Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 117

Sunday, March 2 2003

• Re: Rambam, Immortality, and Mitsvos
• Re: birkat haminim
• Re: Birkat haMinim
• Subject: Birkat haMinim
• Toras Purim 5763 part 1
• Shoshanas ya'akov
• Mishloah Manot question
• Re: Shoshanas ya'akov
• RE: RAYHK and separatism
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Rambam and Yissachar Zevulan
• Maamar vs. Dibur
• Re: Maamar vs. Dibur
• chovat kriat hatorah
• Re: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
• Re: apikorsus

On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:59:45AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: 1. Hilchos Ysodei Hatorah can be interpreted to say that the path of
: philosophy is for the elect but the path of mitsvos is open to all to
: acieve Olam habbo.

LAD, the Rambam on "ratzah HQBH lezaqos es Yisrael, lefikhakh hirba
lahem Torah umitzvos" is quite clear on the connection between mitzvos
and olam haba.

Olam haba comes with yedi'as H'. However, that yedi'ah can come in a
single epiphany. "Yeish mi sheqoneh olamo besha'ah achas." Therefore,
the Rambam understand the mishnah as HQBH giving us many chiyuvim because
each qiyum is an opportunity for having that epiphany.

Yes, the more philosophically inclined could get a fuller yedi'ah from
studying the Borei. But the point of mitzvos is /not/ to provide a 2nd
path to olam haba, rather another path to yedi'ah.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:03:43AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: 2. RMG postulates that the Rambam believes that schar mitzva gets one a
: place in Olam HaBa. I objected that, in fact, the Rambam believed that
: one gets Olam HaBa through a natural process...

Are we sure that "sechar" is in contradiction to "natural process"?

Second, are we sure that "qiyum" doesn't mean yedi'ah? Leqayeim is to
establish, implying making permanent. What is it a qiyum hamitzvah makes
permanent? I understood the Rambam to take this to refer to the yedi'ah
that one gains from the act.

In birkhas Shema, we speak of "lishmor vela'asos ulqayeim". After
"lishmor" which covers lavin, and "la'asos" covering the mitzvos asei,
what's "ulqayeim"? Therefore we elaborate: "veha'eir eineinu besorasekha,
vedabeiq libeinu bemitzvosekha, veyakheid levaveinu le'ahavah ulyir'ah es
shemekha." Note the switch from be- in the first two of those clauses to
"le- ... ul-" in the third. I think it's bedavqa this distinction between
means and ends that causes the difference in preposition.

My problem with shittas haRambam is that he is defining yedi'ah in
intellectual terms. Which would give people of lesser intelligence a
leg down not only in olam hazeh, but also in olam haba as well. I would
think that someone who has the ahavah and yir'ah, and who shares the
values HQBH teaches us, would also qoneh olamo.

(I posted this objection back around volume 2. So let me repeat the same
disclaimer: as a father of a child with Downs I'm nogei'ah bedavar. OTOH,
I also can see the beauty of the temimus and yichud haleiv.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

A supplement to my previous note (in digest #116):
Over shabbos, I looked in a shul that still has some of the pre-Artscroll
Ashk'naz siddurim. In the Qol Ya'aqov siddur, which is still printed,
the second line reads
"v'khol hamminim k'rega' yovedo"
versus the censored version
"v'khol harish'a k'rega' toved,"
which is the one used in Artscroll and in many other Ashk'naz siddurim.

Seth Mandel

To R' Seth's excellent post, I would like to add that the talmudim refer
to the beracha as birkas ha-minim. See Berachos 28b, Yerushalmi Berachos
3:25, 4:3 (all cited from manuscript in Herford's Christianity in Talmud
& Midrash, sources 38, 43, and 44). See also Rashi, Megillah 17b sv
posh'im and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, pp. 53-61.

Gil Student

> The common nusah of 'Edot haMizrah nowadays is:
> (1) Lamminim v'lammalshinim 'al t'hi tiqwa;

Rav Rakach in Shulchan HaPanim, notes that the correct Nusach is
"LaMalShinim VeLaMinim..." and explicitly says that one should not use
the Nusach of Bavel.

