Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 125

Mon, 29 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: FW: R Tzadok-TSBP (david guttmann)
• 2. Re: FW: R Tzadok-TSBP (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: validity of ketubahs if ..... (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: validity of ketubahs if ..... (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah contracts (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Re: Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: bribes (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 13. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: FW: R Tzadok-TSBP (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. Re: validity of ketubahs if ..... (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 18. Re: FW: R Tzadok-TSBP (Samuel Svarc)

R.Michael Makovi writes -

 >I cannot imagine the value of learning that does not lead to practical
halakhah.

I agree with you and with much of the rest you write about not being able to
accept appologetics etc... And I share your sentiment about Tosafot vs
others who shun dialectics. I think though not wanting to pasken for others
is not the same as not learning lema'asseh. I would not be surprised if R.
Chaim followed his conclusions personally while not wanting to pasken for
others against the SA. SA is after all the accepted possek for most people
and R. Chaim had no interest in upsetting that understanding by showing that
he paskened otherwise thus weakening the SA's authority for those who needed
it because they could not come to their own conclusions correctly. 
 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> ... Rabbi Haim Soloveitchik was reticent to pasken,
> directing people to the dayan of Volozhin for practical
> questions. Rabbi Haim was sure that his hiddushim were true
> and correct, but he couldn't bring himself to practically rule
> that way, against the SA in favor of a novel ruling of the
> Rambam's or a novel reading of the Gemara. Faced with the
> conflict, he simply chose not to pasken anything. ... 
> Personally, this makes my stomach turn, with all due respect
> to Rabbi Haim. I cannot imagine the value of learning that
> does not lead to practical halakhah.

I think you may be confusing two things.

I would presume that when his learning led him to conclude the practical
halacha to be this or that, he surely followed that in his personal
practice, and I'd be surprised to learn otherwise.

But on the other hand, he could very well have been reticent to pasken FOR OTHERS, directing people to the dayan of Volozhin for practical questions.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Everything looks better on a beautiful new projector screen! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHj4Pknn3d33cA3Rbz3UY5F8UzjpOdZhkSy8qbdYbC7GFEIWnwYSU/

Perhaps one of the lawyers on the list can comment, but I had always 
understood that when someone signs a contract, he is bound to it. It matters 
not one bit if he read the contract, understood the contract, understood the 
legal principles behind the contract. You sign, you're in. And that is why 
when one signs a contract, it is a very good idea to understand what you are 
signing.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: harveyben...@yahoo.com

isn't a ketubah is a binding legal contract between 2 willing parties? if 
either or both of the parties don't understand it, why would it binding???
or would you classify the ketubah, and resultant marriage, something other 
than a binding contract (try telling that that to an aggrieved party in a 
nasty divorce trial, or  to a sotah on the way up to the har habayis, to 
possibly drink bitter waters.....) 

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 07:20:19AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Perhaps one of the lawyers on the list can comment, but I had always 
: understood that when someone signs a contract, he is bound to it. It 
: matters not one bit if he read the contract, understood the contract, 
: understood the legal principles behind the contract. You sign, you're in. 
: And that is why when one signs a contract, it is a very good idea to 
: understand what you are signing.

But the parties don't sign the kesuvah. Contract law isn't relevant.

But in halakhah, a party who signs a contract that has terms he can't
take seriously doesn't have a contract. An asmachta means there was no
gemiras daas.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

In Gemara, we're learning Gittin perek revi'i, and kol d'm'qadesh and
hafka'at qidushim came up.

I asked the ra"m: what about a Karaite? Even if DOES say "K'da'at
moshe v'yisrael" (I don't know what Karaites do), does he have Hazal
in mind? Perhaps we say that "K'da'at moshe v'yisrael" is whatever the
husband personally thinks, and so he if he thinks of someone besides
Hazal, then kol d'm'qadesh no longer applies. Alternatively, I said,
Rambam says we can whip recalcitrant husbands because deep down
inside, they really want to follow halakhah, even if their yetzer hara
hides this fact from them.

My rabbi responded:

Tosafot on Gittin Lamed-gimel amud aleph (s.v. Kol d'm'qadesh ada'ata
d'rabanan m'qadesh) - V'LEKACH omer b'sha'at qidushin k'dat moshe
v'yisrael.

