel is confusing me with some other poster? indeed i
was at some pains, because of an earlier misreading, to emphasize that i was
not sharing my personal views on these matters. the only point, such as it
was, of the brief note i submitted on data transmission accuracy, was
focused on the irony of championing the very notion of perfect accuracy
which then required giving the qodosh boruch hu a human allowance for error,
while still allowing Him to stay within R Russel's specs for "perfection".
the fallacy was in the championing of such a notion in the first place. i
guess irony is not always the most transparent of literary forms.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil H: (3010 593-3949
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:45:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Daf Yomi Shiur Sought
One of the chaverim in my Daf Yomi shiur here in Chicago will be in the
Rechavia/Sha'arei Chesed area on and around Succos time. He would like to
attend a shiur, preferably in English, but Hebrew is OK (not Yiddish).
Really tough: Some days Chol Ha'Moed he will be in Teveriah. Same
parameters.
Any help greatly appreciated!
KVCT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Toward a Definition of Chumra (was: of Psak)
RYGB asks <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> of me:
:> I make this point because from this perspective the "Chumrah of the
:> Month Club" and Conservative Judaism aren't all that far apart. In both
:> cases people are seeking a particular answer from halachah and will even
:> follow a da'as yachid if it gives them the opportunity to do so. If the
:> chumros are even mostly but impurely lisheim Shamayim that is
:> Conservativism.
: What about when the "Chumra of the Month Club" adopts one that is not a
: da'as yachid, but many members of Am Yisroel (including, in these cases,
: myself) are lenient regarding, for example: Yoshon, Baby Wipes and Opening
: Cans on Shabbos? Where do you draw your lines?
I thought I was clear by the use of the epithet. The CMC are people who
collect chumros not because of the reason behind the particular chumrah,
or because that's what their poseik rules, but because they have a need to
collect chumros.
My guess is that they're motivated by a need to fill a religious
vacuum. Lacking the aish of hislahavus, they feel a void. They try to
quench the need with more das (by which I mean ritual) and more das, but
the basic thirst for d'veikus and temimus remains. So, they collect chumros
ad infinitum (or at least ad mortum, I assume the process doesn't continue
into haOlam ha'Emes).
We won't even speak of the collectors of chumros for image, for "holier than
thou" sake, which I believe is part of the whole subject of yuharah.
This is why I consider it hunting for a p'sak to fill a personal need/desire
-- i.e. Conservatism.
Someone who is lead to the more chamur p'sak because he feels it to be more
correct, or someone who is being machmir on himself lifnim mishuras hadin
because he feels his personal growth requires it, is properly using chumrah
-- and wouldn't be collecting one a month. OTOH, some real introspection
to make sure yuharah isn't involved (even as a miut) is in order as well.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Paskening for oneself
Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes bisheim Rabbi Michael
Rosensweig:
: The brother of the Marahal emphasized that each person
: is different and that is why the Torah was given with shiv'im panim;
: in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai understood something slightly
: different.
I believe this is the idea behind "shishim ribo osios baTorah" (which isn't
even close to literally true).
Continuing bisheim atzmo:
: aderabeh--that the posek should pasken for himself because
: there is value in the posek following his own kabbalat hatorah.
And what about the rest of us? After all, aren't we children of the 600k people
at Har Sinai? Lishitascha, why should anyone go to a poseik since EACH PERSON
has a slightly different kabbalas haTorah?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Gadol vs gedulah
Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> responds to me and writes:
:> Therefore any person who is greater than me
:> by any amount carries corresponding weight -- and it isn't just linearly. He
:> needn't be "a gadol" to have relative gedulah.
: I think the above attitude is an important consideration for each individual -
: but it is clearly not the standard approach in the world or at least not the
: world of the yeshivos. It has the danger of allowing incorrect statements and
: pronouncements becoming standard.
I actually think the yeshiva velt has this very wrong. Which was the entire
point I was stepping in to make. OTOH, the danger you speak of is minimal.
R' Moshe's piskei halachah are still the product of someone with greater
gedulah in p'sak than any of these people in between us on this spectrum.
And, as I said, the effect is non-linear -- the more quantity you know, the
better quality that knowledge has. (Torah isn't just knowing, but knowing how
to think as well.) We aren't giving everyone with s'michah equal or even
comparable authority.
But yes, it allows for a greater variety of pronouncements entering into the
public discussion and possibly becoming standard.
Perhaps this ties into the whole "editing history" discussion (argument?). It
would appear that much of the yeshiva velt has a need to see da'as Torah as
being far more uniform than it really is. I suggest that this also motivates
their need to minimize the number of people they give authority to.
Also, this mentality cripples the neighborhood rav. First, he's no R' Moshe
either, so we're playing down the amount of weight we tell people to give him.