> (2) V'khol hazzedim k'rega' yovedu;
> (3) V'khol oyvekha v'khol son'ekha m'hera yikkaretu;
> (4) umalkhut harish'a m'hera t'aqqer ut'shabber utkhallem v'takhni'em
> bimhera b'yamenu.

BA"H Shover Oyvim U'Machni'a Zeidim. Rav Rakach comment here that one
should not end with "minim" but rather with Zeidim.

> Both explicitly mention minim. But there is no way for me to tell whether
> the word malshinim in line (1) appeared only after siddurim appeared in
> print and were censored or whether it went back earlier in S'farad.

Rav Rakach bases his Nusach on Nusach Livorno which is the original
Nusach used also by the Chid"a. Rav Levi Nachum has published this
nusach together with the Hagahot of Rav Rakach in a wonderfully clear
Siddur collection called "Od Avinu Chai".

> There is no way of telling from the evidence which group of minim Hazal
> had in mind in composing it, unless the texts mentioning Christians
> explicitly are original. At any rate, from the Rambam's formulation,
> it is fairly clear that the b'rokho/q'lolo is meant primarily to apply
> to all Jews who deny the principals of faith or convert and cause trouble.

Shoshana L. Boublil

This evening by Mincah is struck me this year to look at the Megillah
theough the lens of the current daf yomi: Hagodas Eydus.

The hinge of the story is "Ein Esther magedes" vs. "Ki higida Esther
mah hu la."

Hagodas Eydus comes from the term for speech called Hagada.

Hagada is "devarim ha'kashim k'giddim" (Rashi on "Ko somar l'Bais Yaakov
v'sageid l'Bnie Yisroel" - Shemos 19).

Hagada also is clearly related to the word "Gad," which means "mazal"
("Ha'orchim la'Gad Shulchan" - Yeshaya 65).

A mazal is a form of hamshacha - of flow from the Heavens. That is why
the Targum for "Mishchu u'kechu lachem" (Shemos 12) is "negidu" and that
is why a king is called a "Nagid" - because he draws and pulls the nation
in a certain direction.

It is interesting, in this respect, that the letters with destructive
sounds - reish and ayin - cut off the hamshacha - gadar and gada',

[I think a beged is called a beged because the type of clothing a
person wears indicates his station - his capacity to be mamshich -
which is merumaz in the megillah, of course in Esther and Mordechai's
begadim. Also, although I can think of Kabblistic reasons why G-D is
hamshacha, I think a pashut reason is that Aleph-Bais is Av, the father,
so Gimmel-Daled is the hamshacha from the Av. Once we're on a tangent,
I would also note the mazal of Adar is Dagim - D-G/G-D. Hope to get back
to that at some later point, IY"H.]

Still, we have more to cover here before we get to Eydus.

Why is Torah called "devarim ha'kashim k'gidim?"

I am sure we can know with the "pashut" reason, that it is difficult to
fulfill and has many punishments.

But lefi devareinu the peshat is that until Mattan Torah "Amudei shomayim
yerofafu" (Iyov 26), that the Beriah was not firm until Mattan Torah -
what made the Beriah firm was Mattan Torah.

Also, the Navi says the Avodah Zarah of Gad was to set a table before it,
as above. Rashi brings down at the beginning of Mishpatim that Moseh
Rabbeinu was to give the Torah to Am Yisroel "k'shulchan aruch" - the
set tale of the Torah brings the proper hamshocho or mazal me'meromim
instead of the Avodah Zarah setting of the literal table.

I have to go. That will do for now...

From: RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com
<<In my drosho on Parshas Tetzaveh, I focused on the Megilla's inordinate
amount of time spent on clothing. The fabrics at the party, Mordechai's
clothes, change of clothes, refusal to change clothes, Esther's changing
clothes, Haman's wish to wear the Melech's clothes, dressing
 Mordechai in the Melech's clothes...Clearly relates to Parshas Tetzaveh
that always coincides with Purim or Purim Katan.>>

Also to the theme of "hem lo asu elah lepanim" , masks/costumes, and
the idea of clothes being "beged" or "me'il"

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

As a child I was taught by all my Yeshivah teachers that in order to
fulfill the missvah of Mishloah Manot certain criteria must be met.

