Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 056

Wednesday, November 13 2002

• Mussar, A Mecho'oh Atzumah
• re: Mrs. Yehudis Eisav
• Re: Name of Eisav's Third Wife
• Re: NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• Re: NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• Re: am'ru vs. amaru
• zeikher/zekher and yitgadal/yitgadeil
• Re: zecher/zichron
• RE: rambam's shitta
• Re: Chazal and Astrology
• Astrology
• Re: NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• Re: Star Wars
• Re: Mussar, A Mecho'oh Atzumah
• Re: Mussar, A Mecho'oh Atzumah
• Fwd: Astrology, Mussar
• Re: astrology
• Re: Chazal and Astrology
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Making of a Gadol/Rambam thread
• Astrology by a still boggling mind

[First, I must apologize for letting the discussion get personal. As a
moderator, I've been asleep at the job. Again, sorry.

[That said, I'm letting this macho'oh through for one simple reason:
this email list is hosted by an organization with a set goal to
promote mussar and machshavah. I couldn't let an attack on one of
our key foundation points go without response. -mi]

My regular e-mail seems down, so I am using my alternate aishdas address -
if you respond to me directly, please respond here and to ygb@aishdas.org.
thanks!

In yet another excursion into an alternate state of Judaism, our
distinguished chaver RDE writes... well, you know what, I cannot bring
myself to actually quote the stuff.

It would be amusing, if not for the its horrific overtones.

RDE, on the basis of his (in my opinion erroneous) reading of the CI has
the unmitigated temerity to assume he has a better grasp of authentic
Judaism than R' Yisral Salanter, the Alters of K,S and N; all of their
talmidim, including - named! - many Gedolei Torah.

The audacity is remarkable. Actually, it is impressive. I stand in awe of
someone who feels that he has the shoulders to take on R' Yisrael,
apologize for the Chofetz Chaim, and cast aspersion on the Alter.

Shomu Shomayim. Kdai Bizayon vo'Kotzef.

The alleged quote from the unnamed RY at the end is meaningless. Someone
who can cast such unalloyed aspersions on Mussar and Chassidus b'chada
machta is ein yir'aso kodemes l'chochmoso and unworthy of any title as RY.
No wonder he wishes to remain anonymous.

In truth, there is nothing of substance in RDE's post, just besmirching
of individuals who themselves and in their talmidim instilled a sense
that life is a constant avodah on middos and devotion to refinement
and elevation.

It really has no place on a list called Avodah.

I would like to note, for the record, that while this disagreement has
included other chaverim, I disassociate them, unless they are desirous
for some reason, from RDE's position. Whatever our disagreements, they
have not taken this remarakable tack.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

Just as the Basya does not come from Bisya bas Par'o, Y'hudis does not
come from Esav's froi.
Rather, Y'hudis was a popular name among both Gentiles and Jews from
earliest times in Ashk'naz. The German/Yiddish form (Jueta or Yite) was
popular among Gentiles, and that was scarcely because they admired Esau.
The name goes back to the hero of the book of Judith, who was admired
by both Christians and Jews because of the steadfastness of her faith.
Nor was she named after Esav's froi; Y'hudi was viewed as the feminine
version of Y'hudah, both of which from Biblical times referred to a Jew.
Cf. the word for Jew in all European languages was not based on 'Ivri,
but on variants of Y'huda/Y'hudi.
Jews used both the German form and the Hebrew form, but often spelled
as it was pronounced (Yudes).
There is no example, as far as I can determine, of a Biblical name that
was popular among the Gentiles in medieval Europe, that was not also
used by the Jews. (The converse is not true; and there are _modern_
Biblical names that were used by the Protestants starting from the 17th
century that never gained currency among Jews.) Even such a very rare
name as Hefzibah is attested for Jewish women in Germany up until the
13th century.

On 12 Nov 2002 at 7:46, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:52:13 +0200 "Carl Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> writes:
>> Koren, Ktav and Simanim (the three we have in the house) all have it
>> Machalas. Simanim brings the Minchas Shai in the margin that has it
>> Mochalas.

> Minchas Shai trumps.

On what basis? 

