Volume 25: Number 428
Sun, 21 Dec 2008
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:34:26 EST
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yosef Kappara
From: "Meir Rabi" _meir...@optusnet.com.au_ (mailto:meir...@optusnet.com.au)
>>Aside from going to his Kever with a Minyan, the obvious answer, there is
an
implied understanding that even many generations later some type of
reconciliation can be achieved. Does this mean that the old enmities were
still being maintained? All the way down to the 10 Martyrs?<<
>>>>>
By the time of the asarah harugei malchus the tribes that descended from
Yosef were long since gone, most of them lost among the nations with the Aseres
Hashevatim and the rest assimilated into Yehudah, so there wouldn't have
been any Yosef-descendants around still harboring anger against the descendants
of the other brothers.
The suggestion is not that there might be ancient enmities still existing
between the brothers, but that in Heaven there might still be a kitrug against
them for the wrong committed by their ancestors, the sons of Yakov. If some
bit of the original jealousy and sinas chinam that led to mechiras Yosef
still adhered to the actions of their descendants, then the original sin of the
brothers would not be completely atoned for, even after centuries.
Then of course you get into the mystery of misas tzaddik mechaperes -- how
does that work? Why should the righteous die for the sins of the guilty? But
that's another thread.
--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)
--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/d0906098/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:14:47 EST
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi
From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:cele...@gmail.com)
RYG: >>[We are discussing the question of the tenability of the suggestion
that Dinah was seduced, rather than, as conventionally assumed, raped.]
RnTK brought to my attention the comment of Rashi to the verse
(Bereishis 34:7) "ve'chen lo ye'aseh":
"le'anos [lamed ayin nun vav tav] es he'besulos, she'ha'umos gadru
azman min ha'arayos al yedei ha'mabul"
....She argued that this implies that Rashi interprets the episode as
rape. <<
TK: I still read Rashi this way and find it very hard to read into Rashi's
words any suggestion that Dinah was seduced. But I do appreciate your
honesty in attempting to check it out and acknowledging that many (most?)
meforshim understand the story as I do.
RYG: >>I promised to check the super-commentaries, and I have done so.
Although there certainly are those who understand Rashi this way, most
notably Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi, I also found the super-commentary Nahalas
Ya'akov, who says *exactly* what I've been saying all along: <<
TK: I believe that Mizrachi is far more commonly read and accepted than
Nachlas Ya'akov (and I am going to admit my ignorance and tell you that I never
heard of NY before now)
RYG: [quoting Nachlas Yakov]: >> "And even though the Rav [i.e. Rashi]
wrote "le'anos es ha'besulos",
which implies, that everything depended on that which he [Shechem]
oppressed her against her will, which is theft, we can say, that it is
not so [lav davka], first, for it is not evident from the text that he
raped her, but on the contrary "va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra", <<
TK: The pasuk FIRST says he raped her and only the pasuk AFTER that says
"va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra." Normally seduction works by first courting the
girl and obtaining her consent. It would be a highly unusual form of
seduction in which you first have relations with the girl and then have the
flirtation and seduction afterwards.
Instead, the pasukim clearly imply that after he raped her, Shechem was
taken by her and belatedly had remorse for what he had done, or even if he didn't
have remorse, he fell in love with her and wanted that feeling to be
reciprocated -- he wanted to make the relationship permanent and romantic.
I don't remember where I saw it but somewhere I saw (maybe somebody quoted
here on Avodah) that Shechem typically took girls against their will,
exercising his right and power as a prince to take any girl he wanted for a night.
Dinah's case was unusual in that after violating her, he was actually taken
with her on an emotional and maybe even spiritual level. Normally he did not
care if the girls he violated loved him or wanted to stay with him after the
rape (which he probably didn't even think of as rape but just as a normal thing
for a prince to do) but Dinah was unusual.
RYG: [still quoting NY]: >> "...and also,
if we assume that he raped her, how did the Rav know to interpret
"va'ye'a'ne'ha" - "shelo ke'darka", perhaps "va'ye'a'ne'ha" means,
"ke'darka" but rape, against her will,..." <<
TK: That's what Ramban says -- that "vayishkav osah vaye'aneha" is one act
of forcible intercourse. But Rashi takes the two words "vayishkav" and
"vaye'aneha" as two different actions, and therefore has to explain the difference
between the two -- which he takes as "kedarka" and "shelo kedarka". However
it seems clear to me that he does not mean "kedarka" to mean "with her
consent."
