Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 005

Wednesday, September 15 1999

• Re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - Ramblings
• Lower criticism
• zekher hadam
• Faceless List members
• Re: zekher /zeikher
• Re: Faceless List members
• Re: Infertility Treatments for a Non-married Woman
• Re: shabbat hatan
• Chazaras Hashatz at Mincha
• Organizing a Simchas Beis haSho'eiva
• Re: Organizing a Simchas Beis haSho'eiva
• Re: Organizing a Simchas Beis haSho'eiva
• Re: Organizing a Simchas Beis haSho'eiva
• Re: blanket mechilla
• Glatt -- Hatam Sofer, YD 39
• Gadol vs. Gedulah -- the case of the Hafetz Hayyim
• RE:
• Blanket Mechila
• Re: Infertility Treatments for a Non-married Woman, Asham Talui
• Age of death of some Gedolim
• Present Day Gedolim?

On second thought, Shabbos is not a Hefsak between Tkiah's, as it is an Ari 
Hu Trovtzo Alei, a Hefsek is one that while able to he refrains, (Bnosof that 
in the BHM"K and in place of B"D they did blow on Shabbos, so for there it 
wouldn't suffice.)

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Micha Berger writes:
>In v3n207, RRW <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes in response to me:
>:> The biggest problem I have with critical techniques is that they are based 
>:> on the presumption that d'rashah and remez were not given simulataneously 
>:> with the text.

>: ====> Understood.  But according to the mystical model, such subsequent 
>: deviations might have been part of the original divine plan.

>I think Russell Hendel's <rjhendel@juno.com> bewilderment explains what I was
>trying to say.

>It's not that belief in lower criticism would shake my belief in d'rashah.
>I have a problem with just asking the question. Only someone who doesn't
>believe in the Sinaitic origins of d'rashah and remez would even wonder why
>it once says "De'uel" instead.

Eh?  Seems to me this kind of "only someone" would necessarily extend to
someone who is working on establishing the correct text of the Torah, e.g.,
R' Breuer, the Massoretes, and Ezra - all of them recognized that the 
Torah texts that existed in their times were not accurate, and had to 
engage in "lower criticism" to establish the correct text.  How is it
theologically different to wonder how one universally accepted misspelling 
got into the text, from working to resolve other misspellings?  In either
case, one is already ready to tamper with text on which might be based
drashot and remazim.

>Second, there's a problem using the mystical model to justify d'rashah. Perek
>Cheilek requires us to believe that every single d'rashah is miSinai. This

Does it?  Is this belief brought down lehalacha?  There are a number of
things brought as litmus tests of belief in Cheilek that are evidently
not universally accepted by the Rishonim, e.g., authorship of the last
8 (12 acc. to Ibn Ezra on Dt. 34:1) verses of the Torah - were they
transcribed by Moshe or by Joshua?  I'm given to understand that state-
ments like this led to rejection of I.E. by various later authorities.

Then there's the question of the actual transmission of the text of 
the Torah itself - was it dictated, as is popular to believe today,
or was it composed by Moshe Rabbeinu out of precisely transmitted
*meanings* from God, as Rambam posits in the Eighth Principle?

There's also the question of what does it mean that "every single
d'rashah is miSinai" - ai' leqaman (or v. infra, for you Soncino fans).

>would mean that the text as used in the d'rashah must have been d'rashah-worthy
>since Sinai as well.

>Of course, identifying what is d'rashah and what is asmachta is non-trivial. As
>minimal criteria, if it justifies a d'Rabbanan, it's an asmachta. Also, we can
>assume that if the gemara has a shakla v'tarya requiring each side to use the
>d'rashos of the other, those d'rashos must be miSinai. (With the possible
>exception of a final d'rashah which is "ein l'Rabbi X".)

>: There are indeed many drushos misiani and many that are not!

>I'd have used different language, something more like "There are indeed many
>d'rushos miSinai and many *asmachtos* that are not!"

And I submit that that would be an incorrect statement, where Rich's is
correct.