My rabbi explained: Had it said V'KI, then we'd say that it depends on
the husband's personal kavana. But since Tosafot says V'LEKACH, the
husband is merely voicing an empirical reality, and his kavana is
meaningless; even a Karaite or Tzadoki marries on tenai that Hazal
approve, whether he knows it or not. So it's like Rambam and the
recalcitrant husband. (Another of my rabbis noted: this Rambam is
where Rambam and the Kuzari/Maharal meet.)

So hafqa'at kiddushin works even on a Karaite; mamzerut problem solved!

Michael Makovi

I just realized that I mixed up da'at (knowledge) and dat (religion) a
few times in my quotations. It's confusing when you have both kol
d'm'qadesh aDA'ATa d'rabanan m'qadesh and k'DAT moshe v'yisrael.

Michael Makovi

I wrote:
> Compare H. Shvuos 2:16 (though the Radbaz seems to disagree; I'll try 
> to look more deeply over Shabbos) and 11:18.
See Rashi Shvuos 29a s.v. "Hasam mishum kania d'Rava".

David Riceman

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> There is something else going on too, like the propriety of blessing Him
> and His Name. After all, once one refers to Shemo, then Hu must be very
> specifically Hu, not the Or Ein Sof. But HQBH be'atzmo, the Ein Sof
> Itself, how can it be blessed or changed in any way?
>
> I was told this is why the Gra never said bhu"sh, using this rationale
> as proof that the minhag was beta'us.


These hhashashot would apply either with or without the vav hahhibbur,
correct? Or am I missing a distinction?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090627/8c6017f5/attachment-0001.htm>

The repsonses baruch hu and baruch shemo are ancient

Look at baruch she'amar and the article in the HERTZ siddur

Shatz:  baruch sheamar vkhaya olma
Repsonse: Baruch hu

Last response is baruch shemo

It is likely that they alternated

Once baruch hu
And
Once baruch shemo

Also haggadah has baruch hamaqqom 
Baruch hu

Perhaps the hiddush is putting the 2 responses together.

There are numerous ashkenazic piyyutim that have similar structure

For example the Ophan for shabbos rosh hodesh

Reponse one
1 Omrim qadosh
2 Omrim baruch
3 Qaddosh uvaruch

So lich'ora the same for combining BHuVSh

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>  3.  The Mishna Berura is another example of a prominent halachic book
> which displays reluctance to pasken.  I probably shouldn't even mention
> theoretical works like the Minhath Hinuch.  R. Haim's position is hardly
> unique.  Your's is.
> R' David Riceman

I've had "Rupture and Reconstruction" and the many works of Professor
Menachem Friedman on my mind recently.

> 4.  This Shabbos we'll read about Korah and last week we read about the
> meraglim (you'll have read them one week earlier); these are hardly
> explicit examples of unsullied practical halacha.  Ben Sorer Umoreh and
> Ir Hanidachas are more extreme examples.  I hope you can restrain your
> nausea when you attend shul.
> R' David Riceman

A few exceptions to halakhah l'maaseh I can handle, and even in these,
the cases are theoretically possible, and they have clearly obvious
lessons. Even if technically, the city will never be destroyed, the
idea of a city being destroyed for its idolatry is a clear-cut mussar
lesson. This is very different from involved and complex pilpul that
has no practical ramifications. Perhaps if we see a new book from
Artscroll, "The Practical Laws of Ben Sorer Umoreh" (500 pp.) I'll
agree with you here. :P

> 5.  Your own stated interest in Jewish philosophy is hardly consonant
> with your stomach's biases.
> R' David Riceman

Perhaps this is why I'm so interested in the effects of hashkafa on
pesika - saving einam yehudim on Shabbat, Rabbis Uziel and Haim David
Halevi, etc. To wit, take the following incident - a real story that
personally happened to me - which involved halakhah, but which clearly
had hashkafic underpinnings:

Someone asked: Given lo techanem, can we cheer for einam yehudi
baseball players?
Talmid hacham: That's a very good question; let me ask Rabbi Kanievsky.
Me: I just yesterday read Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz's eulogy for a
Catholic Cardinal, and you're asking whether lo techanem applies to a
baseball player? Ask whether that law even applies today at all! We
must live in different worlds indeed.

