Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 113

Thursday, February 14 2002

• Re: Entertainment
• lehadliq ner shel shabat qodesh
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• Re: Halachic methodology and chalav hakompanies
• Re: Segulos
• Re: Isha psulah ladun
• RMF on Kiruv
• Can a rabbi make a mistake
• re: Can a rabbi make a mistake
• RE: Can a rabbi make a mistake
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• Re: The neis in the luchos

> We see e.g. that one may indulge in various forms of entertainment to
> amuse a Choson & Kalloh. However, at weddings chazal were very clear
> about the rules of tznius et al. specifically because of the levity to
> be found there.

> How do we go from wedding to entertainments that are on the border of
> "Asu Soyeg LaTorah"...

At a wedding or other simcha, the "levity" in which the guests typically
indulge involves alcohol. The machers frequently closet themselves in a
side room and put away prodigious amounts Crown Royal or first-rate Scotch
(not the fancy stuff aged in brandy barrels, please). Traditionalists
might even prefer a nice slivovitz, the original "schnapps" of eastern
European Jewry.

One does not l'chayim at a movie theatre, or at least not at the theatres
frequented by decent folk. One doesn't dance at a movie theatre, either,
or laugh out loud at one's companion's jokes. One doesn't experience
active joy, the joy of having real fun with friends and of making
new friends in happy circumstances. Movies are okay, in my opinion,
but they're a far cry from true Jewish entertainment, which reflects
Torah-based menschlichkeit. (Thanks, R'Harry!).

L'Chayim!
David Finch

Has any one ever seen the word qodesh added to the end of the berakhah
for lighting Shabbat candles.
All sources I've seen say lehadliq ner shel Shabbat.
But I've heard some women say Shel Shabbat Qodesh.
Does anyone know the origin of this?
Is it something old or new?

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri

We've already mentioned the braisa quoted in Megillah and Shabbos that R'
Chisda says the mem and samech of the luchos stood via neis.

(I might point out that while the letters were carved all the way through,
there was already a neis in the geometry involved, since they were not
backwards on the other side. Li nir'eh both are the same neis involving
the abnormality of the carving.)

Another argument in favor of the age of kesav Ashuris is Manachos 29b,
the famous medrash of R' Akiva darshening heaps of dinim from the tagim.

The halachic requirements also argue in its favor. Not that we require
Ashuris down to the kutzo shel yud -- that has a parallel in tefillah.
You are yotzei tefillah de'Oraisa if you say "haKel haqadosh" during the
10 yemei teshuvah. But Anshei Kenesses haGedolah (the same people as our
suspected adopters of Ashuris!) can require repetition of the Shemoneh
Esrei over this mistake. However, the qedushah of a sefer Torah requires
too many peratim specific to Ashuris. Do AKhG have the power to abrogate
qedushah that HKBH gave?

We also cited the Y'lmi version of the gemara in Megillah (1:9), where
R' Levi quotes Mar Zutra and R' Yosi that it was ayin and tes that had
floating peices.

The Radvaz suggests that there is no machloqes. The first luchos were
in Ashuris, and after the loss of Qedushah cause by the eigel, the 2nd
were given in kesav Ivris.

I have no idea what script this referrs to. Yes, the older "Canaanite
script" (which if we accept Lisa Leil's chronology the time in which it
was used was post-Yehoshua'), had closed shapes for ayin and tes. But
also many other letters (of those I recall: aleph, ches, samech, quf). I
had the hava amina that two letters were mentions as another version of
the same braisa. However, if R' Levi was presenting a different variant
of the same mesorah, then why wasn't samech shared in both versions?

The discussion of the script is really on Sanhedrin 21a-22b.

It opens with Mar Zutra, one of the possible sources in the Y'lmi for
ayin vetes, saying:
    Bitechilah nitenah Torah leYisrael
    bikesav Ivri velashon haqodesh.
    Chazrah venitenah lahem biymei Ezra
    bekesav Ashuris velashon Aramis.
However, we chose LhQ and Ashuris, leaving the other language and script
for the hedyotos.

R' Chisda, our source for mem vesamech, explains Mar Zutrah -- who until
now I had assumed was the other side of the machloqes. Heyotos are the
Kusiim, and kesav Ivri is Libunah.

The question as I see it is whether we can assume R' Chisda holds like
a shitah because he explains it. Beis Hillel, for example, was known
for first explaining the shitah of Beis Shammai that they rejected.