RYG [still quoting NY]: >> "...and certainly according to what
the Shas says (Yoma 77b) "she'inah mi'bios aheros", implying that she
became desirous of him and he withheld further intercourse from her,
and it is implausible ["dohek"] that first he had intercourse with her
against her will and afterward she became desirous of him...." <<
TK: This Gemara is very difficult to reconcile with the actual pesukim --
which do not at all imply that Dinah went willingly with Shechem. However, it
is -- surprisingly -- not uncommon for a captive to develop feelings for her
captor. It is a psychological defense mechanism, especially when the
captive is not released right away but is forced to remain with her captor and to
remain dependant on him for her survival. This even has a name -- the
"Stockholm Syndrome."
Some of the older chaverim here may remember the famous Patty Hearst case
where a lovely young heiress was kidnapped and violated by a gang of radicals
and subsequently fell in love with one of her captors and remained with the
gang willingly even when she had a chance to escape -- and even participated in
a bank holdup with them. When she was arrested and tried for that crime,
her lawyer cited the Stockholm Syndrome in her defense. (The court didn't
accept that and she served time, but most people do accept that she wasn't really
culpable and shouldn't have gone to jail.)
An exceptionally surprising case that I read about was the autobiography of
a Jewish woman, a dwarf, who was kept alive by Mengele through the war years
because of his fascination with dwarves. Despite her cognitive knowledge
that he was a cruel monster, she found herself drawn to him and -- to her own
dismay -- cried when she heard that he had died.
RYG: >> He [Nachlas Yakov] leans toward seduction based on a close reading
of the text, and
inclines toward interpreting Rashi's comment accordingly, although he
does admit the possibility that Rashi assumes rape. Baruch
she'kivanti. <<
TK: My close reading of the text leads me to exactly the opposite
conclusion, and I interpret Rashi accordingly. There was kidnapping and rape and if
there was any seduction involved, it was AFTER the crimes had been committed.
(And even then the crimes were still ongoing, because she was still being
held a captive in his palace and not released back to her father's home.)
--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)
--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/e6ef745c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:34:37 EST
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RSRH on Consoling Someone
From: Yitzchok Levine _Larry.Levine@stevens.edu_
(mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu)
[quoting RSRH]: >> But why didn't any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing
balm upon
the wound? Why didn't they reveal to him: "Yosef is alive!"? The answer:
because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds
of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child
who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate
the father's grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the
day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate
in the father's mind even the crime that had been committed by his
other sons. Had they told Ya'akov at that time the truth about what
had been done to Yosef, Ya'akov would have felt as though he had lost
not only one son, but ten sons at one time. <<
>>>>
There is some support for this reading in the words of Rivkah to her son
Ya'akov when she told him to run away because Esav was plotting to kill him.
"Hineh Esav achicha misnachem lecha lehorgecha....LAMAH ESHKAL GAM SHENEICHEM
BEYOM ECHAD?" (Ber. 27:42-45)
IOW, if one of her sons kills the other one, she will be bereaved of both of
them, because a murderer cannot be any son of Rivkah's anymore.
Rashi understands this pasuk differently, saying that Rivka will be bereaved
of both sons on the same day because if Esav attacks Yakov, Yakov will
defend himself and they will end up killing each other. But it seems to me that
an equally natural (if not so literal) reading of "bereaved of both sons" is
one that understands bereavement to be an emotional state, in which one son is
lost to his mother because of his death and the other is lost to his mother
because of his unforgivable crime. (He would not be lost to his father,
because he explicitly stated that he would not kill Yakov while their father was
still alive.)
--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)
--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/58f195af/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:55:21 EST
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Only One Interpretation, The Right One - (Was
In a message dated 12/21/2008, llev...@stevens.edu writes:
At 06:51 PM 12/20/2008, Rn T. Katz wrote:
>>>>>
I find it hard to take that medrash seriously because there is simply no
textual support for the notion that Dinah was sent away or that she had a
daughter or that "Asnas bas Potiphera" was really "Asnas the daughter of
Dinah and Shechem" or that Eishes Potiphar adopted a daughter. It's all
based on what? And explains what? [--TK]
>>I think the comments of RSRH on Bereshis 40:5 can be used to back up your
contention. ...
An intelligent person can discern the precise explanation of a dream,
without being able to guarantee the dream?s fulfillment....
RSRH does not use midrashim to explain pesukim all that often. To me it
seems that the above comments explain why.<<
YL
>>>>>
I was not claiming that every medrash has to "come from within the pesukim"
but a medrash usually answers some obvious question in the pasuk or adds
information based on something that is at least implied or suggested in the
pasuk. To take a very obvious example, why does the medrash say that Kayin and
Hevel were born with twins? The pasuk doesn't say it, but the fact that they
had children certainly suggests that they had wives and the obvious textual
question is, where did those wives come from?
