Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 385

Monday, February 21 2000

• Shapiro's book: chachomim, hizoharu bi'divreichem
• Re: Rashi
• Re: Not one positive thing?
• Re: From Today's "Israel Line
• Re: Learning from History
• RE: If you can't pound 'em with the facts, just pound 'em
• Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History)
• Re: If you can't pound 'em with the facts, just pound 'em
• Re: Diyukim
• Re: Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago
• Re: Ban on Cigarettes
• Re: SE impressions
• Re: Besmirching Fruhm Sociopaths
• re: The SE letters - Some Imprerssions
• Negios in Psak Halacha
• Re: Marc Shapiro's agenda
• Re: Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History)

I had no plans to weigh in on these discussions as the protagonists seem
to ably and forefully represent their own perspectives.  But yet the
too quick dismissal (imho) of RD Havin’s plaint re the tone assumed in
some postings needs reinforcement, not a blow-off inviting him to unsubscribe
if he is uncomfortable.  I cast not the slightest aspersion on RYGBs
self perception of the “issues” focus of his postings as opposed to ad
hominem screeds, indeed it is precisely from the positive example and
sensitivity usually shown by RYGB in such matters that makes some recent
responses atypical. but here is clearly an area, as any musar devotee
such as RYGB might surely agree,  where improvement is possible for all
of us.  I will give two recent examples, one personal and one related
to the SE stuff.  In the recent thread on MM, I wrote some things (all
true of course, but that is another issue) which clearly vexed RYGB as
well as some others and he wrote back demanding sources – fair enough.
I had indeed prepared just such a reply but decided not to post it in
part because of the tone, intended or not, of some other remarks.  Thus
when a halochik issue was raised (viz the permissability of la’az on
the departed) with a page citation from the chofetz chaim, this was not
answered but dismissed as <..and then to piously protect MM  behind the
veil of the Chofetz Chayim - this all doesn't quite make fro reasoned
debate, does it?> i.e. hiding behind – presumably false (mine?)– piety.
 this – again whether intended or not – comes across perilously close
to the ad hominem border and, to this reader, is hardly the "reasoned
debate" RYGB is under the impression he was engaged in.  now consider
the recent SE dust up with Shapiro’s impassioned defense of his own integrity/intellectual
honesty as a historian.  RYGB claims that he nowhere questioned it, rather
reserving the right to question his judgement (again fair enough in the
sense that this removes it from the ad hominem mode – though even to
question judgement it would seem that you might cite something relevant,
but “relevance” too is a judgement call and I don’t wish to debate it
here).  

But what RYGB actually said in response to a posting by REC, and I assume
was the proximate cause which sent Shapiro ballistic, was:
<Thus, just as cheerfully - but vehemently - must I disagree with what
here follows: >> Prof. Shapiro does not need me to defend his intellectual
honesty.  I will note only that his book does refer to statements in
letters or statements addressed to the yeshiva world which contradict
Shapiro's portrait. Shapiro interprets these as not reflecting the Seridei
Esh's true views. Readers are free to interpret them differently. But
Prof. Shapiro makes no attempt to disregard or conceal the conflicting
evidence.  Kol tuv, Eli Clark > >
Now,  how may we parse this response where he “disagrees with the follows”.
There are only six sentences in REC’s text.  The sixth contains his closing
salutation and name, which I presume RYGB is not disputing. Similar analysis
leads me to assume RYGB can only be disagreeing with the first or fifth
of REC’s sentences.  Either of which could easily be taken (indeed I
would not know how else to take it, and Shapiro clearly took it that
way) as an attack on someone’s intellectual honesty – precisely what
RYGB did not by his testimony mean to do.  

Now, I am also a very quick and thus occasionally careless writer, and
I know that I have –inadvertently poh vi’shom- strayed beyond such bounds.
 thus the stricture: chachomim, hizoharu bi’divreichem (if I only had
such status) should have applied to me as well, let alone the talmidei
chachomim who write for this list.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com		H: (301) 593-3949 
frankemj@acq.osd.mil


-- 
Michael Frankel
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com - email
(202) 777-2641 ext. 1299 - voicemail/fax



___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com

>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:50:07 -0500
>From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
>Subject: Rashi

>I have heard off list from 2 people regarding Rashi on Chumash:

>1) Rashi always is saying peshat.

