Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 067

Sunday, December 9 2001

• REED and Rambam
• Re: Out of context: Rambam and REED
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: Did the Rambam trump himself
• Re: Did the Rambam trump himself
• RE: Organ Transplants
• RE: Organ Transplants
• Tendler
• PIKUACH NEFESH: Yoreh Deah 117
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz and the Shulhan Arukh
• Chanuka and heresy
• Re: Nusach
• Re: Nusach
• Re: Nusach
• Re: Nusach
• Re: taking off tfillin
• Re: Nusach
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz and the Shulhan Arukh
• Re: Chanuka and heresy
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: Out of context: Rambam and REED

For the sake of clarification, please cite verbatim the language in
the Hakadama LPeirush HaMishna LSder Zeraim that is paraphrased as the
source for the " 1000 enter and only I leaves ." It would go a long way
in understanding the source, its meaning and how it was quoted by REED
and others before and after REED.

        Steve Brizel
        Zeliglaw@aol.com

There are ways to disagree with REED and ways to disagree with REED. I too
have difficulty with REED's approach, and am not in complete agreement
with it, but I find R' Moshe Rudner's argumentation below abrasive and
scornful. His line of reasoning - basically that the Rambam was chozer bo
- smacks of the same revisionism that is often a charge leveled against
Artscroll et al. I looked in my standard source for chillukei dei'os in
Machashava - a wonderful book written as a High School textbook (I *wish*
HS's should have such a curriculum!) - "Perakim b'Machasheves Yisrael"
by R' Shaul Yisraeli, chap. 12 - no hava amina that the Rambam reneged
on this one - I have never ever seen the Rambam's position on this
relationship between the Chacham and the rest of the Beri'ah as anything
other than his consistent position (and see no contradiction from the Yad
cited below - aderaba, there the Rambam says anyone may be a *tzaddik*
like Moshe, not a *chacham* (in actuality, however, this is another
matter, relating to the age-old viku'ach that Dr. Shinnar mentioned in
our recent contretemps en passant, the dispute that Prof. Leiman applies
to the Tiferes Yisroel sof Kiddushin: pre-destination vs. free-will.

I fail to see the relevance of the Rambam's ideal of widsom and the
acquisition thereof - which may differ, indeed from the contemporary
approach - and his philosophy of "yechidei segulah." One may, again,
take issue with the Rambam on the issue of yechidei segulah (YS) vs. the
idea of the national destiny (and a true TIDE adherent would, indeed),
but if one accepts the principle of the primacy of YS, then one is still
allowed to quibble as to what those YS might ambit to accomplish.

Kol Tuv, YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> Once I have finished this Rambam , i would like to offer a comment, but 
> not just yet

See Moshe Rudner's comments. WADR, his reading is in context and not a
basis for REED' s statement. I would like to hear a response from RYGB
how that section of the Hakdama supports REED. Of course, we know that
regardless of whether the Rambam is a basis for the 1000/1 statement, that
is the way that the system is functioning or malfunctioning, depending
on one's perspective. Yet another instance of how textual influence
communal instituitional growth, even if the text is only a paraphrase!.

                    Steve Brizel
                    Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Tuesday 04 December 2001 7:34, reb Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:08:19PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
> :> The only principle of faith that Rambam claimed to prove on the basis
> :> of logic (and I'm not sure how "human" logic differs from logic) is
> :> existence of G-d (& scholars debate even that).

> : I believe that Rambam's definition of a'hdut haBore & noncorporeality
> : to be philosophically derived....

> RSC is discussing an attempt at a rigorous logical proof: listing
> postulates and working in a manner similar to what is taught in HS
> Geometry.

> Yes, the Rambam takes other positions based on philosophical derivations,
> but not as logical proofs.