Alternatively, this could be a ra'ayah for the Radvaz, that there really
is no machloqes.

Returning for a moment to a halachic note, Rashi identifies Libunah as
a script used in kemei'os and mezuzos. So much for worrying about kutzo
shel yud...

The Amora'im in Sanhedrin take three posititions.

1- R' Yosi holds that the use of Ashuris was new institution biymei Ezra.
And Ashuris is named because it was brought over from Ashur.

That view also seems to be the one of a medrash quoted by a number of
rishonim on the begining of Yonah. There the person Ashur is credited with
not participating in Migdal Bavel for which he recieved two gifts: His
children were given a 2nd chance in the days of Yonah, and kesav Ashuris.

The problem is that we have no record of Ashur ever using Ashuris. RSM's
peshat on this does not help the medrash.

2- Rebbe holds it's a case of chazar veyasdum. Ashuris is from the same
shoresh as "ashrei". (The same etymology RSM quoted from Ramabam.)

Perhaps this is the same chazar veyasdum mentioned in the same TB
Megillah, in which AKhG restored the sofios. This assumes that Kesav
Ivri has no sofios.

3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final opinion.
The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim to conclude
that this is the gemara's maskana.

The script was always used in sifrei qodesh. Rather, it was only
popularized for other writing biymei Ezra.

The Radvaz's resolution would lead to this metzi'us as well, that the
sacred Ashuris was known to only a few, but given to the masses in Ivris.

This would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin is
discussing how it was given to the rabbim. If understood this way, then
the reference to Aramis is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
Aramis and not LhQ, were given a targum. However, no one proposed changing
the language of the text itself. (What would happen to derashos if that
really were the proposal?)

This would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing on the
wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 2/13/02 11:30:20am EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>> What many are saying is times change so the Gzeira does not apply. 

> No, the "many" are saying that the gezeirah was never formulated in such a
> general sense as to apply to everything that www.chumrahoftheday.god wants
> to associate it with. A gezeirah has to be precisely worded and defined.

And therefore the wording of the Gmara itself is:
1) imprecise?
2) subjective? 
3) ???

> Lomdut tried to uncover the precise terms
> of that gezeirah, as in the case of reading by wax candles' light on
> Shabbat. Tos. and other Ashk. rishonim merely innovated in that they
> considered minhag a source for such lomdut.

This is simlar to what I said

But which came first
Lamdus or Minhag?
Is Lamdus an ex post facto understanding of what is understood to
be correct
OR
Is it a newly innovated loophole that allows for the formulation of
new constructs?

Iillustration:
Can I use Lamdus to nullify a mitzva in imitatoin of the way Chazal
did for ben Sorrer in Moreh

OR 

Do assume I require a Masorah to use that kind of Lamdus first?
 
...
> I disagree on two points.
> First, lomdut is not in order to rationalize nullifying the gezeirah,
> and lomdut is dochak, it is no less an attempt to discover the historical
> circumstances under which the gezeirah was promulgated than your attempt
> to find the areas that historically did not accept a certain gezeirah.

Frankly I don't get this distinctoin 


> Second, I have not ever heard of a gezeirah that was intpashet in one area
> but not in another.

Kitniyos
Cheirem derabbeinu Gershom
both are post Talmudic
but we can go on and on 
and lo ra'inu eino raya
The facts o nthe table are reallysimple
Ashk. is meikel on dancing and clapping on Shabas and YT and Sephardim
kedaas the mechaber are NOT meikel except to rely upon a TY to allow
for clapping kilachar yad.

But YOU have proven YOUR point. That is if you choose to ignore the
facts in favor of theory, then you can overlook the self-same point
that a gzeira exists in one community and not another. But you CHOOSE
to overlook the community and rely upon "lamdus" But you have to aks
how it came about Rema agrees withTosfaos Lamuds and SA on the pashut
pshat in Gmara and Seph. Rishonim.

Q: What drives this obvious oversight?\
A: if not <<www.chumrahoftheday.god>> how about another politically
correct albeit historically inaccurate model for udnerstanding how
Halachah was arived at instead of the way it really was arrived
at? --smile--

  
> You find that with minhag and with local takkanot
> (that may later develop into universal ones, such as 'haramim of RGS,
> butnot gezeirot. On the contrary, one of the things that the nitpashet
> vs. lo nitpashet rule of the gemarah (I believe elaborated in TB AZ
> WRT shemen shel nokhrim) tries to achieve, is that the gezeirah should
> be universal.

