Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 027

Tuesday, November 15 2005

• Re: RYBS and kabbalah
• RE: Kabbalah today
• RE: Isolation - is it right or wrong?
• Re: walking 4 amos in Eretz Yisrael
• RE: TIDE
• Re: TIDE
• RE: TIDE
• Re: TIDE
• Re: Kabbalah today
• re eliyahu and kehunah
• Re: re eliyahu and kehunah
• Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• Re: Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• RE: Kabbalah today

In response to my comment:

Dr.Lawrence Kaplan deals in detail with the question of RYBS' relation to
the Kabbalah in his Hebrew article "Motivim kabaliim b'haguto shel Harav
Soloveitchik: mashmauttiim o ituriim?" in "Emunah b'zmanim mishtanim:
al mishnato shel harav Y.D. Soloveitchik" edited by Avi Sagi, Jerusalem
1996, p 75-95.

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote
> I noticed that the preceeding article by 
> Rivka Horowitz (pp45-74) also deals with RYBS use of kabbalistic
> terminology

RDE is correct that the previous article touches on the subject, but
Lawrence Kaplan's article is IMO a much more profound treatment of RYBS'
relation to kabbalah.

My knowledge of kabbalah does not enable me to confirm Dr. Kaplan's
conclusion, but he makes a very convincing case.

I am highly inclined, from my personal knowledge of RYBS and his writings,
to believe, as L. Kaplan does, that his use of kabbalah is literary and
illustrative, rather than literal and substantive.

Saul Mashbaum

RDE wrote:
> S & R Coffer wrote:
>>On November 6, 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>>If you accept Rav Tzadok's assertion that Yashka [ and Shabtzai Tzvi]
>>>reached very high spiritual levels before being destroyed by their belief
>>>that they were divine - it is reasonable that Yashka was aware of the
>>>kabbalistic ideas in the period of Chazal.

>>Where does R' Tzadok say this?

> Machshavos Charutz #1

I read the quote and I'm not convinced. R' Tzadok could easily be saying
that on any madrayga of machshava, even a purely superficial one, the
sakana of spiritual megalomania exists and the satan can be meysis. In
fact he says just that at the end of the chapter you quote. ST and Y
ymch'sh merely *imagined* themselves as holy 9as R' Tzadok states)
and this was sufficient for the satan to inflate their feeling of
self-importance to the levels that ultimately unfolded.

Simcha Coffer

R' Meir Shinaar wrote:
>> it is self evident that any great Torah leader would eschew involvement
>> in foreign ideologies and cultures if the time could be spent in a more
>> constructive fashion such as limud haTorah and asiyas haMitzvos.

> Of course, this statement is anything but self evident. However, I think
> that it points to different divide - a question about the fundamental
> nature of what torah is.

> On the one hand is a view that Torah, is primarily a reflection of
> the divine - and its human garb should be viewed as an external mask,
> not the true meaning. (one thinks of the midrash that the torah is all
> the names of hashem)

> The other views torah, while divine, as being expressed in human language
> and addressed to human beings.

I've never heard of these two views before. AFAIC, both are elements of
one theology and are not exclusive to each other. Torah is of course a
reflection of spiritual realities but that doesn't mean that it doesn't
have true meaning on lower levels. "Moshe horida l'mata" and thus it
has a fundamental truth lma'ala and a manifested truth l'mata.

> For the first view, other sources of knowledge are irrelevant.
> For the second, since the torah is ultimately expressed in human
> language and addressed to humans, other sources which address the
> same issues are of importance to understanding the message of torah.
> Refusal of involvement in "foreign ideologies and cultures" will limit
> one's understanding of the torah.

What does "foreign ideologies and cultures" have to do with chochmah
ba'amim? One can accept the divrey chochmah of the goyim, such as
scientific advancement based on empirical observation, and simultaneously
reject any social involvement with them. Unfortunately, the latter is
often used a justification for indulging in the former, a danger that
RSRH surely must have considered, hence my remark regarding the relevancy,
or lack thereof, of his shita in more ideal circumstances.

[Email #2. -mi]

RET wrote:
>> "Historically, the Jews always attempted to insulate themselves from
>> the influences of the surrounding gentiles."