How is the following reasoning for you:
(sorry for taking some shortcuts, I want to keep the post short)
* There is a God, because there must have been a First Mover (from
Aristotle). His existance is necessary.
* The First Mover is omnipotent, because otherwise He could not have
been the first mover to those things not within His power.
* The First Mover is unique, e.g. there is only ONE God, because we
must consider: if there are more than one First Movers, they could
either be of varrying power or of equivalent power. If they are all of
equivalent powers, we must reject them as first movers and look for
a common first mover to them all, as equivalence is a characteristic
of a created being. Veha raayah, if we would eliminate one of them,
the world would still exist, as the first movers are all equivalent,
and one can substitute for another, and they are all omnipotent. If,
on the other hand, the first movers are of varrying power, then we must
conclude that those with the lesser powers could not have been the prime
movers for the more powerful ones, as a weak element does not bring
about initial movement to a strong element. Hence, there is only ONE God.
* The one God can have no corporeality, as if He would have a body,
we could find a part that is more essential than another part. If so,
the First Mover would still be the First Mover even lacking that non
essential part. Hence, that part is not essential, thus not First Mover
(first bullet point).

Repeating this analysis ad nauseum, we will end up with a First Mver
who has absolutely no corporeality, physical, spiritual, sublime or
otherwise. This flies in the face of those mekubalim who believe that
the 10 sefirot are part of the Divine (alas lower elements than Ein
Sof. You can readily see that the mekubalim employed a different logic
than the philosophers). The impression that, for example, the Zohar sees
the sefirot as part of the Divine, is reinforced by the numerous times
(that is an understatement) the Zohar states matters about the sefirot
and then states that it is all One. A good statrter is Kegavanah,
although there are a lot more pieces that ill confirm this matter.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:28:01AM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
:> RSC is discussing an attempt at a rigorous logical proof: listing
:> postulates and working in a manner similar to what is taught in HS
:> Geometry.

:> Yes, the Rambam takes other positions based on philosophical derivations,
:> but not as logical proofs.

: How is the following reasoning for you:
: (sorry for taking some shortcuts, I want to keep the post short)
: * There is a God, because there must have been a First Mover (from 
: Aristotle). His existance is necessary.
: * The First Mover is omnipotent, because otherwise He could not have been the 
: first mover to those things not within His power.
: * The First Mover is unique...
: * The one God can have no corporeality...

Yes, as I said, the theological ikkarim are logically derived. However,
the rest of them are not. The Rambam does not offer such  a proof for
Matan Torah or Techiyas haMeisim. Having a proof is not part of his
definition of an ikkar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:31 PM, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> At 11:29 AM 12/6/01 -0500, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
>>> But what RSK found dubious, the application of the question of when the
>>> neshomo departs the body, is precisely RSZA's problem with harvestations.

> >Does he base his argument on a gemora?

> I think the one in Yuma.

Daf #, please

On Friday, December 07, 2001 9:50 AM, Micha Berger [SMTP:micha@aishdas.org] wrote:
> I already alluded on Areivim to his maqor -- if decapitation or moach
> tefuchah are misah, then apparantly the loss of brain activity is part
> of the definition.
> 
> Also note that the discussion seems to revolve around which measurable
> physical change defines misah. The question is not one of science, but
> rather which scientifically defined event is halachically significant.

Sorry, I don't have R' JBL handy right now. Does the gemora discuss
yetzias haneshomah?

Akiva Miller:
> I don't follow your logic. Just because the physicians are unable to
> revive a person who is in a certain condition, that does NOT necessarily
> mean that he is already halachically dead...
> Furthermore, as I understand it, Rav Tendler himself does not rely on
> the current inability to revive such patients. Rather, he bases his
> position on the gemara which gives decapitiation as evidence of death,...

I agree with you. You are right in assessing the reasons why Rabbi
Tendler arrives at his halachic definition of death. I was simply saying
that since no brain-dead person has ever been revived, it adds weight
to the argument of what defines death by the medical profession.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

SHAVUA TOV.

I would ordinarily have asked the *she'eila* to Rav Eliyashiv (who is my
aunt's first cousin) but because of the great importance of the question
and because it's a public rather than a private question, I need the
help of the group (especially from the Rabbanim [in chronological order:
Rav Teitz, Rav Henkin, Rav Bechhofer] in order to ask the she'eila the
right way.

