Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 007

Thursday, September 16 1999

• Re: Definition of Anava
• Re: Avodah V4 #3
• Re: Avodah V4 #2
• Re: Definition of Anava
• See its working already...Baltimore
• ZECHER then ZayCher
• Re: Definition of Anava
• Young Gedolim (Response to Eli Turkel)
• Specificity In Vidui (Resonses to Berger/Turkel)
• 3rd International Conference on Torah and Science
• We **ARE** expert in FULL and DEFICIENT spelling
• RE: Hendel's Fan--USAGE vs COMPLETION
• Re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - Ramblings
• selichot time
• Age of a Gadol
• Age of Death of Some Gedolim

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> When going lifnim mishuras hadin, though, then you have to see when a
> chumrah in one priority will be a kulah in another. I'm talking
> specifically about how people pursuing different ideals are going to
> deal with a situation where different priorities conflict. 
> 

I believe that an incorrect definition of anava is the only possible way
you could have pereceived a conflict.

> In this conflict, the more obvious chumrah (which is always the choice
> that involves doing without) is to not eat the meat. The less obvious
> one is that it can be seen as casting aspersions on shochtim. Choosing
> not to eat the meat doesn't really get you off smelling like a rose,
> there's still this nekudah that you need to compramise on. 
> 

This is not an aspersion on a Schochet. 

This is a personal hiddur mitzva (or chumra).

As with all hiddurim/chumros, motivation is always a factor.

To brand such a hiddur mitzva a priori as a defecit in the pursuiit of
anava is to call all hiddurim into question as potentially deleterious to
anava.

Again, it is *always* a matter of motivation (see "Good Chumros" by yours
truly).

It is also extraordinarily difficult to believe that the CS would separate
an Anav and a Shomer Nefesh as two separate classes.

Everybody should be both.

That is why REC's reading is more palatablle to this reader.

YGB

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

"Newman,Saul Z" wrote in V4 #3:
> I'm looking for the source for the following 2 questions-------------    1]
> chiyuv  of shalosh seudos on shabbat RH

I'm confused.  I haven't looked, but I would assume that one is chiyav,
and that we don't need a source to say that something is not an
exceptional case.  (Note that you do need to make sure you eat early
enough, since a seudah immediately before Yom Tov is not allowed.  This
can be a serious difficulty in a shul where davening on RH starts
relatively late.)

--
Daniel Israel
daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu

In Volume 04, Number 002 Chana Luntz wrote:
> More than that, the general accessibility of text means that
> a lay person can learn enough so that the answers of the local rabbi are
> no longer sufficient - so there has been and undermining at the level.

I agree with most of the points you make, but this one I think I
disagree with.  If by "general accessibility of text" you mean
Artscroll, then I agree there is a problem, but the problem is not one
the you mention.  The problem is people who think that an Artscroll
education is good enough to put one on a level to argue with a Rav.

OTOH, if you are referring to an increase in the number of people with
more advanced yeshiva learning, then I don't see the problem.  I think
that the unfortunate historical truth is that the level of learning of
the typical "local rabbi" has declined in the last century (as has the
level of the typical bal habas).  This isn't a problem with the people
who are unhappy with their local rabbi, rather it is a legitimate
concern.  And I think that as people know more the level of knowledge
they require when hiring a local rabbi will go up, to the benifit of
everyone.

--
Daniel Israel
daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu

RYGB writes:
: To brand such a hiddur mitzva a priori as a defecit in the pursuiit of
: anava is to call all hiddurim into question as potentially deleterious to
: anava.

Frankly, I find this absurd. I'm NOT claiming "chumrah = yuharah". I'm saying
that accepting a chumrah that involves acting as though one can't trust the
yir'as Shamayim of another is detrimental to the pursuit of anivus. A gave a
reason specific to this chumrah why it wouldn't be the best chumrah for an
Anav (or an Anav-wannabe, really) to choose.

The key point is that had a known baki viyarei Shamayim done the kelifah,
the Ch"S wouldn't recommend this chumrah to anyone. Which means that by not
trusting the kelifah you are casting aspersions (albeit only in your own
mind) on the shocheit as lacking in one of these two. There is a bein adam
lachaveiro issue that he is being maikil on by following this particular
chumrah.