The item in question is this. I was told that the mishloah manot must
consist of at least two different berakhot!

I was taught this time and again. I asked people that went to different
schools at different times and they were all taught the same thing??????
What is the source for this????

It's not in the Megilah, or the Gemara, or HaRaMBaM, or Shoulhan 'Aroukh,
or anyplace else where I have searched.

Can anyone help to demystify this?????

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:35:00PM -0500, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
: In my drosho on Parshas Tetzaveh, I focused on the Megilla's inordinate
: amount of time spent on clothing. The fabrics at the party, Mordechai's
: clothes, change of clothes, refusal to change clothes, Esther's changing
: clothes, Haman's wish to wear the Melech's clothes, dressing Mordechai
: in the Melech's clothes...Clearly relates to Parshas Tetzaveh that always
: coincides with Purim or Purim Katan.

Also explains the focus on techeiles Mordechai in particular, too.

Li nir'eh this is not an answer though. There is a cart-and-horse problem
using it that way.

The connection, which I agree is pretty clear, would explain why minhag
Bavel set these parshios to be around the time of Purim. Not why a
megillah written centuries before this minhag picks up on the theme.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

[I heavily cut this post in certain places, as there are elements of
this conversation that I would rather avoid having on Avodah, for
various reasons. -mi]

[snippage -mi]

RDG faxed me today (thanks!) RAYHK's letter in defense of the DR - it
is a masterpiece, and I asked RDG to have Reb Micha PDF it so RDG can
post it on the DR website. So many yesodos!!!

As I thought, of course, RAYHK in no way opposes the Hirschian
Austrittsgemeinde - aderaba, he asserts that at the time it was the only
way to go! He is against the quaint Hungarian "minhag" - which he brands
as an unfortunate misinterpretation of the Austritts philosophy - of
regarding every avaryan, including fine frummer yidden who have sympathy
for Zionsim, as Erev Rav and Amalek - and he addresses those Zohars
very well. There is, just like in the Netziv below, no remez v'zecher
to common mosdos, and no plug for united kehillos - unless they be under
the banner of Orthodoxy! Again, he was against the interminable Hungarian
splitting and re-splitting into ever smaller factions - a tendency from
which we suffer till this very day.

At 10:08 AM 2/27/03 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> That isn't my implication - that is the direct statement of the netziv
> regarding the rabbinic leadership during the end of bayit sheni - whose
> gadlut no one questions...

See above.

[snippage -mi]

I ask (rhetorically) is rote and superficial Shemiras TuM congruent
with YS?! So why did Shlomo ha'Melech then write such "inaccuracies"
(R"L) as "Im tevakshena k'kesef u'k'matmonim techapsenah?!"

> WRT to the SE and Gemeinde - according to R Marc Schapiro, the SE
> maintained a public neutrality about Gemeinde versus austritt, but was
> willing to work with both - (and while Hildesheimer was formally austritt,
> it collaborated closely with the Gemeinde community - the austritt was to
> maintain independence, rather than a declaration of tarfus). I didn't say
> that the SE was himself gemeinde - but that he knew it and respected it.

I am happy to see you correct the impression you left yesterday.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com Akiva Miller
> ... Second, he quotes
> two authorities (Avnei Nezer EH 17, and Rav Elchanon Wasserman in Degel
> Hatorah 93:4) that "Should a particular individual know of the mamzerut,
> he need not alert others to its presence... the person who knows about
> the mamzerut may even officiate as Rabbi in marrying the 'mamzer' and
> another Jew. If there is no knowledge, there is no issur." -- But if the
> Rabbi knows, then why doesn't this count a "knowledge"? And if only the
> couple's knowledge counts as real "knowledge", doesn't this strengthen my
> question about the Sefer Yuchsin?

A very basic and inherent part of the issue of declaring a Mamzer is the
question of proof. Self-knowledge is not sufficient -- you have to have
absolute halachic proof.

