Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 234

Thursday, December 30 1999

• Re: ger toshav - humor alert
• Kollel and Gedolim
• RE: Slap in the Face
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael
• Re: Avodah V4 #233
• RE: brocha of mazel tov
• RE: Slap in the Face
• Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Rav Dessler and gedolim
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• RE: Slap in the Face
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• RE: Slap in the Face (Baruch Goldstein)
• Re: Avodah V4 #233
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews -- Heschel

Now how could Shlomo ignore all the other local rulers,  after all they were his
fathers-in-law! <smile>

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Whatever, the Ramban many have felt about theoretical halacha 
(almost) all poskim hold that it doesn't apply today when Israel 
is not free to do what it wants. This in fact was true throughout 
all of Jewish history that the Jewish givernment in Israel was 
never strong enough to ignore outside forces (possibly except for 
David and Shlomo).

Eli Turkel

I have a question about the recent disuccion of the need for universal 
Kolel to create Gedolim.

In reviewing the Gedolim of our generation and recent generations 
(unforutnately much relies on the Artscroll biolgraphies, which obviously 
are far from realistic), there seems to be one constant. The gadlus of 
all these individuals was realized at an early age.

At what age did these begin to publish, become magidei shiur, Ramim, 
Roshei Yeshivos etc.   


While the the need to create Gedolim could justify universal kollel, I 
don't think it could in any way justify thec continuous Universal kollel 
that exists primary in EY.  By age 25 -30, most Roshei Yeshivos can tell 
who is a potential future gadol and who is not.


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com

When a *Good man* snaps (and no one denies that Baruch Goldstein was a good
man up to the massacre) and commits a great evil, we must be very careful to
view the act for what it was --  *the act of a deranged person*.

We cannot judge the person by that act.



Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Carl Sherer writes:
> But as far as getting schar individually for doing mitzvos, from the 
> Ramban at least it seems that schar comes only for mitzvos done 
> in Eretz Yisrael.

Vihadar amar:
:                                                 I don't think - AT 
: LEAST LESHITAS HARAMBAN - that doing mitzvos in Chutz 
: LaAretz is at the same madreiga as doing them in Eretz Yisrael.

I agree with the latter sentiment, not the former. Yes, he defines the value
of shemiras hamitzvos in chu"l in terms of the ability to later keep them in
Eretz Yisrael. But doesn't mitigate them having value in chu"l. AIUI, he's
saying that ideally one should be shomer mitzvos while in Israel. Until one
can reach the ideal, doing mitzvos has value because you're supposed to
strive for the ideal, to get as close to it as you can.

Extrapolating from the avos, who weren't covenental partners for most of
the mizvos and weren't mechuyavim is a dangerous prospect.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Dec-99: Chamishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Excuse me, but there seems to be some misunderstanding of
the issues involved.

Just as among Ashkenazi communities different groups follow
different poskim -- the same is true for Sephardim.  Just
b/c R. Yosef accepts everything that the Mehaber paskened --
doesn't mean that all the So-called Sephardic communities
did so as well.

This doesn't mean that Minhag is stronger than Psak, the
opposite -- they insist in following their Rabbanim despite
what Rav Yosef says, as he is not the only Sephardi rabbi,
and though he is great -- he is not everyone's rabbi, just
as among Ashkenazim there isn't one single rabbinic
authority that everyone accepts.

Shoshana L. Boublil

----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
09:41:36 -0500 (EST)
> From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
> Subject: Re: sephardi minhag
>
> Eli Turkel wrote:
>
>
> > The article also claims that frequently R. Yosef is not
successful
> > in his battle against minhag (based on on sephardi
poskim).
>
>
> This is true.
>
> - ---sam

Russell Hendel wrote (V4#227)
"may they live to experience all the usual joys of a daughter---
marriage, taking place in the community, being known for her 
good deeds (translation my own!)"

That's commentary not translation. That being said, how do you  
get from "u'limaasim tovim" to "being known for good deeds"?
And why do you prefer that over a brocha to raise a child who 
(lives a life of) (does) good deeds?

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

True.

It is incorrect and improper to apply

ZTVKL
and 
Neki Kapai'im etc.

to deranged individuals.