It's only this particular situation that yields this particular conflict of
priorities, and this particular tension between Anivus and Sh'miras haNegesh.
I said as much in the post you're replying to:
:                                             Saying the anav would choose to
: trust another person rather than this one particular chumrah doesn't deny
: his charifus (or that he'd be the one doing without in some other situation).

: It is also extraordinarily difficult to believe that the CS would separate
: an Anav and a Shomer Nefesh as two separate classes.

: Everybody should be both.

Who said we shouldn't? If you remember, I repeatedly called these things
archetypes. A real person, who is trying to reach both states, would be left
in tension as to what to do, which goal to serve in how he performs this
particular din. How he resolves that tension (yochal viyisba or lihachmir)
depends on his derech in Avodas Hashem.

-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

Sam
Your from Baltimore....I just moved here 2 months
ago.

Small world
Russell 
___________________________________________________________________
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.

I heard the same sequence from a LUbavitch Principle when I
was in college and always lained it that way (till someone showed
me in Lubo minhagim that you read Segol-Tzayray in one book
and Tzayray-Segol in another book).

I was also given the same reason (The 2nd reading should be correct)
Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> RYGB writes:
> : To brand such a hiddur mitzva a priori as a defecit in the pursuiit of
> : anava is to call all hiddurim into question as potentially deleterious to
> : anava.
> 
> Frankly, I find this absurd. I'm NOT claiming "chumrah = yuharah". I'm saying
> that accepting a chumrah that involves acting as though one can't trust the
> yir'as Shamayim of another is detrimental to the pursuit of anivus. A gave a
> reason specific to this chumrah why it wouldn't be the best chumrah for an
> Anav (or an Anav-wannabe, really) to choose.
>

I am sorry you find this absurd. I would ask you to try avoid such attacks
that detract from the actual conversation.

Any chumra can be viewed as detrimental to the pursuit of anava in the
vein of casting aspersions on another's yiras shomayim. For example:

1. Not carrying in an eruv where you are unsure of the Rav HaMachshir's
expertise: Is this not acting as if you cannot trust the YS of another?

2. Yoshon/Cholov Yisroel: In keeping yoshon is one not implying that those
who do not keep yoshon/cy lack ys?

3. Expensive Arba Minim/Atara/Menorah: Is such conduct not a blatant
advertisement that one considers one's ys superior to that of others?

4. Not trusting certain hechsherim: Is one workiing on his/her anava
required to blithely accept them all?

We could go on and on, to the point that you would be left arguing that an
anav must, less his haughtiness and vanity be aroused, not engge in any
chumra/hiddur mitzva.

Again, I repeat: An Anav is not meek, he does not shy away from
objectively and honestly assessing himself - *and others*. You would have
an anav equal an ostrich (head in the sand). That is not anava. That is
misguided naivete. 

YGB

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

How about Baba Sali who was recognized as a genious and spiritual 
person at a young age.

I reiterate my previous posting (that the Simchah of Rosh Hashana 
has overwritten the simchah of Passover).

I think part of the purpose of the Haggadah story about Rabbi
Elazar (on a holiday night, Passover, devoted to Chinuch) is
to impress on our young children that ANYBODY CAN MAKE I

The holiday is motivational and the story emphasizes that Gadlus
is ALSO a function of erudtion and ability to solve questions.

Again...I think this discussion would be more productive if
we discussed criteria for a Teshuva to be DEEP then for a Person
to be GREAT.

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
___________________________________________________________________
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.

Micah answered one of my questions but not the other.

He states about Blanket Mechilah

>It's possible to regret a sour relationship in general without
remembering
>each instance that made it sour. It's also possible to regret the way we
>interact with all the faceless people on the net without remembering
each
>person we insulted.


