Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 168

Saturday, February 20 1999

• Rav Aharon Soloveitcik
• passive bet din
• Edah Conference - Impressions from an attendee
• Re: Zohar
• Re: passive bet din
• Statement by Rabbi Michael Broyde
• How Authoritztive is the Zohar?
• BD active or passive
• Re: How Authoritztive is the Zohar?
• Author of Kol HaOmer Davar etc.
• Agunot
• Re: How Authoritztive is the Zohar?
• Zohar and Halacha
• Re: Zohar and Halacha
• Re: Zohar and Halacha
• Re: Zohar
• Re: yotzros
• Re: destruction of documents
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar

     Baruch rofeh cholim - Rav Aharon is home.

Moshe Luchins
http://www.members.tripod.com/campsports

 Subject: job of Beis Din
 
R. Teitz writes
>> I'm not sure I agree with this.  It is not Beis Din's job to go out and right
>> the wrongs of the world.  A Beis Din is a court, a formal institution, and 
>> its job is to wait for a claimant to come.
> 
One of the jobs of a bet din is to be the protector of orphans and
widows. This is in addition to issuing new edicts to protect the
general populace.

Rav Soloveitchik brings a story that Rav Chaim was once asked what was
a rabbis most important function and he replied that it was to
protect those without any other protection. Though he was talking
about a rabbi it seems to apply to any bet din.

In modern society this function has been lost because of the secular
courts. However, I suspect that in Bnei Brak and Jerusalem it mat
still exist.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Dear Reb Yosef (and other list subscribers):

    I  was at the conference.  Reserving final judgment until I hear the
tapes and go over them, I feel there was much to be optimistic about.  A
good deal of Rabbi Berman's opening speech would not have been out of place
at an Agudah convention.  Try his comments that a good part  of what is on
TV shouldn't be shown in Jewish homes.  The Jewish Press had a guardedly
favorable review of the conference.  Unless a review of the tapes changes my
mind, I would say that the Press got it right.

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman

No, I have not changed my ideology one iota!  I am not quitting the Agudah,
nor am I joining Edah!

In v2n167, Elie Ginsparg <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> asks:
:  I agree with Joel's question, why number two. If we treat it as a Rishon
: then we think its a forgery--that loses it's credibility.

Not necessarily.

For example, what if the Zohar were orally transmitted (it is nistar, after
all) until the 13th century? In which case, the anachronisms found in the
text could be because of distortions over time in an Oral Mesorah that had
few people in each generation transmitting it.

OTOH, the opinions contained therein are those that were believed in the days
of the Rishonim to be correct, and therefore carries the weight of those
Rishonim who believed it. (Unlike, say, had their belief been based on a
known ta'os.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6093 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 2/18/99 3:44:29 PM EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

> One of the jobs of a bet din is to be the protector of orphans and
>  widows. This is in addition to issuing new edicts to protect the
>  general populace.
>  
As I posted that there are actual Halochos in S"O and in our times of the
obligation of Beis Din regarding Tznius on Yom Tov, making sure no gouging,
etc., they are mentioned in the Encyclopedia Taalmudis under Beis Din.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

2 Adar 5759
February 18, 1999

Eric Greenberg's sidebar article (Jewish Week, 2/19/99 at page 17)
concerning my comments at the EDAH conference about the bet din of Rabbi
Rackman and Morgenstern are completely incorrect and misleading in that
they imply that I do not find the conduct of that bet din to be fully
void according to Jewish law.  As was clear from my twice repeated
presentation at the EDAH conference as well as my published letters
mailed out to all RCA members, it is my view that what Rabbi Rackman and
his bet din are engaging in is a naked violation of Jewish Law, with no
foundation, and the conduct of that bet din is a nullity.  Women
released by Rabbi Rackman's bet din remain married in the eyes of Jewish
law.  There are no qualifiers and modifiers attached, and none where
expressed at the conference or in any of my other writings on this
topic.

I did note that there have been solutions to the agunah problem
predicated on the wholesale abandonment of the Jewish marriage rite
whose goal it is to discourage people from entering into valid Jewish
marriages generally.  That proposal is fraught with public policy
objections of a serious type, as well as intense halachic problems, but
would solve the agunah problem, I noted.  It was that observation that I
made to Eric Greenberg in a private conversation after the lecture was
over, and which he misunderstood and misconstrued.  There is an enormous
halachic difference between a prospective decision to decline to enter
into Jewish marriages, and a retrospective attempt to void valid Jewish
marriages.  The latter is always a nullity in the eyes of Jewish law.