Furthermore, there seems to be a machloket between sefardi and ashkenazi
psak.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that in addition to medicine, I am
also a consultant on emergency preparedness to Israel National Police
Headquarters. Something I had suggested 11 months (and 200 dead Jews) ago
was finally accepted on Friday: to place sealed bags of pork lard on all
busses here to prevent suicide bombers (a Muslim shahid goes to Heaven,
but a shahid who gets into contact with pork or lard can never become a
shahid]. Curiously, most of the dati'im present were uncomfortable with
the proposition [and Mechy F: this includes your brother's son-in-law,
the legal advisor of the Ministry of Police and Internal Security].

MESA'YEI'A: the issur of mesayeiah (Shach YD 151) isn't relevant since
the lard would be purchased from Arab Xtians in the Galil or from abroad
[rather than from a Jewish source].

QUESTION: whereas the Beit Yosef in TUR Yoreh Deah 117 equates *sikka*
with *shtia* thus prohibiting shmearing oneself with lard, the Bach there
and most Ashkenazi psak is much more lenient (see: Nekudot haKesef for a
list of those that permit]. However, even here the qualifying parameter
seems to be a need (e.g. skin disease or TZAAR); use on a healthy person
isn't permitted. Likewise, the Yad Efraim indicates that the reason why
shmearing onesef with lard is permitted is only because this type of
lard is *nifsal m'achila*.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: would the inyan of pikuach nefesh [no bus would be
blown up by a suicide bomber] be equated with TZAAR ? [the type of lard
that would be purchased is *food grade* not the type that would be used
in soap or lotion]. Would placing sealed bags of lard on busses (and
in front of stores) be b'geder "sechora" ? Would there be a difference
between Sefardi and Ashkenazi psak on this [as per Beit Yosef] ??

TACHLIS: not only do we have a need to ask the she'eila the right way,
we also have a need to explain what we want to do to lay people.

Any help would be enormously appreciated.

KOL TUV
Josh

In a message dated 12/2/01 7:52:43am EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> Perhaps, but Dr. Berkovitz obviously felt that this was precisely the
> problem. Tradition had been so codified and evolved to become infallable
> which he believed was the antithesis of Torah SheBal Beh.

> He told me that he personally believed that courage was lacking upon
> the present day generation to effect legitimate change Halacha....

Richard Wolpoe (8:65) wrote:
: The meta-problem would be that each 'courgeous" rabbi could ignore
: precdent and do his own eis la'sos Lashem

: This is waht happened in the beginning of the 19th centruy and we now
: call this Reform. Virtually every Reformer claimed that they were doing
: Reforms lisham to keep Jews from converting out...

I don't think this is quite fair to Rabbi Berkovitz. As I understand the
story, and please correct me if I'm misreporting it, Rabbi Berkovitz
went to R. Moshe and proposed his taqanah for agunot. According to
Rabbi Berkovitz, R. Moshe's reply was that although mei-iqar ha-din,
R. Berkovitz's taqanah was valid, R. Moshe did not feel that he could
institute such a major change in the traditional halakhic practice
concerning dinei qidusin v'geirushin. Now R. Moshe's anivut in this
instance, taking my version of R. Berkovitz's version of R. Moshe's
response as an accurate rendition of his response, is certainly admirable
considered narrowly. But R. Berkovitz obviously felt that such anivut
was out of place under the circumstances. One could well argue that
the Gemara did not mean to praise whichever tanna it was whose anivut
in psaq led to hurban bayit sheini. The appropriate role model in this
case would have been Rebi, not Rebi of eit la'assot, but Rebi of my
one of my two favorite gemarot (Hulin 6b-7a) maqom hinihu li avotai
l'hitgadeir bo. That is why, it seems to me, R. Berkovitz was so upset
by his encounter with R. Moshe, and at least based on my understanding
of his version of what happened, I think that his reaction was certainly
understandable.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

I just heard an interesting psak in the name of Rav Soleveitchik. He was
asked whether a person who denied that the historical events of Chanuka
had happened was an apikorus even if kept all the halachos?

He replied that such a person was an apikorus and said his source was
the Rambam Hilchos Tshuva 3:8. There it says that "there are 3 who are
kofrim of Torah. 1) a person says that the Torah is not from HaShem...2)
One who denies its interpretation i.e., the Oral Law 3) One who repudiates
its reporters...."