-- Carl

On 11 Nov 2002 at 22:24, Arie Folger wrote:
> Nobody has, from halakhic perspective, more than one name. Yosef
> Shimon Ya'akov Ben Tziyon is halakhically merely one very long name
> starting with a yod and ending with a nun. (source: rav Bleich beshem
> sifrei mequbalim and beshem some posqim, halakhah lema'aseh WRT
> inyanei nisuin)

If that's the case, then those with two names should have one pasuk
which starts with the same letter as the first name and ends with the
same letter as the second, rather than a separate pasuk for each name.

-- Carl

On Tuesday 12 November 2002 18:51, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> > Nobody has, from halakhic perspective, more than one name. Yosef
> > Shimon Ya'akov Ben Tziyon is halakhically merely one very long name
> > starting with a yod and ending with a nun...

> If that's the case, then those with two names should have one pasuk
> which starts with the same letter as the first name and ends with the
> same letter as the second, rather than a separate pasuk for each
> name.

You do follow the lead to its logical conclusion. However, there may be a 
ma'hloqet of mequbalim, and I am waiting to hear about it on list ;;).

Arie

I agree with R' Meshullam Klarberg that it may be more correct to call 
R' Yaakov m'Emden's book Luach Eresh rather than Eress.  Somehow, I 
have never been completely convinced even though R' D Yitzhaki puts the 
dot on the right side of the shin in his facsimile copy of the original 
title page.

The reason is that R' Ya'vetz is famous for double meanings, switching 
similar letters, and nasty remarks. In his Amudei Shamayim he explains 
the book title by quoting from Shir Hashirim: Im delet hi, natzur aleha 
luach eress/eresh substituting a shin for the zayin of erez. He also 
misspells a quote from Og melekh habashan's bed by stating: hinei arso 
eress barzel with alefs instead of ayins.  And from the names he uses 
to describe RZ"H and his work it doesn't take much to realize that he 
also has eress (poison) in mind.

He also often writes ere"ss with a gershayim which he uses throughout 
the book not (only) for rashei teivot but to indicate a double meaning.
In the hakdama, he quotes: ki lEilohim maginei ere"ss m'od na'ala and 
continues with the comment: ars"i ere"ss d'vai, again with alef instead 
of ayyin. 

As one who has been in shul for tekiyot on R"H. I recognize the word 
with a shin yemanit from 'Areshet s'fateinu (even if less familiar with 
Tehilim).  But, here we have a man with a poisonous pen who purposely 
misspells the last name of R' Zalman Heneh, as He'ani (with gershayim 
to help those who didn't get it). He takes k'shod shalman from Hoshea' 
10:14 and makes it shod Zalman, and substitutes letters without limit 
in some of his word play.  Having seen R' Ya'akov m'Emden's nature and 
habits, I feel justified in continuing to call the book  Luach Eress, - 
Perhaps incorrect, but very appropriate.

But, thanks anyway for the correction.

k"t,

David

The renewal of the questions and answers on zeikher/zekher and 
yitgadal/yitgadeil force me to remind the list that these two topics 
have been covered in great detail in the past and, I assume, can be 
found in the archives.

To summarize: zeikher appears nine times in Tanakh. There is no basis 
for zekher with segol in any mesorah or accurate Tanakh.  

Ma'aseh Rav has the Gra saying zekher but R' Chayyim miVolozhin in his 
haskama-introduction points out that this is an error and that he heard 
the Gra say Zeikher. In any event, the Gra said what he thoujght was 
correctg and certainly didn't repeat to say the incorrect as well..

Side remark: Just as 'eshen is the s'mikhut of 'ashan, so zekher could 
be a s'mikhut of zakhar. As in timcheh et zakhar 'Amalek.


Yitrgadal: All old sources have yitgadal, yikadash, yitbarakh, 
yitpa'ar, yitromam etc. R' S. Baer summarizes all the past in his 
Totzaot Chayyim quoting from Ibnn Ezra to RV"H to prove that the patach 
is correct historically as well as grammatically

There are opinions that the sh'vachim in kaddish might be Hebrew rather 
than Aramaic. If Aramaic it is with patach.  If Hebrew it could be 
either patach or tzeireh.

R' Ya'kov m'Emden blames RZ"H for making the change and argues against 
the idea that Rashi and Sefer Hapardess are justification for the 
replacement of the patach with the tzeireh.

 I won't argue with the Gra and therefore, as posted in the past, I 
decided many years ago to change from patach to tzeireh right after the 
shabbat on which we will read parashat va'etchanein. I'm still waiting.