This is the type of issue that a single rabbi does NOT pasken about,
rather it is brought before a Beit Din of 3. Therefore, you do not
declare a person a Mamzer just b/c the rabbi thinks he knows something.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 02:55:57PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: Following the recent postings on RMG and negios in psak, it seems to
: me that there are 2 separate issues here, one that RMG is talking about
: and one that people are replying to. Based on my close association with
: poskim, I have found that half the job of paskening is to understand the
: sugyos, and half is to make sure that you are being absolutely honest,
: i.e., without personnel negios. This depends entirely on the Yiras
: Shomaim of the posek. This is how I have understood RMG. A separate
: issue is to take into account local circumstances, cultural values and
: relevant technology in determining what the Halocho is...

I'd divide things finer, just for clarity on points I think were already
confused:
1- Personal negi'os
2- Cultural influences other than the derekh beTorah one follows
3- The influences of one's derekh
4- Culture as an element of the metzi'us about one which one must pasqen.
This making culture no different than the available technology, knowing
the situation, etc...
5- The pursuit of absolute emes

I would think the CS only considered blaming pesaq on the first two
to be bizayon talmid khacham.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
<<A ma'amar is a definitive statement. A dibbur is subject to
interpretation based on how it is heard: "Achas dibber Elokim, shnayim
zu shamati ki oz le'Elokim" (Tehillim 62:12).>>

I don't suppose I should complain to the only person who answered the
question (on list, that is), but I'd appreciate:

1. Proof that only dibbur is subject to interpretation, not ma'amar.
You gave one instance where dibbur was subject to interpretation; does
not a rule make.

2. A reason for the usage as quoted (bidevaro ma'ariv aravim vs.
bema'amaro barah shechakim) based upon your chiluk.

IOW, VIDC?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

At 01:28 AM 3/2/03 -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
><sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>
><<A ma'amar is a definitive statement. A dibbur is subject to
>interpretation
>based on how it is heard: "Achas dibber Elokim, shnayim zu shamati ki
>oz le'Elokim" (Tehillim 62:12).>>
>
>I don't suppose I should complain to the only person who answered the
>question (on list, that is),
>but I'd appreciate:
>
>1.  Proof that only dibbur is subject to interpretation, not ma'amar.
>You gave one instance where
>dibbur was subject to interpretation;  does not a rule make.
>
>2.  A reason for the usage as quoted (bidevaro ma'ariv aravim vs.
>bema'amaro barah shechakim)
>based upon your chiluk.
>
>IOW, VIDC?
>
>Gershon
>gershon.dubin@juno.com

Ha'omer yomar davar katzar u'muchlat b'millim mu'atos, v'ha'medabber yaovh 
b'rov devarim, v'dibbur aroch, leva'er u'l'faresh ha'ma'amar ha'kadum, 
u'b'zeh yebadeilu. V'ayain peirsuhi Lev Melachim (B'Meleachim I:12:10).

- Malbim, Ya'ir Or Os Aleph siman 27.

Not precisely my distinction, but good to understand how the Aseres 
ha'Devarim given at Har Sinai are the peirush to the Asara Ma'amaros 
she'bahem nivre'u shomayim vo'oretz, and similar to what I said.

Shechakim is a raki'a - it is static. Aravim are each different from the 
other - every erev is at a different clock time than the previous one, and 
each one has its own hanhaga.




Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In OC 4:40 R' Moshe writes that the chiyuv of hearing kriat hatorah is on 
each individual. This seems consistent with the Soloveitchik family 
practice(R' YDS having kriat hatorah at mincha if he was travelling in the 
am, R Chaim reported to try to get a minyan for kriah when he was travelling 
in the am) but from what I can find most poskim hold it's a chovat 
hatzibbur(based on reconciling  brachot 8a and sotah39a)

Does anyone know the basis for holding that it's a chovat hayachid?  Is there 
any interplay with chazarat hashatz?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:18:32PM -0500, R' Akiva Miller wrote:
: R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< Never-the-less the Torah tell's us "Midvar
: Sheker Tirchak"... that one must avoid questionable methods no matter
: how noble the goal. Questionable means (the Torah tells us) are NEVER
: justified. >>>

: And yet, there are specific cases where we are told TO lie, because of
: shalom. Is this not a case where the ends (shalom) justify the means
: (lying)?

: Again we see that an apparently ironclad rule DOES have exceptions.

