Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 174

Mon, 17 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: ISHA RA'A (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: ISHA RA'A (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: isha ra'a (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 4. Maccabees and Biryonim (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Torah with Derekh Eretz by Mordechai Breuer (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Haneiros Halalu (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. misleading divrei Torah (Eli Turkel)
• 8. kashrut of kingklip (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Maccabees and Biryonim (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: The Maccabees and Zealotry (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 11. Re: Mesora (was: Rambam's Shittah on Allegorizing...) (h Lampel)
• 12. Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Prof. Levine)

 
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net

(c) a woman who would prove a  negative influence, 

Here's the thing that everyone seems to be  missing.
Fine, let's say the prayer is for the reason R' Micha said.
What  about a woman concerned with a MAN who "would provide a negative  
influence."
......I'm trying to understand why it is so one  sided!




>>>>>
 
My yehi ratzon in my siddur, which I say every morning, says  "yehi 
ratzon...shetatzileini hayom uvechol yom me'azei fanim ume'azus panim  UMEI'ADAM 
RA...."
 
It doesn't say anything about isha ra'ah.  I wonder why my siddur is  so 
one-sided......
 

--Toby Katz
=============



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/7c037318/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg asked:

> What about a woman concerned with a MAN who "would provide a
> negative influence." It's as if we are only concerned with the
> male being tempted by the female.
> We have this in the Sotah ordeal. The woman has to drink the
> potion, etc. What if the woman suspects her husband of
> infidelity? Why should he also have to drink and have the same
> consequences as the woman? This is what is not being addressed.

It's because halacha (at least on a Torah level) does not recognize the
concept of the husband's infidelity. A husband is allowed (at least on a
Torah level) to have two wives, and possibly other sorts of female contact
as well, under certain conditions, all of which is totally forbidden for a
wife.

If you'd like to ask WHY this disparity exists, and/or similar questions,
go right ahead. (I'm sorry to say that I won't be able to help much
regarding getting the answers, as these questions puzzle me too.) But it is
undeniable that these halachos are NOT gender-blind, and that's why Sotah
goes one way but not the other.

However, the careful reader will note that the above is riddled with weasel
words like "at least on a Torah level" and "under certain conditions". In
actual practice, especially in post-Rabbenu Gershom communities, gender
equality is almost complete (not counting Heter Meah Rabanim and certain
leniencies for presumed-widowed spouses).

In this light, a female temptress and a male tempter are both evil, and we
need protection from both, and that's why I too was bothered by the
one-sidedness of this tefila as phrased in the Gemara, and it's also why I
was satisfied by the gender-equality of the editing that was done when the
tefila entered the siddur.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Visa&#174 Black Card&#8482
Earn 25,000 Bonus Points Plus Get Exclusive Rewards&#58 Apply Now&#33
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50cdfef78d6257ef747a3st02vuc

     Searching for "isha ra'a" in Talmud, using Ma'agar Sifrus haKodesh,
     turned up twelve occurrences.  In all of them, the reference is to the
     character of one's wife, never to a temptress.	 Interestingly, the
     occurrence which prompted the discussion is _not_ cited.  I don't know
     if it's a fault in the program, or if there is an alternate girsa and
     it is that girsa which they use. EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/8d88e204/attachment-0001.htm>

<<our assumption is that the Chachamim were against resistance to Rome,
so the Chashmonaim's resistance should be compared to that of the
Biryonim, etc.  But that premise is not true; on the contrary, the
revolt against Rome was originally organised *by* Chazal.  The difference
between them and the Biryonim was merely that when the war was obviously
lost, Chazal decided it was time to surrender and negotiate terms while
something could still be saved, while the Biryonim wanted to fight to an
"honourable" death.>>

I always understood with the Biryonim was that attacke3d Jews and burned
down food supplies.
They wanted to fight even when it was hopeless

BTW at one stage of the fight against the Greeks, the Syrians agreed to a
compromize in which the Jews would have the right to worship as they please
and the Bet HaMikdash would be run according to Jewish law.
At the time the chassidim of the time agreed to the compromize and said
that was all they were fighting for. OTOH the Maccabbes argued that relying
on the intentions of the Syrian-Greeks was not a good idea.

