Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 031

Thursday, November 17 2005

• TIDE
• Drashos Noda B'Yehuda
• RE: TIDE
• disagreeing with rishonim - haskafa
• Belief in HaShem
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• RE: TIDE
• Re: TIDE
• Re: TIDE
• Re: Belief in HaShem
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• Having a job being b'diavad
• Haskala in Germany
• Re: Kabbalah
• Re: Haskala in Germany

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> 1) the idea that TIDE, as a movement, although necessary then and perhaps
> necessary today too, is not necessarily the ideal approach to Yiddishkeit
> and 2) RSRH, despite his incredible development of the approach of TIDE,
> could ultimately agree with my number 1 if the circumstances were right.

WADR, If you would read enough passages of RSRH, you would realize
that with all the great svoros in the world you may try to offer,
RSRH stated explicitly, way too many times, with way too much passion,
that the whole tachlis of human existence is living TIDE, to ever
attempt at saying he would view the world otherwise under different
circumstances!!! The only way he could ever agree would be for there
to be a different way Hashem created the world. RSRH doesn't just talk
about TIDE for Yiddishkeit. Throughout his writings TIDE is Hashem's
hope for all of Mankind and the eventual destiny of history for all of
Mankind. He writes forcefully and frequently that TIDE was Hashem's game
plan for Adam Harishon and it will be the way we will all live b'acharis
hayomim! Read more of his works and you will see how futile it is to
even debate the issue!

You want some mareh m'komos? Start with his peirush on Breishis from the
beginning. Read the first few prakim. Then move on to Parshas Noach and
see what RSRH thought about the different parts of humanity and living
out their natures in avodas Hashem. Skip over to Tehillim and see a
few kapitlach about longing for Gilui Shechina and hope for the Geula
and see if it's not TIDE from start to finish in the mind and heart of
RSRH. (These are just the tip of the iceberg. RSRH writes about this in
complete essays, peirush on Chumash, Tehillim, etc.)

It is very upsetting to me to hear people take the life's work of RSRH,
a mehalech that he was very passionate about, and say that he himself
meant other than he did!

[Email #2 -mi]

Simcha Coffer wrote:
> And to ensure that we remain the most qualitative element of mankind,
> He has enjoined us to isolate ourselves from the rest of mankind as it
> says "v'avdil esschem min ha'amim lihios Li".

And RSC also wrote:
> "Hein am livadad yishkon u'vagoyim lo yischashav" This is a definitive
> statement about how the Torah views the nature of our relationship with
> our surroundings

I'm looking forward to seeing R' Bechoffer's response and also
RTK's. Here's my two cents. I think you've created a straw man here. TIDE
never taught that becoming a part of your surrounding culture is a
goal. Rather it talks of utilizing all the of wisdom and beauty of
Hashem's world in Avodas Hashem. The culture around may offer ways of
accessing those avenues of wisdom and beauty, but one must be careful in
how one accesses them. Avraham Avinu was reaching out to the whole world
and still had to remain isolated. Read Hirsch on those parshios. You
may be surprised. The Torah has a Parsha entitled "Lech L'cha". RSRH was
the one who felt his community needed to be separate and autonomous in
order to achieve its goals. So actually RSRH is coming from a perspective
quite the opposite of what you're saying he says.

I really think you need to read more about what TIDE is before you start
quoting psukim and chazalim and sefer hachinuchs where you attempt at
showing how RSRH invented his own Torah and stands alone in the face of
all these great sources.

My post to arevim has not been fruitful - Does anyone where I can find
the Shabbos Shuva dersha of the Noda B'Yehuda in which he speaks out
against treating bagels as mezonos rather than hamotzee?

  kt
  wac

YGB:
|In fact, most of Germany did *not* go off the derech - it was in the big
|cities that they did, not in the little villages (like Bechhofen :-) ).

I wasn't talking geographically when I said that most of Germany had
gone off the derech, I meant demographically. "Most" in this context
means 51% and up, I believe in the case that we are discussing it was
as high as 70-80%.