Rabbi Marc Angel, in an article in Tradition ("A Study Of the Halakhic
Approach of Two Modern Posekim ", 23:3) compares Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein's and Rabbi Haim Halevy's pesika. In one case, Rabbi
Feinstein said that one cannot teach science books with heresy, unless
he tears out those offending pages, and unless he mocks any heresy
found therein, etc. Thus, a teacher cannot teach books about foreign
religious if the book is written by an adherent of that foreign
religion, unless the book is read mockingly. By contrast, Rabbi Halevy
permitted one to study for an exam on Shabbat, for the secular
knowledge gained is intrinsically beneficial, irrespective of any
parnassah or exams. (Rabbi Feinstein apparently views secular studies
as a concession to the county's mandatory school curriculum, but Rabbi
Halevy disagrees.) Somehow, I don't think the machloket between Rabbis
Feinstein and Halevy was on formal halakhic sources. Rabbi Halevy was
once asked a question about Far Eastern meditation, and his response
makes it clear that he seriously studied the literature on that
subject, and only afterwards did he decide that it was idolatrous. Had
he been Rabbi Feinstein, one suspects he wouldn't have seriously
studied the book in the first place.

Compare the following three quotations:
- RMF: "My entire world view stems only from knowledge of Torah without
any mixture of outside ideas (yediot hitsoniyyot), whose judgment is
truth whether it is strict or lenient. Arguments derived from foreign
outlooks or false opinions of the heart are nothing. . ." (Even he-
Ezer, 2:11, quoted in Rabbi Angel's "A Study of the Halakhic Approaches
of Two Modern Posekim").
- Rav Hirsch, "Religion Allied to Progress": "The more the Jew is a Jew,
the more universalist will his views and aspirations be, the less
aloof... will he be from anything that is noble and good, true and
upright, in art or science, in culture or education..."
- R' Uziel: "Our holiness will not be complete if we separate ourselves
from human life, from human phenomena, pleasures and charms, but (only
if we are) nourished by all the new developments in the world, by all
the wondrous discoveries, by all the philosophical and scientific ideas
which flourish and multiply in our world. We are enriched and nourished
by sharing in the knowledge of the world; at the same time, though, this
knowledge does not change our essence, which is composed of holiness
and appreciation of God's exaltedness." (Quoted in Rabbi Angel's "The
Grand Religious View of Rabbi Benzion Uziel", Tradition 30:1) ... Each
country and each nation which respects itself does not and cannot be
satisfied with its narrow boundaries and limited domains; rather, they
desire to bring in all that is good and beautiful, that is helpful and
glorious, to their national [cultural] treasure. And they wish to give
the maximum flow of their own blessings to the [cultural] treasury of
humanity as a whole, and to establish a link of love and friendship among
all nations, for the enrichment of the human storehouse of intellectual
and ethical ideas and for the uncovering of the secrets of nature.
Happy is the country and happy is the nation that can give itself an
accounting of what it has taken in from others; and more importantly,
of what it has given of its own to the repository of all humanity. Woe
unto that country and that nation that encloses itself in its own four
cubits and limits itself to its own narrow boundaries, lacking
anything of its own to contribute [to humanity] and lacking the tools
to receive [cultural contributions] from others.(Quoted in Rabbi
Angel's book Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of
Rabbi Benzion Uziel).

I think it absurd to say that the machloket between Rabbi Feinstein on
the one hand, and Rabbis Hirsch, Uziel, and Halevy on the other, has
no practical implications in halakhah l'maaseh; adarabbah.

If nothing else, learning hashkafa and about the authentic Orthodox
lifestyle is a very important innoculate against being influenced by
Haredi anti-mimetic textualism. If someone truly knows Rav Hirsch's
hashkafa and Rabbi Marc Angel's books on Sephardim, etc., it is rather
difficult to be won over by Haredi propaganda. So learning this
hashkafa has manifold ramifications in halakhah, one way or another.
Presumably, it will help me raise my children as well, and this
implication has been high indeed in my mind.

> Presumably, it will help me raise my children as well, and this
> implication has been high indeed in my mind.
> Yours truly

I'd be lying if I said I'm not constantly fearful of how I'll raise
and educate my children in the present Orthodox environment; in almost
everything I do, this fear is a constant specter in the back of my
mind.

