Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 024

Friday, April 20 2001

• Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhog Ashkenaz
• electricity on Yom Tov
• Administrivia: Possible Sunday Apr. 29 Aishdas Gathering
• Re: Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhog Ashkenaz
• Ovens on Shabbos
• Re: Avodah V7 #20
• Davening in Biblical vs Mishnaic Hebrew
• RE: rishonim
• RE: ovens on shabbos
• Administrivia: Possible Sunday Apr. 29 Aishdas Gathering
• RE: rishonim
• RE: rishonim
• RE: rishonim
• rashi and history
• Josippon/Josephus (was rashi and history)
• WPG
• Kel Melech Ne'eman (was: WPG)
• Re: Kel Melech Ne'eman (was: WPG)
• Structure Of TSBP

From: Phyllostac@aol.com [mailto:Phyllostac@aol.com]
> In 'Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhog Ashkenaz' (Bnei Beraq 5754 edition, 
> p.102) R. Binyomin Shlomo Homburger writes that the old minhog in Worms was 
<snip>

When I was in Israel relatively recently, I noticed a sefer, similar to (and
perhaps the same as) the one you mentioned (I don't remember the title),
written by someone who apparently established a shul in Bnei Beraq which
keeps to the *old* minhag Ashkenaz.  Anybody have any more information about
the shul and/or the sefer?  Is the writer of the sefer in any way basing
himself on University Talmud studies, or copying their methods?--i.e., when
I leafed through the sefer, it looked awfully similar to the types of
materials I would imagine Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik lecturing about.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Re a reference to the Aruch Hashulchan on electricity:

I have in front of me a photocopy of Rabbi Sholom Klass's article entitled
"Is it permitted to turn lights on and off on Yom Tov", Jewish Press,
3/25/94, p. 32. He cites a teshuvah issued by the AH. "It appeared in the
Beis Vaad Hachachamim in 1902 and is repeated in the sefer Sarei Hame'ah,
vol. 6, p. 14, published in Israel in 1965" according to R. Klass.

He then gives several paragraphs in translation. Here they are. This is
R. Klass's translation of the AH:

"It is permitted to put on electric lights on yom tov. It is not
considered nolad, creating a new fire on yom tov, similar to rubbing a
matchstick to create a spark and firs. For in the match there is not
the live power of fire, only the ingredients to create fire. But in
electricity, the power of fire is in the wires.

"When you combine or touch wires, the positive and negative, the fire
shoots forth. This is similar to blowing upon a dormant coal, making it
come to life and it is permitted. This is not considered nolad, although
the blowing is a power in itself that makes the fire shoot forth from
the seemingly dead coal.

"This is the same with electricity. When we open the electric switch we
only make the fire come forth and when we close it, we simply push it back.

"Even if we say we are gorem, causing nolad, the creation of something
new, we have never found a gorem to be prohibited, only the actual work
of creating the firs (such as rubbing two sticks together to create
a spark.) The Gemara in Shabbos 120 states specifically: Asiah, actual
work, is prohibited, but a grama, causing (instrumental) is permitted. In
electricity it is as if we only opwn a door.

"This is my view based on my knowledge of electricity..."

	Signed, Yechiel Michel Epstein
                Rabbi of Nohrdok
                Author of Aruch Hashulchan and Or L'yisharim

<end of R. Klass's translation. R. Klass says that the translation is
verbatim. There are " ..." at the end as I have typed it>

Klass's entire article is interesting, and it is full of references. I
would be happy to fax copies to anyone interested - send me a message off
list with a fax number. If pressed, I am also willing to use snailmail.
The whole article is one page long.

Klass quotes various authorities on all sides. His final citation
is from Chemda Genuza by the Chief Rabbi of Netanyah (in 1994), Rabbi
David Sheluch, who permits putting the electricity on and off on YT. His
concluding paragraph is as follows:

"In conclusion, inasmuch as there are Geonim who prohibit it, and we
will not advise anyone who is machmir to observe any of these kulos,
neither will we criticize those who do follow them, for they have many
geonim on whom to rely."

If anyone has access to the original AH teshuva, I would be grateful
for a copy.