The lecture, which was taped, and whose tapes can readily be purchased
clearly indicates that it is my view that the conduct of Rabbi Rackman's
bet din is a naked violation of Jewish law, and ineffective in
terminating marriages.

The Jewish Week and its staff should quite capable of reviewing the tape
of my two presentations to determine that its report was completely
erroneous, and thus vastly damaging to the cause of Jewish law in the
United States.  I await a retraction and an apology, and am considering
an action for slander and libel if one is not forthcoming.

The tragedy of the agunah problem is compounded by this type of
reporting.

Rabbi Michael Broyde
Member, Beth Din of America
212 807-9042

When DeLeone published the Zohar as Medrash R. Shimon Bar Yochai,
did it take on the status of Tannaitic or Rishonic?

So if our contemporaries publish a recently discovered document from the Rishon 
era (eg Genizo material) does it take on Acharonic status or Rishonic status?

I seem to recall an entry on this list that questioned the halachic authority of
a sefer that had been neglected by poskim for many generations. (I think it was 
the Me'iri??)   Couldn't that by extension be applied to the Zohar, too?

Rich Wolpoe 

Chana Luntz:  >>The idea of a court being a passive institution is one that is 
deeply inbedded in the common law system (that is, the system based on English
law adopted around the English Speaking world, such as the US, Canada,
Australia etc).  However, it is not necessarily true that a court need
always function like that.<<

Ein hochi nami.  I hazard a guess that in EY during the BHM, BD would send out 
shotrim to enforce psak.  I would also guess that Sorei Asoros might have acted 
more as shotrim than as shoftim, i.e. more into enforecment than into decision 
making. 

Rich Wolpoe

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> When DeLeone published the Zohar as Medrash R. Shimon Bar Yochai,
> did it take on the status of Tannaitic or Rishonic?
> 
> So if our contemporaries publish a recently discovered document from the Rishon 
> era (eg Genizo material) does it take on Acharonic status or Rishonic status?
> 
> I seem to recall an entry on this list that questioned the halachic authority of
> a sefer that had been neglected by poskim for many generations. (I think it was 
> the Me'iri??)   Couldn't that by extension be applied to the Zohar, too?
> 
> Rich Wolpoe 

 
Jordan Hirsch gives me the impresssion that he doesn't believe that the
majority of the Zohar dates from RSBY (a Mishna personality), I won't
address this since rov gedolim in Jewish History from the Ari to the Gra
believe that it does. (if this wasn't Jordan's intentiuon I apologize). I
agree that the scenario Micha suggests to defend the treating of Zohar as
rishonic is possible. Regarding Rich's comment--it's true that we wouldn't
introduce a Meiri into Halacha, that's because Halacha has been codified
and accepted, but we surely learn Meiri as a Rishon who can argue wityh
rashi and Tos regarding P'shat in a sugya. WHereas Zohar was already
rewritten when HAlacha was codified. And the codifiers believed that it
was from a Tanaaic source. I think that makes a big difference.
Elie Ginsparg

RW wrote:
"this is a mishno/braiso in the 6th Perek Mishno 6 of Avos.
AND irony of ironies this Mishno itself is anonymous!

Rich Wolpoe"

I believe this is cited in Megilla inthe name of Rabi Elazar amar Rabi
Chanina and is cited in the margin on avos found in Shas and Y&B.

NW

Rav Wolpoe said
>A recalcitrant husband feels justified based upon some motive. 

This seems to be the crux of the discussion.  I think that  Zvi Weiss would
argue that today, there are essentially no halachically sound reasons that would
justify not giving the get, or using the get as a weapon or bargaining tool, a
position I empathize with.  The fact that the husband feels justified is no
different than that of a ganav who feels justified stealing and would be mesarev
to go to a bet din that would judge objectively his gneva.    There is no
prejudgment of any of the other sticky issues of divorce.

 You are arguing that there are potentially legitimate reasons, and the bet din
therefore has to take them seriously.  There may be limitations on the bet din's
halachic ability to order a get.  However, are there sources for what
constitutes, in today's times, grounds for refusing a get that a bet din should
respect?  Am I justified in viewing  someone who refuses to give a get, and
people who aid them, as being  at  best a naval birshut hatorah?

The other argument that I sense is a practical one -  the existence of other
"bate din" who are more sympathetic to the ba'al limits the ability of bate din
who are more what I would call objective.  The solution here, of course, is  to
expose and hopefully eliminate those "bate din".  Rav Bechhoffer did this with
one particularly egregious Rav, and I applaud him for it (even though I
understand that avoda may not be the appropriate forum for such exposes).