> I am not sure of the historical accuracy of this. Yes in Poland where the
> goyim were low level farmers it was true, It was less true in Sefardi
> lands like midieval Spain of the golden age and more recent in North
> Africa. It has not been very true since Ghettos were eliminated and Jews
> flocked to the big city rather than the shtetl.

And in all of the above mentioned cases, terrible calamity ultimately
befell the Jews due to their intermingling with the goyim. As far as the
historicity of segregation, our nation was so interested in keeping goyim
out of Eretz Yisrael that they instituted a halacha that a goy is mitameh
bimaga and this halacha persisted until the churban of bayis rishon,
890 years. It was only the Hellenists and subsequently the Sadducees,
(the spiritual heirs of the Hellenists) that promoted the free reign
of the Greeks and Romans amongst the Jews of Eretz Yisrael. In Bavel,
the Jews continued to live in segregated neighbourhoods.

> In Roman days I think there was mcu cross influence between Jews and Greek
> society especially outside of Israel in cities like Alexandria and Rome.
> With Chanuka coming around the corner the number of Greek lovers in
> Jerusalem were quite large. Look at the model of the old city at the
> end of the second Temple and one discovers a hippodrone "across the
> street" from the Bet Hamikdash.
> I dont believe it was only visited by Roman citizens.

Possibly not but you know what happened to those Jews right? They had
terrible shmados as a result of their hisarvus baGoyim. Chanukah and
the 30 year war is a celebration of our liberation from the influences
of goyim, not our embracing of their culture. The message of Chanuka is
quite clear.

Simcha Coffer 

I drew up a source sheet (in Hebrew) of all sources I found on this topic.
I can email the Word document to anyone who is interested. The best
article I found on the topic is Peretz Cohen, "Ha'me'halech arba amos
b'Eretz Yisrael" in Mi'Tzohar L'tzohar, 5744, pages 127-135 (available
in the library of Yeshivat Har Etzion).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Micha wrote:
> RSRH clearly saw TIDE as the ideal, and therefore promoted it despite
> knowing some would abuse it. Had he thought it was only a hora'as sha'ah,
> how would he justify a compromise with reality that leads some astray?

Because he had no choice. Haskala was a growing force in Germany and
something had to be done. Thus RSRH gathered around him a phalanx of the
Jewish intelligentsia and began promoting his approach. There existed
a wide variety of professionals amongst the Hershian ranks such as
doctors, lawyers and even judges. He taught them that their vocations and
"professional leanings" were not a contradiction to Torah and thus was
matzil countless of people from the burgeoning Hasakala movement. The
rest would have gone off the derech anyway. He wasn't pulling Yeshiva
bachurim out of Yeshiva and making them doctors. His approach was focused
primarily on the intelligentsia.

> In any case, perhaps RSRH had a very solid estimate of how many would
> go to an O-lite and how many would leave altogether with and without
> promulgating TIDE. Why do you think these same people would have not
> looked to water things down or leave in some other way?

They may have but the issue is if TIDE addresses these Jews with as
much hatzlacha as the shita which promulgates isolation from goyim. In
the times of Haskala the latter was not an option but today I believe
it is. (BTY, I am far from the ideal example of the latter shita but we
are talking ideology here, not my personal adherence to it.)

Simcha Coffer 

In Avodah V16 #26 dated 11/13/2005 R' Simcha Coffer writes:
> So are you saying that RSRH was entirely unaware of the  potential hazards
> of such a shita

Lemaisah the Yekkes have always been known for their Yiras Shamayim and
dikduk hadin. I hope you have been following my TIDE thread on Areivim.
As I wrote there, the fact that the Breur kehilla deviated to the right
and not to the left bespeaks the essential Yiras Shamayim of the original
community, though it is a pity that they abandoned their mesorah.

B"N I will post to Avodah what I wrote on Areivim but don't have time
to look for it now.

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

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So are you saying that RSRH was entirely unaware of the potential hazards
> of such a shita and if so, how is imputing such a lack of vision to RSRH
> any better than postulating that his shita was meant for his generation
> as opposed to other more ideal circumstances?