MSS:
|>derech? When RSRH came to Frankfurt, it was about 15(?) families that had
|>called him. What happened to the rest? I quote to you from his "Nineteen

YGB:
|I believed that tidbit of misinformation (actually, IIRC, 11 families)
|for many years. In fact, there was a very large Grossgemeinde Orthodox
|community in Frankfurt - eleven families called RSRH; there were many
|other Orthodox Jews in Frankfurt.

This "very large Grossgemeinde Orthodox community" was so Orthodox,
that they were content to live without an Orthodox Rav. Furthermore,
when finally, according to you, 11 families sent for an Orthodox Rav,
they were so Orthodox that they didn't even "sign on". Lets not get
confused here, we are talking years before Austritt, when there *were*
Orthodox families who stayed in the regular Kehilla (with the consent of
their Orthodox Poskim). You'll forgive me for doubting their "Orthodoxy".

MSS:
|> <SNIP>a German Plato." (L 18 pgs.268-269 Feldheim '96) It seems pretty clear
|>that he's laying the blame on the poster boy of Haskalah, Moshe ben Mendel
|>(as he refers to him later in the same letter). I await your response.

YGB:
|RSRH's perspective on MM is interesting, but not relevant...

WADR, your opinion, contrasted to RSRH's opinion, carries as much weight
as a dry sponge.

|Joe Socher wrote:
|>This is, I think, quite wrong. It is true that the form of Haskala
|>in Germany was different than that of Eastern Europe, but by most
|>definitions Haskala *begins* in Germany, and had already mostly
|>played itself out by the time the Eastern European version came into
|>existence. Wissenschaft & Reform are merely different Jewish reactions
|>to *aufklarang* (Enlightenment), as Socialism, Nationalism, etc., were
|>when secularization came to Easter Europe.

YGB:
|It began in Germany, but was not the driving force there. Prikas Ol was
|the driving force. Haskala was far more pernicious - and effective - in
|the intellectual atmosphere of Lithuania than the pragmatic atmosphere
|of Germany.
|Haskala and Reform are not the same thing!

I'm sure you will understand if we take our cues from RSRH, who after
all had first-hand knowledge (something that you understandably lack),
and continue to place the blame on Haskalah.

KT,
MSS

In the recent past I have seen several cases where modern achronim
disagree with some rishonim on haskafic issues

1. We have discussed R. Elyashiv's psak that one is not allowed to
follow the opinion of R. Avraham ben HaRambam, R. Hai Gaon and others
that chazal may of erred in scientific/medical areas.

2. RDE recently showed me an article by R. Zadok. He says that when
the ARI disagrees with rishonim then the rishon is wrong. He gives the
example that the Ran and others claim that early kabbalists including
Ramban made mistakes. The Ari says that while many rishonim were wrong
on kabbalistic ideas the Ramban wa= s always right. R. Zadok says this
proves that the Ran erred. He firther states that once the Zohar was
revealed one is prohibited from accepting the Rambam and others who held
that hasgacha does not apply to every individual and especially not to
every animal. Rather one is required to reject this opinion as apikorsus.

3. RYBS in Ethical Man and quotes Kuzari and Ramban that EY has an
intrinsi= c kedushah. They use this to explain why Avraham was sent
to Canaan. RYBS states explicitly that with all due respect to these
rishonim he cannot accept this, Rather he holds that EY has kedusha
because of the experiences of the Jewish people. Thus it became holy
because Avraham came there rather than the other way. He explains why
Canaan was chosen because dedication to G-d requires "loneliness" and
Bavel was a civilization with cuktural cities. In such an atmosphere
Avraham could not develop, Rather he went to the backwaters of Canaan
where as a sheperd he could better contemplate G-d.

kol tuv, Eli Turkel
--
Eli Turkel

From: Joshua Meisner <jmeisner@gmail.com>
|1) Is the mitzvah of belief in HaShem a command to intellectually know of
|His existence (or better, to strive for this knowledge) or is it a command
|to have simple faith in His existence? Some combination? Machlokes?