He said that refers to those who reject the statements of chazal.

                Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 12/7/01 9:51:43am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com
> My son described having davened ma'ariv for the amud in the Meah She'arim
> shtieblach. He said that after shemoneh esrei of ma'ariv, they say
> kaddish shalem and then shir hama'alos mima'amakim. Then they told him
> to say kaddish and then borechu and alenu....

I davened in a Syrian minyan for Minchah and Arbit
They always said a mizmor a kaddish and clsoed wtih Aleinu
Aleinu used to be closing hymn like Adon Olam and Yigdal. In fact in
FFDM the ydi NOT say Kaddish after aleinu either.

TSBK requires a closing Kaddish. Aleinu probably gets one because hit
does havea smattering of psukim

Whenever my minyan has NO chiyyuv at all, and we want to say ONE
Kaddish, I defer the Aleinu Kaddish and do a Kaddish after a mizmor
instead. Breue'rs does similar. They say 3 mizmorim after Aleinu at
Ma'ariv l'chol. If there is but one chiyyuv he says kaddish ONLY at
the very end.

One of the reasons to add Kaddish after aleinu is when using the old
model when only one person said kaddish at a time.

In some shuls they preserve this a bit by having shloshim and Yahrtzeit
say one kaddish after Aleinu and all chiyyuvim one after the yom. I know
a nusach sfard place that adds one mizmor after Ma'ariv and does the same.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On 6 Dec 01, at 22:36, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> My son ...    said that after shemoneh esrei of ma'ariv, they say
> kaddish shalem and then shir hama'alos mima'amakim. Then they told him
> to say kaddish and then borechu and alenu....

This is standard Nussach Sfard (and Eidot HaMizrach) for during the
week. And in Nussach Sfard there is generally no Kaddish after Aleinu. But
it's not Mi'Ma'amakim - it's Shir la'Maalos Esah Einay (121).

Nussach Ashkenaz davens the same way as in chu"l (other than not saying
Baruch Hashem l'Olam) and adds Barchu after Aleinu (which is a mechaye
for guys like me who are constantly late).

-- Carl (who was the 10th for the 1:45 Maariv at Zichron Moshe Thursday
night :-)

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:29:27 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:
> This is standard Nussach Sfard (and Eidot HaMizrach) for during the
> week.

I know;  some of my best friends are Sefaradim <g>

> Nussach Ashkenaz davens the same way as in chu"l (other than not saying
> Baruch Hashem l'Olam) and adds Barchu after Aleinu

I know that too but if you read what I posted, he was davening in the
Meah She'arim shtiblach. Are you saying he davened minhag Sefarad there?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 8 Dec 01, at 23:35, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> <<Nussach Ashkenaz davens the same way as in chu"l (other than 
> not saying Baruch Hashem l'Olam) and adds Barchu after Aleinu >>

>i I know that too but if you read what I posted,  he was davening in the Meah
> She'arim shtiblach.  Are you saying he davened minhag Sefarad there?

I assumed that he was when I saw the question. It's entirely possible
that someone told him to daven Nusach Sfard. Or more likely, he said
Tiskabel and someone shouted at Shir La'Maalos and everyone else (seemed
to) follow.

-- Carl

Joel Rich:
> I recall learning that it is improper to take off your talit and tfillin
> during kriat hatorah but I can't find as ource. Does anyone know of a source?

Shulchan Aruch 25:13 "The common practise is not to take off tefilin
until after kedushas uvo l'tzion...and on a day where there is a sefer
Torah the practicse is not to take it off until after the sefer Torah
is return and placed in the aron kodesh.

Mishna Berura 25:58 states "If one takes it off before this he should be
careful at least not to take the shel rosh off in front of a sefer Torah
in order not to uncover one's head in front of it. Instead one should
go off to the side. Concerning the shel yad where there is no uncovering
or concerning the shel rosh under a talis gadol it is permitted."

                    Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 12/9/01 10:05:04am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>> Nussach Ashkenaz davens the same way as in chu"l (other than not saying
>> Baruch Hashem l'Olam) and adds Barchu after Aleinu

> I know that too but if you read what I posted, he was davening in the
> Meah She'arim shtiblach. Are you saying he davened minhag Sefarad there?