This is no different than asking why Volozhin, that produced many more
Maskilim than The Rabbiner Seminary in Germany (which produced none IIUC)
was still more prefferable (according to some). Sometimes one must factor
in a loss in order to prouduce excellence.

This is may very likely have been the calculation of RSRH. Even if you
say that he was aware of the potential hazards, he still felt that his
Shitta was closer to Hashem's ideal than other shitos.

HM

S & R Coffer wrote:
>Because he had no choice. Haskala was a growing force in Germany and
>something had to be done. Thus RSRH gathered around him a phalanx of the
>Jewish intelligentsia and began promoting his approach. There existed
>a wide variety of professionals amongst the Hershian ranks such as
>doctors, lawyers and even judges. He taught them that their vocations and
>"professional leanings" were not a contradiction to Torah and thus was
>matzil countless of people from the burgeoning Hasakala movement. The
>rest would have gone off the derech anyway. He wasn't pulling Yeshiva
>bachurim out of Yeshiva and making them doctors. His approach was focused
>primarily on the intelligentsia.

Haskalah, AFAIK, was *never* a force in Germany. Indeed, there was no
room for it to attract adherents *because* of the philosophy of RSRH which
successfully brunts its force. It was only in Eastern Europe that Haskalah
made inroads. BTW, as one of my former bosses at Artscroll astutely
pointed out to me, the time is ripening for a new Haskalah movement to
make new inroads precisely *because* our contemporary Charedi milieu is
*not* emulating German Orthodoxy, but Eastern European Orthodoxy. V'hu
davar pashut.

>They may have but the issue is if TIDE addresses these Jews with as
>much hatzlacha as the shita which promulgates isolation from goyim. In
>the times of Haskala the latter was not an option but today I believe
>it is. (BTY, I am far from the ideal example of the latter shita but we
>are talking ideology here, not my personal adherence to it.)

TIDE addresses *all* problems of Judaism with far greater hatzlachah than
the shittah which promulgates isolation from goyim. The one *issue* -
not problem - that it does not address as successfully as *some* other
shittos is the production of Gedolei Torah.

KT,
YGB

S & R Coffer wrote:
>>>>If you accept Rav Tzadok's assertion that Yashka [ and Shabtzai Tzvi]
>>>>reached very high spiritual levels before being destroyed by their belief
>>>>that they were divine - it is reasonable that Yashka was aware of the
>>>>kabbalistic ideas in the period of Chazal.

>>Machshavos Charutz #1

>>I read the quote and I'm not convinced. R' Tzadok could easily be saying
>>that on any madrayga of machshava, even a purely superficial one, the
>>sakana of spiritual megalomania exists and the satan can be meysis. In
>>fact he says just that at the end of the chapter you quote. ST and Y
>>ymch'sh merely *imagined* themselves as holy 9as R' Tzadok states)
>>and this was sufficient for the satan to inflate their feeling of
>>self-importance to the levels that ultimately unfolded.

I assume that you mean that I could be right but you feel that there is
an alternative understanding which doesn't necessitate any spiritual
accomplishments or kabbalistic knowledge - which you prefer. In addition
to the above quote Rav Tzadok notes in Takanos Shavin (72a) the
commonality of the spiritual failings of Acher, Shabtzai Tzi and Adam
HaRishon. He states that Shabtzai Tzvi failed spiritually because he
studied kabbalah without first purifying himself from lust. He repeats
this claim in Sefer HaZichronos mitzva 3. He doesn't say the problem
was ignorance or stupidity - but kabbalah study without proper purity &
motivation. I assume that you are aware of the assertions that Yashka
was a student of R' Yehoshua ben Prachya who got distracted by lust. It
doesn't make sense to me that Rav Tzadok was talking about someone
comparable to members of Berg's Kabbalah Center

Daniel Eidensohn

i may be misremembering something i once heard. My memory tells me
that that rav moshe addresses this. He says that for pikuach nefesh you
can touch a mes, and not becuase the child could be revived via a neis,
because ein somchin al haneis, however the pikuach nefesh was for the
mothers sake who was distraught.

Robert Goodman wrote:
>i may be misremembering something i once heard. My memory tells me
>that that rav moshe addresses this. He says that for pikuach nefesh you
>can touch a mes, and not becuase the child could be revived via a neis,
>because ein somchin al haneis, however the pikuach nefesh was for the
>mothers sake who was distraught.

