Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 192

Tuesday, March 16 1999

• Re: Magen David
• Re: Learning aggadah
• Re:Magen David
• Re: Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's view of Edah (fwd)
• Changing Minhogim
• Re: Avodah V2 #191
• Histgoricity of Megillo
• Changing Minhogim
• Re: Disagreeing with gedolim
• Re: RSK and Nusach Ashkenaz
• Who says what?
• samchut of Chazal
• Re: samchut of Chazal
• Re: Who says what?
• Re: Disagreeing with gedolim
• Rav Moshe's sources
• Re: diagreeing with gedolim
• Minhag and nusach hatefillah
• Re: matza

Here is the book info from Barnes and noble about thhe MD book.



The Magen David: How the Six-Pointed Star Became the Emblem of the Jewish
                    People
                    W. Gunther Plaut




                               Retail Price: $12.95
                               Our Price: $10.36
                               You Save: $2.59 (20%)
                               In-Stock: Ships within 24 hours
                               Format: Paperback, 114pp.
                               ISBN: 0910250170
                               Publisher: B'nai B'rith International
                               Commission on Continuing Jewish E
                               Pub. Date: August  1995

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> 
> I find it surprising (and telling) that you consider it possible that a
> text without an authoritative interpretation might be "useless" and not
> worth learning.  However, given that much of mikraei kodesh falls into
> that category, I suggest you rethink your assumptions.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
I thought that I was saying that you can learn these texts and I was
suggesting that you felt they were useless---I'm not sure I understand
what you're talking about. I feel like I'm reading one of those aggadata's
which need explanation from someone much wiser than me.
Elie Ginsparg

Supplementing RMB and the Maharal:

Everything about Dovid comes in sixes: The pasuk first describing him in
Shmuel I gives six attributes, as does the brocho Magen David after
the Haftoro, ve'duk. 

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> I know this may not sound like a quesion befitting such an "exalted"
> group, but I'll ask asnyway:   Does anyone know the origin of the Magen
> David as a Jewish symbol?  
> 
> Raffy
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> I think we may have a misunderstanding.  Either that or the subject of
> this discussion has shifted when I wasn't looking.  If you believe the
> issue to be whether we can argue with a Rishon on a halakhic issue, then
> we are in complete agreement.  However, in my view, this does not
> transform the Rishonim into Hazal, nor does it elevate their
> pronouncements on non-halakhic issues to divrei Hazal.  (Which, I
> thought, was the issue.)  Moreover, I am hard-pressed to believe that
> the Hatam Sofer was referring to comments of the Rashba that Hazal had
> ru'ah ha-kodesh. 
> 

It's always nice when we agree. I am glad we agree that while of lesser
status then Chazal the pronouncements of the Rishonim have the same kind
of binding effect on us.

I don't know whether the CS was actually referring to the Ramban, but I
bet he would - I am not hard pressed here at all...

> True, but not relevant.  The analysis of shitot Aharonim is also talmud
> Torah.  In fact, a discussion of my analysis or your analysis of
> Halakhah is also talmud Torah.  What does this prove? 
> 

Uh, I don't think so. I am not sure that shittos acharonim in and of
themselves are TT. Do you have any proofs? L'ma'aseh there is little
difference, of course, since whether it is TT or not, we must engage in
it.

> Aha.  This reminds me of the story I once heard of a person who asked a
> Lubavitcher many years ago if he thought the Rebbe was Mashi'ah.  The
> Habadnik replied, "We used to, until he told us he wasn't." 
> 

Cute, cute - but mystifyingly irrelevant to my point. Care to expound?

> I am not sure how this answers my question.  Do you view these takkanot
> as equivalent to, say, yom tov sheni?  Or shevu'at heiset?  To the
> mitzvah of eating marror bi-zman ha-zeh or taking lulav kol shiv'ah?  I
> don't. 
> 

Well then, please tell us the difference - from our perspective.

> In any case, as you know, the Sefardim are not bound by a number of
> these takkanot.  Yet, to my knowledge they are bound by the takkanot of
> Hazal. 
> 

The process is the same: It so happens that all of Chazal is nispashta
while not all shittos rishonim are.

> Maybe vis a vis you, but not vis a vis me.  My rebbe was once asked a
> question about Maharal.  He replied, "I've never read him."  (For more
> on perush aggadah, see my response to Elie Ginsparg.) 
> 

Kind of wise-alecky. Hashem yechaper.