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 2/18/99 5:45:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< Jordan Hirsch gives me the impresssion that he doesn't believe that the
 majority of the Zohar dates from RSBY (a Mishna personality), I won't
 address this since rov gedolim in Jewish History from the Ari to the Gra
 believe that it does. (if this wasn't Jordan's intentiuon I apologize). I
 agree that the scenario Micha suggests to defend the treating of Zohar as
 rishonic is possible. Regarding Rich's comment--it's true that we wouldn't >>

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I believe that the Zohar was written in
the 13th century. I also believe that it is an extremely important sefer. I
also believe that some of the material in it is part of an ancient tradition
of Jewish mysticism which was taught and transmitted for many years. I also
believe that it cannot in any way be considered Tannaitic vis a vis Halacha. I
do not believe that it was hidden for 1200 years, and then revealed. 

Jordan Hirsch 

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/18/99 5:45:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
> Maryles@neiu.edu writes:
>
> << Jordan Hirsch gives me the impresssion that he doesn't believe that the
>  majority of the Zohar dates from RSBY (a Mishna personality), I won't
>  address this since rov gedolim in Jewish History from the Ari to the Gra
>  believe that it does.
>
> Let me make myself perfectly clear. I believe that the Zohar was written in
> the 13th century. I also believe that it is an extremely important sefer. I
> also believe that some of the material in it is part of an ancient tradition
> of Jewish mysticism which was taught and transmitted for many years. I also
> believe that it cannot in any way be considered Tannaitic vis a vis Halacha. I
> do not believe that it was hidden for 1200 years, and then revealed.
>
> Jordan Hirsch

Just curious what relevance does your personal opinion (i.e.. "I  believe" ) have
to do with the halachic process or why should it be of interest to this group?. If
all the people we view as gedolim accept the Zohar as an authentic tannaic  source
then it is their opinion not yours that counts for observant Jews. If this was an
academic Jewish studies discussion group than of course your personal opinion is
just as good as anybody else's personal opinion. As I pointed out in a previous
post there are two main streams amongst poskim as to the weight of Kabbalah. The
sefardic stream holds simply that Zohar outweighs poskim but not gemora while the
Ashkenazim hold that Zohar does not outweigh poskim but can decide in unresolved
dispute or can be the sources of chumras or minhagim. As far as I have seen, the
issue of the weight of Zohar and Kabbalah (which I assume you accept) is not
framed as question of its validity as tannaic or pre tannaic material. If you have
evidence to the contrary - that would be of relevance to us all.

In sum - do you have any gedolim who have announced that the Zohar is not a factor
in halacha because they accept G. Scholem's view that it was a creation of Moshe
de Leone? You should also look at Shem HaGedolim's entry on Zohar where he
discusses the issue of the Yaavetz's evaluation of the historical validity of the
Zohar.

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 2/19/99 6:47:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< n sum - do you have any gedolim who have announced that the Zohar is not a
factor
 in halacha because they accept G. Scholem's view that it was a creation of
Moshe
 de Leone? You should also look at Shem HaGedolim's entry on Zohar where he
 discusses the issue of the Yaavetz's evaluation of the historical validity of
the
 Zohar. >>

Actually, what I said was that as a Tannaitic source, it should not be
considered vis a vis halacha. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be considerd,
just that it shouldn't be considered equally with Mishna.
My rather personal way of putting it leads to my next question, which is that
assuming the Zohar is not tannaitic, does that make it any less imortant?
Remember, even those who adhere to the traditional approach to the authorship
will agree that it is not primarily a halacha work. But as a sefer expressing
the Jewish mystical tradition, is it any less important because it was written
in the 13th century? I would like to think it isn't. 
But there is another issue at work here. Implied in Elie Ginspargs response to
my very first post on the subject is the idea that there is something really
wrong with not accepting the Zohar as Tannaitic. The GRA and the ARI
notwithstanding, I am not sure there is something so terrible about that. The
obligation to accept notions based on incomplete information of even great
Gedolim doesn't appear as one of the Ikkarim of our faith.  

Jordan Hirsch
 

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> But there is another issue at work here. Implied in Elie Ginspargs
> response to my very first post on the subject is the idea that there is
> something really wrong with not accepting the Zohar as Tannaitic. The
> GRA and the ARI notwithstanding, I am not sure there is something so
> terrible about that. The obligation to accept notions based on
> incomplete information of even great Gedolim doesn't appear as one of
> the Ikkarim of our faith. 
> 
> Jordan Hirsch
>

I am not so sure Elie implied that, and there is really no point in
discussing how terrible it is. Let us assume that it is not, for the
moment.

But - what "incomplete information" was there available to the Ari, BY et
al that accepted the authenticity of the Zohar that was only later
"completed"?