Almost daily without fail, I am assaulted by the intense feeling of
loneliness in my Orthodoxy, that I am alone in this world as far as my
beliefs go. Almost my entire weltanschauung consists of the books of
authors who are no longer living. I can survive like this, but
assuming my children follow me in my own weltanschauung, can my
children survive so alone and bereft? Can I even bring them into a
world in which they will be as lonely as I am? And if my children
reject my own hashkafa in favor of the regnant Orthodox one, they will
surely survive, but will I myself be able to live one more day
thereafter; will I be able to face another day?


> Perhaps this is why I'm so interested in the effects of hashkafa on pesika
> Yours truly

Just this moment, as I read "Orthodox Judaism Moves with the Times:
The Creativity of Tradition", by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, Commentary,
June 1952, I saw the following: "Nevertheless, in the deepest strata
of Halachic thinking, logical judgment is preceded by value judgment,
and intuitive insight gives impetus to the logic of argument."

What I see often is that the surest way to detect a questionable
halakhic ruling, is on hashkafic grounds. The reason is that
1) Just about any humra does in fact have a halakhic basis, and
2) No matter how much halakha I learn, I have little hope in becoming
as proficient as the "gedolim".
According to these two points, I cannot rely on halakhic knowledge
alone - as vital as this knowledge surely is - to detect questionable
pesak. The "gedolim" surely do have halakhic basis, and they surely do
know more in their pinkies than I'll probably ever know in a thousand
years. So what will keep me from blindly following their path?

Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo notes that the Talmud is interspersed with
aggadah because the aggadah gives the spirit of the law, and shows how
the law is to be implemented in daily life. The halakhah gives maximal
rulings regarding the ideal, but only the practical traditional life -
or the mimetic tradition - can moderate the maximal textual tradition.

As I said, I have "Rupture and Reconstruction" and Professor Menachem
Friedman on my mind.

I have no mimetic tradition; I have no Orthodox family, I have no
rabbis to guide me - unless we mean rabbis who like to joke that
President Obama is like Sadam Hussein, in which case I have no
shortage of rabbis to follow - so learning hashkafa is my personal
bedieved substitute for a mimetic halakhic tradition. It isn't ideal,
but it's all I have.

The halakha is the Oral Law, but the way to live an Orthodox life, and
the meaning of an Orthodox life - these also constitute Oral Law, but
in the latter - unlike in practical halakhah - I have no one save
myself to guide me.

Michael Makovi

b+sr??,?(Z?*??v?j?^?????b?+nv'??s?j'???jwG??'?????^??"?????z???,j???Xag?????^??^?????-jG???-?+a???{
??????gn??Z???k"??????j????E??jf?zz-r??y?Z????????+??jX????n?m??m?????
??????^?????????n???&???v?!y:+j?????'?(!???y??r?z-?w^??Z??a??h?+b?
v?jYR?w????}?K??$??jg????????l??r,??bz??u??n??~'^?????V,?a??r????'$j
wQ`4??????$y???????jf????v??????,y??????~??????&???y?az??z????????
}??z{e??????????,???????4??z?Z?????Z???j??????z]zw^???u??????????,z\??(
???o*?z?b?{(??^E??jc?r????????z?(?Wgz?????r??y?????m??b?"?^???????gz?
?????b?&?!???'?n?????z??????????(?+lr????"?{,z????rjw\z?Z?yr??ajV??'?\
?j?^??u??q?e??0??&z?hv?h?(?j?????z)?z?b??b??h?Pn??^???z?az?zf???K???
??)??f???!z??y????^????'f??gj???.?????h??????y?Z??????i?????z?^??mzjm??,?
???????(??????v??j?,?(n?X??N"??jf?????_?????h??,??,?]?????i?????azf??'f?
?gz+y?O???zd?z??m???k????+z*??"???*,?e?'{m?V??h??v?AD!????X?x??
??j)????*0z???!??+??-???????k?q?????????y????Z???u?)?????????~???????0
??i?Z???r??y?e???z???8n??y?aj?Zr?
@??f?z?^E??jk??&z?b???{^???Y?
i?p???Z?'??Z??m????]??aj??y???+)z?Z?*
 +??- ????h??)j?D
???????j?,?$???????A??????[??+y??z{e????G??????b??m????k??^?+'??"?az?Z???????
MVI???&???$??????3(n)^

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> Why? Judging false and taking bribes are 2 seperate issues.

> Because he's not an iver.

