Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 400

Tuesday, February 29 2000

• Re: Avodah V4 #398
• Re: R. Svei and YU (Was Maarava)
• Re: Facing the Truths of History
• Re: Avodah V4 #399-Siegler case
• Re: Maarava (was Re: Facing the Truths of History)
• TIDE and TuM
• high schools
• Re: high schools
• Re: Study of History
• re: Facing the Truths of History

----- Original Message ----- >
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:54:19 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Re: Study of History
>
> > From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: Study of History
>
> > >While I am generally sympathetic to making allowances in
biographies and
> > >history for the sake of truth, I can't help but feel the above
comment goes
> > >too far.  If the power to see "real truth" is absolute, how do we
explain
> > >HaShem's avoidance of lashon hara vis-a-vis Avraham and Sarah?
> >
> > One the one hand this cite supports the idea that one does not
always
> > tell the truth (even HaShem lied for Shalom Bayis), but in other
ways,
> > it seems, if anything to undermine the discussion we have been
having
> > on Loshen Hora and toeles.
> >
> > After all, while I fully understand why it is that Hashem said
what he
> > said to Avraham - what I don't really understand is why, you and
me, and
> > everybody else who reads the Torah from Moshe's day until ours,
needs to
> > know that Sara Imanu spoke Loshen Hora about Avraham Avinu.

I just noticed this.  Korman in his book Ha'Avot VeHashevatim gives a
wonderful analysis and explanation of this, utilizing the pshat.  I
highly recommend reading his commentary on this matter.  If I have
time later this week, I'll try to summarize it.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On 28 Feb 00, at 16:12, Harry Maryles wrote:

> --- Arnold Lustiger <alustig@erenj.com> wrote:
> > when I
> > finished high school in
> > the Philadelphia Yeshiva, R. Elya Svei pushed for me
> > to go to YU when the
> > alternative was a secular college in Philadelphia.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been better if R. Svei would be more
> publicly supportive of YU, instead of being so
> publicly negative about it, and only making a quiet
> exception in your case? 

In a word, no. Because in R. Svei's hashkafas olam, whether you 
agree with it or not, going to YU is b'dieved. The (not unjustified) 
fear is that if R. Svei were to say "YU is just as good as going to 
Brisk," talmidim who were academically capable and socially able 
to adopt the "Torah only" approach, would instead go to YU adn 
become baalebatim. And while there is nothing wrong with being a 
baalebus, in R. Svei's world view, whether or not you agree with it, 
a gadol hador could slip away by taking the "easy way" out.

I am frankly pleased to hear that R. Svei spoke to the original 
poster al pi darcho and did not try to fit him into a mold into which 
the original poster felt he could not fit. I have heard too many 
stories of mechanchim who do otherwise. Then again, I know 
enough Philly graduates who went to YU not to think it otherwise.

Years ago, I spoke with one of the Mashgichim in one of the better 
(black) Yeshiva Gdolas here about Maarava and other schools of 
its kind. His response was that, "the bad thing about them is that 
you have boys going there who would otherwise go to Yeshiva 
Ktana and learn all the time." But when I went to this same 
mashgiach a year ago and told him that we were considering 
Maarava or Yeshiva x or y, and none of them was a Yeshiva Ktana, 
he told me to send my son to Maarava. BTW - his Yeshiva is 
known to take Maarava graduates.

Wouldn't this go a long way
> towards Achdus in Klal Israel, something which is
> sorely lacking today?

I'm not sure that the type of Achdus we are seeking is at the 
lowest common denominator, but I think that's where having R. 
Svei endorsing YU may be heading (by implication anyway). The 
type of achdus I am seeking is one where we judge individuals 
(l'chaf zchus and) as individuals, and not label them based on how 
they dress or where they learn. 

-- 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 28 Feb 00, at 22:21, Zuckerman, Jeffrey I. wrote:

> 	1.  Because this aspect of this thread began with an assertion that
> Rav Shach placed Maarava in cherem (which was a surprise to me), admission
> to Ponovezh seems at least relevant.  Even graduates of the Hebrew Academy
> of Greater Washington (which has been renamed the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew
> Academy) -- a coed school in Silver Spring, Maryland, with lots of secular
> studies -- are admitted to the other yeshivas listed by RCS.  Indeed, my own
> oldest son -- a graduate of HAGWASH -- plans to learn in the Mir during the
> kayitz z'man (after almost two years at Sha'alvim, and before returning to
> the U.S. to begin attending YU in the Fall).