Agreed. But his next statemet

>(Note also that we have a liturgical vidui listing categories of
chata'im,
>we do not insist that vidui must consist of specific acts of violation.)

bothers me because CONFESSION ***DOES*** require specificity
(Rambam Repentance 1 based on the verse "..please forgive this
nation who made a golden god)

This also answers Eli who cites the Tefillah Zaccah. I have alot of
problems with the whole Yom Kippur Viddui because of this Rambam

Confession is suppose to be specific on something you did...the purpose
of all the acrostics (Ashamnu..) is to go over things YOU MIGHT HAVE 
done...but the actual confession must be done personally...I don't see
how you can be Yotzai with our current davening)

Russell Hendel Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
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.

The purpose of this posting is 2 fold:
1) To tell you about the conference
2) To request help in obtaining references (that
I may not yet be aware of)

I just got notified that my paper entitled

>>Gen 1 speaks about the Creation of Prophecy not 
>>the Creation of the World

was accepted for presentation at the 3rd International
Torah and Science Conference (to be held at
 Florida International University in Miami, 
December 14-16, 1999).

For those interested the Keynote speakers include
Dr Fred Rosner, Rabbi Dr Moshe Tendler and 
Professor Vevll Greene who will speak on a variety
of hot medical ethics topics (cloning, transplants..)

My paper emanates from Ideas that I have presented
(some on Avodah) mostly on Torah Forum. I basically
contend that Genesis 1 is talking about the creation
of prophecy (so Adam was the first prophet, not the
first human and it is prophecy that is 6000 years old
not the world).

I want to make sure my references are as complete
as possible. Anyone with any references on any
of the following topics please forward them to
me (privately) (with publisher and date)

--Mystical interpretions of Genesis 1
--The Origins of prophecy
--How Gen 1 affected the Torah Science conflict in the
17th-19th century.

(I have in mind, Obscure Rishonim on this topic,
acharonim who wrote on Kabbalah, secular 
studies of the above mentioned topics)

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; rjhendel@juno.com
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Moderator, Rashi is Simple


___________________________________________________________________
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.

This is in response to Micah's recent statement that we are not
EXPERT. In a moment I will tell you the GRAMMATICAL RULE
governing them (cited by Rashi and Rav Hirsch).

But first let me explain the statement:

>>We are not expert in FULL and DEFICIENT

I have compared it to the statement in AVOTH

>>We are not expert in Reward and Punishment

Rav Yonah states

>>Of course we understand the suffering Righteous and
>>happy wicked...but we don't fully empathize with
>>it...we don't feel comfortable applying it in all circumstances


So I would say the same here. Of course our texts are ok
And we do understand the rules.  But we don't feel
comfortable in applying them


Personally, I think this thread would be more productive
if we focused on particular examples

Now let get to the rule:

>>If a collective noun (eg Table Legs) is spelled FULL
>>then it refers to ALL table legs. If it is spelled 
>>deficient then it refers to the table legs (even if
>>there are only say 3). In other words
>>FULL SPELLING=all/many components
>>DEFICIENT SPELLING=The group.

Rashi uses this principle in several places (Nu 17:25).
My opinion is that he applies it in (Lev 26:42--Jacob
spelled full would mean JACOB WITH **ALL**
his attributes (exilic and redemptive) while Jacob
spelled deficiently would only indicate say the
exilic aspects of Jacob.

Similary Rav Hirsch on Lev explains the famous Talmud
controversy on KARNOTH using this principle.

Again...I think this thread would be more productive
if we discussed individual examples then philosophize

In passing I didn't have time to respond in detail to John
Baker's posting but I don't believe it is correct. I don't believe
that any rishon holds that the 8 posookim are not sinaitic...
I also don't believe that any rishon doesn't hold that Moses
gave the WRITTEN text to us (as it says explicitly in several
posookim...really...a gemarra can't override a posook--perhaps
Jonathan would like to be more specific)

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple; 
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.

David Banett claims that

REMOVING A SHADE IS "LIKE" COMPLETING A CURCUIT
===============================================
>We could
>be considering circuit completion because that is what sometimes makes
or
>completes the creative act, in Hendel's example changing a "dead" fan
into a
>"living" fan. The important concept is the creativity of the act and it
is
>immaterial whether the result was caused by completing an electrical
circuit
>or by other means, mechanical, chemical, electrical or what have you.