Shabbat shalom.
CS

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>:
> Anyone from the NY area who feels capable of organizing a program,
> perhaps a Sunday morning brunch, with shiurim (from amongst the chevrah,
> preferably), please contact myself and/or RYGB. 

> There is a relatively short time span, so act now and grab the zechus. 

> This project will NOT happen if it stays in my lap, as I have a other
> obligations at the moment. (A project deadline at work, to be exact.) 

More details:

We are discussing Sunday April 29th, a week from this Sunday. We are
looking to have one or more of our Aishdas Chaverim speak and we would
like the event to be open to the general public, advertised by every one
of our chaverim in their respective places of worship and other venues,
plus, if possible, the Orthodox media. We need one of you to volunteer
your shul, shteibel, school, or other appropriate location, preferably in
a convenient neighborhood in one of the five boroughs of the City of New
York. This would constitue a natural progression of our collective Avodas
Hashem as part of these e-mail groups, and an expansion of our program.

If you are willing to volunteer in any way shape or form, please do so.
There is a potential for significant Kiddush Hashem.

Oh, andd in case this was not evident, I will be in the NY area for
Shabbos Parashios Tazri'a-Metzorah.


KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Phyllostac@aol.com [mailto:Phyllostac@aol.com]
> In 'Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhog Ashkenaz' (Bnei Beraq 5754 edition, 
> p.102) R. Binyomin Shlomo Homburger writes that the old minhog in Worms was 
<snip>

From:  MFeldman@CM-P.COM (Feldman, Mark)
> When I was in Israel relatively recently, I noticed a sefer, similar
> to (and perhaps the same as) the one you mentioned (I don't remember
> the title), written by someone who apparently established a shul in
> Bnei Beraq which keeps to the *old* minhag Ashkenaz. Anybody have any
> more information about the shul and/or the sefer? Is the writer of the
> sefer in any way basing himself on University Talmud studies, or copying
> their methods?--i.e., when I leafed through the sefer, it looked awfully
> similar to the types of materials I would imagine Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik
> lecturing about.

It definitely seems like the same chibur.

Here is some information. The Bnei Beraq minyon is located on the premises of 
the 'Mayonei hayeshua' hospital there (which was started by a "Yekke', Dr. 
Moshe Rothschild,  I believe). R. Binyomin Shlomo Homburger shlit"a, the rosh 
hakohol, comes from Switzerland IIRC. The primary focus of the minyan and 
Mochon Moreshes Ashkenaz is to preserve Minhogei Ashkenaz (Ashkenaz meaning 
german - 'Yekke')('yekke' minhogim mainly - although some things are relevant 
to other non-Yekke Ashkenazim) (not necessarily the same as minhogim of Khal 
Adas Yeshurun (KAJ) of NY btw - I think R. Homburger bases his things more on 
other Kehillos of Ashkenaz such as Feurth, rather than exclusively focusing 
on the minhog of KAJ from Frankfurt, e.g.) as a living part of frum 
Yiddishkeit today, especially among people of 'Yekke' descent. He decries the 
fact that many people of 'Yekke' descent (btw, pardon the use of the term 
'Yekke' - I recall once reading of someone who felt it should not be used as 
it was a derogatory kinnui in his opinion - however the hamon am seems to be 
accepting of it's use), have not held on to (some or all) of their ancestral 
customs, leading to a serious decline (?) in the amount of their 
practitioners. He feels that they are ancient and holy and should not be 
lightly discarded or allowed to lapse, even if their maintenance can be 
somewhat difficult at times. 