Along those lines: Is this not the claim of those who state that no all
Torah is me'Sinai - that the authorities until the 18th-19th centuries had
"incomplete information", that, when subsequently "completed", led them to
their rejection?

YGB

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

Yeish al mi lismoch that the Zohar was not R' Shim'on bar Yochai's words.

According to Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar," pp. 40-42 (a reference pointed out
to me by Jon Baker last May), R' Yaakov Emden found that the language and
anachronistic references decisively showed that the Zohar could not be that
old. He proposed suggestions like the authors were gilgulim of RSHBY and R'
Eliezer (HaKalir?), or that there was a second RSHBY who was the author. I
remember seeing the Yaavetz propose the idea I posted earlier, that the
composition was RSHBY's but the actual publication (and therefore final
wording) was much later. Since I can't recover my makor, I may be interpolating
my own words as his. (Which is why I didn't say it b'sheim amro last time.)

Two notes:

1- As can be seen by his siddur, the Yaavetz was no anti-kabbalist.
2- He was anti-Shabbatai Zvi, which may mean that Tishby is quoting a polemic
   work.

-mi

PS: I wrote something about the reasons for neigl vassr, and how most of the
dinim are based on the Zohar's motivation for it. The post predates the
merge with BeisTefila, so it's not available from the majordomo request system
(yet), however those with web access can find it at: 
	  http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n001.html#18

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6094 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 19-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

<<
meinyana dyoma, does anyone know why there are yotzrot for musaf on shkalim
and hachodesh, but not for zachor and para?  [at least in the common
siddurim that i've seen ]
>>

For lack of a better reason, maybe these were intended to be said when Rosh
Chodesh fell on Shabbos.  I have not looked carefully at the piyutim in a
while, but maybe there is a passing reference to Rosh Chodesh.  That would
explain why only the Shekalim and HaChodesh get musaf piyutim.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
1) The kesubbos were destroyed.  I was  told me they were"unenforeable" and 
therefore worthless. (US law might be different than Canadian, I do not know).

The Gittin too were destroyed, and I was told it was  in order to avoid any 
subsequnet ir'ur.  Both parties were given receipts as evidence of the Get.
>>

By destroyed, I assume you mean they were cut, the kesuba across the
signatures, and the get in the pattern used by Batei Din, so that they not be
usable again.  The get is retained by Beis Din for their records.

About the kesuba, there is alot to be said, and I don't have the time now.
Suffice it that if a woman got a secular settlement, she is getting much more
than the kesuba would have given her, and there is a mechila of the kesuba in
favor of the settlement.  Some batei din even state this explicitly.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> According to Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar," pp. 40-42 (a reference
> pointed out to me by Jon Baker last May), R' Yaakov Emden found that the
> language and anachronistic references decisively showed that the Zohar
> could not be that old. He proposed suggestions like the authors were
> gilgulim of RSHBY and R' Eliezer (HaKalir?), or that there was a second
> RSHBY who was the author. I remember seeing the Yaavetz propose the idea
> I posted earlier, that the composition was RSHBY's but the actual
> publication (and therefore final wording) was much later. Since I can't
> recover my makor, I may be interpolating my own words as his. (Which is
> why I didn't say it b'sheim amro last time.) 
> 
> Two notes: 
> 

Me too:

1. (Sarcastic): Lucky RYE was not fooled, considering all those Gedolei
Torah who were.

2. What ever happened to "rov"?


YGB

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> Yeish al mi lismoch that the Zohar was not R' Shim'on bar Yochai's words.
>
> According to Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar," pp. 40-42 (a reference pointed out
> to me by Jon Baker last May), R' Yaakov Emden found that the language and
> anachronistic references decisively showed that the Zohar could not be that
> old. He proposed suggestions like the authors were gilgulim of RSHBY and R'
> Eliezer (HaKalir?), or that there was a second RSHBY who was the author. Two
> notes:
>
> 1- As can be seen by his siddur, the Yaavetz was no anti-kabbalist.
> 2- He was anti-Shabbatai Zvi, which may mean that Tishby is quoting a polemic
>    work.

