Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 241

Saturday, January 1 2000

• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• re: Value of Shas
• Re: Shas or SA?
• [none]
• Re: Value of Shas
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Slap in the Face
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Moshe's free will, objective psak, some other issues
• Re: Value of Shas
• Making Up Drashos (was RE: Source for Agunah praying)

David Finch <DFinchPC@aol.com> writes in v4n231:
:                       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.

To my mind, the definitive difference between scholarship and limud Torah
is objectivity. Scholarship is premised on the idea that something is best
understood objectively, from the outside. Limud Torah values not only gaining
knowlesge and acquiring modes of thought, but even gets as subjective as
involving a change of priorities, reaching even down into the level of
preconscious and intuition. What we call "da'as Torah".

Inovations made al da'as Torah aren't really inovations, they are part and
parcel of Torah. But that prespective isn't the goal of scholarship.

In v4n232, <Zeliglaw@aol.com> writes:
:                                              Clearly, there is an
: undercurrent of tension between the Maimonedean and non/anti Maimonideans
: which is reflected in these posts. Afterall, the Rambam, The Gra and RYBS
: were not afraid of the intellectual trends of their respective tekufos.
: Yehuda Halevi and Rav Elchanan Wassserman HaShem Yimkom damo reflect the the
: opposite side of this equation. Where would list members place the Ramban?  

The Gra and RSRH both criticized the Rambam's relationship with
Aristotilianism (A). There is a difference between using A as a terminology
understand the Torah vs fitting the Torah into A's framework. Both argued
that the Rambam crossed that line.

To put it in terms of my paragraph above, they complained that the Rambam
was in some respects standing on the outside, with Aristotle, looking in
on the Torah. 

The Gra's line between using limudei chol and redefining Torah in terms of
those limudim was relatively strict.

I also disagree with your portrayal of the Rihal's position. He objected to
the philosophical stance, which in those days meant Platonism, neo-Platonism,
Aristotle and Avrroe's combination of A and Plotinus (pseudo-A). IOW, he
objects to importing Greek thought as though it was more reliable than
masorah -- also apparantly revolving around this view.

I see the Gaon and the Rihal in similar stances. Both embrace utilization of
limudei chol, but have very strict definitions of utilization as opposed to
imposition of weltenschaung.

-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.         

Carl Sherer wrote <<< I think what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos is telling
us when it says "ben eser shanim laMishna, ben chamesh esrei laGmara" and
then doesn't mention any text we are supposed to learn beyond that, is
that between the ages of 10 and 15, we are supposed to develop a bkiyus
in Mishna, which stays with us when we start learning Gmara at 15. >>>

According to this, we should stop learning Chumash when we turn ten.

I don't think so. I think the mishna is merely telling us the starting
ages, and they should *all* continue lifelong.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Allow me to offer my experience.  I've tried it all ways with different 
masechtas/sugyos.  I've tried learning halachah straight from the Shulchan Aruch
and Nosei Keilim.  I've tried it with just SA and Mishnah Berurah.  I've tried 
learning through gemara with rishonim and stopping there.

When I started to learn Yoreh Deah-inyanim (incidently after I had started 
working full-time) I went through gemara and rishonim, then Tur, BY, SA, Nosei 
Keilim, and assorted seforim and teshuvos (like Pri Chadash, Tevuos Shor, and 
Beis Halevi), and then went to a Sunday morning shiur with a respected Talmid 
Chacham.

There is no question to me that the last way is the proper way.  When I started 
going to the shiur, despite the tremendous chiddushim and bekius of this talmid 
chacham, I still felt that I had gone in knowing the halachos and was even bored
a lot of the time.  I was able to answer a lot of the difficult halachah 
lema'aseh shailos that he brought up and argue (albeit usually unsuccessfully) 
with his chiddushim.

You can't really know the halachah unless you learn gemara with basic rishonim. 
You have to know the gemara before you start Tur and BY otherwise you don't 
fully appreciate what the rishonim quoted by the BY say.

Of course, this brings into question all of the other things that I have learned
in the past.

--
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

"aaron grossman" <aaronnoach@21stcentury.net> requests that you approve the following:

	subscribe avodah "aaron grossman" <aaronnoach@21stcentury.net>

If you approve, please send a message such as the following back to
Majordomo@aishdas.org (with the appropriate PASSWORD filled in, of course):

	approve PASSWORD subscribe avodah "aaron grossman" <aaronnoach@21stcentury.net>

If you disapprove, do nothing.