The end was that the chassidim left the war effort and Jdah was left with a
tiny force. The Greeks then didnt keep their commitment and in the end the
full scale war resumed. Thus in the end Judah was vindicated that
compromises with the Greeks could not be relied upon

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/f0575d62/attachment-0001.htm>

Mordechai Breuer wrote a long piece about the life of RSRH that 
appears in the book Guardians of Our Heritage that was edited by 
Rabbi Leo Jung.   One part of this essay discusses "Torah with Derekh 
Eretz" and I have posted this at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/torah_with_derekh_eret
z_m_breuer.pdf

It gives insight into what TIDE is.

The following is an excerpt from this piece. that gives some insight 
into Rav Hirsch's relationship with the students in his school.

One of them [One of RSRH's students] writes: "He conversed with us in our own
language, took interest in every blow dealt us by pupils of the
Philantropin [This was the school run by the Reform Jews of Frankfurt.],
checked on the class of the stamps we exchanged,
gave a rigorous examination to our footballs-in brief, he was
our intimate." Another one relates : "He never raised his voice
to a pupil. If he traveled to another city, he would say to him,
'Behave so that they will see you are a pupil of Rabbi Hirsch.'
He influenced them by his personality; the look of his burning
was engraved deep in the memory of those he had educated."

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/a00aef38/attachment-0001.htm>

<All girsaos I have seen say Haneiros Halalu Qodesh Heim, should it not be Hein?>

      In Tanach, "neir" is always masculine.  (Neir Hashem . . . chofeis
      kol chadrei vaten;  lo yichbe valaila neirah.)  In Talmudic language,
      both forms are used (both "shnei neiros" and "shtei neiros" appear). 
      EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/e8ad4938/attachment-0001.htm>

In the latest Meorot Hadaf on divrei Torah connected to the Daf HaYomi
there is a long discussion on learning astronomy and astrology bringing
various opinions

They conclude with the Shvut Yaakov that attacks learning all of these
topics today since the knowledge is not based on mesoret.

Only the article "forgot" to mention that the Shvut Yaakov made this
statement to conclude that the earth cannot be round like the astronomers
claim since it is against an explicit gemara (Chagiga 12a) that the world
is flat !!

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/c64ff453/attachment-0001.htm>

<<In my mind this article raises many fundamental
questions about how a halachic psak is arrived at
and reliability of piskei halacha that emerge from such a procedure.>>

There is also an article by Gil Student in the last Torah U-Madda journal
arguing that psak belongs to the local rabbi/community and that one of the
problems we face today is that everyone immediately runs to their favorite
RY or Gadol who is not familar with the local problems.

As both articles indicate one of the main problems of modern psak is
getting the facts right. Most gedolim don't have the means to search out
and understand the facts. So they rely on someone who is feeding them
information and that person frequently has his own agenda.

RSZA had a group of top scientists whom he would consult (eg Dr. Steinberg,
Prof. Lev etc)
and studied enough himslef to understand their explanations. RMF also had a
group of doctors/scientists that he could consult. However, most poskim did
not have access to top experts in each field. I always remember some major
posek discussing electricity and starting off that he consulted some
engineer in his shul to find out what electricity is. I have no qualms if a
posek says that it is immaterial how electricity works. But if one does
want to know something about it then issuing an important psak based on the
local technician is worthless.

It is well known that a chain is as strong as it weakest link. Going to a
major gadol who uses a second level knowledge of facts isnt worth very much.

One of the rabbis of our local community gave an example for using a
dishwasher for milchig and fleishig. ROY allows it after a rinse. Rabbi
Rosen of Tzomet diasgrees based on his expert knowledge of the inwards of
dishwashers. Our rabbi said that while ROY is the greater posek he is
machmir like R. Rosen since Rosen is also an important posek and more
important an engineer that knows the facts which in this case includes the
effects of traps and that actual particles of food are left over after a
dishwasher cycle.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/d13748ae/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/12/2012 3:35 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<our assumption is that the Chachamim were against resistance to Rome,
> so the Chashmonaim's resistance should be compared to that of the
> Biryonim, etc.  But that premise is not true; on the contrary, the
> revolt against Rome was originally organised *by* Chazal.  The difference
> between them and the Biryonim was merely that when the war was obviously
> lost, Chazal decided it was time to surrender and negotiate terms while
> something could still be saved, while the Biryonim wanted to fight to an
> "honourable" death.>>
>
> I always understood with the Biryonim was that attacke3d Jews and burned
> down food supplies.
> They wanted to fight even when it was hopeless

Yes, exactly.  That's what I said.