Listing Mir was probably not fair. From what I understand, Mir has 
had an essentially "open admissions" policy for some time now 
(you want to sit and learn, you come and sit down and learn). Now 
you won't get PAID to learn that way, but you can come and sit in 
the Beis Medrash and learn every day. You don't have to take a 
bchina (AFAIK) to be considered part of the Yeshiva.

As to Ponovezh, I know of someone who had gone to another high 
school (which is considered much more "out of the pale" than 
Maarava is) who was admitted there. So I think that if someone 
with the potential to be the next gadol hador came along and 
sought admission to Ponovezh, the fact that he went to Maarava for 
high school would not be held against him.

> 	3.  Out of curiosity, what evidence is there that over the past ten
> years, going to Ponovezh has been a path to getting to be recognized as a
> Gadol haDor?

I don't think anyone has done an empirical study. But RDE (if he is 
still lurking out there) could do a much better job of speaking to 
that question than I can.

> 	4.  Finally, having now mentioned the term <<Gadol haDor>>, I have a
> question that has bothered me through a number of threads on Avodah
> (although this has nothing whatsoever to do with RCS' post):  would it ever
> be possible, and if so under what circumstances, for a gadol to cease being
> a gadol, and thus lose his entitlement to whatever presumptions are accorded
> a gadol?

If R"L a Gadol HaDor was oiver on something that was an issur 
yadua l'chol Yisroel (e.g. m'zaneh im aishes ish R"L), to posit an 
extreme example, I would certainly hope that he would lose his 
"entitlement." But being Gadol HaDor is not exactly like being a 
CEO - no individual or group of individuals bestows the title on you, 
and and no individual or group of individuals can take it away from 
you either. And it does not come with any specific set of 
"entitlements" (unlike the title of Rabban shel kol bnei ha'gola in an 
earlier age).

-- 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

In a message dated 00-02-29 01:01:07 EST, you write:

<<  I think it's a chilul Hashem that it came to this. >>
Yes, but the cause for the chilul Hashem is only one address-the beis din 
involved.Many years ago the brother of a woman who was the victim of a heter 
meah rabbanim from the same beis din called me because he saw some publicity 
that I was givng a shiur on Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom,and asked what I could 
do to help his sister. I told him I personally could not do anything-I was 
only giving a shiur-but if he would send me the material I would give it to 
Rav Ahron Soloveichek and perhaps he could help.I gave Rav Ahron the material 
I received- including the hazmanos to beis din, which were sent in the summer 
when the woman was away, to an address she did not stay at in the  summer,and 
were used as a basis to say she had refused to come to beis din- and he was 
outraged.He called the head of that beis din and reprimanded him very 
harshly.The response was that he couldn't change what he did in that case, 
but he would not issue any more heter meah rabbanims.This is what Rav Ahron 
told me, close to ten yrs. ago. He told me other things about that Av Beis 
Din that I do not care to repeat. .Suffice it to say that it is time someone 
did something to stop that beis din from ruining people's lives. What they 
have been doing is the biggest chillul Hashem, and I think the chillul Hashem 
of a public case is a much lesser offense than the one they have continously 
been commiting, lifnei am v'eidah, for so many years. 

On 29 Feb 00, at 0:14, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:16:46 +0200
> > From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> > Subject: Maarava (was Re: Facing the Truths of History)
> 
> <<Now, if only there was a school like this for girls....>>
> 
> 	My information is that there are several. N'est ce pas?

In my experience there are very few girls' schools here that are 
both on a high academic level and maintain what I would consider a 
proper sense of priorities between kodesh and chol. And fewer still 
in and around Yerushalayim (although my oldest son is in a dorm 
in Maarava, it is 25 minutes from our house by car, or an hourly 
bus to a place 3-4 minutes from our house by car). It has been 
three years since we looked for a high school for our oldest 
daughter, and we are five years away from our next daughter 
looking for a high school so my information may not be current 
(and I will respond and have responded about specific schools only 
privately). 

Suffice it to say, that I think there is a lot of room for a girls' school 
with a Maarava type of hashkafa in and around Yerushalayim.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

>Looking back, I notice that M. Sirote referred to Hil. TALMUD Torah
not Yesodei Hatorah (thanks, RCS).  I think this must refer to
Hil. TT 1:12.  Having defined Pardes in Hil. YT 4:13 to be Maaseh
Bereshit (physics) plus Maaseh Merkavah (theology), in TT 1:12
he tells us that Pardes is considered part of Gemara (as in
dividing one's study time amongst Mikra Mishna Gemara).  So in
response to M. Sirote's initial question, it would appear to be
a part of Torah, not just instrumental to Torah, in the opinion
of the Rambam.