See discussions of Yevamos 65b, and what the brothers told Yosef about
their father's non-existant dying wish, what HQBH told Avraham about
why Sarah was laughing, and H's instructions to Shemu'el on what to
tell Sha'ul when they encountered on the way to Shemu'el annointing
David.

R' Nasan and at Devei R' Yishmael they learned as RAM does. Emes is
simply a lower priority than shalom.

The CC (BMC, Rechilus 1:14) permits misleading by partial quoting
based on H's repetition of some of Sarah's words. But silence rather
than pro-active sheqer. I do not know what he does with the other
two cases in the gemara, though.

The Aruch laNeir speaks about the difference between "leshanos" and
"leshaqeir". This is the basis of the most often (in my experience)
cited explanation: that the word "sheqer" need not include this sort
of lying.

I'm not sure how to understand this AlN's take on this gemara in a manner
that isn't circular. It would seem to be saying that one must stay away
from sheqer, and sheqer is defined by speech that is wrong.

Assistance, anyone?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Granted taht there are isolated views other than the Rambam that mitigate
: the holder of that views from being called an apikoros.
...
: Or is it much better and healthier to be a kosher Jew according to all
: the shittos

I'm not sure that such "being machmir to be safe" is a position I would
necessarily promote across the board for chovos ha'eivarim either. I
share the following concern, posted on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 06:40:46PM
-0500, by Mlevinmd@aol.com:
: is the reason for picking these views in the desire to serve G-d better
: or in a desperate attempt to retain a personal emotional connection with
: the Judaism of one's youth?

Second, there is the already-raised issue of having far less bechirah
over one's beliefs than one's actions.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 08:56:38PM -0500, David E Cohen wrote:
: Reuven accepts the conclusions of this research, but still believes
: 100% that he is obligated to observe the Torah as devar Hashem, and
: that chaza"l were the authentic ba'alei hamesorah...

: Shimon understands the evidence, but, having a certain understanding
: of the Rambam's ikarim, thinks that if he were to actually admit to
: himself taking this evidence to its logical conclusions, he would be
: "outside the fold." Thus, he compartmentalizes his mind...

What about Levi? Levi is faced with two sources he considers too strong
to dismiss. But rather than refusing to confront both simultaneously,
he assumes some answer exists that simply eludes him.

I find myself in Levi's shoes on a number of issues. (Not document
hypothesis, though.) To defend it on scjm, I usually use a parallel
from physics.

General Relativity is considered a law, not a theory. As is Quantum
Mechanics. In general, the two don't coincide. The difference between
classical physics and GR only becomes significant in the realm of the
very large, heavy, or fast -- astronomical sizes. OTOH, QM is used to
study things well below molecular size, molecules being just around the
upper limit. Each does incredibly well in their own domains, so much
so that no mumcheh really questions their truths. (In fact, QM has made
more accurate predictions than any theory before it.)

However, when studying gravity as theory, the two give conflicting
definitions of what it is. Quantum Gravity is currently an unanswered
question. Because of the confidence scientists have in each, they assume a
resolution is out there, one that doesn't involve rejecting major issues
of either law.

Similarly, Torah and science speak to very different domains. Each handle
their own domain quite well. (Although biblical archeology seems to
most often confirm whatever theory the interpreter walked in with. But
as a statement in general...) Therefore, if I see a conflict in some
area that isn't central to either I figure there is an answer even if
I don't know it.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:08:27PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Setting aside apikorsus for a moment, how about honesty and consistency.
: Do we REALLY believe it when we recite: 
: Chanun v'Rachum Hashem 
: and 
: Tov Hashem Lakkol v'racham v'RAchamav al kol Ma'asav?

This speaks to the difference between mo'ach and leiv. As the Chidushei
haRim, quoted in the Sefas Emes, teaches "veyadata hayom, vehasheivosa el
levavekha" -- there are things you know (bemo'ach) today that you still
have to answer to your heart. The means to this is "vesamtem es devarai
eileh al levavchem" -- keep on placing these words /on/ one's heart. As
the Sfas Emes puts it, eventually they will enter /in/. Sounds like an
ad for learning behispa'alus...

Getting back to the original list of questions, on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at
05:24:27PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
:>>1. i'm not really sure if these letters/words were actually part of the
:>>original torah text, so lets just mark them for later removal or
:>>confirmation.