Yes, asmachta is a drash-like support for a rabbinic rule.  But there is
plenty of room for human-made and human-interpreted real drash.  Kal v'chomer,
for instance, is a purely human-instigated type of drash.  There is also a
large human component in gezera shava.  Consider that there are three 
components to a gz"s: 1) words, 2) place, 3) import.  The "kitzur klallei
13 midot" at the back of the Gemara brings examples where the only Divine
component is any one of the three.  Many of the other rules can be applied
lechatchilah by people, as evidenced by other examples brought in that
kitzur.

Where is there room for this?  In rules in the Rambam's third category of
laws (in his Intro to the PhM): laws about which there was loss of certain
transmission, such that machloket arose in them.  They had to be
reconstructed by sevarah - i.e., manmade drash.

Why is this not an inconsistency with the idea of Sinaitic transmission
and authority of the Torah?  Because in a system, not only are certain
propositions axiomatic, the basic rules for applying them are also axiom-
atic, i.e., unprovable but necessary.  Take Aristotelian logic for example
(I've been reading about it lately): It has been demonstrated that the
entire system of Aristotelian syllogisms can be built up out of two basic
syllogistic moods, and two identities about propositions that make up the
syllogisms.  But that's not enough, Lukasiewicz shows - you also need two
rules of conversion which allow one type of syllogism to be converted into
another (there are several other rules of conversion in the full system).

So too here, we have the axioms (the Torah, and the 37 halachot lemoshe
misinai, and the gz"s's) and the unprovable but necessary rules of
derivation (13 by R' Ishmael, or maybe 613 according to Malbim?).
This is sufficient to rederive valid rules (analogous to valid syllogistic
moods?) when there is loss.

What is the upshot?  For various Torah rules, there are drashot.  Because
of loss and reconstruction, we are not necessarily clear as to which 
drashot are human and which are Divine.  Thus, I submit that Rich's statement
is a more accurate description of the real state of affairs in halachic
drashot.

>FWIW, the kind of shakla vitarya I mention above justifies a position I took
>in email with a number of chaveirim on this list. Cheilek's claim that all
>d'rashos are miSinai appears not to require believing that the mapping from
>d'rashah to a particular conclusion is.

It would also appear that it is not required to believe that all drashot
have been accurately transmitted from Sinai.  The valid (accepted al pi
rov?) drashot must have been there *at* Sinai, but they were not neces-
sarily transmitted directly *from* Sinai - they could have been lost and
reconstructed.  And that, I think may resolve Micha's quote from Cheilek
with the evidence of loss and reconstruction.

I just wanted to ask another related question to the zeikher/zekher
discussion.  I remember from my yeshiva days that the custom was to read
the entire pasuk twice because of the zeikher/zekher safek.  However, when
my father used to lein in our chassidishe shtiebel, he only read the four
words "timcheh es zekher/zeikher amalek" twice.  In later years, when we
started to daven in a "balabatishe" shul we started reading the pasuk
twice again.  Yasher Koach to everyone for enlightening me as to the
nature of the "zeikher/zekher" safek.  Although I am purely of Chassidic
heritage, I haven't davened in a chassidishe minyan for parshas zachor in
many years.  Do they even have the minhag to repeat the pasuk? If the MB
was the one who started the whole safek, I would imagine that many shuls
(other than the German ones mentioned already by Reb Moshe Feldman) would
follow the pre-MB minhag.  Could someone enlighten us on the chassidishe
minhag, since they often don't follow the MB, but rather the minhag that
they had pre-MB?
Shaul Weinreb

Someone recently posted " It's also possible to regret the way we
interact with all the faceless people on the net without remembering each
person we insulted."
I would like to address the "faceless net people" issue.  Many of us here
on avodah know each other and many of us don't.  How about we make some
sort of directory of listmembers that will include short bios, addresses
and phone numbers etc.  If we are faceless, why should we be totally
anonymous?
I think it would be interesting for all of us to know something about each
other, and to get an idea of the diversity of people that make up our
list.  We are all united by our interest in discussions of Torah topics,
maybe just by getting to know each other a little better we can bring even
more achdus and shalom to our group and to klal Yisrael. In addition, we
may find that there are experts among us in a variety of subjects that we
haven't yet even touched upon, if we can reveal these hidden wellsprings
of knowledge, naybe we can enrich our discussions.
Also, one of the consequences of anonymity is the willingness to say
things that we wouldn't say in an ordinary true interpersonal discussion.
This can lead us to say things we may regret later.  I know this from
personal experience.  If we knew each other better, maybe we can minimize
the need for our "blanket mechilah" requests.
Just a suggestion - what do you think?
Shaul Weinreb 