For those interested, much more detail can be found in the archives 
under subjects kaddish, yitgadal, yisgadal, diyyukim, diyukim,  etc.

k"t, 

David

On 12 Nov 2002 at 7:31, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> And by the bye, the siddur from which I pray every morning has, in
> both Ashrei and Psalm 145, the reading zekher rav tuvekha with a segol
> under the zayin. Is this due the the Gra's influence?

I don't know, but I can tell you that RYBS was noheg to say the pasuk
twice (once with zeicher and once with zecher).

-- Carl

RML brings down the perush hamishnayot of the rambam, and then says:
> Now, I believe that at different points in this thread, it was claimed
> that the Rambam finds no source in Chazal for his position on astrology. I
> think that that narrow point at least has been refuted. Agreed?

Unfortunately, no. It was stated quite clearly by several on the
group (as well as the rambam) that once one understands the truth
through reason, the rambam would then read the gmara in light of that
understanding - see his explicit statement in maamar techiyat hametim. for
example, on how he understands different purported nissim. Given the fact
that the rambam believed that astrology (and witchcraft etc) were frauds,
clearly he would understand the gmara in that light. However, whether
this is a source for anyone who doesn't already believe as the rambam does
is the question - the source merely states that there is a prohibition -
not that the forbidden acts have no validity. There is no source that
the rambam (or anyone else) has brought for that derivation, and it is
clearly not part of the mesora of all the other rishonim/acharonim who
believe that kishuf (or astrology or ..)is forbidden but "works", and this
derivation is clearly dependent on the rambam' use of rational thought.

Meir

RYGB: <<.. Again, there is no way to learn Rambam AZ 11 than the
way I have described. Which is the way the ALN learnt as well...>>
notwithstanding. Kol Tuv, YGB>>

I now accept that we simply have different cognitive referents when we
talk of proof and the logical calculus I ordinarily employ to demonstrate
propositions is not appropriate to these interactions. As I detailed
-- twice -- the Aruch Laneir says absolutely nothing of the kind,
he doesn't support (nor dispute for that matter) RYGB because he is
not even talking about the same topic. He addresses RYGB's contention
(that AZ reflects rambam's understanding of chazal) about as much as
does the US declaration of independence which could be cited here with
as much relevance. (and I previously explained the ALNs subject so will
not repeat yet again). I can't figure out why RYGB continues to keep
trotting him out in this context.

I have basically dropped out of the substantive discussion per my last
posting and have no interest in re-engaging. Y'all can look up the
assertions and decide for yourself.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

My regular e-mail seems down, so I am using my alternate aishdas address -
if you respond to me directly, please respond here and to ygb@aishdas.org.
thanks!

RET wrote:
> Wow!! from a debate whether Rambam rejected Chazal on astrology (or
> interpreted as an allegory - essentially the same) we have elevated
> astrology to one of the 13 ikkarim of the Torah on par with the ten
> commandments.
> i.e. if someone today would take the clear position that chazal believed
> in astrology and they were wrong (a position of many on this list)
> they would be labeled as apikorsim and their schechita would be pasul
> (good thing none of them are schochtim -).

Firstly, what sets the 13 Ikkarim apart? Mesorah? But mesorah is
questionable now!

Halacha? Why not dismiss them as Agada?!

Maybe Techiyas ha'Meisim is a metaphor, Olam ha'Bo an allegory?!

Who made Chazal masters of theology?!

These are questions you (not I) must answer.

As to what makes one an apikores, IMHO it is still denial of the 13
Ikkarim. Denial of the supremacy of Chazal in knowledge of how the
Olamos Elyonim work is wrong, frivolous, and on the verge of minus -
but not yet minus. Much like those who, in one of earlier debates,
aleegorize the Mabul.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:51:47AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: > Shimon Ya'akov Ben Tziyon is halakhically merely one very long name
: > starting with a yod and ending with a nun. (source: rav Bleich beshem
: > sifrei mequbalim and beshem some posqim, halakhah lema'aseh WRT
: > inyanei nisuin)

: If that's the case, then those with two names should have one pasuk
: which starts with the same letter as the first name and ends with the
: same letter as the second, rather than a separate pasuk for each name.

No, if that were the case, everyone would choose a pasuq with the first
letter of their first name and the last letter in their father's lastmost
personal name.

But that's not what's done even for a single-named person.