>2) Rashi is always saying peshat except when he notes otherwise.

>Any Klalei Rashi or articles or other sources that speak to these assumptions?

1) is the explicit position of the Maskil LeDavid. See his hakdamah. His
talmid, the Be'er BaSadah, follows in his footsteps. The Ohel Yaakov and
Ohel Moshe also hold this position. I don't know of any of the classical
mefarshei Rashi who definitely hold position 2). A third opinion is that of
the Sefer Zikaron (Shemos 13:17, Devarim 13:9). He says that Rashi can be
assumed to be saying pshat only when he says explicitly that that is what he
is doing. See Rav Moshe Philip's comments on this topic in the introduction
to his edition of Sefer Zikaron.

Yisrael Herczeg

--- Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
> > If one were to only read these letters one would
> get
> > the impression that the SE was a bitter, lonely
> man
> > who was against the entire thrust of what the
> Orthodox
> > Jewish world was doing.  Not one positive thing
> can be
> > said about such an individual.  Everything the SE
> 
> Let us accept the premise that reading the letters
> leaves precisely the
> impression described. To be sure, we are dealing
> with a major talmid
> hakham, who continues to devote his old age to Torah
> and avoda, who
> continues to respond to queries from around the
> world. But his
> correspondence reveals "a bitter lonely man who was
> against the entire
> thrust of what the Orthodox Jewish world was doing."
> 
> Does this lead to the conclusion that "not one
> positive thing can be said
> about such an individual?"
> 
> I would like to know what perspective it is that
> cannot find "one positive
> thing" to say about a talmid hakham who is 1) lonely
> and 2) who is
> critical, not of Torah uMitzvot, but of the "thrust"
> of what the Orthodox
> Jewish world was doing. Being 1) lonely and 2)
> critical are probably
> impediments to running for Chairman of a local
> Booster's club in the
> United States, to say nothing of cutting down one's
> chances to endorse
> sugary breakfast cereals. But surely it is possible
> for honest people to
> find "one positive thing" to say about such an
> individual.

I most certainly respect the SE. He was a Gadol. And I
do not say that he was a lonely and bitter man.  On
the contrary.  I would guess that most of the time he
was probably a very positive individual who most
certainly contributed enormously to Klal Israel. I was
simply pointing out a mood that seemed to emanate from
those letters .  My point was that this was THE
IMPRESSION ONE GETS if his only source of information
was the letters published in the TuM journal article.

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

On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 12:49:01AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<Is this "Maddah?">>

: 	Not unless you have a very vivid imagination.  The purpose is to help
: people find jobs.  ...  Maybe a loose interpretation of TIDE at most.

Wrong mishnah. Perhaps, "Im ein kemach, ein Torah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

Earlier today I wrote:

> On 21 Feb 00, at 4:24, ben waxman wrote:
> 
> > How about things like being doomed to repeat history
> > if you don't learn from it?  
> 
> Learning from history does not necessarily require that one speak 
> Lashon Hara about individuals. In the case of the type of history 
> from which Jews are meant to learn, it doesn't usually require 
> speaking Lashon Hara about people who are "oseh maaseh 
> amcha." Yes, Lashon Hara is permitted when there is a toeles (and 
> I AM overgeneralizing - see the Chafetz Chaim in Clal 9), but even 
> then it must be minimized as much as possible.

This was a mistake on my part. The citation should have been to 
Clal 10 S'if 2 and 5.

-- 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

--- "Krischer, Ellen L (Ellen)" <krischer@lucent.com>
wrote:
> R' Shapiro posts a defense of his intellectual
> integrity so we've gone on to
> discuss his personal morals, and we dredge up posts
> from years ago on a
> completely different topic!
> 
> Micha - just where are the DNA's (Darchei Noam
> Alerts) on this topic?