When the medrash answers an obvious question or fills an obvious hole, then
Rashi often cites it and Hirsch often does, too, sometimes explicitly
following Rashi.
--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)
--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/9b3564ed/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:01:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:14:47 EST
T6...@aol.com wrote:
> From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:cele...@gmail.com)
...
> "le'anos [lamed ayin nun vav tav] es he'besulos, she'ha'umos gadru
> azman min ha'arayos al yedei ha'mabul"
> TK: I still read Rashi this way and find it very hard to read into Rashi's
> words any suggestion that Dinah was seduced. But I do appreciate your
I never said that there's a suggestion that she was seduced, just that
there's no unambiguous indication that she was raped.
> honesty in attempting to check it out and acknowledging that many (most?)
> meforshim understand the story as I do.
What's your basis for suggesting 'most'?
> TK: I believe that Mizrachi is far more commonly read and accepted than
> Nachlas Ya'akov (and I am going to admit my ignorance and tell you that I never
> heard of NY before now)
He certainly is, and I too had never heard of the NY before, although
it does seem to be a distinguished and important work on Rashi. But
again, if we're going to argue from authority, then remember that I
have quoted explicit *Medrashim* that she was not abducted (although I
believe that there are also statements from Hazal to the contrary).
> RYG: [quoting Nachlas Yakov]: >> "And even though the Rav [i.e. Rashi]
> wrote "le'anos es ha'besulos",
> which implies, that everything depended on that which he [Shechem]
> oppressed her against her will, which is theft, we can say, that it is
> not so [lav davka], first, for it is not evident from the text that he
> raped her, but on the contrary "va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra", <<
>
> TK: The pasuk FIRST says he raped her and only the pasuk AFTER that says
> "va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra." Normally seduction works by first courting the
> girl and obtaining her consent. It would be a highly unusual form of
> seduction in which you first have relations with the girl and then have the
> flirtation and seduction afterwards.
Agreed. I, too, did not find this argument compelling.
> Instead, the pasukim clearly imply that after he raped her, Shechem was
> taken by her and belatedly had remorse for what he had done, or even if he didn't
> have remorse, he fell in love with her and wanted that feeling to be
> reciprocated -- he wanted to make the relationship permanent and romantic.
They imply nothing about rape; that's conjecture. The fact that he
engaged in subsequent persuasion may simply have been, as I have
suggested before, an attempt to convince her to remain with him. It
would be quite natural for a young girl to feel remorse for a sin
committed in the heat of passion, especially after realizing in a
cooler moment what a really bad idea the relationship is and how upset
her family would be about it.
> I don't remember where I saw it but somewhere I saw (maybe somebody quoted
> here on Avodah) that Shechem typically took girls against their will,
> exercising his right and power as a prince to take any girl he wanted for a night.
> Dinah's case was unusual in that after violating her, he was actually taken
> with her on an emotional and maybe even spiritual level. Normally he did not
> care if the girls he violated loved him or wanted to stay with him after the
> rape (which he probably didn't even think of as rape but just as a normal thing
> for a prince to do) but Dinah was unusual.
This is all pure speculation, and without basis in the text.
> RYG: [still quoting NY]: >> "...and also,
> if we assume that he raped her, how did the Rav know to interpret
> "va'ye'a'ne'ha" - "shelo ke'darka", perhaps "va'ye'a'ne'ha" means,
> "ke'darka" but rape, against her will,..." <<
>
> TK: That's what Ramban says -- that "vayishkav osah vaye'aneha" is one act
> of forcible intercourse. But Rashi takes the two words "vayishkav" and
> "vaye'aneha" as two different actions, and therefore has to explain the difference
> between the two -- which he takes as "kedarka" and "shelo kedarka". However
> it seems clear to me that he does not mean "kedarka" to mean "with her
> consent."
You *still* have given no compelling reason for this 'clarity'; you
just keep declaring it to be so, without giving any logical basis for
your view.
> RYG [still quoting NY]: >> "...and certainly according to what
> the Shas says (Yoma 77b) "she'inah mi'bios aheros", implying that she
> became desirous of him and he withheld further intercourse from her,
> and it is implausible ["dohek"] that first he had intercourse with her
> against her will and afterward she became desirous of him...." <<
>
> TK: This Gemara is very difficult to reconcile with the actual pesukim --
> which do not at all imply that Dinah went willingly with Shechem. However, it
Again, your preconception. There's no textual basis for the assumption
that she did *not* go willingly with him.