Thanks!

Majordomo@aishdas.org

In a message dated 12/31/99 1:04:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, R. Wolpoe 
writes:
<< FWIW R. M. Heinemaan told me much the same in 1968. >>

Thanx for the Tanya D'misaya ley
>>No doubt that the "mainstream apporach is to master Shas, and it would be a 
disservice for me to promote any other agenda for the vast majority of 
talmidim. However,  not every Talmid is a mainstream Talmid>>

I agree
I wrote: R. Lamm did such a good job explaining torah lishmah that after 
reading his book it was hard for me to  understand why he is such an advocate 
of torah umadda.
Joel Rich wrote:
Or perhaps you might rethink why someone else who believes in Tora lshma is 
not?
My reply:Without Judging which one is correct (although as is probably 
obvious I prefer his earlier work) the Torah Lishmah described by R. Lamm is 
not at all compatible with what he describes in Torah Umadda.

Joel Rich wrote:Each of us has a different "face" and it's unfair to brand 
someone whose avodat Hashem runs toward parshanut(for example) as being 
inferior.
My reply: I do find them to be inferior. NOT CHAS VSHALOM AS A HUMAN BEING OR 
TO MEASURE HIS SPIRITUAL WORTH which is up to G-d to decide, but rather an 
inferior level of Talmid Chacham. Throughout our history, the prerequisite 
for gadlus in Torah was proficiency in Shas. Even those who also emphasized 
"other limudim" (NETZIV) were giants in Shas. This is true of "Modern" 
Gedolim -- RYBS, R.A. Lichtinstien (also see the website for his Yeshiva 
where he explains why the main limud is Shas), Chasidim--Baal Hatanya, Sefas 
Emes,  Sefardim --R.O.Yosef, caf hachaim, sdei chemed  Haredi--R. A. Kotler, 
Chazon Ish and any other type I missed.
Joel Rich wrote:
Exclusive? To the exclusion of Tora shebektav?(or as the old joke goes - 
learn chumash as a perush on the gemora)
My Reply: Not Exclusive, nearly exclusive. Everybody is required to learn 
Shnayim Mikra and be "adorned" with all 24 seforim (see Rashi on Vayiteyn el 
moshe kichaloso). But the emphasis should be on Shas. And it is not a Joke 
but rather Shitas Rabbeinu Tam in Kidushin 30a brought down by RAMA in SA 
hilchot TT.

Good Shabbos, 
Aharon Y.

In a message dated 12/31/99 12:26:41 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< To my mind, the definitive difference between scholarship and limud Torah
 is objectivity. Scholarship is premised on the idea that something is best
 understood objectively, from the outside. Limud Torah values not only gaining
 knowlesge and acquiring modes of thought, but even gets as subjective as
 involving a change of priorities, reaching even down into the level of
 preconscious and intuition. What we call "da'as Torah".
 
 Inovations made al da'as Torah aren't really inovations, they are part and
 parcel of Torah. But that prespective isn't the goal of scholarship. . . .
 
 The Gra and RSRH both criticized the Rambam's relationship with
 Aristotilianism (A). There is a difference between using A as a terminology
 understand the Torah vs fitting the Torah into A's framework. Both argued
 that the Rambam crossed that line.
 
 To put it in terms of my paragraph above, they complained that the Rambam
 was in some respects standing on the outside, with Aristotle, looking in
 on the Torah. 
 
 The Gra's line between using limudei chol and redefining Torah in terms of
 those limudim was relatively strict.
 
 I also disagree with your portrayal of the Rihal's position. He objected to
 the philosophical stance, which in those days meant Platonism, neo-Platonism,
 Aristotle and Avrroe's combination of A and Plotinus (pseudo-A). IOW, he
 objects to importing Greek thought as though it was more reliable than
 masorah -- also apparantly revolving around this view.
 
 I see the Gaon and the Rihal in similar stances. Both embrace utilization of
 limudei chol, but have very strict definitions of utilization as opposed to
 imposition of weltenschaung.
  >>

These explanations are succinct and helpful. They leave, however, a few 
questions. One must concede the Rambam's appropriation of Greek and Arabic 
metaphysics and logical forms. Did the Rambam overreach the boundaries 
"strict utilization" of limudei chol? Did he adopt or "impose" a goyishe 
weltenschaung? Aren't we assuming that because the Rambam was, well, the 
Rambam, he could use limudei chol in forbidden ways while staying within 
"da'as Torah"? In other words, aren't we saying that the non-objective 
essence of the Rambam's spirituality -- i.e., his preconscious and 
inituition, as you put it -- gave him an interpretive flexibility that we 
would deny to lesser figures?