R' Elchonan Wasserman, in an reply to R' Schwab, wrote, "9) And what Kvod
Torosah says, that it's apparent from the words of Kadmonim that they
argued about the permissibility of engaging in philosop[hical proofs
of G-ds existence], he is correct that we find those that permitted
it." So it appears that your last option is correct. However, R'
Elchonan finishes that paragraph with the following, "So it is clear
that the espousers of that fore mentioned school of thought [that phil.
proofs of G-d are permitted or that they are a mitzvah] were speaking
in regard to extraordinary peoples [yechidie segulah] that are not to
be found in our generations."

*WARNING* *WARNING* *National Humor and Sarcasm Alert (NHSA) Raised to
Crimson Red*

I will save my protagonist, R' Harry Marlyes, the trouble of reposting
what he has said in the past. I will tell you what he would say, k'derech
Bais Hillel, "In matters of Hashkafa, I believe it is imperative to
use one's mind and formulate a Hashkafa based on input from all. It
is a disservice and intellectually dishonest to say that one simply
accepts the Hashkafa of a single individual because of who he is." He
would therefore advise you to seek out other viewpoints, say of someone
living today, who could explain/refute this R' Elchonan, who *seemingly*
only allows emunah peshuta. I think R' Harry is wrong.

*NHSA Lowered to Green*  

|2) Does a ben Noach have a mitzvah to believe in HaShem? The relevant
|mitzvah of the 7 mitzvos b'nei Noach would seem to be the prohibition of
|avodah zara, but if a ben Noach does not do any action acknowledging the
|status of any other power as being divine, would he be in violation of
|this law? In other words, would a non-Jew who professes to be an agnostic
|or an atheist (or, for that matter, one who never thinks about such things
|at all= ) be doing anything wrong? If a ben Noach does have some chiyuv
|of active belief in HaShem, does it differ at all from that of a Jew?

I do not know.

KT,
MSS

>> Bringing the korban was an "eis la'asos la-Shem." How does that apply
>> to the other case?

>Not according to the Rambam in Yesodei Hatorah. He gives it as an
>example of Hora'at Sha'ah, which is essentially the power of a navi to
>suspend, on a temporary basis, any halacha except AZ. This power
>specifically relies on nevu'ah - that's how the navi knows whether Hashem
>wants the law to be suspended (unlike Et La'asot, which relies on the
>judgment of a chacham, who is, in that sense, adif minavi). My point is
>that if Eliyahu could rely on his powers of nevu'ah (i.e. the confidence
>that they were true communications from Hashem, and not mere
>hallucinations) to suspend the law against hakravat kodashim bachutz,
>then he could equally rely on those powers to tell him that he would be
>able to save the life of the ben hashunamit.

See the Maharatz Chajes' treatment of this in his Toras Nevi'im, the
Hora'as Sha'ah section. From that very Rambam, he is medayek that a
Hora'as Sha'ah has the same limitations of an Eis La'asos -- that it
must be le-migdar milsa. That was what I meant. How was the second
case in any way some communal emergency?

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

RSS wrote:
> If it wasn't Haskalah, then what caused most of Germany to go off the
> derech? When RSRH came to Frankfurt, it was about 15(?) families that had
> called him.

That is a myth, there were about 100 families in the IRG when RSRH
came and there were many that didn't leave the larger comunity, for by
1850, the Reform party had become somewhat mellow and reinstated the
infrastructure needed for yiddishkeit.

Source: book by Rober Lieberless, part of the Religious Conflict in
Social Context series.

Arie Folger

Samuel Svarc wrote:
>YGB:
>|In fact, most of Germany did *not* go off the derech - it was in the big
>|cities that they did, not in the little villages (like Bechhofen :-) ).

>I wasn't talking geographically when I said that most of Germany had
>gone off the derech, I meant demographically. "Most" in this context
>means 51% and up, I believe in the case that we are discussing it was
>as high as 70-80%.