ELECTRIC FAN does not equal WATER RUN FAN
=======================================
>In any
>event, RLYH made it quite definite that having electrical current go
into
>a motor and bring the fan to life was "beyond the limits" while the
water
>operated device I described was "in the vicinity of the border".

These are Davids two assumptions.

I do not believe this is halachically correct. It has nothing to do with
"Complexity"--rather it has to do with the difference between USAGE
and COMPLETION.

If I open and close a house door I have not made a DEAD HOUSE (with
a door open) into a LIVING HOUSE (with door closed) (Indeed!!...the 
opening and closing (maybe twice) is effective as an act of Kinyan but
not as a melachah on Shabbos).

But if I COMPLETE a house by putting a door on its hinges then I have
violated a deoraiitha.

In one case I **USED*** the door while in the other case I **COMPLETED**
the house. 

As far as I know, if something is made to be disassembled and reassembled
(like a door in a house) without much effort and this is its standard
usage
in the world then we have a case of USAGE not COMPLETION.

COMPLETION is a biblical prohibition while USAGE is permissable to
begin with.

Let us return to the water operated FAN. The FAN ***is*** complete.
I place it under a water fall and get fanned---Therefore I am USING it
not CREATING it. Or to use a halachik argument
	>>what is the difference between opening/closed a door
	>>vs placing the fan under the water fall

BUT....(ask any physicist) there is ABSOLUTELY no difference between
placing a fan under a water fall and removing the shade of a solar
operated
fan. THE FAN IS ALREADY THERE. You are not CREATING it. You are
not making a dead fan into a live one. You are opening and closing a
door...and that is always USAGE not COMPLETION.

To return to the questions David asked
---My argument focuses on USAGE vs COMPLETION and has nothing
to do with first or 2nd strength
---The small fan was to avoid the problem of sparks raised by Micah.

To reiterate, Hendel's fan avoids the problems of
---fire
---light
---creation of a new entity (like a circuit)

It operates by creating/removing borders (like 
---the door in the house
---the shoelace on the shoe
---the fan by the waterfall

Therefore I consider it an act of USAGE, not COMPLETION.

Russell Hendel;Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
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.

> Now let me add my question to the pile: In "Areshes S'fasenu", why do we
> refer to the sound of "tekiAseynu", in the singular? Wouldn't it make
> more sense to refer to the "tekiOseynu", the shofar blasts, in the
> plural?
> 

The reason maybe because we are refering to the act not the indiviual
sounds.
It also maybe because we refer to the seder (malchios e.g.) as a group.

Kol Tov
Gemar Chasima Tova
Ezriel

Just a reminder:
1. Reb Moshe wrote a teshuva permitting selichot to be said from 1/3 of night (approx 
10 PM) in sh'at ha-dechak. (I"M, Orach Hayim 2, 105)

2. R" Ovadya Yosef wrote that if selihot cannot be said after midnight, the preferable 
time is at mincha rather than before midnight.  I don't have Yechaveh Da'at to check 
but I think his reason is Sh'at ratzon.

3. A simple every day thought:  Selichot means, basically, saying  "Selicha, I'm sorry".  
Isn't every moment of every day of the year appropriate for asking forgiveness and 
considering personal improvement and teshuva? What is need or importance of 
specific time?

GChT,

David

Eli Turkel writes:

> Carl writes
> 
> >> Also Rav Ovadiah Yosef was considered a gadol at least by sefardim for
> >> many years.
> 
> >Then how do you explain that he was pushed out of his position as 
> >the Rishon LeZion in the early 80's? While R. Ovadia's status is 
> >clearly not subject to any sort of dispute today, I question whether 
> >the masses truly appreciated him properly 15 or 20 years ago.
> 
> Rav Ovadiah Yosef was pushed out by politicians who changed the rules
> over how long someone could be chief rabbi. The rules were changed
> for other reasons than Rav Yosef. In any case it has nothing to do
> with being recognized as a gadol.

I am aware of the whole political history behind R. Ovadia being 
pushed out, but I think that if he had achieved the recognition as a 
Gadol fifteen years ago that he has achieved today, it could never 
have happened. There's more to the adoration of R. Ovadia by the 
Sfardim than his political control over Shas.