> BTW at one stage of the fight against the Greeks, the Syrians agreed to a
> compromize in which the Jews would have the right to worship as they please
> and the Bet HaMikdash would be run according to Jewish law.
> At the time the chassidim of the time agreed to the compromize and said
> that was all they were fighting for. OTOH the Maccabbes argued that relying
> on the intentions of the Syrian-Greeks was not a good idea.
>
> The end was that the chassidim left the war effort and Jdah was left with a
> tiny force. The Greeks then didnt keep their commitment and in the end the
> full scale war resumed. Thus in the end Judah was vindicated that
> compromises with the Greeks could not be relied upon

And this is codified in halacha pesukah, that when it comes to a vital
interest such as a border town, where if the enemy should break his
word then his occupation of the town would make it easier for him to
win a war, we must not accept his word about his peaceful intentions;
we must assume that he will break it, and therefore we must resist his
occupation of the town, even on Shabbos, and even though he swears that
he has no interest in invading the country.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I tried sending an explanation, but apparently it was too long and got a
(probably automatic) moderation warning. 

This is in response to RZ who spoke of the period of anti-Roman rebellion,
whereas I originally was speaking of a period prior to that, of 6CE-50CE,
which was a religious division and Jews killing Jews.

In a nutshell (it's hard to keep history short!):

The Zealots wanted to be super-machmeer, and used intimidation and violence
and even death to reach their ends. One of their first dictates was to no
longer accept offerings from non-Jews. And it got really bad, and the
Leadership (e.g., Rabban Gamliel haZakain) rebelled, but there was nothing
they could do against this religious "mafia". And from this the Tzadookim
flared back up, being men of great wealth, they bought the control of the
Temple, but that didn't stop the Zealots. And the Gemara has several stories
of such interactions.

The political warring would come after this, and the Sicarii would come into
play, and the Zealots would use them for their purposes, and the lines
between them would blur.

BUT, during the earlier period, the period of the Maccabees, there is no
leadership noted at all in our story. It is as if the zealous priests
(Maccabees) are the only leaders left. And no early commentator seems to
complain about them inciting others to act, and using violence against Jews
if that's what it took. It too begins as a Religious action that develops
into a political one. 
 
In the case of the 6CE-50CE period (there were multiple cycles of violence
and multiple rebellions before the Bar Kochbah rebellion more than a century
later - I am using this one for simplicity), we condemn  them and see little
good of the non-Maccabean zealots, and Chazal denounces their actions, and
where zealotry can be found in the Torah, Chazal is very, VERY, carful about
addressing it (as in the destruction of Schem by Shimon and Levi. It would
only be the later mepharshim (typically, such as the Rashbam) who would
support what they did).

However, in the case of the story of Channukah, I do not find where the
early writers condemned the Maccabees for their actions, and I was wondering
if that was like the case with the Lechi museum in Tel-Aviv, where it is a
museum dedicated to those freedom fighters who fought against the British
occupation, but had we lost that battle, it would have been a British museum
relating the terrorism of the Jews against the British. Or perhaps they got
a pass for some other reason. (Yes, I know that Lechi was not a religious
group by any means, but it's still a good comparison).

Eliyahu

1. RMS wrote:
> RZL ... argues that in the issue discussed in ma'amar techiyat hametim,
> there is ample rabbinic precedent for the rambam's position [to 
> allegorize the prophecy about the wolf dwelling peacefully with the 
> lamb].  That may well be,...

That was not my point. My point, which I think was stated quite clearly,
was that THE RAMBAM HIMSELF, IN THIS VERY PIECE, states EXPLICITLY that
the reason seichel prevents one taking the "wolf dwelling with lamb" to
be literally about animals is premised on PRINCIPLES STATED BY CHAZAL.
(Mon, 10 Dec 2012 [Avodah] Rambam's Shiitah on Allegorizing Pesukim,
Was: ReWas: Re Goebekli Tepe). (The principles are that Hashem limits
the duration of miracles involving changes in the basic nature of things,
and that this applies even in the time of Moshiach.)

It is allegiance to these premises from Chazal (among other
considerations) that compels the Rambam's seichel to deny that the
predatory and carnivorous nature of the wolf and lion will permanently
change in Moshiach's days.