Out of bounds. No DNA's required here. There is no Ad
Hominem attack on Prof. Shapiro. I don't think any one
seriously questions his integrity, only his judghement
on this issue.

It is perfectly legitimate to discuss biases that
individual historians bring to their work.  Previous
works by such authors tend to show where his
sympathies lie in related areas of Hashkafa and can
somtimes show why a particular approach is taken is
analyzing a piece of history.

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

Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> Interesting is whether a statement which will have toelet for a significant  
> public but not all would be over Lashon Hara.

I think not. In Clal 10 S'if 2 of Hilchos Lashon Hara, the Chafetz 
Chaim gives a list of seven conditions under which it is permitted to 
say Lashon Hara. One of them (number 5) is that he should do so 
l'toeles. But condition number 6 says, "Im hoo yachol lesabev es 
ha'toeles ha'zos gufa b'eitza acheres, shelo yitztarech le'saper es 
inyan ha'lashon hara alav azai b'chol gavnei assur le'saper." It 
seems to me that if there are people who are going to hear the 
Lashon Hara as a result of your "publicizing it" who are not going to 
have a toeles, then by definition, you had better find another way 
(which includes those people not finding out) to accomplish that 
toeles. See also Clal 10 S'if 14 and in the Beer Mayim Chaim there 
s"k 11.

-- 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

On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 01:58:03PM -0500, Krischer, Ellen L (Ellen) wrote:
: Micha - just where are the DNA's (Darchei Noam Alerts) on this topic?

I don't understand the question, as DNAs are sent in private email. Unless
you're the recipient, you wouldn't know there were any.

I was in Chicago, as I told the list, until yesterday evening. I'm not caught
up yet with the material. Some DNAs have gone out, I'm sure there are more
coming.

I don't want to squelch the discussion of the parameters of historiography
and biography in halachah. Also, there's a question of identifying "the real
SE" and where the letters to Atlas fit in the picture.

It's the questioning of a particular person's integrity that I feel is beyond
the pale. Whether it be in criticisms of the article or criticisms of those
criticisms.

I am reluctant to truncate the thread, though, as I feel the other issues
need to be addressed.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

On 20 Feb 00, at 22:19, Edward Weiss wrote:

>  Perhaps you could also ask this fellow how he translates
>  "hamshusheles
> baTorah" (no pause intended), presuming he doesn't add on the "she"
> that someone mentioned in the name of RYBS (correct me if I'm
> wrong..).

No, you're right. I mentioned that in RYBS's name.

-- 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

On 21 Feb 00, at 15:10, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> When are we going to be zoche to "chazaras hashiur"?

Keivan she'higid, shuv aino chozer u'magid :-) 

-- 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

On 21 Feb 00, at 15:06, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:51:00 +0200
> > From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> > Subject: Ban on Cigarettes?
> 
> <<Sometimes I think the Gdolim read Avodah :-) This came from today's
> Jerusalem Post....>>
> 
>  I prefer to think that we on Avodah are mechaven to some issues which
> the gedolim consider berumo shel olam;    that we are not (only <g>)
> spouting hot air.

I give the gdolim more credit than I give us :-) 

-- 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

On 21 Feb 00, at 14:48, meir shinnar wrote:

> Some last impressions on the Seride Esh discussion:
> 1) So far, no one has brought a single source that CDRG applies after
> death.  

I think the chiluk between CDRG applying while a person is alive 
and after he is dead is a mistaken chiluk. IMHO it's based on a 
misconception that CDRG goes along with a letter as a property 
right. That is based on a misinterpretation of the Rishonim who say 
"v'im zorko l'ashpa mutar." Throwing the letter into the garbage 
does not make it permitted to look because by doing so the person 
has given up ba'alus on the letter. It makes it permitted to look 
because it shows that the person no longer cares about the letter. 
It also may reflect a presumption that most people who are not 
police detectives or private investigators are not going to look 
through garbage cans and dumps for people's private 
correspondence.