> >> I dont think we have gedolim like the Ramban who wrote major works at
> >> the age of 17 but thet are not all in retirement age. Also if I remember,
> >> the first seforim of Chazon Ish and the Steipler appeared when they were
> >> not that old.
> 
> >I don't question that. There are definitely young talmidei 
> >chachamim who publish brilliant sforim (which, unfortunately, in 
> >many cases are not noticed until years later). But were they 
> >RECOGNIZED as gdolim by the masses at that age? 
> 
> The main problem with recognition is that their is an older generation.
> Hence, it is difficult to introduce a young person as a gadol at the
> "expense" of the older rav. As such the younger one usually has to
> wait until the older generation retires or passes on.
> This is especially true today when gadlus is institutionalized, eg
> moetzet gedolei hatorah etc.

This was EXACTLY my point in the original post about R. Aryeh 
Kaplan zt"l. That one of the reasons he was never recognized as a 
gadol in his lifetime was because he was niftar at a young age (54) 
and therefore there was always someone ahead of him in line. 

> Just a single example, I believe that RSZ Auerbach wrote some of his
> first seforim when he was in his 30s. he also came out with his psak
> on electricity disagreeing with Chazon Ish. At the time some people
> wanted to put him in cherem for the audacity of disagreeing with
> Chazon Ish. It seems that the logic of his arguments were not 
> sufficient. Today that we recognize RSZA as a gadol we take for
> granted his right to disagree with CI.

Except that RSZA himself refused to argue with the Chazon Ish 
once he discovered that they differed. 

Another example - think of the correspondence between R. Moshe 
and RSZ's talmidim that appears in Igros Moshe OH 4:76 (and 
subsequently with RSZ himself in OH 4:77). That sort of 
correspondence would have been inconceivable between RSZ's 
talmidim and any other gadol after 1986. And yet RSZ was 70 
years old at the time (1980)! I think RSZ achieved much greater 
recognition as a gadol in the last 10-15 years of his life than he had 
previously. Not chas v'shalom because he was not worthy before 
then of being considered a gadol, but strictly as a function of age 
and not having someone from a previous generation ahead of him in 
line.

In any event, I think you were making my point with the age thing. 
And I think that if anything, the "waiting in line" has become longer 
in recent generations because people are living longer (bli ayin 
hara!) and because there is more of a correspondence between 
Eretz Yisrael and the Galus than there was between various parts 
of the Galus 200-300 years ago, or even 100 years ago. 

> Similarly, any young gadol today has an intrinsic problem disagreeing
> with the older generation.
> As others have pointed out many gedolim died at an early age.
> However, I am not sure that this occured in recent history.

Precisely my argument. 

> Aryeh kaplan has the problem that most of his books are in English
> and are of an expository nature. Thus, it is hard to classify him
> as a gadol compared to someone else who wrote chiddushim.
> It said that Rav Meir Simchah wrote his perush on chumash early
> in life bit didn't publish it until many years later after the
> Ohr Sameach appeared. Apparently he was told that no one would take
> his work seriously unless he first established himself in Talmud.

I think that what R. Micha was trying to establish was that one 
could be a gadol in one area (in this case Hashkafa, Aggadata) 
without being recognized as a gadol in another area. And I think a 
lot of the arguments made about the Chafetz Chaim in the last day 
buttress that point. 

I don't think the fact that his books are in English will or should 
matter for posterity. After all, no one questions R. SR Hirsch's 
credentials.

-- 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.

Gmar Chasima Tova (or Gmar Chatima Tova, depending
on your preference). May you be sealed in 
the books of life, health and happiness.

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

Josh Backon writes:

> 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

If you're referring to me, I thought I limited that statement to 
"modern times." By that, I meant the last 2-3 generations, i.e. this 
century. There are a couple about whom I am not sure, but I don't 
think any of the above qualify for this century.

-- 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.

Gmar Chasima Tova (or Gmar Chatima Tova, depending
on your preference). May you be sealed in 
the books of life, health and happiness.

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

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


[ 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         ]