In line with his beliefs and aims, he founded the Congregation in Bnei Beraq 
(with strong encouragement of gedolei Torah) to keep the holy minhogei 
Ashkenaz alive (as well as the Mochon Moreshes Ashkenaz). Also, there are 
some (somewhat) similar minyonim elsewhere  (e.g. Kiryas Sefer and Ramos) 
that later developed along the same lines and others may have developed 
since. A while ago I was at one in Lakewood, NJ - (Khal Bnei Ashkenaz at 
Madison & Carey IIRC). As part of the project, he did research into certain 
minhogei Ashkenaz and published his findings in pamphlets periodically to 
show their ancient and holy roots and thereby encourage yotzei Ashkenaz to 
take pride in and continue following them. After a while these small chiburim 
were brought together and printed a sefer with the title of 'shorshei minhog 
Ashkenaz'. Two volumes have appeared to date. 'Gedolei hadoros al mishmar 
minhog Ashkenaz' is the hakdomo to 'shorshei minhog Ashkenaz'.

re comparison of his methods with Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik - I am not 
sufficiently familiar with the laatter to comment. 

Anyway - I think R. Homburger's work is great. Hashem should give him koach 
to continue for many years, ad bias goel tzedek bv"a.

Also - R. Homburger did a great job on the two volume edition of Minhogim 
dK"K Vermaiza published by Mochon Yerusholayim in 5748 and 5752, including a 
great introduction and notes.

Anyone further interested can get hold of the seforim and start reading. I 
found both the content and style to be of high quality and interest to me - 
esp. in 'gedolei hadoros.....' and the first cheilek of 'Shorshei...'. 

Mordechai

A good discussion of RYBS' kula can be found in a book by Rabbi Michael
Taubes, entitled The Practical Halacha Torah (pg 189). The kula is based
on a tziruf of the Ran's shita quoted by the Rema at 253(2) and the
view of the Gra that the requirement for permitted chazara -- that the
food still be warm (lo nitztanen legamrei) -- only applies to liquids
(see Rema 318(15).

KT,
Shimon (Andre) Isaacson

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>>From: Wolpoe, Richard [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
>>Similar, the problem with the Me'iri is imho not so mystical to 
>>>>understand. The point is he did not have the proper "peer review" of 
>>>>early acharonim etc. It bypassed the historical process of  analysis 
>>>>of shakla v'tarya. It is similarly outside the system. Contrast this 
>>>>to how the Rishonim and early Acharonim discussed Rashi, Rambam, 
>>>>Tosfos, Rosh, etc.

>In light of your argument, perhaps we could distinguish between three
>different uses of the Meiri: (1) what you referred to--whether his >novel 
>opinions should be viewed as daas yachid; (2) using the Meiri to >decipher 
>opinions of other Rishonim, and (3) to see what Minhag >Provence was.


>In cases #2 & #3, I would say that the Meiri should have continuing
>importance, even WRT to psak halacha.

I understand RMF to be stating in the above that a "daas yachid" is not in 
any event of practical Halachic significance, event if (to use RRW's term, 
such was not "outside the [Halachic] system". On the basis of "Yilamdenu 
Rabbenu", as I am not up to the Torah learning level of either of the above 
correspondents, I would still like to venture my disagreement with what I 
understand is stated by RMF in point (1) above. I welcome correction if I 
misunderstand the matter.

As defined in SA:CM 25:1,2, a Posek who is a "Hacham Gadol Ha-Yodeah 
Le-hachriah" (that is someone on an exceedly high level of Torah learning 
understanding and insight and of Yirah) may exercise his "Shikul Ha-Daath" 
to pasken upon issues not decided in the Gemorah. This is subject however to 
the further requirment that the Halachic issue under consideration has not 
become the matter of a consensus of opinion  ("Girsa De-alma").

However, the question then is as to how we define the Girsa De-alma". If the 
contemporary consensus on an issue has developed in the absence of knowledge 
of the opinion of the Meiri does that destroy the consensus and allow such 
Poskim  to revert to the Gemorah and rethink the matter or is the matter 
closed.

As I understand it (but I have not "learned this inside") the CI does not 
consider that the Meiri may be used at all as an AUTHORITATIVE TEXTUAL 
PRECEDENT in the process of Pesak because
he considers that the Mesorah has thus bypassed the Meiri for such purpose. 
My Chavrusa has told me that the MB DOES however make use of the Meiri for 
the purpose of Pesak.(I do not have the available citation but someone with 
the Bar-Ilan disc should be able to assist and find it.)

KT
Eliyahu

R' Yaakov Kaminetzky ties two machlokesin between the S"A and the Rama to
be lishitasam.