He is an Iver WRT Shochad. (we are not Doreish Taamei dKra)

> Are you suggesting that this is a case where we would be permitted to be
>> Oiver a Lav and cause another Jew to be Oveir a Lav, in order to save the
>> judge from judging wrong.

> I hadn't even thought of that, but now that you mention it, yes.
> How is the lav of taking shochad worse than the lav of deliberately
> giving a false judgement?  And if the two are equal, then how is the
> giver doing any lav at all?

You are being Doreish Taamei dKra there are 2 Issurim, a judge that took
Shochad and ruled wrong was Oveir 2 issurim not one even though both are
based on blindness.

>> (Of course all this is where one is 100% sure that his bribe will only
>> effect Lizkos Es haZakai)

> Every person believes that his case is right.  And when the judge
> solicits money in order to rule his way, that would tend to reinforce
> that belief.  A person can only act on what he believes to be true;
> ein lo ledayan ela ma she'enav ro'os applies equally to everyone.

Even the Chasam Sofer brought in the PT 9:3 (permitting) talking about
a non jew qualifies it more then just "if you don't believe me ask me".

Also I am not talking in a case where he is soliciting bribes as in that
case he is not an Iver. I am not aware of Dayonim doing such.

> I was talking only about (jewish) Dayonim

> But the original question wasn't only about them.   Most cases of
> bribery are not in courts at all, let alone in BD.

I only addressed part of the issue, RYG already addressed many of the other
points with his on mark MM to PT CM 9:1 an 9:3. Ayim Shom vTimtza Nachas.

>  In fact I think the very idea is
> ridiculous.  If an armed robber holds you up, must you refuse to give
> him the money, in order not to be over on lifnei iver, or mesayea`?!
> On the contrary, hal'itehu larasha veyamos.  How is this case different?

Because in the case of Jewish Dayonim there is recourse. A Dayon that Takes
Shochat is Possul.

> Surely he is transgressing lifnei iver!  This is "two sides of a river":
> if he would only stand his ground and refuse to pay, the teacher would
> not be able to sin.  And yet he is not only allowed but required to
> pay.  Why?  To me the answer is obvious: because he has no choice.
> The teacher is wrong, but what can you do if this is what he demands?

That is not one of the 365 Lo Saseh's, and we do have a special Limud as the
Rambam brings there, in any case "foon a kasha shtarbet men nisht" and
Shaarei Trirutzim Lo Ninalu.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:28:55 -0400 Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I was talking only about (jewish) Dayonim, (in a case of BN much can be
>> discussed see Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 23).

> Pis'he Teshuvah HM 9:3.

Yes you already mentioned this thanks.  However I brought this M"M to
support reasoning WRT Lizkos Es haZaki by BN.

[Email #3. -mi]]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> (Of course all this is where one is 100% sure that his bribe will only
>> effect Lizkos Es haZakai)

> Every person believes that his case is right.  And when the judge
> solicits money in order to rule his way, that would tend to reinforce
> that belief.  A person can only act on what he believes to be true;
> ein lo ledayan ela ma she'enav ro'os applies equally to everyone.

I have much problem with this approach, as this leaves the room for anyone
that sees that a DT is not going his way to justify bribing the judge, since
he believes he is right hence the judge must be saved from judging wrongly
(which is worse then taking Shochad etc.). And again I am not talking where
he solicits which in that case he should seek help from another BD.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Michael Makovi wrote:
> Perhaps this is why I'm so interested in the effects of hashkafa on
> pesika - saving einam yehudim on Shabbat, Rabbis Uziel and Haim David
> Halevi, etc.
This puts the cart before the horse.  Psak influences hashkafa rather 
than hashkafa influencing psak.

David Riceman

Michael Makovi wrote:
> My rabbi explained: Had it said V'KI, then we'd say that it depends on
> the husband's personal kavana. But since Tosafot says V'LEKACH, the
> husband is merely voicing an empirical reality, and his kavana is
> meaningless; even a Karaite or Tzadoki marries on tenai that Hazal
> approve, whether he knows it or not.
But as far as I know Karaites don't say "k'das Moshe v'Yisrael".