> is -- surprisingly -- not uncommon for a captive to develop feelings for her
> captor. It is a psychological defense mechanism, especially when the
> captive is not released right away but is forced to remain with her captor and to
> remain dependant on him for her survival. This even has a name -- the
> "Stockholm Syndrome."
[snipped discussion of Stockholm Syndrome.]
Again, certainly plausible, but nothing more than conjecture.
> RYG: >> He [Nachlas Yakov] leans toward seduction based on a close reading
> of the text, and
> inclines toward interpreting Rashi's comment accordingly, although he
> does admit the possibility that Rashi assumes rape. Baruch
> she'kivanti. <<
>
> TK: My close reading of the text leads me to exactly the opposite
> conclusion, and I interpret Rashi accordingly. There was kidnapping and rape and if
> there was any seduction involved, it was AFTER the crimes had been committed.
You have given very little detail of the basis of your "close
reading". It seems to be mostly your preconception, repeated over and
over.
Again, I'm not sure you appreciate the fundamental issue here. I'm not
claiming that the text implies seduction; I'm merely claiming that it
is fascinatingly silent on the basic question of Dinah's role in the
episode, and that it easily supports such a reading. You have given
virtually no evidence from the Biblical text for rape. You have quoted
extensively from Ramban, who does interpret it as rape, but you have
yet to make a clear argument, which, again, does not mean merely
vigorously repeating your views and insisting on their correctness, for
rape.
I don't need to make any such argument for seduction, since I'm merely
arguing for possibility, not necessity.
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:47:49 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Bringing Torah Im Derech Eretz to Lithuania
From an interview that I conducted with
Rebbetzin Etel Miller
("<http://personal.stevens.edu/%7Ellevine/miller_2.pdf>Rebbetzin
Chana Ettel Miller, a"h" The Hamodia September
24, 2008, page C35.) as well as from Dr. Rivka
Teitz Blau's biography of her father, Rav
Mordechai Pinchas Teitz, Learn Torah, Live Torah,
Love Torah, I was aware that there were 3 Yavneh schools in Lithuania.
However, from Ish Yehudi, the biography of Rav
Joseph Tzvi Carlebach, I recently learned that
TIDE was brought to Lithuania after the Germans
occupied this county not long after the start of
WW I in 1914. This was done by German Orthodox
rabbonim. Rabbi Joseph Tzvi Carlebach played a key role in this.
I have posted almost all of Chapter 14 from Ish
Yehudi at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/carlebach/tide_lita.pdf
(There are two pages of pictures that I left
out.) This material describes how TIDE schools
were set up in Lithuania and their success.
The following is from this chapter. Note second
paragraph that says that the TIDE schools were
established in consultation "with the local
rabbinical authorities, including some of
Lithuania's foremost Torah scholars."
Also note the final paragraph given below and who
Rav Reuvein Grozovsky credits with saving the
Slabodka Yeshiva. See the link above for the entire chapter.
The lack of proper schooling for Jewish
youngsters was a matter of great concern to the
Occupation authorities. The traditional cheder
provided schooling only at the elementary level;
there was no organized educational system for
high school and beyond. To address that need, Dr.
Rosenak was asked to recommend an experienced
educator who combined Jewish and secular
scholarship, to establish and direct a school in
Lithuania's capital city of Kovno.
Dr. Rosenak could not think of anyone better
qualified for such an assignment than his
brother-in-law, the Rav [Rabbi Joseph Tzvi
Carlebach]. The educational experience of his
years in Jerusalem and at the Margareten Lyceum
in Berlin, had the Rav's status as a first rate
educator firmly established. With doctorates in
mathematics and philosophy included in his
resume, he received the call. Reporting to the
High Command -North East, he was promoted to
captain with the title of advisor on educational
matters, and invested with full authority to
proceed with the schooling plan. Following
extensive consultations with the local rabbinical
authorities, including some of Lithuania's
foremost Torah scholars, the Rav laid the
foundations for a gymnasium-type school, based
upon the principles of Torah im Derech Eretz,
combining Torah lessons with secular subjects.
Since the German authorities limited the number
of weekly hours of instruction for religious
subjects, the Rav introduced Hebrew as a foreign
language, thus doubling the hours available for
limuday kodesh, including Talmud for the boys and
Tenach (Bible and Prophets) for the girls. The
Rav was able to persuade a number of highly
qualified teachers from Germany to join him, in
his pioneering effort on behalf of the
chinuch-deprived Jewish youth in the occupied
territories. Notable among them was Dr. Leo
Deutschlaender, whose name became famous, some
years later, for his enormous contribution to the Beth Jacob school system.