If so, it's pretty ironic. In the Guide, the Rambam reached out to limudei 
chol in order to objectify (if there is such a word) Torah. He wanted to 
present its truths scientifically, as science was known in his time. We trust 
him, however, for his subjective essence, not his objective conclusions. 
Doesn't this sort of render any such distinction meaningless?

David Finch

In a message dated 12/30/99 3:14:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

<< There is strong evidence that Dr. Baruch Goldstein did NOT (repeat, NOT)
 shoot the bullets that killed the Arabs in Hevron. As someone who has
 the classified autopsy report, hospital admission records, and operative
 reports on Rabin, which show definitely that Rabin was murdered by a
 bullet *entrance* wound in the chest and abdomen; and since the same
 team of the Shabak was involved in the incident in Hevron with Goldstein,
 there is a very strong probability that Goldstein was framed. And in case
 there are any doubters, those in Jerusalem who want to see the evidence
 on Rabin are welcome to peruse the medical material.
  >>

How about the Zapruder tape?

Jordan

On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 02:23:04PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:            One must concede the Rambam's appropriation of Greek and Arabic 
: metaphysics and logical forms. Did the Rambam overreach the boundaries 
: "strict utilization" of limudei chol?

This question was adressed on Avodah before. For the sake of the long-timers,
I'll be short. IMHO, the Rambam is choleik lihalachah on where that boundry
is. So, while the Gaon and RSRH (and the book burners) held he had crossed
the line, he held he didn't. There is therefore no single answer to this
question.

:                Aren't we assuming that because the Rambam was, well, the 
: Rambam, he could use limudei chol in forbidden ways while staying within 
: "da'as Torah"?

You phrased this oxymoronically -- if he can stay within da'as Torah, he's not
doing anything forbidden. But you do raise another perspective on an idea
we already saw from Akiva Atwood: how much one's hashkafah becomes chol as
opposed to Torah in mada's clothes depends on how solid of a foundation of
Torah one has. The power of first impressions is strong.

So not only is there machlokes about where the line should be, different people
who follow the same regimen but posess different neti'os and backgrounds,
will be in different places in relation to it.

We're not going to reach a blanket policy statement.

-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.         

Just to catch up on a few issues raised recently:

>>>So how cano we discern between a scholarly book and a sefer w/o knowing 
the author's background etc. <<<

By reading the book and forming an intelligent opinion - just like we do in 
other disciplines. 
 
>>>q: So how can we EVER arrive at objetive psak when personal netiyos are 
part of teh human condition? <<<

Answer: psak is not and need not be objective.  Justify the (faulty) 
assumption.

>>>By age 25 -30, most Roshei Yeshivos can tell who is a potential future 
gadol and who is not. <<<

And I guess these same Roshei Yeshiva would have written off the likes of 
R'Akiva, or even R' Shimon Bar Yochai.  

>>>Wouldn't it be nice if there were yeshivos that made those seocnary works 
the pirmary focus and learned shas as background to them?<<< 

To do so would be to be maniach es haikar v'ochez es hatafel.  The whole 
point of the achronim you mention (or ANY acronishe Torah) is to answer up 
difficulties that arise in learning Shas and Rishonim.  To have a seder in 
learning achronim and read kashes and teirutzim when you don't even know the 
sugyos is ludicrous.

Re: Moshe Rabeinu's free will, rather than speculate on whether Moshe's 
bechira was equal to Adam's (which the Meshech Chochma *doesn't* address in 
P' Braishis) I don't know why no one has looked at his commnts on P' Chukas 
where he deals directly with the episode of Mei Meriva.  In the hakdamah to 
Shmos the Meshech Chochma writes that Moshe could not violate G-d's will; the 
sin of Mei Meriva wasn't Moshe violating G-d's will, but Moshe failing to 
take the initiative to solve the problem before receiving a directive from 
G-d.  (One caveat: that fits the interpretation of Albo he cites; one can 
also fit the second pshat in but AKM"L)

In a message dated 12/31/99 2:13:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< oel Rich wrote:
 Or perhaps you might rethink why someone else who believes in Tora lshma is 
 not?
 My reply:Without Judging which one is correct (although as is probably 
 obvious I prefer his earlier work) the Torah Lishmah described by R. Lamm is 
 not at all compatible with what he describes in Torah Umadda.
  >>
somehow I imagine R. Lamm would not agree with your evaluation of his 
compatibility of thought.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On 31 Dec 99, at 9:31, Russell J Hendel wrote:

> Perhaps Carl disagrees with my interpretation
> of the source but let him at least say so

I disagree with your interpretation of the source.