David Riceman

> So, while I can take RSRH's or NhC's approaches and pledge to increase
> Hashem's presence, that would explain "barukh Shemo", and then what
> then is "barukh Hu"? Similarly, how does one make requests of HQBH in
> contrast to our perception of Him?
> -Micha

I see the dilemma

But pashtus why not:
Blessed is HE (I.e. already,  a fact on the past + present)
And
May HIS name Be Blessed (a wish for the future?)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RMM:
> Professor Shapiro, ibid., does note at length that Rabbi Haim
> Soloveitchik was reticent to pasken, directing people to the dayan of
> Volozhin for practical questions.

FWIW my rebbe Rav YeruchamGorelick A"H refused to pasqen for me and he
refused to teach Hullin in order to avoid halacha lema'aseh.

R Gorelick was a Talmid muvhak of Rav Velvel.

Around 10-20 years after the GRA's death Chayei Adam did NOT incoporate
much of the GRA's hiddushim into Halachah

Similarly YU did not have a Brisker flavor in P'saq until perhaps recently.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:34:31 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> But the parties don't sign the kesuvah. Contract law isn't relevant.

R. Broyde and Reiss have a valuable discussion of the Kesuvah from a
modern perspective, including its legal validity under American law (PDF
at Jlaw):

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/KETUBAH.pdf

The paper mentions the issue of the parties not signing.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Michael Makovi<mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>.
>
> So I am very uncomfortable with Rabbi Haim's reticent to pasken. I
> have a very one-track mind, and we've seen on these boards previously
> that I am unable to comprehend apologetics or altering the truth in
> favor of expediency; I simply cannot comprehend these, and I even made
> a Freudian slip trying to describe a specific apologeia; I simply
> cannot comprehend these. Similarly, the notion of Talmud study that
> does not lead ultimately to a better understanding of the practical
> halakhah, I simply cannot stomach this notion.

As an outside observer, although not in any sense objective, I think
you are misreading your process. You call things "apologetics" and
such, and have not read the originals. Most of your material is long
quotes from other people whose interpretations you accept for the
conclusions they reach. Nothing to do if those people's thesis is
truth, as you don't know the source material for that, but rather I
repeat their interpretations because their conclusions sound good to
me. Very circular.

> When I'm studying Gemara, for example, I enjoy the Rif, Rambam, and
> Shulhan Arukh a million times more than I enjoy Tosafot. (This is also
> because I dislike casuistry and dialectics. I remember when there was
> a conflict between two sugyot, Tosafot offered several complex
> solutions, while Ra'avad on the Rif simply said that one sugya was the
> ikkar and overrode the other, and that we'd re-girsa the other to
> agree with the first. I am a straight-shooter, and the Ra'avad
> satisfied me far more than the Tosafot did.)

Totally off the mark. The real reason is that to have 'sugyos' in Shas
contradict each other is no evil in your eyes. Tosfos gives the most
straight forward ways to resolve these seeming contradictions, a real
straight shooter. If you would accept the reality, that Shas is a
seamless whole (by and large - we are talking in generalities), you
would have no issue with Tosfos.

> My justification of academic study of Torah is simple: if it is
> objectively true, then surely, it must have an effect on halakhah. If
> it is objectively false, then obviously, it should have no effect,
> since it is false anyway. When people say that academic findings are
> true but are outside the halakhic process, I simply cannot comprehend
> this. I simply cannot comprehend any true knowledge, any true finding,
> that does not have practical ramifications. I realize that this goes
> against the traditional method, but I simply cannot comprehend any
> true finding that is purely theoretical, that is divorced from
> practice. It just doesn't fit in my brain.

The best (and by this I mean, the most factual) explanation as to the
irrelevance of academic studies to Torah, is the following. R' Boruch
Ber said about a professor, "He knows what Abbaye ate, where he lived,
etc. I know what Abbaye said." Academic studies of Torah share the
same irredeemable flaw, they lack the real knowledge, the internal
knowledge of what is really being said. Living today are people who
have heard Torah directly from people who heard directly from people
who heard directly from R' Chaim Brisker. Anyone who analyzes Brisker
Torah without this knowledge is fooling himself and anyone who listens
to him. Extrapolate from this to academic studies that cut themselves
off from Torah as a whole (not only Brisker Torah) and attempt to
analyze Shas.

As someone who has read RSRH, you could not have failed to hear his
clarion call, "Learn Torah based on itself!" It is a wise call to
heed.

KT,
MSS


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 125
***************************************

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..."