On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Akiva Atwood wrote:

> When a *Good man* snaps (and no one denies that Baruch Goldstein was a good
> man up to the massacre) and commits a great evil, we must be very careful to
> view the act for what it was --  *the act of a deranged person*.
> 
> We cannot judge the person by that act.
> 
> 
> 
> Akiva
> 
> 
> A reality check a day keeps
> the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)
> 
> ===========================
> Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
> Jerusalem, Israel 91274
> 
> 
> 

YGB

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

>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:06:04 EST
>From: Joelirich@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
>
>In a message dated 12/30/99 4:46:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:
>
><<
>  "vast numbers of Jews loyal to Jewish Law feel that many of
>  the rabbinic restrictions tend to impede rather than to inspire greater
>  joy and love of God . . . excessive regard for the hedge may spell ruin
>  for the vineyard."
>
>  That, my friend, reads like classical conservative Judaism.  >>
>
Actually, it is almost a verbatim quote from Mordechai Kaplan



>Is it forbidden to feel that way or to act on it?
>
It isn't forbidden to feel any way, to act on something depends on how you 
act on it -- if you want to replace the emphasis on learning gemaora in some 
circles with learning halacha, chassidus, and the like it could be a 
positive development depending on the community -- if you want to eliminate 
yomtov sheini or eliminate mechitzas or erect eruvim for symbolic value in 
areas where most of the rabbonim past and present ruled strongly against one 
(i.e., Boro Park) or make a religion around a certain person being Moshiach 
then one needs to seriously evaluate at what point one has broken away from 
normative yiddishkeit.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

> with all the increase in people learning in
> yeshiva both in Israel
> and abroad I don't see any great increase in
> gedolim.
> To me a gadol is someone more than just a talmid
> chacham who knows shas
> and poskim. There is a certain, undefinable spark
> that sets him above
> the crowd. This is something that cannot be taught
> in yeshiva.
> 
> In the period before world war II there were gedolim
> like the
> Rogatchover, Rav Meir Simcha (rabbis in the same
> town!), R. Shimon
> Shkop, R. Boruch Ber, the Soloveitchik family,
> Chazon Ish etc (apologies for
> the many left out no offense meant). Today I see
> anyone of that caliber
> though there are probably 10 times as many talmidim
> in yeshiva compared
> to 50-70 years ago. 

It is interesting to speculate abour this phenomenon. 
One can simply say it's due to the Niskatnu HaDoros
factor but I personally don't think that's it. I
recall a story told by R. Nosson Sherman at a Chicago
Community Kollel mini Yarchei Kallah: (Please bear
with me if I have told this story before.) 

During the Era of R. Issar Zalman Meltzer, he was
considered by most people to be the Gadol HaDor.  His
contemporaries were the Chazon Ish and the Brisker
Rav. An interesting sidebar to this story shows in a
small way the type of individuals these people were.
The 3 personalities were all radically different from
eachother. R. Issar Zalman was an egrarian fellow,
always smiling, welcoming and warm... very
approachable.  The CI was approachable but not quite
as welcoming.  The Brisker Rav basically was
unapproachable... he wanted not to be disturbed. When
R issar Zalman was nifter.  The CI opened his doors
and became the same welcoming personality the r. Issar
Zalman was.  when trhe CI was Nifter, the Brisker Rov
opened his doors to all.  

Perhaps this is an example of the "Spark"  R.Eli
Turkel reffered to.  A Gadol should even be capable of
even changing his personality if that is what Klal
Israel needs.

But this is not the point of the story.  When The
Brisker Rav was Nifter, it seemed to the Torah world
that there would never be Gedolim of that calibre
again.  But of course we know that isn't true. 
Because along came R. Ahron Kutler, R. Moshe, and the
Brisker Rav's famous nephew.  (Althogh I don't think
the Brisker Rav approved of his nephew but thats's
another Post).

So, even though we don't see anyone in that leauge
now, that doesn't mean we won't ever.  

My gut feeling is, however, that the generation before
WWII was the last of it's kind.  The reason for this,
I believe is that  the level of commitment on the part
of potential Gedolim was far greater.  There was
greater Ameilus, greater Hasmadah, but most
importantly lessor distractions.  Think of the
explosion in technology alone.  Look at the world of
entertainment, and the proliferattion of all kinds of
literature, including more sforim than ever.  Things
were harder then.  Adversity does indeed breed
greatness.  Today's problems are miniscule compred
with the problems in the world pre WWII.  There was a
sense of urgency to acheiving greatness because there
was not the masses of people learning that there are
today. Today we can look anything up in a book. 
Kashrus has been made easy through Hechsher
organizations and the like.  We who live in an
affluent world have become just plain lazy. Freedom of
upward mobility has given rise to pursuits other than
Torah greatness.  