Yes, thank you.  That was the text I had in mind (and did not have time to
look up).

> This will lead us back to last year's arguments over whether or
not to say birchot haTorah over learning physics.  However, if
Rambam is right, it means that my anti-religious great-uncle
was actually learning Torah his whole life - he was a physicist
of some note.

Back when we were young and idealistic, my husband was bothered by the
question of did Einstein get s'char for his work in physics.  He once
collarred R' Lichtenstein as he was coming out of shule in Katemon and asked
him.  R' Lichtenstein responded "do I know the Ribbono Shel Olam's
heshbonot"?   We have since learned to be satisfied with not knowing. :-)

> Since everyone else defines Pardes as kabbalah, I don't know what
practical relevance this derivation has for those who don't want
to consider philosophy to be Torah.

If Rambam used the word "Pardes" to mean Maaseh Breishit + Maaseh
HaMercavah, and then he says that Pardes is part of Gemara, then, according
to the Rambam, Maaseh Breishit is part of Gemara.  "Kabbala" can refer to
any and all of these matters.

The question then is what is the relationship between our science and Maaseh
Breishit.  How did Chazal know anything about cosmology? The now-famous
sources about creation were certainly part of Kabbala, or masoret that was
taught to individuals.  That must be the Maaseh Breishit that Chazal
referred to, and the Rambam counts as part of Gemara. But what about the
scientific method?  Would the Rambam have included its use as Gemara?  What
about the content of such discoveries - what we consequently know about
nature?  Does teaching your child the names and properties of plants
constutute Talmud Torah?  Presumably not.  If so, neither should teaching
your child the names and properties of noble gases.

PS: Does M. in M. Sirote stand for Monsieur?  :-)  It's Mrs, but you can
just call me Kira.

-Kira
kira@sirote.net

>> Wouldn't it have been better if R. Svei would be more
publicly supportive of YU, instead of being so
publicly negative about it, and only making a quiet
exception in your case? >>

I would assume that R. Svei sent there only bidieved.

There is a similar case in the writings of the Steipler.
He was extremely against any type of secular education.
Nevertheless he writes that given no other choice a boy should
go to "Yishuv" (a relatively RW yeshiva in Israel that offers
a bagrut after 5 years). That in no way is an endorsement of
the yeshiva. I would guess that he would have said similar
things about Maarava.

I always found it strange that the high school of Shaalavim has\
pictures of the Steipler in their school. Has he known about it
I am sure he would have objected vociferously (independent of
any opinions of photographs in general).

Eli Turkel

On 29 Feb 00, at 13:48, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I always found it strange that the high school of Shaalavim has\
> pictures of the Steipler in their school. Has he known about it
> I am sure he would have objected vociferously (independent of
> any opinions of photographs in general).

I'm not convinced of that. While I think we can safely say that the 
Steipler did not agree with Shalavim's derech, I think he would have 
agreed with the kavod ha'Torah expressed in putting a picture of a 
gadol on the wall. 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In message , Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>> From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: Study of History
>
>> >While I am generally sympathetic to making allowances in biographies and
>> >history for the sake of truth, I can't help but feel the above comment goes
>> >too far.  If the power to see "real truth" is absolute, how do we explain
>> >HaShem's avoidance of lashon hara vis-a-vis Avraham and Sarah? 
>> 
>> One the one hand this cite supports the idea that one does not always
>> tell the truth (even HaShem lied for Shalom Bayis), but in other ways,
>> it seems, if anything to undermine the discussion we have been having
>> on Loshen Hora and toeles.
>> 
>> After all, while I fully understand why it is that Hashem said what he
>> said to Avraham - what I don't really understand is why, you and me, and
>> everybody else who reads the Torah from Moshe's day until ours, needs to
>> know that Sara Imanu spoke Loshen Hora about Avraham Avinu.
>> 
>> Now yes, the toeles is clear - in that we can learn from this episode
>> that one can (and should) act in the way Hashem acted - but if, as Carl
>> suggests, where there are two ways of teaching something, one that
>> involves publicising loshen hora, and another that doesn't, you should
>> choose the one that doesn't, then why is it that we know that this ever
>> happened.
>
>I think the lesson here was Shalom Bayis. But I also think that 
>what Sara said was not necessarily Lashon Hara but more in the 
>genre of "nura bei planya." I think that it could be argued that Sara 
>would have said the same thing in front of Avraham Avinu, and that 
>she would not have looked upon it as a derogatory statement (after 
>all, even though she was clearly beyond ordinary child-bearing 
>years at the time, he still WAS ten years older than she was).
>

I used this particular example because that was the example used by the
previous poster, who clearly understood it to have been loshen hora (not
to say there are other interpretations).  