If you were correct that CDRG is dependent on the writer's or the 
recipient's property rights in a letter, it would follow that if I read the 
letter, but left it with the writer or the original recipient, I would not 
violate CDRG. But that's not the halacha. R. Zvi Shpitz (one of the 
leading poskim in bein adam l'chaveiro matters in Yerushalayim 
today) in Mishpetei HaTorah 1:92 writes based upon the tshuvos of 
the Maharam m'Rotenberg that the issur is on the "etzem 
histaklus" in the letter, "kdei lodaas es hameida ha'amur sham l'lo 
kabalas reshus m'baalov, af al pi she'ha'mistakel lo yikach es 
hamichtav hanal lershuso, ela yashirenu b'rshus ba'alov. Klomar, af 
al pi she'ain ha'mistakel oiver b'lav shel lo tignovu, b'chol zos 
ya'avor al ha'cherem hanal." So CDRG has nothing to do with 
property rights.

In fact, CDRG was meant to act as a geder against rechilus. Later 
in the same tshuva, Rav Shpitz brings a tshuva from the Halachos 
Ktanos (1:276), which says, "Nireh SHEYESH ISSUR LEVAKESH 
U'LE'CHAPAIS MISTOROV SHEL CHAVEIRO, uma li lo selech 
rachil la'achaerim o l'atzmo." 

As we have already seen, the issurim of rechilus and lashon hara 
apply even when the subject is after 120. See the Chafetz Chaim in 
Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 8 S'if 9 and the other mekoros I cited 
today, especially the Rabbeinu Yona in Brachos (11b in the Rif). If 
CDRG was meant as a geder against rechilus during a person's 
lifetime, it most surely is meant to continue after the person's 
death.

Even if such an issur exists, the discussion here clearly
> suggests that ignorance of it is clearly excusable.  

If what you're suggesting is that we cannot call a person a rasha 
because he violated CDRG by disclosing letters of someone who is 
dead because CDRG in such circumstances is not an issur 
mefursam, ain hachi nami. But that doesn't make it mutar. And if 
that's not what you were getting at, then please explain.

Even for a living
> person, many require that one know that one is transgressing CDRG for
> CDRG to apply (ignorance of this law is an excuse...) (See ET)

ET? 

> 2) Issues of lashon hara have been raised.  While lashon hara does
> apply after death, its appilicability in this case seems questionable
> at best, as many on this list still don't see the gnut involved, and
> furthermore see a clear to'elet.  

I think I answered that contention this morning in my response to 
R. Zlochower. If you missed it, I wrote:

"But isn't one of the keys of Hilchos Lashon Hara that you're not 
supposed to say something about Reuven that the listener would 
regard as a gnus about Reuven? And if there's a reasonable 
likelihood that what you are writing (and particularly when you are 
publishing something) will be read by someone who will regard it as 
a gnus, aren't you saying lashon hara about Reuven at least when 
it reaches the ears of that recipient? If you were talking to Reuven 
and Shimon and you wanted to tell Reuven about Berl's dedication 
to learning because you think it would help him to learn better, but 
Shimon would regard it as a gnus to Berl, wouldn't you make sure 
that Shimon wouldn't hear it before you told it to Reuven? Or would 
you send a letter to the email list that they both frequent knowing 
that both could read it there? Wouldn't that be telling lashon hara to 
Shimon about Berl even if it's something that Reuven wouldn't 
regard as a gnus?"

> We need not agree with the conclusions of RMS.  However, the laws of
> lashon hara don't apply only to talking about the SE, they also apply
> to talking about his biographer.

I'm not a posek and I'm not attempting to "pasken" as to whether 
this would apply to RMS. Not my place. But see Chafetz Chaim 
Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 10 S'if 5 and Shaarei Tshuva Ma'amar 
228. V'ain kan makom le'haarich.

-- 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

On 21 Feb 00, at 15:10, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In some states, someone who has personal knowledge that another has
> committed certain crimes, such as sexual child abuse, is obligated to
> report the crime to the authorities. Otherwise that person is himself
> committing a crime. 

Has anyone ever been convicted of not telling? My guess is no, 
unless s/he saw it him/herself.