Igros Moshe YD II 174.1 288 - It is listed under Eliyahu in Yad Moshe
page 12

My questions are:

What is the Mekor for 10 or 6 starting together?

Does together mean right at the start or anytime during the first 3
brochos? (an accepted din but what is the mekor?)

If at least 6 do not in fact start together, if the Shatz let's say rushed
to start his shmona esra before even 5 others were ready, does he lose
the "right" to say chazoras HaShatz (see radvaz in Mishna Brura O"H 69:1)

SN

Shaya Potter wrote:
>Something I learned from a shiur of Rav Meir Goldvicht that there's a
>difference between davening b'tzibbur which one needs 10 people davening
>together, and saying certain things that require a minyan (i.e. kedusha,
>kaddish...)

>Minyan does not equate to tzibbur if the 10 people that make up the minyan
>(i.e. 6 + 4 extras) are not davening together. So while one can still
>say the items that require a minyan, one doesn't get the "extra oomph"
>(my words, not R' Goldvicht's) that "tefilla b'tzibbur" is supposed
>to provide. You are basically davening b'yichidut, just can say the
>things that require a minyan.

Igros Moshe OH I 28 page 72 see also OH I #29&30

Daniel Eidensohn

[Copied from scjm, with the author's permission. -mi]

Micha Berger wrote:
> We've already mentioned the braisa quoted in Megillah and Shabbos that R'
> Chisda says the mem and samech of the luchos stood via neis.

[Material from earlier Avodah posts deleted... -mi]

thanks, I'll just add some more information - this is all good info for
the archives

I was fortunate to receive a book called "The Commentator's Gift of
Torah" by Rabbi Yitzchak Sender (a rosh yeshiva). It was given to me
as a barmitzva gift by the Gaon Dayan M Fisher Z"L .

In Chapter 2, there is a discussion "How was the Torah written" that
discusses the 3 opinions.

the 3 positions are
1 The Torah was originally in hebrew and then ezra changed it to
assyrian script
2 The Torah was originally in assyrian script then it was changed to
hebrew script then ezra changed it back to assyrian
3 The Torah was always in assyrian.

position 1 is held by Mar Ukva and Rabbi Yosi
position 2 is held by Rabbi Yehuda the prince
position 3 is held by Rabbi Elazar of modin

position 1  appears to raise many objections.
a)We are told that the Torah (tablets?) that Moshe received contained
crownlets. Only assyrian contains crownlets.
b)We are told that Mem and Samech are hollow and adhered to the
tablets. This only applies to assyrian (furthermore, Looking at
<http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_chart.html>, none of the letters in
ancient hebrew are hollowed out.)
c)How could Ezra - the prophet - have had the authority to change the
writing of the Torah to Assyrian. Since the letters of the Torah are
not to be tampered with, not by 'any other prophet'.

The book then mentions the Radvaz's approach discusses the tablets and
answers all the objections raised against position 1. He says that all
agree that the first set of tablets were written in assyrian. He says
that the rabbis at position 1 hold that the second set of tablets
were written in hebrew. (So I guess the rabbis at position 1 were only
referring to the writen torah when they said the torah was originally
in krav ivri script)
The book goes on to explain that this resolves those objections a b and c,
of position 1.

objection a, is resolved because the Torah moshe originally received
was written in Ashuri (I guess the books reasoning is that the first
set of tablets were in ashuri, and perhaps part of the written torah was
received in ashuri. I can't see the reasoning there, lack of information
regarding the receiving of the written torah).

objection b, is resolved , because - it seems to me from this book -
that chazal say that the miracle of samach and mem adhering only applied
to the first tablets. (I guess a tradition that the second tablets were
in ktav ivri, is strongly supported here. Though if the reason for this
miracle not occurring for the second tablets is that the second tablets
was ktav ivri, then I guess it'd call into question position 3 )

objection c, is resolved beucase Ezra was only changing it back to what
it was originally. (it seems that the book may be implying taht the
whoel written torah was in assyrian)

That's the outline. The book - though informative, doesn't seem to
touch on this issue of whether it's talking about the written torah or
the tablets. Obviously ezra wasn't rewriting tablets, yet the Radvaz
is talking about tablets, as if that was what all teh positions were
based on. A relatied issue would be when the written torah was received
in relation to when the tablets were received. All I know regarding is
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes in Handbook Of Jewish Thought Vol 1, that the
written torah was received in the 1st and 40th year of wondering the
wilderness - 38 year gap where no Torah was received..