>Alternatively, Sara said what she did only to herself and not to 
>someone else (after all, it says "VaTizchak Sara B'KIRBA laimor"). 
>Therefore what SARA did was NOT Lashon Hara. Hashem wanted 
>to reproach Avraham about it nevertheless (because He regarded it 
>as a pegiya in His Kavod, as if R"L it could not have been done). 
>But he did so by changing the lashon in order to teach us that one 
>may change lashon because of darchei shalom.  
>

Yes but.  The essence of loshen hora is that you say something that may
be true but is a gnai on the person about whom you are speaking.  Is it
not a gnai to say that Sara Imenu was lacking in the kavod she showed
for HaShem?  And, as you mention there are a lot of other cases about
which we can ask the same question.

>> Surely the Author of the Torah could have chosen another way of teaching
>> us this lesson - eg stating it explicitly as a command, without a
>> ma'ase, or alternatively not telling us *who* the couple in question
>> were. 
>
>I don't think changing the couple in question would have had the 
>same impact. I'm also not sure that telling us a halacha rather than 
>telling us a story would have had the same impact either. And 
>besides, the purpose of Sefer Breishis is to teach us stories that 
>will act as a mussar haskel and not to teach us halachos per se. 

Agreed.  The question is, are you allowed to say something about someone
(leaving aside Esav and such, who are not part of amcha) that amounts to
loshen hora even if your purpose is mussar haskel?

>
>(The same question also has always bothered me about Miriam,
>> although I supposed there that since the loshen hora was spoken
>> publically, ie all bnei Yisroel knew about it, then it was considered to
>> be "in the public domain" and hence not loshen hora to put it in the
>> Torah - even though you and I would never have known about it if the
>> Torah had not told us about it).
>
>Actually, no. The Chafetz Chaim makes quite clear that Miriam 
>spoke only to herself. See the Sifri brought in Shmiras HaLashon, 
>Shaar HaZchira Perek 5. Had Hashem not punished her so openly, 
>Bnei Yisrael would never have known about it.

Well, that rather makes the question stronger.  Why was it necessary for
Hashem to punish her so publically?

> And the Torah does 
>cover up what she said. "Al odos haIsha haKushis asher lakach" 
>isn't exactly an explicit statement....
>

I wasn't so much thinking about what exactly she said, but that she said
*loshen hora*.  Telling someone that somebody else said loshen hora is
in itself loshen hora, even if you do not say what it is that the person
said.

>Here again, I think the answer here is toeles. If there was ever a 
>case that someone was going to speak Lashon Hara about 
>someone else with no sense of wrongdoing whatsoever, this was it. 
>The Medrash tells us that Miriam's kavana was pure - only for the 
>sake of pirya v'rivya. She spoke only to herself. She knew what she 
>knew only because she heard Tzipora being meysiach l'fi tuma. 
>She said what she said about her brother whom she loved and 
>respected and would never have harmed. Miriam was a tzadekes. 
>Moshe was a tzadik and was not at all angry with her ("Keil na refa 
>na la" - it didn't take anything to get him to daven for her. No 
>hakpada). And yet the Torah is still telling us no, that's still Lashon 
>Hara. What statement of halacha could have as powerful an effect 
>as that?

So, you seem to be saying - that if using real names and telling it as
it really was will have a more powerful effect than merely stating the
halacha, or providing some form of fiction, then that is sufficient
toeles.