More questions:

Rabbi Elazar M. Teitz of Elizabeth believes that the "incorrect"
Zekher should be read first, followed by the "correct" Zeikher, since
when a ba'al kriyah is corrected, the correction is the later
reading.  Most shuls that I've been in have read Zeikher first.  Any
comments?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

I second the motion.

Two other lists that I was on (Tachlis, Israworld) had people write
brief bios, and found that it made people feel closer to each other
and enhanced the experience of the list.  Also, I've traded some
personal information with some people on this list (including Shaul)
and that has given me some insight into what they've posted.

BTW, Tachlis always has a "tachlis tiyul" around Succot.  Maybe we
should have a simchat beit ha'shoevah (at least in the NY metro
area)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe (bio available upon request)

--- Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> wrote:
> Someone recently posted " It's also possible to regret the way we
> interact with all the faceless people on the net without
> remembering each
> person we insulted."
> I would like to address the "faceless net people" issue.  Many of
> us here
> on avodah know each other and many of us don't.  How about we make
> some
> sort of directory of listmembers that will include short bios,
> addresses
> and phone numbers etc.  If we are faceless, why should we be
> totally
> anonymous?
> I think it would be interesting for all of us to know something
> about each
> other, and to get an idea of the diversity of people that make up
> our
> list.  We are all united by our interest in discussions of Torah
> topics,
> maybe just by getting to know each other a little better we can
> bring even
> more achdus and shalom to our group and to klal Yisrael. In
> addition, we
> may find that there are experts among us in a variety of subjects
> that we
> haven't yet even touched upon, if we can reveal these hidden
> wellsprings
> of knowledge, naybe we can enrich our discussions.
> Also, one of the consequences of anonymity is the willingness to
> say
> things that we wouldn't say in an ordinary true interpersonal
> discussion.
> This can lead us to say things we may regret later.  I know this
> from
> personal experience.  If we knew each other better, maybe we can
> minimize
> the need for our "blanket mechilah" requests.
> Just a suggestion - what do you think?
> Shaul Weinreb 
> 
> 

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

--- Saul Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> wrote:
> If
> a woman who is not married desires treatment for infertility, am I
> allowed
> to help her conceive?
> 1) I would imagine that with a Jewish woman there is a problem of
> mesayeyah
> yedei ovrei aveirah, certainly if she is being helped with her
> "partner's"
> participation, 

If she has a steady relationship with the partner, she might be
considered his pilegesh according to those who permit pilegesh min
hatorah.  This is what I recently wrote on mail-jewish:

According to the Rambam Hilchot Ishut 1:4 (other than as interpreted
by Ramban quoted by the Kesef Mishneh) any non-marital relationship
violates the prohibition of harlotry [lo tih'yeh k'deishah]; in
Hilchot Melachim the Rambam says that a pilegesh is permitted only to
a king.  Rava'ad (hil. Ishut 1:4) disagrees with Rambam and permits a
pilegesh to a commoner; the forbidden k'deishah according to the
Ra'avad is one who is available to anyone for sexual relations,
unlike a pilegesh who has a relationship with only one man.  Ramo in
Shulchan Arukh Even Ha'ezer 26:1 cites both opinions (and attributes
the Rambam's opinion to the Rosh & Tur, even though that is not the
plain meaning of the Rosh; if the Rosh does hold like the Rambam then
the Rambam is no longer a shitat yachid [lone opinion]).  In fact,
the only achron I know who approves of pilegesh nowadays is R. Yaakov
Emden in She'elat Ya'avetz 2:15.