Circular. of course in Bavel that was required to be true. but Bavel
had NO WAY to measure universality in pther places

Facts, Bavel is nidchak to preserve the Gzeira by using mutva shyihyu
shogegim,
the fact is if many frum people were shoggegim the gzeira was having
trouble getting off the ground EVEN in Bavel

Which is probalby why Tosafos had little hesitation to dismiss it.

The Lamuds is a fig leaf. We KNOW that any poseik can find 49 reasons
to be metaher nad 49 reasons to be metamei

You have not asked the underlying question - why didn't Tosafos advance
the pshat of the Gmara as the SA did? Whyt motivated Toafos to come up
with nullifying lamdus?

The answer is simple in my model

since the Bavli is authoritative Tsoafos HAD to make a Maca'ah and point
out "Where Ashkeanz Differs" otherwise by default the BAvli would rule
as is.

There is really no REASON for Tosfaos to comment on this sugya in terms
of simple parshanus here. His lamdus is not about making the sugya
clearer. It is simply justifying an apparent deviation in Ashkenaz.
But since Tosafos is into reconciling Bavli to Ashkenaz and not into
making confrontations, he tries to retrofit the practice into the text.

But there are places where such retrofitting does not work. I suggest
you consult the case of Women and Zimun. Sources later BEH

[Email #2. -mi]

> No, the "many" are saying that the gezeirah was never formulated in such a
> general sense as to apply to everything that www.chumrahoftheday.god wants
> to associate it with. A gezeirah has to be precisely worded and defined.
> Although I have no time right now to look up the sources (see "IMPORTANT

If lamuds only were enough im Kein Shichikas Sammemanim is probably MORE
obsolete than is clapping on Shabbos and YT - After all SOME people today
DO tune their own guitars who -besides pharmacists maybe - grinds their
own herbs today?

The point?

Svara is NOT the compelling reason
Rather USAGE {minhag} is the underlying imperative
Q: Why bother with Svara?
A: Svara is only justifying the practice so that it no loner flies in
the face of the text.

If Tosafos were universally correct re: the METZIUS of not tuning
instruments legabei clapping then lich'ora EVERYONE would hold that it
is muttar today. AFAIK the ONLY ones who hold it is muttar is Tosafos,
Rema v'sayyasan. RMF is meyashev te minhag bedochak.

In the case of electic lamps, the metzius is clearly different re:
the etzem act, you are not doing anything by tilting an electric lamp.
This is not the case of clapping on Shabbos. The etzem act REAMINS THE
SAME only the externa l cirucmstancs - i.e tuning of instrucments - have
changed. And THAT is a PERFECT pesach to be mattir shchikas Sammemanim

And accordgint to Arie The big surprise is: "why didn't RMF simply state
people rely upon Tosafos lamds - Period?"

Again I recommend reading IM Orach Chaim(2) #100

Also re-read the Taz on SA Orach Chaim 46:7 {sk 12 IIRC} regarding how
minhag can "create" an imperative to recite a non-Talmudic Brachah - and
NB: Taz resorts to a Takkanas Ga'onim and RMF to a virtual convnetion -
IMHO both are legal fiction csontructs to justify post facto

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:33:26AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:   I'll try the prolix version...

Thanks for your patience.

:   Your question is why bother with causality at all? Just let it work if it
: induces virtue, and fail to work if it induces vice. I was a little puzzled at
: that, since you had said you had no objection to causality with respect to
: laws of nature.  The same question should apply there.

:   The answer to both is "to preserve free will."

As I tried to explain before, there is an inherent difference between
physical and metaphysical causality that makes the answer work
for the first, but not the latter.

1- Physical causality aids in hester panim. Metaphysical causality is a
ra'ayah that there is Something beyond the chushim.

Therefore, natural law aids bechirah chafshi, supernatural violations
of that law -- even if they follow a different set of laws --
hinders bechirah.

This is the Ramban's reason for why it was fair that "hikhbadti es leiv
Par'oh". Because otherwise the makos would have been undo influence
toward tov.

Similarly, we find that R' Chanina's daughter can ony light vinager
for Shabbos because they already had that level of emunah that such
a neis would not be a ra'ayah to them.

So, this point argues that there is value to mataphysical causality,
but only nissim for extraordinary ma'aminim.

2- It gives us the ability to plan our choices by being able to know
(if we bother to think about it) how our acts will influence probable
outcomes.