-- 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

--- Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Harry Maryles writes <<< It is one thing for a
> historian to read those
> letters and then form a conclusion based on them and
> it is quite another
> thing to publish, what had to be understood as the
> most private of
> thoughts by the SE. >>>
> 
> I only see a difference of degree, not of kind.
> Either they're both ok,
> or both wrong (to whatever degree of wrongness you
> like). Are historians
> some kind of priveleged class of person which
> exempts them from the usual
> rules?
> 
> I ***might*** understand if you had singled out
> gedolim, or some other
> kind of *leader*, upon whom Klal Yisroel relies, and
> who needs a deeper
> than average understanding of his flock. But a
> historian? What makes him
> different than a novelist or any other kind of
> author?

Your question about the propriety of individual
historians reading priviliged material interlaces with
my earlier post on the the study of history. There are
those who believe (as did the Netziv's son, R. Chaim
Berlin) that the study of history is complete
Battalah.

But I believe the study of history does serve a
positive purpose and it is therefore incumbent upon
legitimate, reponsible historians to know as much of
the truth of history as they can. This requires broad
research and intellectual honesty and discretion about
what to publish and how to express it.  But it would
be unfair and dishonest to chronicle history with an
incomplete view. This includes learning everything one
can about the great figures of history and retelling
their stories responsibly. Telling over only a
sanitized version of the truth does a disservice to
Man and G-d.

Although guilty in trying to censor the truth by
trying to remove their publiction, "My Uncle the
Netziv" from circulation, I believe that (since that
debacle) even the editors of the Artscroll history
series have come to realize that overly sanitizing
history is counter-productive to at least some degree.
Otherwise it would not have published in it's bio. of
R. Yaakov Kameinetsky how cordial he was to the Nuns
who used to live across the street from his house in
Monsey? Or, that he used to give out candy to trick or
treaters on Haloween. (When was the last time anyone
heard of a Rebbe telling his students to make sure and
have enough candy for the trick or treaters or to be
nice to clergy of a different faith?)

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

Several months ago (Vol. 3 #198) when R. Akiva Miller and I 
(among others) were debating the definition of psak (you can 
probably find the thread in the archives under "Towards a Definition 
of Psak (was Chumra)," someone wrote:

"The issue of noge'a badavar as a halachic concept (barring a 
person from ruling) AFAIK deals with monetary disputes between 
two individuals (or perhaps other bain adam la'chaveiro issues).  
There a person cannot say, "trust me; I have to answer to Hashem 
for my actions" because someone else will lose out."

I always thought the person who wrote those words was mistaken. 
Now I think I have a proof. See Tosfos Yevamos 77a s"v Im Kodem 
Maaseh.

-- 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

Wait!

Before you leave - your paper on O&F sounds really interesting - could you
post it (perhaps sans footnotes) here - or send it to those who request it
privately? 

KT,
YGB

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

On 22 Feb 00, at 0:11, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:

> Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> 
> > Interesting is whether a statement which will have toelet for a
> > significant  public but not all would be over Lashon Hara.
> 
> I think not. 

Oops :-) It should be obvious from the rest of the post that I meant 
to say that a statement which has a toeles for a significant public, 
but not for all (who hear it), would be oiver on lashon hara.

-- Carl (who should go to sleep already :-) 

Rest of post:

In Clal 10 S'if 2 of Hilchos Lashon Hara, the Chafetz
> Chaim gives a list of seven conditions under which it is permitted to
> say Lashon Hara. One of them (number 5) is that he should do so
> l'toeles. But condition number 6 says, "Im hoo yachol lesabev es
> ha'toeles ha'zos gufa b'eitza acheres, shelo yitztarech le'saper es
> inyan ha'lashon hara alav azai b'chol gavnei assur le'saper." It seems
> to me that if there are people who are going to hear the Lashon Hara
> as a result of your "publicizing it" who are not going to have a
> toeles, then by definition, you had better find another way (which
> includes those people not finding out) to accomplish that toeles. See
> also Clal 10 S'if 14 and in the Beer Mayim Chaim there s"k 11.
> 
> -- 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         ]