Secondly, he knows he's not R' Moshe, so he doesn't see himself as having
sufficient authority to play the role the kehillah needs him to play.
This then generates another inappropriate use of chumrah: since so few people
are given the authority to pasken, we find more and more rulings based on
"playing safe". Note that this trend (in the US, at least) post-dates R'
Moshe's petirah -- when we have fewer and fewer people one who are obviously
our halachic leadership, who the Yeshiva Velt can consider qualitatively
different!
We also get into subject of who can make this quantum leap from the state
of not-a-gadol into gadlus. This might tie into the lack of clear halachic
leadership in that it creates a system in which few can picture themselves
on the far side of the divide. And those that do are disproportianately the
sons or sons-in-law of gedolim already on the other side of the divide. This
aids both the followers in accepting the new Rosh Yeshiva (as such gedolim
inevitably are, and should be, in a movement based on the Yeshiva) and the
prospective gadol who better knows that the difference is quantitative not
qualitative.
: The statements of Rabbi Kaplan should
: not be treated the same as statement of Rav Hutner or Rav Moshe.
I would agree with this statement. However, saying there's a quantitative
difference is not the same as saying that their authority is different in
kind.
(Actually, it's arguable that bi'inyanei machshavah, R' Kaplan has greater
gedulah than either. OTOH, in terms of p'sak halachah your implied assumption
is incontravertably true. You're comparing apples and oranges. However, since
I've had contact with RAK, and only met RMF once for a fraction of a minute,
I'm bowing out as having negi'ah.)
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Paskening for oneself
--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes bisheim Rabbi
> Michael
> Rosensweig:
> : The brother of the Marahal emphasized that each
> person
> : is different and that is why the Torah was given with shiv'im
> panim;
> : in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai understood something slightly
> : different.
> : aderabeh--that the posek should pasken for himself because
> : there is value in the posek following his own kabbalat hatorah.
>
> And what about the rest of us? After all, aren't we children of the
> 600k people
> at Har Sinai? Lishitascha, why should anyone go to a poseik since
> EACH PERSON
> has a slightly different kabbalas haTorah?
>
Ayn hachi nami--Rabbi Rosensweig told me that provided that I'm on
the level that I understand the halacha, I should pasken for myself.
Of course, most people aren't on this level and need to go to a
posek; perhaps they can fulfill the concept of having a different
kabbalat haTorah by choosing a posek who most resonates with them (of
course, that is still inexact).
See also my previous posting regarding "aseh lecha rav" where I
disagree with R. Carl Sherer and posit that Pirkei Avot was not
necessarily telling us to choose a posek, just to choose someone from
whom we learn Torah.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:40:56 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Lower criticism (redux)**2
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
RRW's comments (below) indicate that he is responding to a skewed
understanding of my remarks
===> Indeed this was my original point Mechy, that you skwed MY original marks
(mido keneged mido?)
- perhaps i was not sufficiently clear in their
...
to return to the first quotation - whose personal imputation i rejected
above - RRW, after stringing together questions of talmudic as well as
tanach texts, asked <Didn't the Gro, Bach and Rashi engage in restoring the
proper Girso?>
Well, no. their work on hagohos focused on talmud, not the tanach, and is
thus quite beside the point (btw - I would have added maharshal to that
list). it is surprising that one must even emphasize that there is an
extraordinary theological divide between the two. there is nobody - in the
frum community or without - who has ever suggested that that preservation of
precise orthography or even words which did not affect pishat in the talmud
was all that important, nor was there ever a masoretic enterprise devoted to
recordation and 'fossilization' of a single "uncorrupted" talmudic text. to
raise it in conjunction with tanach severely confuses the whole issue of
"lower criticism" as applied to tanach. one may as well ask one's opinion of
lower criticism of Homer and the bible. acceptance of the former by some
group hardly compels their acceptance of the latter.
===> My original point stated that (1 or several unnmaed) professors at BRGS
accepted lower criticism and you took that statement and applied it to Chumash
and went off on a tangent. I pusposefully left the matter obsucre and did NOT
apply it to Chumash. What I DID say was that the possibility for lower
criticims exists within the confine of halacho or traidtion because one may
interpret the Rambam's ikkar wrt the Torah we have in our hands as applying ONLY
to prohibiting any assumption of tampering of forgering, but that that ikkar was
never meant to address "innocnent" errors.