:>1. Ezra Hassofeir, per B'midbor rabboh

: If taken literally. And we certainly know that not all midrashim are
: meant to be taken literally.

However, even as a metaphor, it's a huge chiddush. Why would the medrash
use a story that is kefirah even as a mashal? Do we have other examples?

One potential set that come to mind are those stories about Hormuz bar
Lilis. (Rashi's preference on the name.) The Gra associates Hormuz
with a name of the Zoroastran deity of evil from after Z-ism became
dualistic. Reduced to a demon, but still real AZ being used in a mashal.

RGS's reply, continued:
: >>2. of course the bible critics are quite correct. the torah does contain
: >>many contradictory versions from different perspectives that are not
: >>harmonizable as the traditionalist approach has it.

: >2. R. Mordechai Breuer

: Oversimplification. I don't think that anyone would consider RM Breuer
: to be a kofer.

For that matter, RYBS! A major subtext of The Lonely Man of Faith is that
the stories of Bereishis 1 and Ber' 2 differ because they are speaking
to different aspects of a dialectic in the listener. (These two peraqim
are attributed by the koferim to different texts, P and J respectively.)

And RYBS's dialectic is heavily based on chazal's attribution of
different perspectives, rachamim vs din, to those stories that contain
sheim havayah vs sheim e-lokus. (BTW, is one supposed to capitalize
the name of a sheim H'? I was afraid that to do so would be to imply
giving the names themselves some kind of shutaf status ch"v.)

Not to mention chazal (or is it simply befeirush the first
pasuq?) attributing a different perspective to sefer Devarim.

As on Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:42:22PM -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
: And of course no one considers R. Breuer a kofer, which is the entire
: point.
: 
: It is only your own presumption that if we can't "explain away"
: or otherwise wave off these quotes that the speaker would have to
: be accounted a kofer. However, to allay your concerns a bit about
: R. Breuer let me also mention that (somehow) he also believes that all
: these contradictions noted by the Bible critics were built in from the
: beginning and thus are all Mosaic. He was subsequently attacked for
: this notion by, amongst others, prof leiman who accused R. breuer of
: "giving away the store" to (Higher) Biblical Criticism.

In other words, RMFrankel agrees he was simply phrasing the original
question in order to tease out some outrage.

There is no qefirah even remotely involved in saying HQBH wrote the
chumash in multiple voices. The problem was that the half you quoted
made it sound like an argument to something that was.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:03:19AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: I apologize for being vague. If poskim TODAY hold that someone who
: believes in the Documentary Hypothesis is a kofer then it is
: irrelevant if a talmid chacham, who is probably much greater than
: any of us on Avodah, once held of a similar idea...

I think we should stick to this focus. There is enough support in chazal
and in commentaries on the Rambam to include lower criticism in the
fold. (Such as the article from RYWeinberg in "Fundamentals and Faith"
quoted by RGS.) I therefore don't see much point in addressing those of
RMFrankel's questions.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:10:57PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: The Rambam knew very well that these variations existed when he defined
: his Principles. The words of /Ani Ma'amin/ and the words of the Rambam,
: "the entire Torah in our possession today," must not be taken literally,
: implying that all the letters of the present Torah are the exact letters
: given to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, it should be understood in a general
: sense that the Torah we learn and live by is for all intents and purposes
: the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu. The real emphasis of
: this Principle is that this Torah, which includes both the Written and
: Oral Law, is word for word, /letter for letter from the Almighty/, and
: absolutely none of it was edited by Moshe in any way whatsoever. There
: is not one phrase, not one letter that Moshe added to clarify or explain
: what was transmitted to him. He had no input of any kind but functioned
: only as the mouthpiece of the Almighty.

So the question I see it is whether this would include a shitah in which
the TSBK that we have is a poor reconstruction of the original, but the
TSBP is well preserved, and therefore "the Torah we learn and live by
is for all intents and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe
Rabbeinu." After all, the person in question isn't claiming that any of
Torah was "was edited by Moshe in any way whatsoever." Or at least that
the only editing was as needed to preserve, not as desired to ammend.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
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         ]