In Y"D 328:1, the S"A's nusach for the berachah on hafrashas challah is
"lehafrish terumah", while the Rama has "lehafrish challah". The Gra (sham)
attributes the SA's shitah to loyalty to the lashon of the Torah, "reishis
arisoseichem chalah tarimu terumah". While the Rama's berachah is in
the lashon of Chazal.

RYK uses this to explain the difference between them on "baruch hamavdil".
The SA's version (as the MB understands it) is "bein hakodesh uvein
hachol", while the Rama has "bein kodesh lichol". RYK explains that
the SA is using the lashon from this week's parashah, "ulhavdil bein
hakodesh uvein hachol uvein hatamei uvein hatahor". The Rama, again, is
simply using the lashon of Chazal. (Ad kan RYK. In general, the Torah
separates using "bein .. uvein", while Chazal uses "bein ... le...",
while English has "between ... and ...".)

This is the exact opposite of the suggestion I made in the past, that
Ashkenazim tend to use biblical Hebrew, such as "-cha" and "sha'atah"
while Sepharadim tend toward mishnaic Hebrew.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
> I think that it's more that the Ri Migash was *always* considered important,
> even when his works were lost, because it was known that the rishonim
> considered him important.  R. Menachem HaMeiri, unfortunately, lived at the
> turn of the 14th century, and IIRC in 1306 the Jews were expelled from
> Provence.  Prevencal figures of the later period (i.e., after Ramban) never
> received a lot of recognition in rishonic works.

> The other reason that the Meiri has not gained full acceptance is (as noted
> by Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik) that his commentary is not in the classic model
> of commenting on the text and dealing with shakla v'tarya; rather, he
> summarizes shitos (more like a secondary text, like an encyclopedia).  To
> the average yeshiva student, he doesn't write like an "authentic" rishon.

> From DCS' class at Revel, I came to the conclusion that many yeshiva
> students look at psak in an ahistorical way--some figures were great
> rishonim, others less so.  Ramban, Raavad, Tosfos--all important people, so
> let's compare one with the other.   DCS looks at things from a historical
> perspective: Each of the Medieval European halachic communties--Ashkenaz,
> France, Provence, Spain--were important.  DCS asked questions like: What was
> the Provencal halachic community like?  Who were its leaders?  What was its
> development.  In that context, it is clear that Meiri was a rishon of great
> importance.

I pretty much concur with what you are saying.

But aisi the Me'iri was hardly the first "summarizer"; after all didn't the
Rambam do pretty much the same thing?

And like DCS seeing the Mei'iri as important in the context of Provence
would cut both ways.  In a recent class on Kitzur SA, I pointed out that a
good deal of the KSA's shitos have a lot to do with where he came from (i.e.
I mentioned Ungvar) and that both "yekkesher" and Litvisher communities
might view many passages quite differently.   And therefore let's turn this
around and ask - just how much influence did Provencal Mesorah have on the
other communities?

Reflect this back to a more contemporary era. It seems pashut that many of
the differences between the KSA and the MB stem from their locale and
community and their corresponding hashkafos.   

And the question I have on many Yeshiva types is how is it that Ashkenazim
pretty much know to follow the Rema over the Beis Yosef, but the Beis Yosef
himself follows the Rambam probably over 90% of the time. So how has it
evolved that Ashkenazi Yeshivos neglect seeing the Rambam in relatively the
same Sephardic context as the Beis Yosef? The answer is as above.  I.E. that
Yeshivos tend to overlook the communal aspects of Halachah and tend to see
lamdus as lamdus.  I don't know if there is anything morally wrong with this
approach, just that it can tend to produce convoluted or pilpulistic peirsuh
often in unnecessary ways.

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:Eli.Turkel@kvab.be]
> We have now switched arguments. Originally it was argued that
> recently found rishonim are less vaild because they did not undergo
> peer review. Not it has become a question of consensus whether it
> is the genuine article.
> Does anyone really doubt that the Meiri is genuine or R. Chananel
> for that matter.
...
> At one time R. Chananel was a new perush but it has now been around
> for many years. Will the Meiri be more accepted as more generations
> of Talmidei Chachamim learn it? ...