> MAIN SOURCE: The sifray/sifray on the verses
> ---lest he call to God on you
> ---lest he not call to God (Ki Taytzay & Reay)

I found no such source in Ki Taytzay. If you could give a specific 
cite, maybe I could find it.

In Reay there is a Sifra (138), which says on the pasuk "v'raa 
eyncha b'achicha haevyon v'lo siten lo v'kara alecha el Hashem." 
He says the following: "Yachol mitzva likros? Talmud lomar 'v'lo 
yikro olecho.' Yochol im yikro alecha yihye b'cha chait v'im lo yikro 
alecha lo yiyhe b'cha chait? Talmud lomar v'haya b'cha chait [mikol 
makom. Im kein lama ne'emar v'kara alecha?] Memaher ani lifroa al 
yad koreh me'al yad she'aino koreh." 

I assume (since he has not told us) that RRJH is hanging his hat 
on the last part of the above-cited Sifra.

I submit that this Sifra does not prove anything that RRJH has 
posted on this subject for the last week:

1. The passuk in question (Devarim 15:9) does not deal with 
landlords, tenants, employers, employees or agunos. It deals with 
people who refuse to lend money before Shmitta because they are 
afraid that Shmittas Ksafim will cancel their loans. 

2. It does not require or make a mitzva for the aggrieved party to 
daven for the downfall of their oppressor. It doesn't permit it either.

3. The most it says is that if the aggrieved party davens for the 
downfall of their oppressor, then Hashem will punish the oppressor 
more quickly. That does not contradict the idea that Hashem will 
judge the accuser's maasim more harshly as well which is why 
several of us have argued that one should not advise an aguna (or 
someone whose salary is being withheld or someone who is 
fighting with his landlord) to daven for the husband / landlord / 
employer's downfall.

> >From the contrasting clauses (CALL, NOT CALL)
> the sifray/sifra explicitly states

I found no such Sifra. Please provide a cite. And no, it's not in the 
Mechilta in Shmos (180) where almonos are specifically discussed 
either.

> >>We infer from this that it is permissable
> >>to call to God 'ON A PERSON'
> >>(they are talking about a
> >>a worker who didn't receive wages or a 
> >>default on a loan

I saw no such source.

> A secondary source is the sifray/sifrah on
> >>Don't torture any widow (Mishpatim). 

I think that's the Mechilta (180). That one says, "Yochol kol zman 
shehoo tzoaik ani shomea v'im aino tzoek aini shomea? Talmud 
lomar shamoa eshma. [Ho ma talmud lomar ki im tzaok yitzak 
ailai?] Ela memaher ani lipora al yedei shehoo tzoek yoser mimi 
sheaino tzoek."

Again, it doesn't mean that if someone comes to us and asks that 
they should daven specifically for their oppressors' downfall that we 
tell them yes. Aderaba. What both sources have in common is an 
assurance that Hashem takes notice of what goes on whether or 
not we are tzoek to Him against our oppressors.

> I suggest that the main source EXTENDS and
> applys to the secondary source

On what basis? Since when do we have the license to make up our 
own deroshos?

> I add two comments
> 1) I don't know the full extent of this law
> But it certainly includes workers without
> wages and  default loans. 

Source? Neither of those medrashim dealt with workers without 
wages. And they didn't deal with defaulted loans either (although 
one of them was about a lender who would not lend before Shmitta).

I suggest that it
> includes all comparable people. Carl is free
> to add or not add whomever he wishes. However
> I don't see how he can avoid saying that this
> applies to workers and defaults on loans.

Because Chazal didn't say it and there's no poetic license in Torah 
to go around making up our own drahsos.

> My position is that it applies to at least
> these cases so we have something new
> 
> 
> 2) I am certainly aware of all the sources
> that one should not pray on ones enemies.
> But we now also have a source that SOME
> people (workers, lenders) can pray. 

No. At most we have sources that say that IF one prays on their 
enemies, then Hashem MIGHT judge the enemies more quickly. 
That does not constitute a blanket heter as you have depicted it.

> In classical talmudic style 

Are you an Amora?

-- 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.

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         ]