> Okay, I will try to refute Baba Batra 12.  I will start by pointing out
> that I find a total of four statements reflecting on the neviut on that
> daf.  Let us examine them seriatim, then weight the evidence.  The first
> is the comment of R. Yosi regarding Sumkhus, "Ein elu ela divrei
> neviut," which both Rashi and Tosafot make clear is an insult.  The
> second statement -- which I presume is the one you are thinking about --
> is that of R. Avdimi de-min Haifa, that nevuah was given to the
> hakhamim, which the Gemara revises to say that nevuah was not taken away
> from the haakhamim.  The third is Amemar's comment that Hakham adif
> mi-navi.  The fourth (on amud bet) is the well-known statement of R. 
> Yohanan that nevu'ah was given to the shotim and tinokot.  Read
> together, I find the weight of the evidence of the sugya leads to the
> following conclusions:  R. Avdimi's view is directly contradicted by R. 
> Yohanan, and was apparently not shared by either R. Yosi or Amemar. 
> 

B"H it is still Adar! We are not impressed...


> As I wrote before, there is a vast difference between Hazal claiming the
> mantle of ru'ah ha-kodesh and a later authority ascribing it to them. 
> The same goes for the Rishonim.  There is simply no comparison. 

I know you asserted this, but I need independent proof...

> Moreover, this is not a statement about pesak, it is a statement of
> theology, and the Hazon Ish is neither the first nor the last word on
> the subject.  Indeed, although I am not certain I can find an explicit
> statement to this effect, I would venture to say that most Aharonim read
> the Rishonim for ikkar ha-din, rather than to be neheneh from their
> kedushah. 
> 

Undoubtedly. So do I. But could you please find the first and/or last word
elsewhere for us? :-)

B'yedidus as ever,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> Subject: Rav Lichtenstein's view of Edah

Could some kind person post this letter and/or is there a place where a 
interested citizen could find this on the net?

Todah 
> I refer and reccomend all readers of the list to Rav Lichtenstein's letter to
> the editor in this past week's Forward . The article is an intellectual  tour
> de force and rejection of the notion that the Rav Z'l would have lent his name
> to the cause of Edah.I have read the letter a number of times and I'm still
> numbed by the power and passion in this letter. I think that based upon the
> articles by Rav Twerski, Rav Meiselman and Rav Lichtenstein that Edah may have
> to think twice before claiming the legacy of the Rav z'L.

Our esteemed moderator Micha:
>>So, for example, I'd argue that the Gr"a thought that having three matzos 
for the seder was a ta'os in that it violates lechem oni. It's not just
that he found the concept of unifying lechem oni and mishneh lechem (so that 
one needn't have two sh'leimos for the seder) more logical -- he found the 
alternative to be wrong.

In discussing this idea in personal email with another Avodah reader, a 
doubt arose whether the mechanism for nusach hatfillah was the same as 
for other piskei halachah, or whether it's more fluid.

I invite that other reader to present his side of the conversation.

This implies that it's possible for ba'alei Tosfos to make mistaken piskei 
halachah. If I'm correct, then the Gra changed the definition of sh'kia 
back because he thought Rabbeinu Tam made a mistake.
 <<

BTW I like your 3 matzo illustration is a good one.  

Questions:
1)  Has the Gro's 2 matzo shito been nispashet?  
next Question; was Rabbeinu Tam's shito wrt zmanim nispashet?

2) What binds us to Cherem DRGMH bzman hazeh?  did they not expire at year 5000,
(the old Y5K problem <smile>)?

3) How are we bound by kitniyos?  <pun intended> In general, when is a psak 
binding on a community?  On klal Yisroel?  Can we go back and revive minhogei 
Beis Shammai?

4) Re: Taus, bepashtus Rabbeinu Tam felt that Rasshi (and the Rambam's) shit o 
legabei Tefillin are betaus.  Can we now don RT Tefillin in lieu of Rashi's?

My POV is: once a psak is ACCEPTED (unlike Tankkons Ezra which apparently never 
was) it is ipso facto not a TOUS.  IOW, once the psak has been ratified it is 
binding as kitniyos...

My esteemed rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel argued the facts with me.  Rather than 
use Micha's Taus criteria, he claims that there were always SOME ashkenazic 
sommuntities that did do as the Gro/Gaonim.  IOW Rabeeinu Tam's shito was never 
unanimous though it was predominant; and therefore it was never totally binding 
and that's the Gro's loophole.  (I question his view of the facts, yet I must 
defer to his greater knowledge of history of that era).