These are just some of the reasons. 

Food for thought? 

Perhaps.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

<< 
 "vast numbers of Jews loyal to Jewish Law feel that many of
 the rabbinic restrictions tend to impede rather than to inspire greater
 joy and love of God . . . excessive regard for the hedge may spell ruin
 for the vineyard."
 
 That, my friend, reads like classical conservative Judaism.  >>

> Joel Rich wrote: << Is it forbidden to feel that way or to act on it? >>

Are you suggesting that Heschel was recommending that people
stand idly by and let the vineyard get ruined?   His use of that vivid 
metaphor sounds like a call to action.   And if he is just describing
a feeling, his next sentence should be an explanation of why that
is not so (accusing Chazal of creating restrictions that impede
joy and love of G-d is a fairly serious accusation, don't you think?).

When we consider that among Heschel's enthusiastic reading 
audience are Christian Bible scholars and theologians, as 
well as non-religious Jews, his failure to defend the honor of
Chazal is doubly disappointing.

Again, I agree that the man was impressive in his personal middos
and wrote moving, inspiring prose. But I think, as per Berkovits, that
there is a problem in hashkafa here  (have you looked at that
chapter in "Major Trends"?).   

KT,
Shlomo Godick

> It is incorrect and improper to apply
> 
> ZTVKL
> and 
> Neki Kapai'im etc.
> 
> to deranged individuals.

I don't disagree with you about "Neki Kapai'im" at all.


Akiva



A reality check a day keeps 
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274  

To really cross threads and get into the Kollel/Yeshiva issue...

Woudn't it be nice or make sens to have Yeshivos that focus on limuddim other 
that the classic mesechtos?

EG yeshivos that specialize in Shulchan Aruch or Rishonim or Teshuovs, etc.

W/O even getting into the more "radical"  limudim that include philosophy or 
Tanach, there is a lot of Yeshiveshr stuff that is only done informally (Minchas
Chinuch and Shaagas Aryeh immedateily come to mind).  Wouldn't it be nice if 
there were yeshivos that made those seocnary works the pirmary focus and learned
shas as background to them?

Rich Wolpoe 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews 

It isn't forbidden to feel any way, to act on something depends on how you 
act on it -- if you want to replace the emphasis on learning gemaora in some 
circles with learning halacha, chassidus, and the like it could be a 
positive development depending on the community -- if you want to eliminate 
yomtov sheini or eliminate mechitzas or erect eruvim for symbolic value in 
areas where most of the rabbonim past and present ruled strongly against one 
(i.e., Boro Park) or make a religion around a certain person being Moshiach 
then one needs to seriously evaluate at what point one has broken away from 
normative yiddishkeit.

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_01BF52FD.CA21C930
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"

FWIW, on the Shabbos after Baruch Goldstein was killed I was in Flatbush and
davened at the shul of a widely respected Posek (and author).  During his
drasha, this Rav spoke about the whole episode and referred to "Baruch
Goldstein, Zeicher Tzadik L'vracha."  He explained (I am paraphrasing) that,
unless there was evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that BG
"snapped," and since he died doing what he thought was best for Klal
Yisroel, he died "al kiddush hashem."  (I tend to agree, since, if we are
able to "dan l'caf zchus," why shouldn't we?) 

On a related note, I have heard that R' Shach did not want to sign a letter
strongly condemning BG's actions since this would cause pain to his widow
(an isur d'oraisa).  (Instead he signed a letter that was not worded too
harshly.)


========================================================
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:17:42 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re: Slap in the Face 

FWIW: That's how come I prefer the term Olov haShalom becaus it makes NO 
judgement re: the niftar only a bakosho that he rest in peace.  IOW it tends
not to arouse a "backlash"

Rich Wolpoe 
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________

I know Micha has requested we refrain from the EY issue, but I could not 
resist noting my utter dismay at the Chilul Hashem nora v'ayom staring at me

from the pages of The New York Times this morning leynei kol ha'amim: Baruch

Goldstein's matzeiva, adorned with: "ZTVKL"! and "Neki Kapa'im u'Bar Levav"!