I honestly do not know what was the dynamic in the Mei'ah She'arim
shtiblach.

I was merely providing background information. The slaient point is
that Aleinu did/does not merit its own kaddish according to several
minhaggim and mizmorim did/do. In light of that information, the
underlying premises have to be revisited.

So I did not address your scenario dirctly. Rather I pointed out some
of hte dynamics of the pre-suppositions underlying your post.

Perhaps a disclaimer was in order re: these background points, that they
had been considered but discounted in this situation because of reason X.

If you say that the Minhag sefard and the nusach Sefard are indeed far
apart then this is the reason X. AFAIK there are so many verions of
Nusach Sefard to begin with.

Also as we see, that the original Minhag FFDM that did not say kaddish
after Aleinu evolved - I can only assume under influence fomr other
kehillos. Therefore it would not suprise me to say the the minhag in
Mei'ah Seh'arim has also been under the influence of Ediot hamizrach

This can be verified - do they point with pinkies at the Torah during
Hagbah? If so, then QED they have picked up minhag from outside
influences.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/9/01 10:04:41am EST, DGLASNER@ftc.gov writes:
> . According to
> Rabbi Berkovitz, R. Moshe's reply was that although mei-iqar ha-din,
> R. Berkovitz's taqanah was valid, R. Moshe did not feel that he could
> institute such a major change in the traditional halakhic practice
> concerning dinei qidusin v'geirushin. Now R. Moshe's anivut in this
> instance, taking my version of R. Berkovitz's version of R. Moshe's
> response as an accurate rendition of his response, is certainly admirable
> considered narrowly.

The questoin is 
Did R. Moshe feel
1) He was too big an anav to make changes?
2) Minhag was too strong on this issue - evn if the texts allowed
flexiblity?
3) R. Moshe felt this chagne was too radical in the context of his
time and place and that the intrinsic issues were not the issue, but
meta-issues were?
 (A friend of mine terms this policy issues)

I will let expert on R. Moshe's writings make this call. Certainly re:
the Teshuva re: Siamese twings R. Moshe stepped out boldly to make a
ver cougrageous psak

Re: Minhaggim etc. It is not my impression that R. Moshe was afraid to
overturn minhag based upon Svara. This is based upon his willingness
to switch from 3 Matzos to 2. Iam also told that R. Moshe held that
Levayaos on 1st day of YT (as in Shavuos shechal b'Erev Shabbos) should
NOT be done. This is based upon Svara and overturns long standing
minhaggim in those communiteis that still do levayas on YT (e.g. Both
Williamsburg and Washginton Heights)

Re: the abrogation issue, I was merely pointing out that some people -
LEFT and RIGHT feel the SA is revisable and revisable.

This boils down to your hashkafa on Halachah.

Can you go back to original sources and overturn the historic evolution
of Halachah as seen through the prism of Rishinim, Tur, SA etc.?

In discussing this issue with my old Charusa in Tur tangently:
He felt that ONLY in excpetional cases may a poseik go bakc to Gmara
and over-rule the subseuquent literature. He also felt that if no
Rishon said it, it is unlikely that one pshat in the Gmara is correct.
re: post Talmudic Halachos and Minhag (e.g. the minhag of not being a
Sanek Twice) we had another discussion - but I digress

Based upon a quote from Ri Migash as interpereted in an  Article by E. 
Kanarfogel RDEK:
1) Regular Rabbonim/Poskim ought ot consult post-Talmudic literautre and
NOT pasken against the Gaonim and the Rif - IOW a mara d'asra should
not break with precedent or re-interpret Shas on his own
2) Greater Poskim { AIUI those who have mastered Shas and Yerushalmi and
Tosefta etc.) can break with precedent but ONLY after dealing with the
post-Talmudic literature. IOW it is OK for a Great Poseik to go back to
original sources, but he should at least DEAL with subsequent sources,
and not ignore them.