I haven't given this as much thought as I should. And I haven't researched
this properly myself by even picking up a Gemara and looking at te
sources myself. But that's my best attempt for now! No doubt the issue
is of interest to many members of the group, and I hope it helps fellow
googlers, should they chose to look into the issue.

On Novemebr 13, 2005 RDE wrote:
>>> Machshavos Charutz #1

>> I read the quote and I'm not convinced. R' Tzadok could easily be saying
>> that on any madrayga of machshava, even a purely superficial one, the
>> sakana of spiritual megalomania exists and the satan can be meysis. In
>> fact he says just that at the end of the chapter you quote. ST and Y
>> ymch'sh merely *imagined* themselves as holy 9as R' Tzadok states)
>> and this was sufficient for the satan to inflate their feeling of
>> self-importance to the levels that ultimately unfolded.

> I assume that you mean that I could be right but you feel that there is
> an alternative understanding which doesn't necessitate any spiritual
> accomplishments or kabbalistic knowledge - which you prefer.

Your assumption is only partially correct. I feel that the spiritual
accomplishment part is incorrect however I am not disputing your proposal
regarding the knowledge of kabbalistic concepts by either one of these
rishaim (ST or Y). ST's knowledge of Lurianic kabbala is well known
and documented and Y could very well have been familiar with kabbalistic
concepts. But none of this has anything to do with levels of kiddusha that
they attained. A person could be well versed in kabbala and simultaneously
be the lowest of the low, not because of his knowledge but rather despite
it. ViKol shechochmaso kodemes li'Yiras cheto, ein chochmaso miskayemes.

> In addition
> to the above quote Rav Tzadok notes in Takanos Shavin (72a) the
> commonality of the spiritual failings of Acher, Shabtzai Tzi and Adam
> HaRishon. He states that Shabtzai Tzvi failed spiritually because he
> studied kabbalah without first purifying himself from lust.

This is entirely different than R' Tzadok in Machsheves Chrutz. In MC he
states that the machshava (imagination) of a man can lead him to imagine
that he is as great as Hashem kavayachol and this was the fundamental
failing of ST and Y i.e. spiritual megalomania. The purification issue
is another, *additional* aspect of ST's downfall.

> I assume that you are aware of the assertions that Yashka
> was a student of R' Yehoshua ben Prachya who got distracted by lust.

Well, I am aware of the two opinions regarding when Y lived (brought
down in Sefer haKabala liHaraavad). The first opinion (our mesorah)
is that he was a talmid of RYBP thus placing him during the reign of
Yanai haMelech. The second opinion (gentile historians) claim he was
born during the reign of Herod. I don't recall seeing anything in the
Raavad about lust.

> It
> doesn't make sense to me that Rav Tzadok was talking about someone
> comparable to members of Berg's Kabbalah Center.

It does to me. AFAIC, Y was an untalented person who wasn't able to make
it in the "olam haTorah" The new testament is full of errors that even
an average talmid chacham would never make. In addition, it must be
understood that Y was operating under an extreme handicap. Mamzeirus
was looked down upon by our nation and saying that your mother was
impregnated by G-d simply didn't cut it. The one thing that Y did have
was a tremendous ambition. And when or nation, led by its Torah leaders,
categorically rejected Y, his ambition turned into a virulent hate
directed at the Pharisees. That is why anyone who is even moderately
familiar the new testament instantly becomes aware of the anti-Semitic
nature of its writings. For example, the man in dire need was ignored
by the Cohain, passed up by the Levite, and again ignored by the
Israelite. Who assisted him? The Good Samaritan! Stories like this
abound in the new testament, open prevarications, misrepresentations of
the most righteous of people, klal Yisroel. Y was not full of misplaced
kidusha. He was full of visions of grandeur which ultimately led to the
greatest sinah against our people.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]