Here is what the Rambam says in the piece RMS frequentlt cites, but I
will quote it without cutting off its beginning or ending:

    Regarding our stand that Isaiah's pronouncement that "wolf shall
    dwell with lamb..." is meant allegorically, it is not only we who
    say so; men of understanding among the commentators already preceded
    us in the understanding of this matter, such as Moshe ben Gikatila
    and Ibn Bilam, among others. And the end of [Isaiah's] proclamation
    shows this: He says, "They shall not graze and not destroy in all of
    My holy mountain, for the earth/land shall be full of knowledge of
    Hashem." Thus he attributed the cause for their not being violent or
    destructive beings as "since they will know Hashem." Do you see, you,
    the congregation of Hashem, one who possesses seichel, that *this
    would constitute a change [in the basic nature of animals]:* [that
    whereas in our days the lion tears apart [the lamb], [in Moshiach's
    times] it will know what is needed from its Creator, and will know
    that it is improper to harm [other animals], and return to eat grain.

Let's pause here. Why does the Rambam consider it against seichel to 
think carnivorous animals will change their ways in Moshiach's days? Can 
G-d not perform any kinds of miracles He pleases, for any duration He 
decides? The Rambam himself provides the answer. We continue with the 
citation:

    But we have already explained this matter in a chapter of Moreh
    Nevuchim , and in the work [Mishneh Torah. Hilchos Melachim 12:2,
    Hilchos Teshuva 9:2] we explained as our open proof THEIR STATEMENT
    that the days of Moshiach will not contain any change in seder
    Breishis.

Seichel is a tool by which to analyze factors. But one must have factors 
to analyze. The factors the Rambam demands in analyzing pesukim and 
using seichel to determine if their intent is allegorical or not include 
(a) the peshat of the pesukim and (b) *not contradicting the teachings 
and principles stated by Chazal.*

Next comes the RMS's favorite piece:

    And know that these and similar promises which we say are a mashal --
    our saying such is not a decree -- for a prophecy has not come to
    us from Hashem that lets us know that it is a mashal. And we have
    not found a kabalah to the chachamim from the prophets that they
    explain about these details that they are a mashal.

We pause again. RMS deduces from this piece that the Rambam "explicitly
states that [rabbinic] precedent is not necessary." But let us remember
that RMS wants to apply the Rambam's license to pesukim about the Mabul,
which Chazal did speak about and take as a historical reality, and whose
peshat does not demand allegorical understanding. RMS wants to invoke
the Rambam's position in Maamar Techias HaMeisim to RE-interpret, as
allegorical, such pesukim. This is totally unwarranted.

The Rambam goes on to declare his opposition to understanding pesukim
to be speaking of miraculous events without a peshat-reading indicating
such. Pesukim, he says, should only be understood as describing the
miraculous if that is their obvious meaning, or if Chazal say that
is their meaning. (The flip side of this is, of course, that if the
obvious meaning of pesukim /is/* a description of miraculous events,
and the principles of Chazal do not contradict such an understanding --
and certainly if they support such an understanding -- then they /are/
to be taken as such.)

So, a reasonable person would wonder, why is this approach a reason to
deny the possibility of the total and global change of animal behavior
in Moshiach's time? Why else, besides the peshat gained from factoring
in the end of the prophecy, can't the posuk be understood simply as
promising a future change in animal behavior? Why is this against seichel?

The Rambam answers this in the next piece (p. 362 in the KPCH
translation):

    And it is already known that we run far away from [endorsing the
    idea of] a change in seder Breishis, regardless of how those previous
    or following will err, *in their failing to distinguish between
    (a) matters which occur as miracles -- which do not last and become
    permanent at all, and only occur for some need or to authenticate a
    prophecy, and (b) matters that are natural, and last continuously,
    and they are the /minhago shel olom/.*

Thus the Rambam bases his rejection of the animal-change in Moshiach's
time upon the principle that miracles -- such as a stick turning into a
snake, or the parting of the sea -- only endure a limited amount of time,
and do not become permanent. The Rambam develops this principle also in
the Moreh (2:29), in his commentary on Ahvos 5:6, and in the last perek
of Shemoneh Perakim.

Now, where does this principle come from?

The Rambam right here goes on to explain:
    we emphatically flee from [the idea of] a change in seder
    Breishis...[and instead] distinguish between (a) matters which
    occur as miracles -- which do not last and become permanent at all,
    and ...(b) matters that are natural, and last continuously, and
    they are the minhago shel olom." WHICH [PRINCIPLES] THEY [CHAZAL]
    CONSTANTLY MAKE CLEAR AND SAY: "OLOM K'MINHAGO HOLEICH,"AND THEY
    SAY, "ONE CANNOT PROVE [HOW THINGS NORMALLY ARE] FROM MIRACULOUS
    OCCURRENCES," AND SHLOMO HAMELECH SAID, "FROM EVERYTHING THAT G-D
    DOES THAT REMAINS FOREVER, ONE MAY NOT ADD UPON OR DIMINISH.....