I do not disgaree that the Gro has every right to argue Rabbeinu Tam's lomdus.  
I question the right of communities to abandon their accepted psak/minhog en 
masse.  BTW I suspect that the Gro never envisioned his shitos would uproot 
current pracice, rather it would have only impacted his immediate circle, which 
was quite narrow at the time. 

If the Gro by virtue of his erudition can undo widespread accepted practice, so 
why not give up on kitniyos, matzo ashirro, Cheirem de RGMH etc.  After all, 
Sefardim do not adhere to any of the above either (well more or less).

While we are not bound to agree with earlier lomdus - we are bound by accpted 
practicelevel.  If not let's say Beis Hillel was betaus and read Shma like Beis 
Shammai, and perhaps that is how R. Tarfon justified what he did?!  Then what is
the Mishno pointing outng kdai hoyisso lochuv..., does it not mean that once the
pro-Beis Hillel decision has been made it is no longer an option to go back and 
observe like Beis Shammai?

Rich Wolpoe

> 
> > I personally feel that Rav Moshe was unique in his openess and that is
> > what made him into great posek that he was. 
> > 
> > Eli Turkel
> > 
> 
> What about RSZA? And, none other than the CI himself (let us ignore his
> successors for the moment)? Remember what he said about following R'
> Kook's psakim?
> 
> I think the rigidity you (and I) detest is of Brisker origin...
> 
> YGB
> 
My apologies, I certainly did not mean that Rav Moshe was unique
in the sense that he was the only one that was open - as R YGB points
out there were others.

In terms of rigidity we used to refer to Hungarians rather than
Brisker -). 
A friend of mine asked Rav Lichtenstein a shaila. After receiving
a heter the questioneer remarked that Rav Soloveitchik was machmir.
Rav Lichtenstein responded that Rav Soloveitchik was a Brisker while
he wasn't.

As to Chazon Ish, I have a problem. I certainly agree with R. YGB that
in many piskei halacha he showed his independence of achronim and
I think at times even rishonim.
On the other hand in his letters he stresses the fact that we can't
disagree with earlier generations.

Eli Turkel 

>>In fact I believe the answer is
correct ie. xerxes=achsveirosh, my point is the assumption that the
megilla is wrong because of others and not vice versa, just like the
assumption that seder olam is wrong not herodotus etc. 
Elie Ginsparg<<

I gave Elie the long answer privately.
The short answer is Ein hochi nami, the author of the original article is not a 
Maamin in Mesorah.  M. First's reply was to show that there is indpendent 
confirmation of the identiy of Ach as Xerxes.

Rich Wolpoe

Micha: >>
So, for example, I'd argue that the Gr"a .. found the
alternative to be wrong.<<

Ok.How about the Gra and the Mayim Acharonim controversy?  
Tosfos: Melach Sedomis no longer exists therfore Mayim acharonim no linger 
applies...
Gro:    Melach sedomis is NOT the sole reason for melach sedomis, therefore 
mayim ahcaronim still applies.

Let's generalize this a bit.  
The Gro points out (to Tosfos' consternation) that the Gemoro is not giving 
every last reason for its psak.  Isn't it fair to say the same for the Rishonim?
 That they did not necessarily give exhaastive rationales for their approach to 
a given question?  Therefore, according to the Gro, how can we ever assume a 
Rishon to be b'taus?  After all, they may have omitted other supporting cirteria
for the sake of brevity etc.

Aderabbo, didn't R. Chaim Brisker make a career out of assuming the Rambam is 
always right and then reconcilling everry internal and external stiro?   Why not
just say, "If the Gemoro says x and the Rambma syas Y the Rambam is toeh?"  Eloe
mai, the Rambam gets the benefit of the doubt.  Is Rabbeinu Tam inferior to the 
Rambam, in that he does not get the same benefit of the doubt?

Sliperry slope indeed!

Rich wolpoe

RYBG:
>And, none other than the CI himself.   Remember what he said about
following R'
>Kook's psakim?

No, I don't.  Could you enlighten us?
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What was RSZ's assumption wrt to Nusach Ashkenaz, was he fixing something
that 
was broken or did he simply argue on Nusach Ashkenaz's pre-supposition
that it 
didn't need fixing in the first place?

IOW, was Nusach Ashkenaz "breaking the rules" by not ending "mei'ein the 
Chasimo" or did Nusach Ashkenaz hold that this was not necesary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both sides of the second formulation of your question are correct:  RSZ
must have felt that Nusach Ashkenaz was "breaking the rules" and the
anonymous ancient editor(s) of Nusach Ashkenaz must have felt that this
was not totally necessary. 
RSZ has a gemara on which he can rely.  Pesachim 104a.  I wish I knew
where Nusach Ashkenaz's pre-suppositions come from.  