Personally I did not intend to switch but rather  to extend

The question is how did it evolve that:
1) the Zohar influenced Halachah despite it having been outside the Halachic
system.  After all who quotes it from RSBY up until R. Moshe DeLeone?
2) how is it a Rishon outside the system that was later discovered did not
"take off"? IOW  if you can "discover the works of a Tanna 1000 years later
how about discovering a Rishon 500 years later?

The common denominator aisi is how it gets handled by the Halachic
community. If the Halachic community sees putting the Zohar on a pedestal
just beneath the TB - despite its absence form the evolution of mainstream
Halachah - there must be a reason or agenda at work

Similarly, if the Halachic community balks at putting the Me'iri into the
mix on par with same the Trumas haDeshen then there is a reason for it.  

To me it is not simply a black-and-white matter of authenticity.  We can
KNOW the Me'iri is authentic and still consider it Halachically obscure
(think of the Levush nowadays!) 

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I consulted with RHS and got the impression that RYBS was mekil for his baalei
> batim like the Ramo in OC 253:2, despite the fact that the Ramo concluded 
> "v'tov l'hachmir," because the Ramo permitted people to rely on the minhag 
> l'hakel. RYBS' chiddush was that even though the Ramo limits the kula to the 
> case where the food wasn't nitztanen l'gamrei, the source of the din--the 
> Ran--implies otherwise.

R. Eli Shulman told me that he was once in RHS's office when someone called and 
asked if RYBS said this.  RHS replied that if RYBS said it then he was wrong.  
RHS also said as much in his Flatbush shiurim on hilchos bishul (tapes are 
available for sale as a package in Eichler's), i.e. that the Ran does not mean 
what RYBS said it does.

Gil Student

We have made some progress since last night, and would very much like to 
"finalize" tentative details by this afternoon so all of our chaverim can 
publicize this venture already over this Shabbos.

We have one potential venue, a Shul in Kew Garden Hills, we have one 
individual who has graciously volunteered to bring refreshments, we have a 
tentative time of 12 noon to 1:30 PM followed by Mincha, and we have two 
speakers with a possibility of a third. The general agenda is Avodas 
ha'Kodesh".

None of this is final. So, feel free to counter-suggest and volunteer. We 
probably will need more volunteers for food, and we need volunteers to help 
publicize, and we are still very much open to agenda, format and location 
ideas. But things are B"H gelling. you should be able to provide 
information to your place of worship's bulletin board and/or events 
announcer by this afternoon.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> But aisi the Me'iri was hardly the first "summarizer"; after all didn't the 
> Rambam do pretty much the same thing?

The Rambam?  He just gives his own opinion.  On occasion, he will cite the 
gaonim, the Rif, or the Ri MiGash but these occasions are quite rare.

On the other hand, the Ritva, the Rashba and the Ran in their commentaries on 
Shas/Rif do a bit of summarizing.  However, their summaries include qualitative 
evaluations.  They might quote an opinion of an earlier rishon but they will 
almost always either agree or disagree and provide proofs.

The Rosh was a summarizer.  But that is why he did not write a commentary on 
Shas but an halachah sefer of the Rif's type.  Note the name, Hilchos HaRosh.  
He essentially did what his son did with the Tur, only on Shas and with more of 
an emphasis on his own opinion.

Gil Student

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>> But aisi the Me'iri was hardly the first "summarizer"; after all didn't the 
>> Rambam do pretty much the same thing?

> The Rambam?  He just gives his own opinion.  

Didn't the Rambam claim to be summarizing TSBP?  (although not is so many
words).

This is probably worthy of a another thread... 
Gil you bring up a topic, seforim that follow shas page by page, those that
follow shas in a more general way (e.g. Me'iri or possibly even Rif) and
those that re-organize in a new order (Rambam Tur, Toras Habayis or even
some Gaonic works, e.g. Sh'eiltos).