So, while the Rambam lacks a Chazal that directly states that the "wolf
and lamb" posuk specifically is meant allegorically, he shows that such
allegorization is compelled by the context of the posuk, and implicit
in CHAZAL's principle that Hashem will not enact, on a permanent basis,
miracles involving changes in the basic nature of things. Putting aside
the first imperative, without those premises of CHAZAL, the Rambam's
/seichel/, IN HIS OWN presentation, provides no basis to allegorize
these pesukim.

Yet RMS wants us to "note that the rambam is not ... saying that he is
basing himself on maamre hazel." And he wants to thereby legitimatize
RE-interpreting, as allegorical, pesukim such as those in the Mabul
account, whose peshat reads as describing the miraculous and which Chazal
took as non-allegorical.

2. RMS reposnds to RMB:
>                          ...  The rambam does frequently cite sources for
> hazal from some ideas - but not for all.  Clearly he wants to show an
> audience versed in rabbinic texts how his ideas fit it -- moreh nevuchim is
> not a pure philosphcial work -- but there is no evidence that he actually
> requires such proof, and in ma'amar techiyat hametim he says...

The entire enterprise of the Rambam is to teach and endorse talmudic
Judaism. There may be some conclusions the Rambam reached without the
support of talmudic and midrashic sources. (And I would assert that these
are few. -- I suspect that if one would delete every statement the Rambam
makes in the Moreh without support from Chazal, little, if anything, would
remain). But wherever those conclusions may appear to be /counter/ Chazal,
he always finds it essential to show that no, they are consistent with or
supported by Chazal. (It is also worth repeating that the Rambam includes
in his defense that previous commentators, too, took the wolf-and-lamb
posuk allegorically. The Rambam was not a maverick in this.)

For the Rambam, saying something that contradicts the consensus of Chazal
was anathema, as it is to any loyal ben Torah. When other rishonim
criticize the Rambam for veering from this principle, it is a serious
charge against the validity of the Rambam's position; and the defense
of the Rambam is to show that he really is consistent with or, even
better, supported by, Chazal. Torah literature spanning centuries --
beginning with the Rambam himself and his son -- is dedicated to this
effort. Indeed, this is the very reason the Rambam wrote the Maamar
Techias HasMeisim in the first place! Nowhere does he make the audacious
claim that he is not bound by the consensus of Chazal. I challenge RMS
to produce any such instance.

And I may as well repeat my request (in response to RMS' assertion that
"[in] any apparent conflict... we must rethink our initial understanding
of the two sources to reconcile them -- and therefore, there becomes a
TORAH reason to allegorize...):

"I am interested in seeing an example of a rishon who, based on
new information, changed, or posited that we should change, the
traditional/conventional way of understanding the basic nature of any
Torah narratives from historical to allegorical. As far as I can see,
any rishon who posits that a particular narrative is meant allegorically
maintains that this was the way Chazal understood it all along."

Zvi Lampel

The above subject was part of today's email from Lookjed. The
following is from the Lookjed web site at
http://www.lookstein.org/lookjed.php

Over 3300 teachers, principals, community lay leaders, and students
planning a career in Jewish education "come together" two or three times
a week to network with one another and to discuss issues of concern
to them and to the educational community. View the threaded archives
<http://www.lookstein.org/lookjed/list.php?f=1> here.

The post about this topic is below, and it is followed by my response
which I sent to the Lookjed list.

YL

From: <mgis...@nydesign.com>
To: look...@biu.ac.il
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:46 PM

>After meeting with a few community members concerned that  Jewish 
>education is suffering from mystical influences  from within, and 
>hearing many others' view of a "mystical Judaism," it continues to 
>be alarmingly apparent that  Jewish educators and local Rabbis do 
>not teach "Judaism."

>These community members I met are intelligent, and realize that 
>without a firm grasp of the very basics - TaNaCH - students are 
>being led astray by Rebbeim who believe in Kabbalisitc heresies, 
>such as God being similar to creation, that He has parts, He is 
>inside man's soul, that He exists in sin, that Rebbes are the 
>"atzmus" (essence) of God so they are infallible, and other 
>disturbing and heretical notions.