One of the advantages of RSZ's siddur is that we know who put it together
and can analyze it without worrying about "taos Ha'Defus" issues and
layered additions.  When it comes to Nusach Ashkenaz, there are many
fragments which do indeed come from the Geonim, but we don't have any
explanations from them as to why they disagreed with the Talmud WRT
nusach.   

When one looks at nusach issues from a psak perspective, RSZ and the
GRA's tendencies to change the nusach don't seem as revolutionary.  

More comments are still welcome.  :-)
Raffy

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Eli clark>>
  What I am suggesting is that when Maharsha interprets aggadah he
is giving his own interpretation.  It has his authority, not Hazal's.
Similarly, le-havdil, if I interpret aggadah, it has only my authority.<<

BTW, we had this debate in YU.  Does R. Chaim Briskers' interpretations of the 
Rambam carry the weight of the Rambam himself or are they R. Chaim's own Torah? 
Lich'ora, acocrdingn to the Brisker derech, Since R. chaim had to prove his 
point beyond any possible objection, therefore it meant to say that what he said
is identical to what the Rambmam meant all along.  The Kesef Mishneh and others 
might not have agreed with that conclusion. <smile>

Rich Wolpoe  

>>>I think this is surely a shegags me'pi ha'shalit. I have cried BB 12 over
and over again, but have yet to see anyone cogently refute the reference.<<<

I have about 5 times.  All the gemera says is Chazal possessed ruach Hakodesh
- the gemara never states that is the reason to follow their psak.  The same
logical leap with no proof.

>>>"Im Rishonim k'*Malachim* etc." is the rationale for
not taking issue with previous generations.<<<

Your source presents an aggadik treatment of the respect we are to accord
earlier generations - but its not halacha. For halacha, again - see Rosh perek
4 of Sanhedrin who felt there were no limitations on disagreeing with the
Geonim as long as ra'ayot are presented because 'Yiftach b'doro k'Shmuel
b'doro".  Logic and rationale win - despite the fact that the Geonim might
have had higher levels of ruach hakodesh.  You still haven't addressed this
source or the Kesef Mishne, or the Ohr Sameiach. 

Your proof from Achronim paskening  - were it correct we could dispense with
the wealth of Shut literature.  If we rely on achronim with confidence that
their intuitive grasp of halacha will lead them to a correct conclusion even
if every prat along the way isn't spelled out at the moment, is that at all
relevant to the development of the many sugyos in Shas where the logic of
dinim IS spelled out - sevara, kra, derasha, etc.?!  

Re" Babylonian amoraim -  takanos and gezeiros fall under ain B"D yachol
l'vatel,  sevaras are intuitively binding, derashos and halachos l'Moshe
miSinai are d'Orayta - where does ruach hakodesh fit in as a source for
samchut?

To return to the same question - which masechta has a din paskened on the
basis of ruach hakodesh?  The only one I recall is R' Eliezer's bas kol -
which was ignored.

This topic has sickeningly been exhausted.

-CB

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Re" Babylonian amoraim - takanos and gezeiros fall under ain B"D yachol
> l'vatel, sevaras are intuitively binding, derashos and halachos l'Moshe
> miSinai are d'Orayta - where does ruach hakodesh fit in as a source for
> samchut? 
> 

So far as I can tell, you are the original source for all the material in
the preceding paragraph.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> BTW, we had this debate in YU.  Does R. Chaim Briskers' interpretations
> of the Rambam carry the weight of the Rambam himself or are they R.
> Chaim's own Torah? Lich'ora, acocrdingn to the Brisker derech, Since R.
> chaim had to prove his point beyond any possible objection, therefore it
> meant to say that what he said is identical to what the Rambmam meant
> all along.  The Kesef Mishneh and others might not have agreed with that
> conclusion. <smile>
> 

R' Simcha Zelig, the Brisker dayan, paskened that refrigerators could be
opened on Shabbos because R'Chaim had proved that the Rambam holds like
the Aruch on pesik reisha d'lo nicha lei.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> No, I don't.  Could you enlighten us?
> 

That one may follow the psakim of R' Kook (assumedly even over his - the
CI's - own), but not his hashkafos. (Paranthetically, the Rosh Yeshiva in
Sha'alvim told us that he more or less took the opposite stance - he
accepted the hashkafos of R' Kook with the halachic standards of the CI).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Similarly, I understand there was a lot of "teamwork" between R. Moshe F. and
> his son-in-law R. Moshe T. wrt to biological/medical decisions.  IOW, ideally
> the 2 perspectives work together to determine the emes.