-mi

PS: I wonder about this minhag. How will the saneigor remember I'm not a
"Mosheh"? And why do we think beis din shel ma'alah would need any such
help?

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

RAF:
> RYGB wrote:
>> Your second paragraph is simply incorrect. Look again at the Moreh 2:25.
>> The Rambam say he cannot interpret Bereishis metaphorically not just
>> because of his OWN logic, but because that would conflict with the
>> mesorah as evinced by many pesukim in Nach etc.

> And just a little later he states (IIRC) that if Aristotle's logic
> was impeccable in this matter, and an eternal world would have been
> a logical conclusion, he would have reinterpreted those psuqim and
> adjoining maamarei 'Hazal, too. You just brought a good raayah against
> RYGB's position.

Rabbi Folger is mistaken. His recollection is incorrect. The Rambam says
nothing of the kind. It is worthwhile to pursue the text inside.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

RYGB: RDE quoted sources for most what he said. Consequently, I found
your response ("shomo shamayim") unconvincing as you quoted no sources.
As I am an aspiring mussarnik, I would be interested in a methodical
response to RDE's very serious allegations.

RDE: does your opposition to mussar relate in any way to your
psychological training? I remember reading R Abraham Amsel's work
claiming (IMHO unconvincingly) that psychological methods are wrong
because they contradict mussar.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 09:45 PM 11/12/02 -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>RYGB:  RDE quoted sources for most what he said.  Consequently, I found your
>response ("shomo shamayim") unconvincing as you quoted no sources.  As I am
>an aspiring mussarnik, I would be interested in a methodical response to
>RDE's very serious allegations.

He quoted sources for wonderful things that Ba'alei Mussar did and cast
them in a devastatingly negative light simply by preconceiving them as
wrong. Look at them again without the distortion and bias and you will
see how wonderful and wondrous they are if one knows that the people
who pursued these types of acts were aspiring to the highest goals of
avodah and chinuch.

The power of subtle leitzanus is staggering.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@yerushalmionline.org     http://www.yerushalmionline.org 
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 

I received our former chaver Dr. Marc Shapiro's permission to share our 
correspondence with the list. While there are significant differences 
between our respective positions, they stand together in contrast to the 
positions taken here by my interlocutors:

>Dear Rabbi Bechhofer,
>
>        Someone on your list has forwarded a number of the back and forth 
> re. Maimonides and astrology. He did so because I wrote an article in 
> Maimonidean Studies called "Maimonidean Halakhah and Superstition." I 
> don't understand what the debate is all about. Rambam clearly believed 
> that the gedolim ve-Tovim of Hazal rejected astrology. He says so almost 
> as explicitly as you can get in the Letter on Astrology (when he says 
> that those passages dealing with astrology were stated by INDIVIDUAL 
> sages who were in a error). Now one can disagree with Rambam in this and 
> see him as reading his philosophical views into Hazal, but he really 
> believed this. He thought that R. Akiva etc. were also great 
> philosophers and that Aggadah held the key to Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh 
> Bereshit.
>        How can anyone disagree with this? If it is true that great Roshe 
> Yeshiva do disagree, it shows that they don't understand Rambam's 
> philosophy. (I am speaking here from a pure scholarly perspective. I am 
> however surprised that those who approach matters from a  "frum" 
> perspective can say this, because it means that the Rambam had no emunat 
> hakhamim, something they regard as very important.)
>
>                    Sincerely,
>
>                          Marc Shapiro

My response:

Dear Dr. Shapiro, loy"t

It is good to hear from you.

As a matter of fact, you and I are on the same page here, and I would be 
very happy if you would allow me to quote you on-line. Please let me know 
if you would grant me permission to do so.

What my interlocutors claim is that Chazal UNIFORMLY and UNIVERSALLY 
believed in the validity of astrology, and that the Rambam al da'as atzmo 
(filtering their perspectives though his "reason") rejected their views 
and, to sustain his beliefs (perhaps, although they have not clarified 
this, intentionally inducing his ideas into Chazal) cast a couple of 
ambiguous statements, like that of R' Akiva concerning Lo Te'onenu, as if 
they were in line with his preconceived notions.

Since we are mutual admirers, albeit with somewhat different perspectives, 
of the SE, RAEK, etc., you will doubtless find the argumentation of the 
poster below shocking (it is a follow-up to his post in which he 
proclaimed any perspective I stated distorted because I am an admirer of 
the Mussar movement) [RDE's post deleted].