This thread has unfortunate similarities to the earlier discussion of Rav Yonason
Eibsheutz and Rav Yaakov Emden. Again I would like to request - that before tossing
out second or third hand information [e.g., Tishby] which may be inaccurate - and
which serves to degrade or contradict our mesorah - that some quality library work
be done. Functionally these assertions are of the "when did you stop beating your
wife" category. Fuzzy assertions or conjectures which undermine accepted beliefs
need to treated differently than fuzzy assertions - which still remain fully in the
system - about halacha or hashkofa . For example - the  false [according to what R.
Mordechai Tendler told me] assertion that Rav Moshe vomited up non chalav yisroel
milk is more harmful to the image and status of Rav Moshe than an incorrect
assertion of whether he wore tefilin during chol hamoed. Assertions made by Rav
Yaakov Emden - which have been widely rejected need to be accompanied by that fact
that they have been rejected. For example he asserted that the Moreh Nevuchim could
not have been written by the Rambam because it is so full of apikorsus. He also
looked favorably upon committing suicide as a means of atonement. [see Igros Moshe
C.M. II 69.s page 300]. Do any of you seriously hold that  these positions are
"yeish al mi lismoch"?

It is a fact that Rav Yaakov Emden wrote a analysis of the Zohar. It is a fact that
he did not publish it until 40 years later when he perceived that certain elements
were using the Zohar to justify unacceptable behavior. The publisher writes "The
sefer which is before us starts with the issues of Shabtsi Tzvi and ends with it.
The sefer was  written  primarily as a response to Sabbateans who based their
nonsense and faith on the Zohar. There is no doubt that if it wasn't for the
problem of Sabbateans which had  been renewed again in his day and locale the Gaon
would not have published the sefer at all As he himself testifies  [page 16] that
he had written these comments 40 years prior to publication and he had not wanted
to publish them except for the renewed manifestation of Sabbateans and therefore he
was forced to reveals his claims against the Zohar in order to weaken their
foundations.  This is a answer to the question of how all the sages prior to the
Yaavetz over a period of hundreds of years apparently didn't notice these claims.
They obviously were aware of these issues but felt there was no compelling reason
to make public comment on them and they obviously resolved them to their own
satisfaction."

The Chida (Shem HaGedolim) writes in his discussion of the Zohar. "I recently came
across the sefer Matpachas Seforim.  I noticed - after a brief examination - his
astounding assessment that it was not from a Tanna but from later sources and he
questions the greatness and awesomeness of the Zohar. I was extremely astonished at
his words  in general and in particular because of  our masters Rav Moshe Kordevero
and the Arizal who had ruach hakodesh as well as giloi Eliyahu and knowledge of
everything in the world was open to them. Therefore it appears to me that the rav
[Yaavetz] knew in truth the nature of the holy Zohar. However in his zealousness
against the cursed cult who transgress kares and misasa beis din and who base
themselves on phrases from the Zohar he felt a need to destroy their basis and to
say these criticisms because of Ais La'asos and his intent was pure. G-d in His
mercy should judge him favorably."

Of relevance to us is what exactly did the Yaavetz actually conclude? Contrary to
the impression created by various postings he did not summarily reject the Zohar
but did divide it into various categories. He starts his sefer with "The essential
sefer Zohar is holy as the Heaven to purify..." He summarizes his position in
chapter 7 section 3. "We can summarize our comments as follows. The Sefer Zohar as
published is composed of 3 seforim 1)the first of  which is the oldest of the 3 is
called Zohar. It is composed of three parts. The first part - there is nothing more
elevated than it...in which are concealed wisdom of  the ancients in very terse
abstruse language. There are later additions from the greatest of the generations
of the amoraim...material which was transmitted to them by kabala from the ancients
i.e., the early tanaaim and back to the prophets and Moshe from Sinai. The stories
are possibly from Rav Shimon bar Yochai..."

He continues subdividing and labeling the various divisions of the Zohar and
concludes that some is from the Amoraim, some from the Gaonim and some was written
in Spain.

It has been pointed out to me by talmidei chachomim who are experts in Kabbala that
both the Arizal - who was not only an outstanding kabbalist but also a student of
the Shita Mekubetzes and was well acquainted with ancient manuscripts and textual
analysis  - and the Gra - who spent much energy in correcting texts of the gemora
etc - did not treat the Zohar or its subdivisions according to the classification
of authenticity suggested by the Yaavetz. They made comments on the parts that the
Yaavetz held to be not from the Rashbi as readily as the other parts. They gave no
indication that there was any variation in authenticity.

In sum, the Yaavetz raised questions and proposed various answers which were
intended to undermine the perceived validity of certain parts -  though clearly not
all - of the Zohar. His motivation was apparently to undermine various heretics
who were basing themselves on these sections of the Zohar. As far as my research as
shown, gedolei Torah  have not accepted the Yaavetz's conclusions. Before anyone
can assert that the Yaavetz is a valid minority opinion - it is first necessary to
cite those post Yaavetz gedolim who agree with him. [Tishby and Scholem don't
count] Not every comment made a gadol - and the Yaavetz was a gadol - has passed
the test of time and become accepted as a "yeish al mi lismoch".


                                              Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]