I will refrain from commenting on the impression the accompanying essay 
makes.

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF52FD.CA21C930
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 =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: Slap in the Face (Baruch Goldstein)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>FWIW, on the Shabbos after Baruch Goldstein was =
killed I was in Flatbush and davened at the shul of a widely respected =
Posek (and author).&nbsp; During his drasha, this Rav spoke about the =
whole episode and referred to &quot;Baruch Goldstein, Zeicher Tzadik =
L'vracha.&quot;&nbsp; He explained (I am paraphrasing) that, unless =
there was evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that BG =
&quot;snapped,&quot; and since he died doing what he thought was best =
for Klal Yisroel, he died &quot;al kiddush hashem.&quot;&nbsp; (I tend =
to agree, since, if we are able to &quot;dan l'caf zchus,&quot; why =
shouldn't we?) </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>On a related note, I have heard that R' Shach did not =
want to sign a letter strongly condemning BG's actions since this would =
cause pain to his widow (an isur d'oraisa).&nbsp; (Instead he signed a =
letter that was not worded too harshly.)</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:17:42 -0500</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Slap in the Face </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>FWIW: That's how come I prefer the term Olov haShalom =
becaus it makes NO </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>judgement re: the niftar only a bakosho that he rest =
in peace.&nbsp; IOW it tends not to arouse a =
&quot;backlash&quot;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Rich Wolpoe </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>______________________________ Reply Separator =
_________________________________</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I know Micha has requested we refrain from the EY =
issue, but I could not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>resist noting my utter dismay at the Chilul Hashem =
nora v'ayom staring at me </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>from the pages of The New York Times this morning =
leynei kol ha'amim: Baruch </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Goldstein's matzeiva, adorned with: =
&quot;ZTVKL&quot;! and &quot;Neki Kapa'im u'Bar Levav&quot;!</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I will refrain from commenting on the impression the =
accompanying essay </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>makes.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, =
IL 60659 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A HREF=3D"http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
; ygb@aishdas.org</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF52FD.CA21C930--

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:


> 
> Excuse me, but there seems to be some misunderstanding of
> the issues involved.


So? Let's straighten them out.


> Just as among Ashkenazi communities different groups follow
> different poskim -- the same is true for Sephardim. 


Exactly.


 Just
> b/c R. Yosef accepts everything that the Mehaber paskened --
> doesn't mean that all the So-called Sephardic communities
> did so as well.


Right, hence my comment about the Iraqi and Syrian Communities not
necessarily following R' Ovadiah's psak.

What was the misunderstanding?


---sam

In a message dated 12/30/99 2:09:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< << 
  "vast numbers of Jews loyal to Jewish Law feel that many of
  the rabbinic restrictions tend to impede rather than to inspire greater
  joy and love of God . . . excessive regard for the hedge may spell ruin
  for the vineyard."
  
  That, my friend, reads like classical conservative Judaism.  >>
 
 > Joel Rich wrote: << Is it forbidden to feel that way or to act on it? >>
 
 Are you suggesting that Heschel was recommending that people
 stand idly by and let the vineyard get ruined?  >>

I suggest nothing about Heschel since I don't know enough about him or his 
works. I do suggest that individuals may from time to time feel that Rabbinic 
leadership (past or present) is going down the wrong track (eg the famous 
gemora re the date of yom kipppur) and still remain in the camp of "tora 
true" .

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

A few words about Heschel and Halakhah, then some responses to
listmembers' posts.

As noted by a number of writers, Abraham Joshua Heschel was personally
observant.  More interestingly, he always insisted that observance of
Halakhah cannot be dispensed with.  As R. Shalom Carmy noted, he called
for a return to Halakhah in his 1949 address to the Reform CCAR.  And
his writings affirm that Halakhah is a necessary component of Jewish
spirituality.  Necessary, but not primary.  Heschel himself was far more
interested in questions of spirituality that of Halakhah.  [A story: one
afternoon, some faculty members at JTS were trying to round up a minyan
for minhah (back when they required 10 men).  Someone suggested to Prof.
Lieberman that Heschel be invited to join them.  Lieberman answered
witheringly:  Heschel is not interested in minhah, he is interested in
"prayer."]