Dr. Shapiro's response:
>You can quote me if you wish, but first read on

>        I have not studied the issue of Hazal and astrology in depth so 
> as to be able to say if they did or did not universally believe in 
> astrology (I do know derekh agav, that in the Yerushalmi there is much 
> less in the way of shedim). I also know that not everyone in ancient 
> times believed in it, and Rambam cites the Greek philosophers who didn't 
> take it seriously.
>        What I do know is that Rambam believed that many of Hazal agreed 
> with him. After reading your letter, I am however confused. You claim 
> that your correspondents believe that the Rambam interpreted  Chazal to 
> agree with his own view. If that is what they are saying, then I don't 
> know what the disagreement is with regard to Rambam. You are only 
> arguing about Chazal, since both you and them agree that the Rambam 
> believed that he was not innovating based only upon his reason, and that 
> he had the truth that Chazal did not have. Originally -- and this is why 
> I wrote -- I thought that the other side disagreed with this,. But now I 
> don't know what the machloket is.
>        I would agree with the named Rosh Yeshiva that the Rambam based 
> his understanding of astrology on logic and philosophy, but he also 
> believed that Chazal agreed with this. If you are saying that he DERIVED 
> his opposition to astrology from Chazal, I would actually have to 
> disagree with you. Again, I am not really sure if this is a dispute 
> about Chazal or Rambam
>       I am quote surprised at the vehemence of the assault on Mussar, 
> especially since Mussar emerged victorious and with the exception of 
> Volozhin all, yeshivot accepted it. Now late 20th century mussar might 
> not be identical with early 20th century mussar, and Slobodka is not 
> Novordok, but Mussar became part and parcel of the yeshiva world. The 
> Chazon Ish's criticisms were voices in the wilderness.
>        Yes, there are unusual stories told about Mussar teachers, but 
> the stories told about non-Mussar teachers are just as strange to us. 
> Think of the stories the Rav tells in halakhic man, how R. Elya 
> Pruzhener showed apparent disregard for his daughter who was dying or 
> how R.Moshe Soloveitchik had contempt for the Lubavitcher who cried 
> before he blew shofar, or how the Gra forgot about his sick child, etc. etc.
>       I think it is false to say that mussar was opposed by most 
> gedolim. There were to be sure gedolim who opposed it, but if you look 
> at Polmos ha-Mussar you will find that many gedolim signed letters is 
> support of Mussar. The rav of Novordok, the Aruch ha-Shulhan even signed 
> a letter in support of these bachurim. And if there was opposition, so 
> what. Many more gedolim opposed the Brisker derech in learning than the 
> Mussar approach.
>        As for reading diaries etc. this sort of spying was begun in the 
> center of anti-Mussar, the Volozhin yeshiva. Psychological manipulation 
> was not invented by the Mussarites.
>              Marc Shapiro

As always,
Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:15:36PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: >Chazon Ish also voices criticism of the baalei mussar in the
: >2nd chapter of emunah and bitachon...

No surprise, "chadash assur min haTorah".

: The way the Alter of Slabodka and his talmid R' Avraham Grodzinski
: explained it, they were following in the path of R' Nissim Gaon who held
: that there is a "natural law" that all human beings are obligated to
: follow. I believe that R' Norman Lamm wrote a long essay on the history
: of the theory of Natural Law in Judaism. This isn't something that the
: ba'alei mussar invented.

There are ra'ayos from sources even I've been exposed to.

"'Qedoshim tihyu' -- qadeish es atzmekha bemah shemutar lakh" implies a
definition of qedushah that isn't simply following issur veheter.

And a "menuval birshus haTorah" is a menuval by some definition other
than that itemized in din.

"Vehalakhta bidrakhav" also defines an ethic, imitatio Dei, that isn't
itemized by specific dinim.