>
>> Since, however, I have a great deal of difficulty (British
>> understatement here!) in attributing loshen hora (or, alternatively,
>> unnecessary loshen hora) to HaShem, can somebody help me out of my
>> perplexity by explaining why it was mutar to write the Torah in the way
>> it was written (especially as the easy answer, ie you can say loshen
>> hora about dead people appears, from what people have said here, not to
>> be valid).
>
>To me at least, there is a chiluk to be made between the Avos and 
>Moshe Rabbeinu and his family, on the one hand, and the Gdolim 
>of later generations on the other hand. I think that chiluk is why it's 
>"okay" for the Torah to tell us about the failings of the Avos while 
>it's still not "okay" to talk about the failings of Gadol X, even if 
>Gadol x is after 120.
>
>Let's go through some of the parsheyos in the Torah that would be 
>kaveyachol regarded as the "wrong" thing to do in today's society. 
>Does any of us think any "less" of Yaakov Avinu because of the 
>way in which he received the bchora? Does any of us think any 
>"less" of Yehuda because of Maaseh Tamar? Of Yosef because he 
>let things get to the point that they did with Aishes Potiphar 
>because (according to the Medrash) he equivocated in declining 
>her advances? Of Moshe Rabbeinu because he continued to 
>decline his shlichus even though it was quite clear that he had 
>gone beyond the point of mere modesty (not to mention mesarvin 
>le'katan v'ain mesarvin le'gadol)? Of David HaMelech because of 
>Maaseh Bas Sheva? Of course not! Part of that is because we are 
>melamed zchus on them - this is the way Hashem decreed that 
>they would behave and so on. 
>

But we are also required to be melamed zchus on everybody, eg a Gadol,
an ordinary yid etc.  

>But there's also an element of distance in time. And there's also 
>the concept that the Avos are so far beyond all of us, that there is 
>nothing about them that could convince us that they are any less 
>tzadikim than we already think they are. 

I'm not sure you are right here - in the sense that, while that may be
true for many people, that is clearly not true for:

a) non Jews (read some of their writings on the subject);
b) non religious Jews (read some of their writings on the subject;

and, I think you would not have any difficulty in finding c) Orthodox
Jews as well (can you honestly say you cannot think of at least one post
on Avodah which seemed to suggest that the poster thought less of the
Avos because of certain of their actions described in the Chumash).

Besides which, you would seem to be saying that if nobody is going to
think worse of a person, you can say loshen hora (which would seem to
imply you can say loshen hora to a tzaddik, because you know they will
always be melamed zchus).  Maybe that is right, but it is an addition
that I have not often heard cited.

>And, as shown, at least 
>for some of the stories (and we could show it with the others) there 
>was also a toeles in telling each story. For example, see the Sifri 
>at the beginning of Dvarim regarding Miriam's actions. 

I agree. I was assuming toeles throughout.  
>
>But if Ploni goes and publicizes that Gadol x had a child out of 
>wedlock 50 or 100 years ago, who has decided that is a toeles? 
>With Miriam, Hashem decided there was a toeles for us to be told - 
>who decided that with respect to Gadol x? 

True.  But you could say the same thing about lying and shalom bayis.
In the case of Avraham and Sara, Hashem decided it was appropriate to
lie for the sake of shalom bayis, but who are we to ever make that
decision.  On the other hand, if we are never to make that assessment,
then there is no toeles in telling us the story.  That does not mean
that we should *always* lie just because we think that there may be a
shalom bayis legitimacy (I mean, arguably what Potipher's wife says to
him about Yosef is a preservation of shalom bayis by lying) - all it
teaches us is that we have to understand that some situations are like
Avraham and Sara, and some like Potipher and his wife (and we may have
to make judgments based on this understanding).

Likewise there are clearly cases where HaShem decided that it *would* be
impermissible to tell over names or identities or stories (that was the
essence of the reproach to Rabbi Akiva) and there are cases where he
decided that it would not.  Surely learning mussar from the actions of
HaShem would including learning mussar in relation to this issue as well
(both when to reveal and when not to).

>With Miriam, we are not 
>going to think any less of her, because we know (and are told very 
>clearly in the Medrash) her aveira was b'shogeg and with only the 
>best of intentions. Can we say the same about this hypothetical 
>story about Gadol x? Of course not! And if the offspring of that 
>union are still known, people will whisper in the streets, "that's 
>Gadol x's granchild; his/her father was born out of wedlock." What 
>does that do to Gadol x's image?
>

I agree with you in your case (assuming that the child was just born out
of wedlock, and was not a mamzer, in which case there is a clear toeles
or a host of other circumstances that might well give rise to toeles).
I was not trying to suggest that just because there are cases of loshen
hora plus toeles in the Torah, that mutirs all cases of loshen hora on
very dubious toeles grounds.