Since we can not fully know these metaphysical laws of [non-]nature, there
existance hinders our ability to plan in comparison to a world that is
entirely guided by teva and by "letav avad".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:34:16PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> Ein hachi nami. They all were final halachic authorities, but qua
:> zeqeinim. I'm suggesting that the zeqeinim, being nevi'im (a feature
:> Rashi mentions), are soferim not rabbanim.

: Wadda?! I thought that zeqeinim are the rabbanim musmakhim par
: excellance...

Yes, but everything they said had the imprompreture of HQBH. Which is
why divrei soferim is more than mere deRabbanan.

So, all the precedent that Devorah could provide would at most be that a
woman combined with a dialogue with HQBH is permitted to give hora'ah. As
women today lack that ability, the precedent is unusable.

In fact, I argued that this is what the Tosafos meant. Rather than the
usual assumption that they were saying that she was a nevi'ah capable
of a hora'as sha'ah, I am arguing that they were saying that she was a
nevi'ah and therefore only setting precedent for other nevi'os.

: BTW, why do you think that Devorah is necessarily not a precedent? ...

Because so many rishonim squirm around explaining why she isn't. So, while
I lack the zechus to understand any of their answers to the extent of
being satisfied, I still must accept the maskanah they are trying to
justify.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

One point made on Areivim pretty often is that the ultimate qiruv would
be to act in a way that draws people. We need to "market" frumkeit only
because we do not live it in a way that people realize it's quality
merchandise.

To quote RSKlagsbrun: Rolls Royce doesn't offer 0% financing and cash
back.

Look at Derash Mosheh on Tetzaveh (30:7), describing the ketores.

The ketores was brought within the heichal. No one could see it. And yet
it could be be smelled all the way to Yericho! When we as a community
live truly in accordance with the Torah we don't need to broadcast its
virtures. The true eved Hashem doesn't need to clamor for attention or
honors in order to get students who want to act as he does. People will
be drawn to the rei'ach nicho'ach on their own.

The author of this ma'amar, RMF, is certainly speaking from experience.

-mi (with thanks to Ohr Samei'ach's weekly sheet)

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

(from Parshat Mishpatim)

It's a bit difficult to access their archives, so here is the original
article by Rav Aviner in answer to this question. I think it makes some
very interesting points.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Can a rabbi make a mistake?! Rabbi Shlomo Aviner

Question: For twenty years I have been teaching Torah and serving in the
Rabbinate, and I belong to the Haredi sector. I came across a book by
one of the disciples of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. I read it both out of
curiosity and in order to prove to everyone that he was wrong, yet the
opposite happened and I saw that he spoke the truth. I then went on to
study other works from his school of thought, and I arrived at the clear
conclusion that all through the years I was mistaken in my relationship
to Eretz Yisrael and to Zionism.

One question troubles me: How can I follow a different path than that of
my rabbi, for whom I am full of love and reverence, and to whom I owe
everything? Moreover, how can it be that so many great Haredi rabbis
erred? I am willing to say about myself that I erred, but not about them.

Answer: I commend you for your integrity. It should only be that we
should all learn how to admit the truth.

To get to the heart of the matter, this question has been dealt with
in many books, amongst them "Geulat Yisrael" by Rabbi Avraham Yelin,
who was a brilliant sage, although not well-known. Yet for his book he
had approbations from the Admor of Ostrovtza and from Rabbi Kook. In
addition, his book "Erech Apayim" was very well-known. Rabbi Yelin wrote:

"Some claim that once someone has accepted a particular person as his
rabbi, and that rabbi is opposed to Zionism, one must teach in accordance
with that view so as not to violate the prohibition against "straying
to the right or to the left from what they tell you" (Deuteronomy
17:11). That is a mistake, however, for that verse is referring to the
Great Sanhedrin" (Geulat Yisrael, page 15). Quite the contrary, if it
appears to a disciple that his rabbi has erred, he must ask him about
this and argue with him until his rabbi changes his mind (Shulchan Aruch,
Yoreh Deah 242). There are numerous examples in the Talmud and the Poskim
[Halachic decisors] of disciples disagreeing with their rabbis (page 15).

Regarding the issue of Eretz Yisrael itself, we find that Rabbi Yehuda
was one of the illustrious giants of his generation, and he ruled that
it is forbidden to move from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael (Ketuvot 110a).
His disciple, Rabbi Zera, disagreed with him and moved there (Ibid.), as
did his disciple Rabbi Abba (Berachot 24b; Geulat Yisrael, pages 15-16).