It is my understanding of the evolution of the STRUCTURE of TSBP is that
originally everything was  tied to Torah Shebichsav - e.g. as in Mechilta,
Sifra, Sifrei, and Rebbe completed a shifted to a brand new organization by
subject matter.  Nevertheless, some Seforim still followed the Torah
Shebicshav organization (e.g. Chinuch, Ben Ish Chay).

Shas followed Rebbe's organization. So did many Rishonic peirushim and
poskim did too, though some did not. AFAIK no other sefer has emulated the
Rambam's 14. Yet the Tur's 4 has been standard for a long time. Even here
the KSA did not follow the Tur's structure - and like the Rambam, authored a
sefer w/o quoting sources.

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

From: Wolpoe, Richard [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> But aisi the Me'iri was hardly the first "summarizer"; after all didn't the
> Rambam do pretty much the same thing?

Rambam is giving psak halacha in the format of a code.  That was
revolutionary at the time, but the format stuck--witness the Shulchan Aruch.
Meiri was just summarizing and synthesizing arguments without putting too
much of his own opinion in--that's characteristic of many halacha books in
the 20th century, but not much earlier than that.

> And like DCS seeing the Mei'iri as important in the context of Provence
> would cut both ways.  In a recent class on Kitzur SA, I pointed out that a
> good deal of the KSA's shitos have a lot to do with where he came from (i.e.
> I mentioned Ungvar) and that both "yekkesher" and Litvisher communities
> might view many passages quite differently.   And therefore let's turn this
> around and ask - just how much influence did Provencal Mesorah have on the
> other communities?

That's exactly my point.  Because the expulsion from Provence in 1306, the
independent Provencal mesorah was lost.  Had the Provencal Jews gone
straight to America, and the Provencal mesorah not lost, the leader of
Provencal Jewry, Rav Menachem HaMeiri, would be a household name today.

In contrast, Raavad is a household name because he influenced Ramban, who
was originally from Provence.  Therefore, even though most of Raavad's works
were lost (his Hasagos to Rambam are just the tip of the iceberg; most of
his effort was devoted to his chiddushim on Shas), his influence remains.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
: There are gemaras that refer to Yishmael Cohen Gadol with the title of Rabbi
: which is also historically inappropriate.

> Why? While the term didn't exist, the role did....
> If Yishma'el Kohein Gadol took halachic question from the masses and
> answered them, didn't he act as rav? In which case, isn't it easier
> to use the word "rabbi" rather than requiring an entire phrase that
> describes some aspect the role (as I just did)?

OTOH it is true that the title Rabbi did fit RYKG's role
OTOH it can be a bit misleading in a historical context.

Illustration: It would be fair to characterize Moshe as Moshe Rabbeinu and
even to call him Moshe the Rosh Yeshiva, but he probably would not have
understood the "term" even though he indeed fulfilled that role.

Or think of it this way, we agree that Ezra was called Ezra Hasofer but does
it make sense to see him as someone who checded Tefillin and Mezuzos for a
living? <smile>

Or Think of the "term" Sanhedrin. The role is old, e.g. a much older term is
"Beis Din Hagadol".  However, the term is used anachronistically a times.
This can be confusing to those who are challenged in the areas of historical
time-lines or those who take certain terms too literally.
 

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com (at Information Builders)
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

Just an FYI
Rabbi Dr. Jacob Reiner taught a course on Josephus and Jossipon circa 1975
at Bernard Revel Graduate School. It was a given that Jossipon was a
different work from Josephus....

Apparently Josephus himself opened the door by stating that he was going to
write a work in the language of the Jews {ostensibly Aramaic) for the Jews.
But as far as anyone know, Joesphus himself never authored such a book, but
Jossipon pseudopigraphiaclly filled that void.

Also an FYI, it was my impression re: Josephus that he exhibited two almost
contradictory hashkafos.

In "Wars of the Jews", Josephus leans pro-Rome and anti-Jewish {apparently
to curry favor with his Roman patrons) but in "Antiquities" he seems to have
had Charatah and gave a more sympathetic account of Jewish History.  {IOW he
apparently lived long enough to see the folly of Rome and had a greater
appreciation for his own heritage). 

If this holds true, then it would be fair to both dismiss some of Josephus's
writings and to take other Josephus writings a bit more seriously.