The main reason that Rishonim, e.g. Rosh and Tshuvot HaRashba
ha'myuchasot l'Ramban 284 (which is quoted by the Kesef Mishneh Hil.
Ishut 1:4), objected to pilegesh is the fear that the pilegesh would
be embarrassed to immerse herself for niddah.  But of course, in the
case of a non-religious Jew, that problem exists even for married
women.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


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

In a message dated 9/15/99 9:05:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bwaxman@foxcom.com writes:

> what is the origin of the Shabbat Hatan (aufruf)?
>  
>  
See Mogein Avrohom end of 282, brought in M"B (Biur Halacha) 136.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sept. 15, 1999, Joel Rich wrote:

>We have previously discussed the relative priority of tfila btzibbur versus >Talmud tora and I think that the Yeshiva practice of a  haycha kedusha was
>based on a similar analysis. 

I don't think the issues of t'fila b'tzibur and haycha kedusha are analogous in this
regard. There is substantial authority that t'fila b'tzibur, despite its considerable
virtue, is not mandatory (granting that this may not be the majority view). To my knowledge, however, there is no question that chazaras hashatz is obligatory
at both shacharis and mincha when a minyan is present, on a lo plug basis (i.e., whether or not it is a minyan of lomdim or am ha'aratzim and even if everyone present can recite shmoneh esray on his own). 

If one decides that his own talmud Tora takes precedence over attending t'fila b'tzibbur,
yesh lo al mi lismoch. On the other hand, if a group decides that the talmud Tora of its members takes precedence over chazaras hashatz during t'fila b'tzibur, are they
not simply abrogating a specific takanas chazal and rejecting the axiom of chazal that z'man t'fila l'chud u'zman Tora l'chud? Wouldn't it be better to simply discontinue t'fila b'tzibur, which may not be obligatory, in yeshivos and kollelim to maximize learning time? If not, why not dispense with chazaras hashatz at shacharis as well and, for good measure, stop saying p'sukay d'zimra and birchas k'rias sh'ma too? That would yield at least an half hour of extra learning per day. 

Also, let's be honest - we're only talking about 5-10 minutes per day of added learning time from skipping chazaras hashatz at mincha. With the exception of a few y'chidim here and there, b'nay yeshiva and chevray kollel could painlessly give up that amount of their personal,
recreation and schmooze time in favor of learning, instead of skipping chazaras hashatz at mincha. 

Finally, what about the numerous minyanim of ba'alay batim that routinely use a haycha
kedusha, where even the rationale (or, more, properly, rationalization) of talmud Tora is
lacking? Three of the four Orthodox mincha minyanim for working people in downtown
Chicago that I know of do not observe chazaras hashatz. How does one begin to justify this?

[Chabad-bashers please note that the only downtown Chicago mincha minyan that observes
chazaras hashatz is Chabad of the Loop, whose rabbi, a very fine Jew, was needlessly and
unjustly maligned on the Avodah mailing list earlier this year.]

G'mar tov,
David

Sounds great. If we organize three: Israel, NY and Chicago, I think we have
the vast majority of the active membership covered.

Unfortunately, I don't think I have the time to organize even the greater NY
one. Sounds like hurricane Floyd is going to make me take down and rebuild my
succah yet. If anyone else feels less swamped <pun intended>, contact me
off-list.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Sep-99: Revi'i, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 17

Micha wrote:

> 
> Sounds great. If we organize three: Israel, NY and Chicago, I think we have
> the vast majority of the active membership covered.


And for Baltimore, I'm having one anyway. All are invited. (I think
there's only one other listmember from Baltimore. Gad?)


---sam

There are several in Silver Spring, however.

Ari



Sammy Ominsky wrote:

> Micha wrote:
>
> >
> > Sounds great. If we organize three: Israel, NY and Chicago, I think we have
> > the vast majority of the active membership covered.
>
> And for Baltimore, I'm having one anyway. All are invited. (I think
> there's only one other listmember from Baltimore. Gad?)
>
> ---sam

Ari responded:

> 
> There are several in Silver Spring, however.
> 



I actually thought of writing Washington/Baltimore, my apologies for
leaving you out. Of course you're invited. I'll announce the date as soon
as it's final.