He points out in the name of Rabbi Akiva Eiger that in our times,
following the invention of the printing press, books have been
disseminated throughout the world, and it is possible for there to be
a student who studies books that his rabbi never studied, such that the
student knows more than his rabbi (page 16). He likewise quotes Maharal
MiPlotzk who said that if an illustrious rabbi knows the whole Torah yet
has not toiled to understand a particular law, and a lesser rabbi does not
know the whole Torah yet has toiled to understand that particular law, the
latter can better arrive at the truth, such that we will rule according to
the lesser rabbi (Responsa "Meshivat Nefesh" 16; Geulat Yisrael, page 3).

As far as your wondering how it is possible for so many great rabbis to
err regarding something so simple, our master Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook wrote
to a great Haredi rabbi: "I was pained by what your esteemed self wrote
some time ago in regard to G-d's great and awesome deed in rebuilding
His people and inheritance and gathering in His scattered ones, and in
regard to the Zionism that is associated with this. It is clear that
you are absolutely mistaken regarding those matters. What you wrote
is like what Ra'avad wrote in Hilchot Teshuvah, Ch. 3, about the many
rabbis greater than himself who followed a particular line of thought"
(Le'hilchot Tzibbur, Se'if 6). Rabbi Kook is referring to Rambam's
words that whoever says that G-d has a body is a "min" (an apostate),
and to Ra'avad's response that Rambam is reacting too sharply to the
great rabbis of Israel who thought that way. Here we have great rabbis
who made an enormous error.

Obviously, a question remains: What made these illustrious rabbis err
regarding the rebirth of our people?

Rabbi Yelin responds that the true reason is found in the words of
the illustrious and holy Rabbi Eliyahu Gutmacher from Greiditz, who
was blessed with "Ruach HaKodesh," divine intuition. Rabbi Gutmacher
was amongst the first to raise the idea of agricultural settlement in
Eretz Yisrael. He wrote to the illustrious saint Rabbi Elazar Wachs,
suggesting the reason for the opposition:

"The main cause of the opposition is that even in the greatest saints
Evil takes control to nullify this goodness. The whole force of Evil
is dependent upon this" (from a letter quoted in the book "Nefesh
HaChayah"). The author of "Chidushei HaRim" wrote similarly regarding the
sin of the spies ("Sefer HaZechut," Parashat Beshalach; "Geulat Yisrael,"
pages 8-9).

Rabbi Yelin mentions that sometimes even the prophets erred. Moses
erred regarding the goat of the sin offering, and as a result of that,
he got angry at Elazar and Itamar (Leviticus 10). Yehoshua bin Nun erred
regarding the Givonites (Joshua 9), the Prophet Samuel erred when he
was going to anoint one of the sons of Jesse [and he wished to anoint
the wrong one] (I Samuel 16). Jeroboam ben Navat succeeded in tricking
the Prophet Achiyah HaShiloni into giving his approval to idolatry
(Sanhedrin 102a; etc., Geulat Yisrael, page 9).

Regarding settling the Land itself, the Torah says that "the whole
community threatened to stone [Joshua and Caleb] to death" (Numbers
14:10), and Rashi on 14:1 says that the phrase "the whole community"
connotes the Sanhedrin. As Chiddushei HaRim Migur explains, the Sanhedrin
argued that Eretz Yisrael would corrupt them (Geulat Yisrael, page 9).

During Ezra's times, the vast majority of the great rabbis opposed his
going up to the Land on the pretext that Eretz Yisrael would cause the
Jews to worship idols (Midrash Rabbah on Song of Songs 5:3).

"The greatest saints handed over the Rambam's works to Christian priests
to burn... Many illustrious rabbis fanned the flames of controversy,
persecuting and inciting against our master Rabbi Yehonatan Eibschutz,
the holy Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto and our teacher the Ba'al Shem Tov"
(Geulat Yisrael, page 9).

"We have likewise heard about one mistake put in writing by a brilliant,
holy rabbi. Due to the author's greatness, the Haredim struggled to
understand what he had written, and the holy Rabbi Menachem Mendl of
Kotzk, who was a great lover of truth, said in this regard that the
truth that emerged from here was that it showed the author that even he
was only human" (G.Y., page 9).