For that matter, the same arguments can be made WRT chassidus. Both follow
the age-old notion of going lifnim mishuras hadin, and building entire
philosophies, practices and lifestyle on an overarching hashqafah. (And
how does one define lifnim vs mibachutz without defining a wider ethic?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

At 06:19 PM 11/12/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>RYGB: <<.. Again, there is no way to learn Rambam AZ 11 than the
>way I have described. Which is the way the ALN learnt as well...>>
>notwithstanding. Kol Tuv, YGB>>
>
>I now accept that we simply have different cognitive referents when we
>talk of proof and the logical calculus I ordinarily employ to demonstrate
>propositions is not appropriate to these interactions. As I detailed
>-- twice -- the Aruch Laneir says absolutely nothing of the kind,
>he doesn't support (nor dispute for that matter) RYGB because he is
>not even talking about the same topic. He addresses RYGB's contention
>(that AZ reflects rambam's understanding of chazal) about as much as
>does the US declaration of independence which could be cited here with
>as much relevance. (and I previously explained the ALNs subject so will
>not repeat yet again). I can't figure out why RYGB continues to keep
>trotting him out in this context.

And I am equally bewildered. The ALN notes the girsa (IIRC cited in the 
Ran, as RMJF noted earlier) that me'onen has to do with kochavim rather 
than dagim, and says that was the girsa before the Rambam, which elaborates 
the source of the Rambam dismissing astrology as explicit in Chazal.


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

> And the CI is the last word?

No -- but one can't just dismiss him by saying "And the CI is the
last word?".

And, at least here in EY in the Yeshiva world, the CI quite often IS the
"last word".

Akiva
(back to lurking)

Not sure if this is directly relevant, but I saw in the "Making of a
Gadol" a reference to Rav Yaakov's Emes LeYaakov where he says that the
first few perakim of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah are not mesora, but the
Rambam's own chochma.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R. Mechy Frankel wrote (10:51):

<<<
 The other issue stems from RYGBs
remarks about mesorah itself, the degree to which independent thought
is part of the tradition etc. I believe RYGB's remarks here <<The
conclusion is utterly false and counteracts basic assumptions about
the chain of mesorah and the qualities of the Rishonim.>> are well off
the mark and misconstrue the true breadth of mesorah. I prefer the Dor
Rivii's observation that the Torah She'Bi'Al Peh was never originally
meant to be written down at all, in order to preserve the freedom of
each new generation of talmidei chachomim to adjust tradition to the
new knowledge and circumstances of the day.
>>>

To which Rabbi B replied:

<<<
 Although his first paragraph
(deleted) makes a big to-do denying it, his last two paragraphs clarify
that he does, indeed, hold (and somehow attributes this position to the
DR, who would never have held this way in a million years) that we can
ascertain which Chazals were right and which were wrong, v'ho'ra'ayah
the Rambam did so and so can we. 
>>>

To which R. Mechy responed:

<<<
I regret dragging the Dor Riviie into this as RYGB has obviously missed
the
point I was making by doing so, for which lack of clarity I take
responsibility. I was not trying to adduce the DR as agreeing with the
position I espoused (though I have no doubt that he did -- but will
leave for
another distinguished member of this list, the Dor Shivie, to provide
appropriate source citation if he wishes). The DR was rather brought in
for
his perspective on the general nature of torah she'b'al peh and the role
of
chidush, in insightful apposition to RYGB's formulation of mesorah as
rishonim not declaiming on matters in which they lacked a qabboloh. This
topic is certainly worthy of expansion into its own space, but is here
just
an en passant diversion.
>>>

Since I gather R. Mechy was referring to me in the above snippet (though
I generally prefer to be referenced by name, I have learned to indugle
R. 
Mechy's minor (and usually harmless) eccentricities), I thought I would
offer the following snippet from my favorite late acharon.

Now come and see how far the view of the Rambam is from that of the 
Rashba in his responsum 98 in which he seeks to deny, on the strength 
of the tradition of Hazal, the reality that is evident to everyone.  But
the 
Rambam had a different view when he said that since it had been accepted

in Jewish courts that these injuries and diseases were treiphot, and 
through the redaction of the Talmud that acceptance had been preserved 
for the generations, we have only what the Sages enumerated whether it 
be for leniency or stringency.  And the proof is that concerning a
murderer 
we judge him based on the evaluation of the physicians whether it be for

leniency or stringency, and we do not consider the tradition of Hazal 
concerning the treiphot of an animal.