===> and transcribing the wrong date is anothe case of an iinnocent error ableti
NOT a scribal one. Ein kimro yotzei midei pshuto? Well if the TY (I believe)
tells you that the text is WRONG, that is defacto criticism. The issue of it
the TY attributing it an orignal sin as opposed to a subsequent one is largely
irrevlenat. THE TSBP angle is nice, but the TY seems to be answering a kushyo
and not quoting a mesorah. But notwithsatnding THAT quibble, the point is
simple, up and until the TY's commments HOW was that possuk understood? And I
am guessing as written and as such the TY introudced a cirticism OR refelcted
one made at an earlier date. In order to PROVE this wrong you will have to show
that earlier sources knoew of this criticism and frankly Mechy you will have a
rreally hard time with that one. you are saying chazzoko me'ikkor that if the
TY criticqued the text as in error it knew from day one - possibekl but I say
chazzoko de me'ikkor point out that the text was more tahtn likely read AS IS
until the TY sadi otherwise? Why? Cuase Ezra and Bies Dino when they redacted
nmight have put a kis/krei or a dot or SOMETHING to indicated that the text was
fualty and they did not. I have NOT rfesearhced this, but I'll bet that netihre
Targum Yonasson nor Targum shi'vim addresses it either, so their silence is
definning.
And as I pointed out, if the original text is faulty, it is a kal vochemer that
the TY would accept the possibility of a scribal error, kein nir'e li bekittzur.
I would like to delve into more depth to what you write, but I have not the time
right now.
Bottom line, you objected to my suppoistion that a number of Revel professors
would have accepted lower criticism as valid, I still do not understand the
basis of your objection.
KT,
RW
Mechy Frankel H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel W: (703)325-1277
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:44:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: definition of a ba'al teshuvah
A ba'al mussar is one who defines his yiddishkeit in terms of mussar. It's
the structure that shapes his entire avodah. He sees each mitzvah as an
opportunity to develop himself and his middos.
Similarly, the Chassid (in the Besh"t's sense) defines his entire Yahadus in
terms of the joy of d'veikus. It's the mental construct being used to study
and relate to the entire subject.
By parallel, wouldn't a ba'al teshuvah be someone who defines his yiddiskeit
in terms of teshuvah? Not just someone who is doing, or has done, teshuvah,
but rather someone who uses the concept of teshuvah to provide the framework
for understanding his entire relationship to yiddishkeit.
This also gives us a context in which we can clearly distinguish other types
of ovdei Hashem. (Perhaps even the "ba'al nefesh"?)
To be clear: I'm speaking in archetypes. I doubt there was an actual B"T in
the sense I'm giving here who lived with this approach purely, and did so
his entire life.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:52:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Subject: Re: Paskening for oneself
They said:
> Continuing bisheim atzmo:
> : aderabeh--that the posek should pasken for himself because
> : there is value in the posek following his own kabbalat hatorah.
>
> And what about the rest of us? After all, aren't we children of the 600k people
> at Har Sinai? Lishitascha, why should anyone go to a poseik since EACH PERSON
> has a slightly different kabbalas haTorah?
The way I see his shita, first - depending on our level of learning and
understanding of the halachic process, there are decisions we are
qualified to make for ourselves. We do it every day. This follows the
discussion here a few months back about going to a posek or Rebbe for
every little thing.
Second, there comes a point at which our knowledge may not cover the
current situation. When we reach that point, it is important that we have
a posek with whom we've cultivated a reltionship sufficiently that he can
decide his psak based on our individual requirements and circumstances. On
our kabalat haTorah. I know people who still call their poskim in Israel
or New York for decisions, because they (the poskim) are the ones with
whom the relationship was cultivated.
Until we reach the point of the second paragraph, there really aren't any
sha'ailot necessitating going to your posek.
So it's not so much that there's no reason to ever go to a posek, but an
intellectually honest person (which I can hope we all are) should be able
to recognize when a situation is beyond his ability to decide. For some,
that comes up more frequently than for others. For a renowned posek, it
could be that there are very few times he feels he has reason to go to
someone else for psak.
On the other hand, he might not have meant that at all. But it's how I see
it.
---sam
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Paskening for oneself
: Ayn hachi nami--Rabbi Rosensweig told me that provided that I'm on
: the level that I understand the halacha, I should pasken for myself.
And who is to determine that? Isn't the question of whether or not you
understand the halachah in a given issue itself a determiniation that
may require (if the answer is "no") more knowledge of that halachah
than you have?
Aside from the question of ga'avah getting in the way of an honest
determination.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 16
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Paskening for oneself
--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> : Ayn hachi nami--Rabbi Rosensweig told me that provided that I'm
> on
> : the level that I understand the halacha, I should pasken for
> myself.
>
> And who is to determine that? Isn't the question of whether or not
> you
> understand the halachah in a given issue itself a determiniation
> that
> may require (if the answer is "no") more knowledge of that halachah
> than you have?
You might wish to consult your rebbe as to whether you have the
qualifications. In fact, I consulted Rabbi Rosensweig.
>
> Aside from the question of ga'avah getting in the way of an honest
> determination.