I certainly think R. Moshe and the Gra were on the level of going back
to original sources. I am not so comfortable that they gave subsequnt
voices enough considereation. IOW, when they ignore a Rema/Maahril I
owuld like to se them say so specfically why. OK this is a quibble. But
it is importatn to point out that unless/until one has MASTERED Shas and
related literature (e.g. Yerushalmi Tosefta etc.) one should not pasken
directly from a Gmara w/o looking at Rishonim and/or SA.

re: Agunos, I tend to feel that this is a true eis las'asos and worthy
of hora'as sha'ah. This is not like calling women to the Torah.
There is IMHO real abuse in the current system. It has been the ONE
major area where I would davka advoacate a more radical solution and I
feel the poskim that do it should be careful to point out that thiss IS
an exception and not to use this exception as a precdent to overturn SA
in general

Takkanos such as those involving ksuba and polygamy were davka to protect
women from abuses within the Halachic structure. We HAVE a precedent
for making a Takkanah.

So in the case of Kitniyyos, I would uphold the Rema even thouhg it is
but a minhag
Inthe case of Kiddushin al tnai etc, I would advocate more racial
lamdus but ONLY because of the need for a hora'as sh'ah or Takkana or
eis La'assos.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/9/01 10:04:32am EST, Daniel Eidensohn
yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> I just heard an interesting psak in the name of Rav Soleveitchik. He was
> asked whether a person who denied that the historical events of Chanuka
> had happened was an apikorus even if kept all the halachos?
> He replied that such a person was an apikorus and said his source was
> the Rambam Hilchos Tshuva 3:8....

I agree that the Rambam held this way. the question is:
Q: Do we pasken lem'aseh like this Rambam to make an otherwise observant
person into a "mamash" apikoros?
A: I tend to doubt it.  

Proof? Do we ask prospective Geirim to accept these stories as part
of their affirmation of beliefs? And would we use this as a method for
rejecting Geirim lemafrei'a?

However I do agree that ma'amarei Chazal cannot be cyncially disbelieved.
That IS tantamount to apikorsus. However, I do not thing that
allegorizing such statements is apikorsus. If so one can probably make
a case that the Rambam hismelf would be in trouble at times <smile>

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

At 12:49 AM 12/9/01 -0500, Steve Brizel Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> Once I have finished this Rambam , i would like to offer a comment, but
>> not just yet

>See Moshe Rudner's comments. WADR, his reading is in context and not a
>basis for REED' s statement. I would like to hear a response from RYGB
>how that section of the Hakdama supports REED. Of course, we know that
>regardless of whether the Rambam is a basis for the 1000/1 statement, that
>is the way that the system is functioning or malfunctioning, depending
>on one's perspective. Yet another instance of how textual influence
>communal institutional growth, even if the text is only a paraphrase!.

I do not understand to what I am supposed to respond. If the world was 
created for the purpose of achieving YS (=yechidei segula), then the system 
that best promotes that goal is the one that should be put in place. It is 
quite a simple and straightforward argument.

(You are also viewing a statement made when yeshivos were not a mass 
sociological tool through the prism of their current status. This is not 
fair. Traditionally, yeshivos were akin to universities, i.e., the ivory 
towers intended to produce the YS that would lead and shape the destiny of 
the nation and the world. This was still very much the case in the epoch of 
REED and the CI. The German educational system was intended to achieve a 
different goal - even at that time - and that is certainly linked up to the 
early modernization of Germany in contradistinction to the Eastern European 
milieu. It is not unlikely that were the CI or REED to have survived to 
this day (indeed, were the Rambam here!), they would have taken into 
account the different status of near-universal yeshiva education and come 
closer to the German model, perhaps advocating a two-tier system.)


Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Although I appreciate your response, I must say that I see nothing in it
that merits a rebuttal. I think that the original post speaks for itself and
that the issues raised have not been addresses. A number of straw men though
have taken a severe beating. But, lest it be said that Shtika K'Hoda'a
Dammi, I'll have a go at it.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> There are ways to disagree with REED and ways to disagree with REED....
> I too have difficulty with REED's approach, and am not in complete agreement
> with it, but I find R' Moshe Rudner's argumentation below abrasive and
> scornful.