Known locally as the Carlebach Gymnasium, the
school began with fewer than a hundred students,
as many parents were reluctant to entrust their
children to the new educators who wore German
army uniforms. The more religious-leaning among
them were afraid that the new school might
secularize their children, while the more secular
minded were afraid of religious indoctrination.
The Rav went from house to house to introduce
himself and his program, winning over the parents
of potential candidates. The enthusiastic
reaction of the initial student body further
dispelled any doubts about the quality of the
education and the spirit in which it was guided.
Ultimately, the whole-hearted endorsement of the
community leadership, both religious and
communal, soon made enrollment in the gymnasium a sought-after prize.
This additional aspect o? the Rav's blessed activities during World
War I remained unreported for decades, until a number of years after
World War II. At that time, the gaon and tzaddik, Rabbi Eliezer Y. Finkel,
dean of the world famous Yeshivat Mil' of Jerusalem, came to New
York to raise funds for the rebuilding of his Torah institution. He visited
the gaon, Rabbi Reuvein Grozovsky, a former talmid of Slobodka
Yeshivah and eminent Lithuanian Torah leader, who had already
established himself as one of the outstanding Torah personalities in
the U.S. Among Rabbi Finkel's entourage was the Rav's younger son.
Upon being introduced, Rabbi Grozovsky became very excited. Turning
to Rabbi Finkel he exclaimed, "I can bear witness that if not for
the intervention of this young man's father, the gaon Rav Joseph Tzvi
Carlebach, may HASHEM avenge his blood, Slobodka Yeshiva would
have ceased to exist. And not only Slobodka, but all the great T()rah
institutions in Lithuania, were saved through his intervention, and his
strenuous efforts to provide for their sustenance."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/cb0d8231/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:46:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] mesorahReb Moshe responded re wearing modern
kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Eli Turkel wrote:
>> RMF also was against nusach sefard (chassidic) as it was a
>> change from tradition although that happened some 300 years ago.
>
> R' Zev Sero asked:
>> Where did he write this?
>
> Igros Moshe O"C 2:24
So how does that show that he was against Nusach Sfard? Permission to
switch away from it doesn't mean that he's against it. And in this case
he wasn't even being asked for permission to change to Ashkenaz; the
asker was already davening Ashkenaz, but worried that perhaps he had an
obligation to switch back to Sfard because it was his family minhag. To
this RMF answered that this family minhag was only a few generations old,
and before that the family had davened Ashkenaz, so he shouldn't feel
obliged to switch. He didn't forbid it, or indicate disapproval of Sfard.
(He did write that he didn't quite understand the grounds on which the
previous generations had used for switching to Sfard, but he accepted that
they did indeed have valid grounds.)
BTW, RMF couldn't possibly pasken any other way, since his own father had
switched from Sfard to Ashkenaz as a condition of his shiduch. If for
some reason he couldn't pasken that the switch was permitted, he would
have had to decline to pasken at all.
I recall seeing elsewhere in IM that the differences between NA and NS
are so trivial that switching between them doesn't really count as a
change in nusach, and when we talk about an issur on changing it must
be talking about much more radical changes than these. I don't recall
exactly where I saw this, though.
--
Zev Sero Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name interpretation of the Constitution.
- Clarence Thomas
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:21:53 EST
Subject: Re: [Avodah] mesorah
From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>
Subject: Reb Moshe responded re wearing modern
American clothing that were a variation from the traditions.
>>RMF also was against nusach sefard (chassidic) as it was a change from
tradition although that happened some 300 years ago. Evidently his
opinion is that it makes no difference how long ago a mesorah was
changed it is still considered a change today.<<
>>>>>
Litvishe poskim say you do not change from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Ari or
Sfard, because you should keep your family mesorah. And if you want to
change from Nusach Ari or Nusach Sfard to Nusach Ashkenaz, that is OK, and even
desirable, because it is changing back to your family's original mesorah.
Chassidishe poskim say that you /can/ and maybe even /should/ change from
Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sfard or Nusach Ari, because you are rising in
madreiga from a lower nusach to a higher nusach, but you should not change the
other way because that would be going down to a lower nusach.
This may apply to a recent thread in which the question was discussed, could
a computer be programmed to just look at all precedents, weigh them up and
come up with a psak? Could a computer be a posek?
In answer, it appears that you would have to specify in advance whether you
wanted a Litvishe or a chassidishe computer.
(Ashkenazi or Sephardi -- same thing)
--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)
--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081221/d41d0c68/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 428
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."