However,  judgments need to be made (all the time) as to what falls
within the category of loshen hora, and what does not, and if it is
loshen hora, what is a sufficient toeles and what is not.  When the
discussion about what is not permissible is framed in such absolutist
terms that it automatically puts HaShem on the wrong side of the line,
it makes me worry.  

And there are other aspects of the absolutest flag waiving about loshen
hora that make me worry.  I think I am particularly worried about the
cases where people are so scared of not violating the laws of loshen
hora, that they are over on the issur of losamod al dam re'echa (into
which the abuse cases we have had described fall - see the  Sanhedrin
73a).  And while the Chofetz Chaim would no doubt be horrified by the
use to which his book is put, there is unquestionably a certain tendency
today, for those with real harmful dangerous averahs to hide to use the
cloak of loshen hora to avoid their averahs being shown the harsh light
of day (and so ensuring that they will have further victims).  If people
had a better understanding of the more complicated nuances and a sense
of balancing loshen hora with toeles, I do not believe this use would be
possible.

>Soif davar, IMHO it is impossible to try to make a hekesh to permit 
>hearing maaseilach about Gdolim from the fact that the Torah tells 
>over things that, to our minds, appear to be Lashon Hara. 
>

But you yourself have drawn a distinction, by arguing a case in which,
on the face of it, it is hard to see any toeles which by implication
would seem to suggest if there was toeles like the cases in Chumash,
then maybe it would be appropriate.

So lets search for such a case:

- how about we make a case where Gadol X held that anybody who had a
child out of wedlock was not fit to posken shialas, regardless of what
level of teshuva he may have done later.  Would you still say there was
no toeles to reveal that Gadol X had himself had a child out of wedlock,
and therefore, by his own ruling, disqualified himself from rendering
psak such as the one about people who have children out of wedlock
rendering psak?

Obviously there are clear cut toeles cases, and cases that are not so
clear cut.  The cases in Chumash are not so clear cut.  For all your
explanations, you have to dig to justify them, and even more to justify
them in the form in which they are expressed (rather than some other
form, such as a direct command or a no names story, which while it might
not have the same impact, could achieve almost the same result without
the need for loshen hora).

And it doesn't seem so clear to me that the same cannot be applied to
more recent Gadolim.  Unlike HaShem, our judgement is not infallible,
but it does seem a legitimate argument to claim that we are called upon
to make similar judgements, and that we have to follow in the path of
HaShem in weighing the toeles against the loshen hora (and if we take
the "safe" path of not speaking, we may not actually be safe at all -
after all, maybe somebody would be so inspired by the extent to which
the Gadol was able to do teshuva that they themselves did teshuva, which
they would never have done had they not known.  How do you weigh that
person's teshuva against the gnai in the eyes of others- assuming you
can only reach that person by also speaking in front of the others?).  A
legitimate critique of any particular such judgement may be, where is
the toeles?, and you may well disagree with the correctness of the
assessment in any particular case.   But then you are arguing over
whether *this* toeles justifies *this* loshen hora (ie is it closer to
the cases expressed in the Torah, or the cases that were deliberately
left out), which strikes me as a much more nuanced form of debate.


>- -- Carl

Kind Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

RHM wrote: <<
The great Centrist thinker
and advocate of Torah u Maddah, Dr. Lamm has stated
that the "Torah Only" view is legitimate. He, of
course,  advocates his own view that Torah u Maddah is
the correct one but does not deny the legitimacy of
other points of view. >>

Isn't that a contradiction?   If "TuM is **the** correct one" then by
definition the other views are incorrect.  How can an incorrect
view have legitimacy?  (I am referring here to philosophical
legitimacy  -- not to be confused with a person's
legitimate right, in a democratic society,  to hold an incorrect
view!)  Only if you drop the definite article "the" can this make
sense.  Or replace "correct" with "preferable".

Similarly, the "Torah only" view by definition holds "Torah only".  It
could not possibly maintain its intellectual integrity and legitimize
a "Torah and ..." philosophy.   Note that this is distinct from showing
derech eretz to those belonging to other schools of thought.   It goes
without saying that all Jews should be treated with ahavas yisrael
and greeted b'sever panim yafos.

Regarding the other point made in RHM's posting, I like the chiluk
made between sanitizing history to protect a person's reputation 
(i.e., not recounting his aveiros) versus cleansing history to push a
hashkafic agenda.   However, as RYGB pointed out, sometimes we
may want to omit certain details about a person if we think it is crucial
to reach a certain audience.   I don't know if we can rule this out a
priori.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

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


[ 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         ]