But where does Halakhah fit into Heschel's overall theology?  In an
excellent essay published in the New Republic (4/19/99), Yehudah Mirsky
criticizes Heschel for failing to spell out clearly a philosophy of
Halakhah.  In private communication with Yehudah, I argued that
Heschel's attitude toward Halakhah was fundamentally hasidic.  In other
words, for Heschel, Halakhah does not have intrinsic value, as much as
instrumental value in bringing a person closer to Hashem.  This approach
does have potential antinomian consequences, but only at the margins.
[For example, Kaplan and Dresner's biography relates that Heschel once
walked bareheaded through Vilna, then put on a hat when he entered a
forest, explaining "For me, a forest is a holy place."]

David Finch writes:

>R'Yosef Baer Soloveitchik studied at Berlin
>University, an utterly secular institution that at the time was becoming a
>hotbed of ideas far more anti-Jewish than any school R'Heschel ever attended,
>or maybe even set foot into.

Frankly, I find this comparison absurd.  The issue is not what was going
on generally at the institution, but what the individual in question was
studying.  R. Soloveitchik was studying neo-Kantian philosophy; Heschel
was studying Wissenschaft.

>When he arrived at JTS (in default of a more desired
>position at an Orthodox yeshiva or otherwise), JTS had not yet turned fallen
>to the state many Orthodox ascribe to it.

When Heschel arrived at JTS, he found an institution dedicated largely
to philological scholarship and a historicism which did not interest
him.  R. Saul Lieberman was the dominant figure.  Heschel also found
Mordechai Kaplan, a dyed-in-the wool kofer who was the darling of the
liberal students.  By all accounts, Heschel felt marginalized there.

>I don't know exactly what R'Eli means when he says that R'Heschel's
>"scholarly writings reflect that he accepted the conclusions of higher
>biblical criticism," a term I image R'Eli is using sardonically. Most of
>R'Heschel's writings addressed subjects that had little to do with
>hermeneutics (derush) per se.

No, I meant it peshuto ke-masma'o.  Note, I referred to his "scholarly"
writings, with which you may be less familiar, not to his popular ones.

> It's a shame, however, when the criticism
>reflects the labelling process, not honest thought.

Would you care to apologize for that comment?

>I don't think R'Heschel's comment of the way some Jews feel about rabbinic
>restrictions smacks of conservative Judaism. Conservative rabbis (unlike most
>of their congregants) like rules almost as much as Orthodox ones do --
>nowadays they've attempted to recreate a virtual Sanhedrin with the
>Rabbinical Assembly's committee system.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of Conservative Judaism.
But I think we should move such a discussion to another thread.

>You seem to equate the notion of "Torah-true" with a halakhic standard. Very
>Brisker of you!

Not equate.  But I think that the term must include Halakhah.  And I
would be flabbergasted to hear someone suggest otherwise.

>There is, however, a very fine line indeed between
>saying that a modern academic scholar errs when he concludes that that Joseph
>Caro "misinterpreted" the Gemorrah, while the Rambam "innovates" when he
>concludes that some other thinker failed properly to "interpret" the
>Gemorrah. This is the gist of what I think you're saying: The Rambam
>"innovated," and thus "interpreted" rabbinic literature creatively; modern
>academics over-innovate, and thus "misinterpret" rabbinic literature
>pseudo-creatively. It's easier just to say that the Rambam is right and some
>assistant professor of Jewish Thought is wrong. The rest is kind of
>polemical, or at least too subtle for me.

No, that is not what I am saying.  This is mot an issue of semantics.
The problem with academic scholarship does not arise when the scholar
"errs" (whatever that means), but when he does not err and proves (or at
least musters persuasive evidence), e.g., that contemporary halakhic
practice is built upon a misinterpretation or a textual error.  At this
point, a gap can develop between what one does and what one thinks is
historically correct.  This is a very difficult theological position to
be in.  And it goes without saying that it is not a problem that arises
from reading Rambam.

Another problem that can arise, as R. Melech Press correctly noted, is
that one can slowly assimilate the non-traditional assumptions of a
scholar whose work one is reading.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

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


[ 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         ]