A very unclear and *perhaps* inaccurate  statement. I once asked Rav Moshe Tendler
- "since you were the main source of medical knowledge for Rav Moshe"...He
interrupted and said simply that it wasn't so. I then asked him how Rav Moshe (Y.D.
II #76 page 143) could deny the medical reality of dilation prior to birth. Rav
Tendler replied that he wasn't aware that there was such a tshuva.

There is no question that Rav Moshe did discuss issues with Rav Tendler and there
is no question that Rav Tendler knows biology. I don't know, however, whether that
constitutes "a lot of teamwork." Further information would be appreciated from
anyone who was familiar with this issue. As a side note - Rav Moshe's description
of metzius - for example dishwashers and stoves - don't always correspond to
accepted understanding and therefore any tshuvos involving technical issues -
should be clarified with a qualified posek before applying them. Not being an
expert - I was told by several talmidei chachomim that his discussions involving
stoves are more applicable to Israeli stoves than American ones. Rav Moshe also
questioned Dr. Rosner's statistical basis for concern about cigarette smoking since
Dr. Rosner world is in the hospital and he notes that those who have cancer tend to
have smoked while outside the hospital we see that most people who smoke do not get
cancer. In addition Rav Moshe's tshuva dealing with the use of a lie detector is
also problematic.

In sum I don't think that Rav Tendler should automatically be held accountable for
the factual basis of Rav Moshe's rulings. I agree, however, with the point that
there needs to be teamwork between a posek and experts in the field.


                                       Daniel Eidensohn.

Eli Turkel wrote:

> While I agree with this post in theory, in practice it doesn't go
> that way - at least in many circles.
>
> I have read many times complaints that Rav Chaim Naeh had the chuzpa
> to disagree with Chazon Ish about Shiurim (yes Rav Chaim was first !).
> When Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagreed with Chazon Ish about electricity
> many people wanted to put him in cherem until others pointed out that
> he had already written an important sefer before then.
>
> I think the general attitude in many places especially in Israel
> is that one is not allowed to disagree with chazon Ish in particular
> and with gedolim in general. This is independent of the strength of
> ones arguments.

Three points. First of all Rav Moshe (Y.D. III #88 page 329) poskened that you are
allowed to disagree with the Chazon Ish - even if you live in Bnai Brak. "one has
no reason for concern to question and to disagree with contemporary gedolim even
the greatest gedolim as long as it is done respectfully therefore there is
absolutely no concern to be in Bnai Brak and to say shiurim - in fact the opposite
is true he will be a melitz yosher for you by the fact that you study his
seforim." Secondly the issue of disagreeing with the Chazon Ish depends on the
particular issue and which community you associate with. On many issues he is just
articulating the normative position and is a name that people will listen to [see
Magen Avram Simon 156]. Thirdly Rabbi Rakefet told me that when he made Aliya the
Halacha generally did not follow the Chazon Ish in Israel and in fact the Chazon
Ish's views were described as chumras. Over time they have become more main
stream.

In sum, you can find people saying many things. Some might even try to intimidate
others. Doesn't mean that they are right.


                                Daniel Eidensohn

>>>As I mentioned about a week back, far too many minhagim have been willfully
changed by far too many people for me to believe there's no standard mechanism
for doing so...whether the mechanism for nusach hatfillah was the same as
for other piskei halachah, or whether it's more fluid.<<<

See Magen Avraham siman 68 citing Yerushalmi as the basis for the issur of
changing nusach, also Peat HaShulchan 3:19.  See Shut Chasam Sofer O.C. 16 for
an attempted justification of his Rebbe, R' Nosson Adler, switching nusach.
Also Shut MaHaRaM Shick 43, Divrei Chaim II:10, Igros Moshe IV:33 and II:24
(very poignant), and others; the common denominator is nusach is no different
than other minhagim.  There is no mechanism for change; see Pesachim 50a 'al
titosh', etc.

-CB

<<
In fact I was referring to the fact that Chazal points out that
Avraham and lot had Matzah even before Yetzias Mitzraim
>>

Ibn Ezra points out that their having matza has no special significance vis a
vis what we do on Pesach.  As he comments, if you had guests show up at your
door unexpected, what would you do, have them wait for 2 hours for bread, or
throw together a quick dough and make matza.

EDT

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


[ 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         ]