You will also find that the halakhah is decided in Orah Haim 316:9 that 
one is not liable for killing a louse on the Sabbath.  And in Yoreh
Dei'ah 
84 that it is permissible to eat cheese and fruit that are wormy as long
as 
the worms are not separated from the food.  And these laws are based on 
the agreement of Hazal in Shabbat 107b that these creatures come into 
existence by themselves and do not procreate.  And the Talmud asks 
there: "Do lice really not procreate?  Did not our master say the Holy
One 
Blessed Be He sits and sustains everything from the horns of rams to the

eggs of lice" (qarnei r'eimim).  And the Talmud can respond only by 
resorting to a forced answer that there is a species that is named the 
eggs of lice (qarnei r'eimim).  And in truth it has been scientifically 
determined that there is no living creature that comes into existence 
without procreation.  Nevertheless, the law does not change, even to 
become more stringent, in opposition to the decision and agreement of 
our Sages.

It is certainly true that a scientific consensus is only a provisional
truth, 
inasmuch as it is always possible that a more enlightened generation
will 
arise and will demolish all the earlier constructs.  But it is also true
that if 
we were not bound by the agreement of the Sages of the Talmud, peace 
be upon them, we should judge every halakhic question according to the 
contemporary state of knowledge just as I have shown you that we judge 
a murderer according to the evaluation of the doctors at any given time.

And should they say that this injury is fatal, we should then execute
the 
murderer and we should not say to them perhaps there is some potion of 
which we are not aware that would cure the victim if it were
administered.  
For that is why it is written (Deuteronomy 17:9) "and to the judge who
is in 
office in those days."

So it obvious that if Hazal were deciding then according to the current 
state of scientific knowledge, knowing that all living creature
procreate, 
they would not have allowed the killing of a louse on the Sabbath or to 
eat wormy cheese just because the preceding generations had believed 
that these living creatures are generated spontaneously.  For as the 
Rambam wrote, it is permissible for a court to overturn the rulings of 
earlier courts even if it is not as great as its predecessor in wisdom
or 
in numbers.  That they did not refrain from contradicting the rulings of

predecessors because their predecessors were wiser or knew more 
than they did was true even concerning the interpretation of Scripture, 
and how much more so concerning matters that are contingent on 
scientific understanding.  For what if their predecessors were wiser or 
did know more?  Was it not written concerning this: "and to the judge 
who will be in office in those days"?  And you will see that the Sages 
said in Eruvin 13b that the reason that they did not establish the law 
in accordance with the opinion of R. Meir was that they could not 
fathom the depth of his reasoning. (Dor Revi'i haqdamah)

At the risk of overkill (but it's in a worthy cause), I shall quote
again
(see Avodah 10:42) shut Dor Revi'I (2:110)

Nevertheless, I disagree with your approach to learning (darkei limudo)
and with that of most of the scholars of your country (Poland) who push
aside a clear and straightforward reasoning (s'vara b'rurah viysharah)
owing to some contradiction that they have found. And this is not
an approach that entlightens, for the Ramban, of blessed memory, has
written in his novellae about the response that we find in the Talmud
"if you like I will cite a Scripture and if you like I will expound a
rational argument" (iy ba'it eima qra v'iy ba'it eima s'vara). This is
difficult because how can one compare his reasoning to a Scripture
by asking "which would you like a Scripture or a rational argument?"
And he, of blessed memory, wrote that they really are comparable
(b'emet shavin hein) for straightforward reasoning (seikhel ha-yashar),
which is the gift of G-d, a portion of G-d on high (matat Eloqim heileq
Eloqa mi-ma'al), is as reliable as Scripture (v'yeish lismokh alav
kmo qra ha-m'phurash), for they are alike (ki shavin hein). And see
the midrash qohelet on the verse (6:9) "tov mareih einayim mei-halokh
naphesh" that it is better to question deeply and to understand in an
enlightened way than to go and repeat one's lesson without reflection
(tov l'ha'amiq u-l'havin b'ein sikhli mi-la-halokh v'lahzor al mishnato
b'li havanat ha-leiv). So therefore if some gemara stands opposed to
our straightforward reasoning, we must dedicate our souls to reconcile
the difficult passage to the conclusion of our reasoning (l'yasheiv
ha-ma'amar ha-muksheh kdai l'hashvoto l'ha-muskam min ha-seikhel).
And whoever does this will find wonders in his study (yimtza nora'ot
b'torato) and will make himself into a great tree (v'ilana raba
yitavad).

I trust that Rabbi B will not suspect that I (though unable to deny 
personal knowledge and contact, indeed, despite my considerable 
qualms about the conduct of certain of his distinguished relatives of 
previous generations, friendship, with R. Mechy), too, am part of the 
Shinnar/Frankel axis of whatever.  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]