Rabbi Yelin was apparently referring here to what the Maharal MiPrague
wrote, that there is a difference between two Hebrew words that both
mean "with him": "imo" and "ito", and that when Abraham took his two
lads "with him" the Torah refers to this with "imo," whereas when Bilam
took his two lads "with him" the Torah uses "ito." Truthfully, however,
in the Torah it is the opposite (see Genesis 22:3; Numbers 22:22). The
Maggid Rabbi Yisrael of Koznitz wrote an answer to this problem (printed
in "Be'er HaGolah," page 155). Yet the Kotzker Rebbe, who had enormous
admiration for the Maharal, said that even an illustrious rabbi can err.

Rabbi Yelin concludes, "From all this we can conclude that even a great
and saintly rabbi can make a mistake... The truth is that even the
greatest rabbis amongst the opponents have no correct knowledge on this
issue" (page 9).

Thus, how fortunate you are to have merited to attain the truth from great
rabbis who did not err, faithful emissaries of the Supreme King of Kings.

Rebbetzin Boublil posted an excellent article from Rabbi Shlomo
Aviner. In it, a person whose rabbi follows one hashkafa, chose to
read a sefer written by a certain gadol of a differing hashkafa. He was
greatly impressed by what he read, and then went on to read other seforim
about that other hashkafa. Eventually he came to feel that his hashkafa,
and that of his rabbi, was in error. He asked Rav Aviner how this could
happen, and Rav Aviner answered simply that it is indeed possible to a
rabbi, even a gadol, to make mistakes, and he went on to give examples
of this happening.

The point I would like to make is that Rav Aviner's words can apply
to *any* case where one sees something different than he was taught,
and suspects that his teachers were in error. Rav Aviner's questioner
considered himself to be of camp A but came to feel that camp B was more
correct, but his answer would work just as well for someone who started
in camp B and moved to camp A.

Akiva Miller

Rabbi Aviner proves that a rabbi can make a mistake, but not that a
student who examines two sides of an issue can decide to follow his
own mind despite his rabbi's contrary position. The only situations he
cites where a student may take a contrary position are:

<<it is possible for there to be a student who studies books that his
rabbi never studied, such that the student knows more than his rabbi (page
16). He likewise quotes Maharal MiPlotzk who said that if an illustrious
rabbi knows the whole Torah yet has not toiled to understand a particular
law, and a lesser rabbi does not know the whole Torah yet has toiled
to understand that particular law, the latter can better arrive at the
truth, such that we will rule according to the lesser rabbi (Responsa
"Meshivat Nefesh" 16; Geulat Yisrael, page 3).>>

Usually, especially when the disagreement is between contemporaneous
rabbonim, each rav has read the source material read by the other rav
and both have spent substantial time studying the issue. Surely it
would be difficult to argue that charedi rabbonim have not studied the
Zionist issue enough.

IMHO the real issue is whether a talmid can follow what makes most sense
to him in a situation when rabbonim of equal weight are disagreeing,
or whether the talmid must be kafuf to his rav. Rav Lichtenstein has
implied and Rav Michael Rosensweig has said that there is value to
following what makes most sense to oneself, while I would think that
this view is not popular in the charedi world.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Micha Berger wrote:
> (I might point out that while the letters were carved all the way through,
> there was already a neis in the geometry involved, since they were not
> backwards on the other side. Li nir'eh both are the same neis involving
> the abnormality of the carving.)

Do we understand that not only the letters, but also the words and sentences
read forward? How is this one nes?

David Riceman

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:35:51PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> (I might point out that while the letters were carved all the way through,
:> there was already a neis in the geometry involved, since they were not
:> backwards on the other side. Li nir'eh both are the same neis involving
:> the abnormality of the carving.)

: Do we understand that not only the letters, but also the words and sentences
: read forward? How is this one nes?

The reason why we expect the middles of the letters to fall is because
when you normally carve something all the way around, there is nothing
to hold it up.

The reason why you expect one side to carry mirror writing is because
when you normally carve something all the way through, that's what you
get on the other side.

Hatzad hashaveh is that this was not the usual sense of being carved
though to the other side. The geometry of space internal to the lochos
was abnormal. Therefore neither expectation about connectedness or about
the appearance form the other side would hold.

The geometry of the entire Qodesh haQdashim was non-standard. For example,
the room on either side of the aron (in the mishqan, multiply the numbers
for the BhM, but the point is the same) was 5 amos. The total width of
the QhQ was 10 amos. Which means that there was no space occupied by
the aron itself -- it's all accounted for on the 2 sides!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ 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         ]