---sam




> 
> Sammy Ominsky wrote:
> 
> > Micha wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds great. If we organize three: Israel, NY and Chicago, I think we have
> > > the vast majority of the active membership covered.
> >
> > And for Baltimore, I'm having one anyway. All are invited. (I think
> > there's only one other listmember from Baltimore. Gad?)
> >
> > ---sam
> 
> 
> 
> 

I know of a number of shuls that read in unison in english a statement
of mechilla for everyone and anyone just before kol nidre.
GCT
steve katz
Eli Turkel wrote:

> >>I don't believe in blanket mechilah unless you know of something
> >>specific you have done to me.
>
> Of course in Tefillat Zakah there is a blanket mechilla.
> Why do we exclude those who say that they sin on condition they will
> be forgiven?
>
> Eli Turkel

>Avraham Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il> asks:
>: The Chasam Sofer in YD 39 ...  says that the peeling of adhesions, if done
>: by an expert and G-d fearing shochet, then Yochlu anavim vyisbau - (which
>: seems to mean no problem). Then his next words are "however, Shomer nafsho
>: yirchak" (one who cares about his soul will stay away) from anything like
>: this.

>: Is this not a contradiction?

Our esteemed listowner replied:

>I would say no, but to do so I'm going to invoke my multiple dirachim /
multiple
>archetypes idea again. (Mechilah everyone?)

>The Anav and the Shomer Nafsho are different archetypes. (I wonder if the
>Ch"S's "Shomer Nafsho" is related to the M"B's "Ba'al Nefesh".) Pursuing
>a given archetype is another way of saying following a given derech.

Without rejecting in any way the validity of R. Micha's analysis, I
think there may be a much simpler explanation in this case.  According
to Hatam Sofer the peeling (kelifah) is acceptable if done by a baki and
yirei Shamayim.  Because it will not always be clear whether the kolef
was indeed qualified in terms of beki'ut or yir'at Shamayim, there are
reasonable grounds for a shomer nafsho to distance himself.

Gemar hatimah tovah,

Eli Clark

In v4n3 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:

: The historical fact is that the Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
posek or
: gadol in learning during his lifetime...

I suppose I am not 100% clear on the source for this statement.
Personally, I have not studied the letters of the Hafetz Hayyim, but I
know they are available in publshed form and probably shed light on this
issue.  What I do know is that, on a range of halakhic controversies of
international import, the Hafetz Hayyim was consulted, along with many
other gedolim.  This suggests to me that, in addition to his reputation
for piety, he was viewed as a Gadol in pesak and/or learning.   Could I
trouble you specify the basis for your assertion to the contrary?

G.h.t.

Eli Clark

Forwarding as per my brother in law's request:

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Chaim Brown, wrote:

> 
> Maybe you can forward this to Avodah for me(or offfer your comments): 
> 
>  Regarding "What is the halachically preferred choice : A) No Selcihos :
> B)  Selichos in the morning beyichuds : C) Selichos prior to Midnight
> with a Minyan?" I wanted to just add that b'pashtus you need a tzibbur
> to be matir saying Hashem Hashem etc. and not finishing the pasuk- if
> said b'yechidus you have a problem of 'kol pasuk d'lo paskei Moshe...'. 
> (I assume this works b'tzibbur because it is not read as a pasuk but as
> a seperate kiyum of reciting 13 midddot, similar to the Rav's hesber
> regarding the division of Aseret HaDibrot into dibrot and not pesukim
> when read b'ta'am elyon.  Other achronim have other hesbeirim). 
> 
> On another note, since we say the 13 middot so many times I was
> wondering why no one says at least once 'VaYavor Hashem al panav,
> VaYikra Hashem,-(comma!)- Hashem...', so that one shem Hashem is not
> counted as one of the 13 middot but as part part of the introductory
> phrase 'VaYikra Hashem', like the other shita of Tos.in R"H. 
> 

YGB

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

Mechila bayn adom l'chavayro may not work in precisely the same way as bayn adom
l'mokom, particularly when viewed in a strict halachik light. Nevertheless, I would
like to share an insight on the bayn adom l'mokom side of this issue that may be instructive
for bayn adom l'chavayro purposes, at least from a v'holachto bid'rachov perspective.