As I pointed out with respect to Carl's argument of negiot, lots of
things in Yiddishkeit are subject to the argument that the person has
negiot/ga'avah which will keep him from the right answer. Yirat
Shamayim is crucial. And it doesn't hurt to think about the fact
that the Yom HaDin is around the corner.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 01:29:28 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject: Re: Gadol vs gedulah
Micha Berger wrote:
> Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> responds to me and writes:
> :> Therefore any person who is greater than me
> :> by any amount carries corresponding weight -- and it isn't just linearly. He
> :> needn't be "a gadol" to have relative gedulah.
>
> : I think the above attitude is an important consideration for each individual -
> : but it is clearly not the standard approach in the world or at least not the
> : world of the yeshivos. It has the danger of allowing incorrect statements and
> : pronouncements becoming standard.
>
> I actually think the yeshiva velt has this very wrong. Which was the entire
> point I was stepping in to make.
At this point - the discussion has shifted from the significance of those who know
more that us - to the rejection of my framework e.g., the world of the yeshivos. It
is one thing to insist - contrary to the evaluation of the world - that Rabbi Kaplan
was a gadol or at least was more authoritative than his footnotes. It is quite
another thing to insist that you know better than the yeshiva world how to utilize
and define authority
.. I can deal with your personal rule that people such as Rabbi Kaplan and Rabbi
Frand should be presumed to know what they are talking about - in spite of what
appears at first glance to be solid evidence to the contrary. As I noted - that is a
very admirable trait for an individual. A sign of humility and realism. But you are
now presuming to claim superiority in judgment to the entire yeshiva velt. It would
seem then that the discussion from the beginning was not how gedolim are defined
within the system but rather that *you* reject the system itself.
If I understand you - you are asserting that the star system i.e. gedolim system
needs to be replaced with a relative gadol system. The local rav should be treated
as if he were a gadol. But as the Amshinover Rebbe told a friend of mine "The Moreh
D'Asrah disappeared with the telephone and fax machine." A Rav can not compete with
the Igros Moshe or even with Rav Shimon Eider or Artscroll. The modern
standardization of halacha and gedolim got established with the acceptance of
Shulchan Aruch. The modern standardization of hashkofa probably started with
Maharal.
Again - if you tell me that you as an individual accept a particular Rav as your
Rebbe and you accept everything he says even if he is a das yachid - I think that is
great. But to state flatly that everybody who values gedolim above the lesser lights
- is wrong?!
>
> Also, this mentality cripples the neighborhood rav. First, he's no R' Moshe
> either, so we're playing down the amount of weight we tell people to give him.
> Secondly, he knows he's not R' Moshe, so he doesn't see himself as having
> sufficient authority to play the role the kehillah needs him to play.
> But yes, it allows for a greater variety of pronouncements entering into the
> public discussion and possibly becoming standard.
>
> Perhaps this ties into the whole "editing history" discussion (argument?). It
> would appear that much of the yeshiva velt has a need to see da'as Torah as
> being far more uniform than it really is. I suggest that this also motivates
> their need to minimize the number of people they give authority to.
Are you asserting that Da'as Torah is in essence merely psychological or
sociological and doesn't arise from spiritual considerations i.e., the nature of
Torah. Do you have any sources to justify the dismissal of the System? Nothing I
have seen in Rabbi Kaplan's writings suggests such a position. I find it rather
ironic that while admirably insisting on the chashivus of the intermediate level
talmidei chachomim you feel it necessary to denigrate the importance of the genuine
gedolim and the system that supports them.
> : The statements of Rabbi Kaplan should
> : not be treated the same as statement of Rav Hutner or Rav Moshe.
>
> I would agree with this statement. However, saying there's a quantitative
> difference is not the same as saying that their authority is different in
> kind.
>
> (Actually, it's arguable that bi'inyanei machshavah, R' Kaplan has greater
> gedulah than either.
Arguable?! While we obviously agree that all the above were far greater than either
of us - I find your assertion simply astounding that the world so misjudged Rabbi
Kaplan. When two kids are arguing each might say my father is stronger than yours.
As we grow up we learn there are more objective yardsticks for these things. Aside
from your personal feelings - what evidence do you have to support your assertions?
In particular - which gedolim or even relative gedolim have said such things?
In sum. I find your position unacceptable especially regarding the role of gedolim.
Rabbi Kaplan was a true genius. He inspired and educated many people both personally
and through his writings. However - his legacy is primarily in two areas 1) his
extensive footnotes which were systematically organized 2) his popularization of
complex ideas for the masses
He did not transcend the material itself and his pronouncements were never viewed in
the same way as that of Rav Hutner or Rav Soleveitchik.
Daniel Eidensohn
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]