By way of analogy, I heard besheim RYBS that "the Rambam of the Yad is not
the same Rambam of the Moreh." Not that there were literally two different
authors, but that each sefer reflected its own unique hashkafah.

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

RYBS and WPG, v'ha'Mayven Yavin

The Rav by R' Aaron Rakkefet-Rothkoff vol. 2 pp. 54-55, from a May 18,
1955 lecture:

Judaism must be explained and expounded on a proper level. I have read
many pamphlets that have been published in the US with the intention
of bringing people closer to Judaism. There is much foolishness and
narrishkeit in some of these publications. For instance, a recent booklet
on the Sabbath stressed the importance of a white tablecloth. A woman
recently told me that the Sabbath is wonderful, and that it enhances
her spiritual joy when she places a snow-white tablecloth on her
table. Such pamphlets also speak about a sparkling candleabra. Is this
true Judaism? You cannot imbue real and basic Judaism by utilizing cheap
sentimentalism and stressing empty ceremonies. Whoever attempts such
an approach underestimates the intelligence of the American Jew. If you
reduce Judaism to religious sentiments and ceremonies, then there is no
role for rabbis to discharge...

This is not the only reason... It is forbidden to publish pamphlets of
this nature, which emphasize the emotional and ceremonial approaches.

There is another reason why ceremony will not influence the American Jew.
In the US today, the greatest master of ceremony is Hollywood. If a Jew
wants ceremony, all he has to do is turn on his television set. If our
approach stresses the ceremonial side of Judaism rather than its moral,
ethical, and religious teachings, then our viewpoint will soon become
bankrupt...

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
>         I know big talmidei chachamim who,  instead of saying Kel Melech
> Ne'eman,  repeat Hashem Elokeichem Emes after krias shema when davening
> beyechidus.  

The issue seems of yachid vs. tzibbur WRT to Kel Melech Ne'eman (KMN) seems
to be that when davening b'tzibbur, you hear the chazal say Hashem
Elokeichem Emes (HEE) afterwards, and that counts towards your 248 words.  I
have always wondered: if I'm catching up to the tzibbur and get to Shma just
after the chazan said HEE, do I have to say KMN?  Or, am I considered to be
davening b'tzibbur, and that's all that's necessary?  I've looked in various
seforim and have never seen this discussed.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:01:47 -0400 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
writes:
> I have always wondered: if I'm catching up to the tzibbur and get to 
> Shma just after the chazan said HEE, do I have to say KMN?

        Similarly:   what if you start with the tzibur but don't expect to
finish shema with them?  The person who I quoted as saying HEE 
beyechidus actually was in that situation, not all alone.  Still,  he
said HEE,  not EMN (Does it have to be KMN in abbreviated form?).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> It is my understanding of the evolution of the STRUCTURE of TSBP is that 
> originally everything was  tied to Torah Shebichsav - e.g. as in Mechilta, 
> Sifra, Sifrei, and Rebbe completed a shifted to a brand new organization by 
> subject matter.  

I am not an expert on this subject, but let me say what I know (or think I know)
and wait for others to correct me.

Within the Mishnah we know that Rebbe did not initiate the structure.  We know 
of a "Mishnah Rishonah" and the existence of masechtos (in Gittin 60?) that 
pre-dated Rebbe.

IIRC, the frum approach (as defined by RYI HaLevy in his Doros HaRishonim) is 
that the Anshei Kenesses HaGedolah established a basic Mishnah which was later 
expanded by different schools until Rebbe fixed the text.  Others put the date 
closer to Hillel (I think RDZ Hoffman) and still others at R. Akiva.

Prior to having a somewhat organized Mishnah, the TSBP was simply memorized.  
What the AKHG did (according to RYIH, in addition) was to try to connect the 
TSBP to the TSBC to make it easier to remember.  This was the beginning of the 
halachic midrashim.  Others, of course, put the date of the beginning of the 
halachic midrashim much later.

Most of my information is old and is from R. Yaacov Herzog's introduction to his
translation of some of Mishnayos Zeraim (circa '40s).

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]