Chazal say (Yoma 86a): G'dola t'shuva shemayvia r'fuos l'olam, shene'emar (Hoshea 14:5)
Erpeh m'shuvasom ohavaym n'dava. In B'nay Yisochor (Ma'amoray Chodesh Tishray 4:1:1),
R. Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov interprets this to mean that if a person has made a sincere effort,
after searching his soul, to confess his sins with specificity, even though he overlooks many
misdeeds due to forgetfulness or his insensitivity to their sinful nature, HKB"H forgives him
not only his confessed sins (erpeh m'shuvasom) but also his overlooked sins for which
he has not requested m'chila (ohavaym n'dava). This is the greatness (g'dula=chesed) of
t'shuva - it brings about healing (r'fuos) not only as to what is confessed, but also as to what
is overlooked (ha'olam=he'elem).

HKB"H thus grants blanket m'chila to those who have made reasonable efforts to obtain
specific m'chila, subject to the limitations of memory and sensitivity that differ from individual
to individual. Perhaps we should take a similar approach bayn adom l'chavayro, but (since
we are not omniscient) with the twist that we judge our fellows l'caf z'chus and assume that
each has made the level of effort that his unique limitations allow. This enables one to grant
blanket m'chila b'lev shalem, even if he feel that his fellow has overlooked many slights
and wrongs that may seem painfully obvious.

I follow Rabbi Bechhofer's lead in granting m'chila to everyone, and humbly requesting their
pardon in turn. 

G'mar tov
David 

On a related note, I do not remember where, but one of our more medically
inclined chaverim doubtless will recall, there is a correpsondence
recorded between Rabbeinu Yona and his mechutan, the Ramban. The Ramban,
as a doctor, successfully treated a non-Jewish woman for infertility. RY
wrote him a note to the effect (quote from memory): "Yasher kochacha
she'ata marbeh zar'o shel Amalek". I think the BY brings this down
somewhere in EH.

Totally unrelated: Amazing  Y-mi, Yevamos 4:1 that will bl"n figue in my
Shabbos Shuva Derosho: One only brings an Asham Talui if it is impossible
(for the safer sinner) to ever clarify if the aveira was actually
committed!

YGB

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

Someone recently commented on this list that Gedolim get recognized
late in life. Here are some ages of death of some gedolim:
Pri Chadash: 36
Maharam Schiff: 36
Shach: 41
Magen Avraham: 45
Rema: 47
Lechem Mishneh: 46
Beit Shmuel: 50
Chelkat Mechokek: 53
Tiferet Shmuel (on the ROSH): 52
Korban Ha'Eda: 55
Pitchei Tshuva: 55
Meiri: 57

Josh

--- Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> > 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.

What a sad commentary.  Let's analyaze what this says about Artscroll,
and perhaps more importantly, about the attitude of the "Right". 
Apparently, Their anathema to the Rav and what he stood for is so great
that they whant to edit him totally out of existance! They perceive him
to be a threat to the hashkafa that they are trying to impart to their
flock.  Truth be damned, the Rav's views are far too radical for us,
they seem to say. The perceived danger is so great that merely
acknowledging that the Rav had a relationship of any kind with R. Moshe
or R. Ahron Kotler has to be censored. 

The question needs to be asked, "What exactly is the Right afraid of?"
Is the hold they have over their flock (the yeshiva bochurim,
avreichim, and Baal HaBattim who support them, etc.) so weak that a
mere picture of the Rav in the company of R. Moshe and R. Aharon. has
to be eliminated?  What does the "Truth" of that picture say to them
that they are afraid to publish it?

I'd "sure" like to know the answer to those questions! 

Even though there were hashkafic differences between them, it is a
matter of great pride to know that the above three Gedolim were
respectful of each other and considered themselves peers.  How
different the present "leaders" are! 

HM
__________________________________________________
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         ]