You are correct about the overall number.

>This "very large Grossgemeinde Orthodox community" was so Orthodox,
>that they were content to live without an Orthodox Rav. Furthermore,
>when finally, according to you, 11 families sent for an Orthodox Rav,
>they were so Orthodox that they didn't even "sign on". Lets not get
>confused here, we are talking years before Austritt, when there *were*
>Orthodox families who stayed in the regular Kehilla (with the consent of
>their Orthodox Poskim). You'll forgive me for doubting their "Orthodoxy".

The Grossgemeinde community had a Rav, or at least a Rabbinical leader.
His name was Rabbi Moshe Mainz. Certainly, going forward, the GG
maintained an Orthodox rabbinate until the very end. Indeed, I think
that is the case to this very day in the post-war Frankfurt community.

>WADR, your opinion, contrasted to RSRH's opinion, carries as much weight
>as a dry sponge.

I don't think you understand me. I do not differ with RSRH's opinion on
MM. And, MM's *theology* had much to do with the advent of Reform. But
it was not MM's intellcetualism, but his downplay of Kedushas Yisroel
that was at fault.

>I'm sure you will understand if we take our cues from RSRH, who after
>all had first-hand knowledge (something that you understandably lack),
>and continue to place the blame on Haskalah.

I certainly understand that you are entitled to whatever perspective
you adopt. In this case, however, you are wrong, and wrong about RSRH's
perspective.

KT,
YGB

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 06:37:25PM -0500, Avodah - High Level Torah
Discussion Group [RYGB, how about correcting your email id?) wrote:
: The Grossgemeinde community had a Rav, or at least a Rabbinical leader.
: His name was Rabbi Moshe Mainz. Certainly, going forward, the GG
: maintained an Orthodox rabbinate until the very end. Indeed, I think
: that is the case to this very day in the post-war Frankfurt community.

I think I've mentioned this a few times already. One of those rabbis was
R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger. He was a talmud of the Or Sam'ei'ach's,
eventually left Frankfurt to become RYBS's predecessor in Boston, and
was my greatgrandfather. Very definitely O.

-mi

Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:
> R' Elchonan Wasserman, in an reply to R' Schwab, wrote, "9) And what Kvod
> Torosah says, that it's apparent from the words of Kadmonim that they
> argued about the permissibility of engaging in philosophical proofs
> of G-ds existence], he is correct that we find those that permitted
> it." So it appears that your last option is correct. However, R'
> Elchonan finishes that paragraph with the following, "So it is clear
> that the espousers of that fore mentioned school of thought [that phil.
> proofs of G-d are permitted or that they are a mitzvah] were speaking
> in regard to extraordinary peoples [yechidie segulah] that are not to
> be found in our generations."

And why pray tell do you think it wrong to say that Hashkafos may
be determined by force of one's satuture? Just because it was R.
Elchanan seemingly said that Emunah P'Shutah is all we peons are
capable of today doesn't make it the exclusive Torah approach even
...IF... Kantian philosophy basically says the same thing. I am neither
a Kantian or a Wassermanian. I am more inclined to be a rationalist. I'm
sorry, I cannot prevent my mind from thinking and denying thought is
intellectually dishonest.

What R. Elchanan said is kind of like the argument used against the
permissiblity of certain Rishonic views that RNS wrote about that are "not
mainstream". There are some Gedolim who say that such views are Apikursus
even though they were the views of Rishonim. The argument goes... that was
them. We (peons) are not on their level so we aren't allowed those views.

I respctfully disgaree.

HM

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
|It may well mean that being a navi is necessary to uproot an actual
|chiyuv or issur. Which would therefore require Eliyahu hanavi to act al
|pi nevu'ah that he would save the boy in order to violate his kehunah --
|if you're using "eis la'asos" as the mechanism for explaining how he
|could have been a kohein.