I don't think that my post was overly abrasive and scornful, surely not
as abrasive and scornful as saying "Yamutu Elef Schalim V'Yehene Mimenu
Chacham Echad" and backing that up by claiming that the Rambam said it.

His line of reasoning -- basically that the Rambam was chozer bo --
smacks of the same revisionism that is often a charge leveled against
Artscroll et al. I looked in my standard source for chillukei dei'os
in Machashava -- a wonderful book written as a High School textbook
(I wish HS's should have such a curriculum!) -- "Perakim b'Machasheves
Yisrael" by R' Shaul Yisraeli, chap. 12 -- no hava amina that the Rambam
reneged on this one -- I have never ever seen the Rambam's position on
this relationship between the Chacham and the rest of the Beri'ah as
anything other than his consistent position (and see no contradiction
from the Yad cited below -- aderaba, there the Rambam says anyone may be a
tzaddik like Moshe, not a chacham (in actuality, however, this is another
matter, relating to the age-old viku'ach that Dr. Shinnar mentioned in
our recent contretemps en passant, the dispute that Prof. Leiman applies
to the Tiferes Yisroel sof Kiddushin: pre-destination vs. free-will.

My line of reasoning had nothing to do with my hope that the Rambam was
Chozer Bo, the two are completely unconnected. I thought that was clear
in my original post but I guess not.

I also never "revised" the Rambam. What I said was: "Although he makes
no indication (that I am aware of) that later in life he changed his
opinion vis-a-vis the purpose of the world (i.e. the Wise man), in Sefer
Hamada, Hilchot Tshuva 5 he does seem to indicate that anyone can achieve
the greatness of Moshe Rabbeinu. This sounds a different tune than his
earlier writing about the world being created only for the few smart,
wise people." And, in fact, it does sound different.

Did the Rambam change the opinion that he had in his 20s that the
world was created for the few genius thinkers that arise every few
generations? He never clearly says so, but, as I pointed out, later in
life (Tshuva 5) he wrote that anyone can be a Tzaddik like Moshe Rabbeinu
and I would think that Tzaddikim like Moshe Rabbeinu are not here just
to labor on behalf of Chachamim like Aristotle and to keep them from
becoming lonely. (Lule D'mistafena it could be suggested that Rambam
had a certain ambivalence on the subject of the masses of humankind.)

I fail to see the relevance of the Rambam's ideal of widsom and the
acquisition thereof -- which may differ, indeed from the contemporary
approach -- and his philosophy of "yechidei segulah." One may, again,
take issue with the Rambam on the issue of yechidei segulah (YS) vs. the
idea of the national destiny (and a true TIDE adherent would, indeed),
but if one accepts the principle of the primacy of YS, then one is still
allowed to quibble as to what those YS might ambit to accomplish.

R' Dessler wrote a letter to a friend regarding teacher's seminaries
and the Yeshiva system in general (Michtav 3:355-358). In the course
of this letter he quotes a Gemara and a Rambam to back up his position
that the Yeshiva system is designed to be of benefit to Yechidei Segulah
even if it causes the majority to suffer. To the objective observer
neither quote back up that position. The quote from the Rambam, "let a
thousand fools die so long as one Chacham benefits", is not only not a
correct quotation but it takes the Rambam's entire Weltanschauung out of
context. The Rambam did not recommend being Meabed B'Yado 999 students
out of 1000, nor did he see great value in the type of Talmud Torah for
the masses that R' Dessler was advocating.

There are ways to disagree with R' Dessler and there are ways to disagree
with R' Dessler. Disagreeing with his usage of source material (in this
case) is one way and I think that has been satisfactorily done. What
remains is to disagree with him in Svara, which can be done in many
different directions. A few are...

A) Don't destroy the masses of Klal Yisrael for the sake of the Yechidei
Sgula.

B) LHefech. The system is wonderful for all.

C) That's not the way to benefit the Yechidei Sgulah. They become great
despite the system, not because of it.

D) In accordance with Rambam, the type of Iyun studied in Yeshivot is
not all that worthwhile.

etc.

But as far as R' Dessler's "quote" of Rambam goes, I can't imagine
there's much more to say on the subject.

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


[ 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         ]