>If students and Jews in general been taught Judaism's fundamentals 
>as cited by Rambam and other leaders, had they been taught God's 
>words (not man's) like "I (God) am not similar to anything 
>(Isaiah)", that Moshe sinned - hence human infallibility is a lie 
>... our students would not accept foolish doctrines cited above. 
>Students and Jews would protest notions that contradict God's words in TaNaCH.

>Today's Judaism ignores God's words, and instead, favors 
>incomprehensible and heretical notions found in man-made works like 
>Kabbala, Tanya, Breslov and other works that assume an identity 
>similar to Christian doctrines. When the priority of God's words is 
>rejected, this is no longer Judaism.

>I urge educators and Rabbis to address this, if you sincerely wish 
>to promote the Judaism God gave us through His swords in TaNaCH. I 
>urge you to protest the teaching of heretical notions, regardless of 
>the mass acceptance of certain works.

>When two sources contradict each other, and one source is God's 
>words, we must reject the opposing source.

>Do this for Judaism, for students, for the community...and for yourself.

>A reliable resource to assist in this 
>need:  <http://www.mesora.org/>

>Rabbi Marshall Gisser

I cannot agree more with what Rabbi Gisser wrote about this topic.
IMO, this phenomenon is a result of what I term "The New Religion."
The New Religion contains large doses of things that our forefathers
never knew anything about and were never concerned with. It also
contains large amounts of hocus pocus such as emphasis on segulos,
magical rings, etc. It is most certainly not Judaism, which
RSRH points out is not a religion. See Judaism is not a Religion
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/shemos_6_7_not_religion.pdf
>
and "Religion Allied to Progress" at <http://tinyurl.com/8rmuh98>.

In response to a query I sent some time ago to Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky
regarding Reb Yisroel Salanter's attitude toward kabbala, he wrote

On pages 845-846 [of the first edition of the Making of a Gadol] I quote
"Hever Ma'amarim II" (Brooklyn, 5729), p. 174 - this is a sepher of
shmuessen of R' Yeruham Levovitz (the name of the book and its contents
are in Hebrew, a language which my email server does not type) - that "R'
[Shlomo] Elyashiv [author of the Leshem Kabala series] once rode with the
Salanter and mustered the courage to ask him why he did not study Kabala.
R' Yisrael replied, 'What difference does it make to me in which firmament
G-d dwells? One thing I know: that [a sinner] will be struck with fiery
rods, and it will be very painful. That the blows will be fiery, I know
clearly - and what else [should interest me]?'" The translation from
the Hebrew is my own. I do not have the Hever Ma'amarim handy to look up
again, so I hope you will be satisfied with the above. I do recall that
this talk of R' Yeruham centers on the imperative of a person moving
gradually, from the level on which he stands to the next and so onward,
and not trying to skip steps in his spiritual development. This is how R'
Levovitz understood R' Yisrael's words.

I would like to point out that an excellent source for gaining insight
into Judaism's fundamentals are the writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael
Hirsch. While some of his writings are not easy to read, they can be
made accessible to our youth. I recently became aware of two books that
Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer authored and that were translated into English
in 1948. They are

Introduction to RSRH's Commentary on the Torah Volume I
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/intro_rsrh_torah_1.pdf>
and
Introduction to RSRH's Commentary on the Torah Volume II
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/intro_rsrh_torah_2.pdf>

The preface to Volume I says in part
    The present popularized adaptation of Hirsch's Commentary on the
    Torah tends to develop the basic concepts and ideas of our Torah
    which characterize Torah Judaism in its ideological uniformity. From
    the extensive material the principal explanations to the individual
    chapters and verses were selected. As far as practicable, the topics
    are presented in concise and popular form, as they are intended
    for a wide circle of readers and, above all, for the mature Jewish
    youth. They should also serve as a welcome addition to the material
    of the teacher in his preparation for Torah-instruction.

Mrs. Meta Bechhofer, the youngest daughter of Rav Breuer, told me that
Rav Breuer wrote only these two volumes.

It is instructive to see how Rav Breuer's commentary deals with Chumash
Bereishis and his aim of presenting the commentary of RSRH to mature
youth. Too bad some of those who teach our youth today do not take
this approach.

Professor Y. Levine
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Stevens Institute of Technology


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 174
***************************************

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..."