I still fail to see what is wrong with Tosfasos answer. (Baba Metzie
114b T.H. Umar Leh)

KT,
MSS

It was written by Harry Maryles on Areivim v16n100:
> But the fact is that even though (as you later pointed out) there is
> a defacto TIDE practice amongst most of Orthodox American Jewry, it
> is without a Hashkafic underpinning. This means that those who do get
> a secular education and end up working are made to feel that they are
> B'Dieved. They are in essence seen as failures by their Charedi peers
> and mentors even though it is in an unspoken and subtle way.  "They
> fell through the cracks... they couldn't make it in learning."  And,
> from the other side of the gender aisle, most seminary young women
> are indoctrinated to look at non Kollel working stiffs, even Charedi
> ones,  as second class citizens and not marriageable material.

If the Torah has so many mitzvot related to agriculture and to one's
occupation in general, and Jewish theology is all about sanctifying the
physical, rather than retreating from the physical and engaging solely
in the spiritual, then how is it that we can have a hashkafa that makes
people who don't study Torah all day, and who have jobs and a secular
education feel B'Dieved?

 -Ken Bloom

RYGB's dispute with R. Coffer over whether there was Haskala in Germany
seems to be primarily about semantics. I'm not sure what definition of
Haskala RYGB is using but if we define it in terms of its translations,
Enlightenment or Aufklarang, then a good definition is the movement to
reinterpret the sources of Judaism in the light of the new age of reason,
science and our new understandings of history, i.e., in light of Newton,
Kant, Hegel, etc.

Both the Reform Movement & (to the extent it can be considered a separate
movement) Wissenschaft des Judentums (at least as exemplified by Geiger
& Zunz) fit fairly easily into this definition. And both, of course,
were quite strong in German-speaking Europe.

Furthermore, schools for children run according to Haskala ideas were
widespread in German-speaking Central Europe (speaking of "Germany"
before its unification under Bismark is anachronistic): Breslau, Dessau,
Berlin, Frankfurt am Maine, etc.

One last remark: it is not correct to conflate the Hildesheimer Seminary &
TIDE because R E H & RDZ Hoffman were both opposed to Austritt and also
because RSRH did not approve of the Wissenschaft-style methods used at
the Seminary.

(I don't mean to criticize TIDE ideology at all in all of this & I
totally agree with RYGB in objecting to the characterization of Germany
as a spiritual wasteland)

Someone wrote <<< After that, the Vaad Arba Aratzot decreed that the
uneducated masses shouldn't study kabbalah until 40 >>>

R' Brent Kaufman responded <<< Chassidim didn't accept this either. Most
mekubalim that I've spoken to and learned from do not accept this as
binding any longer. >>>

 From the phrase <<< any longer >>>, do you mean that they accept that
it was binding at some time, but not nowadays? If so, what happened to
change it?

Akiva Miller

Joe Socher wrote:
>RYGB's dispute with R. Coffer over whether there was Haskala in Germany
>seems to be primarily about semantics. I'm not sure what definition of
>Haskala RYGB is using but if we define it in terms of its translations,
>Enlightenment or Aufklarang, then a good definition is the movement to
>reinterpret the sources of Judaism in the light of the new age of reason...

>Both the Reform Movement & (to the extent it can be considered a separate
>movement) Wissenschaft des Judentums (at least as exemplified by Geiger
>& Zunz) fit fairly easily into this definition. And both, of course,
>were quite strong in German-speaking Europe.

>Furthermore, schools for children run according to Haskala ideas were
>widespread in German-speaking Central Europe (speaking of "Germany"
>before its unification under Bismark is anachronistic): Breslau, Dessau,
>Berlin, Frankfurt am Maine, etc.

Haskala in Eastern Europe was not always a contradiction to Orthodoxy.

And, as you yourself said, Wissenschaft is compatible with Orthodoxy
See: <http://www.yivoinstitute.org/exhibits/strashun/strashunzalkin.htm>
on R' Matisyahu Strashun.

The same cannot be said about Reform in Germany...

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


[ 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         ]