Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 001

Friday, March 19 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:01:10 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: T"T


I am still not sure about this. Do not misundertand. It is very imporant
(and holy :-) ) to learn Ktzos. Put pure Ktzos, lu yetzuyar, without
rreference to a Pasuk or Gemara. I am not sure this is strictly TT<<<

Considering a month ago you rejected my claim that learning dikduk, debating
whether angels have bechira, etc. all divorced from pesukim (as opposed to
MaHaRaL and others who relate to gemeras) is not a kiyum of T"T - have you
made an about face and changed positions? 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:08:00 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #194


> 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? 
> 

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

You mean sevara is not intuitive and logical, derashos are not miSinai, and
takanos and gezeiros are not goverened by ain B"D?  I don't understand.
Explicit Rambams in Mamrim ch. 2 - no limitation there to Tanaim to the
exclusion of babylonian amoraim. 

-CB 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:31:30 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #196


>>>The world of the Yeshiva is suffused with intellectual humility, the world
of the Academy with intellectual haughtiness.<<<

It certainly must take much humility to be able to clump groups of people into
a 'school' of thought and proceed to analyze its faults through ad hominum
attack and gross generalization totally lishma.   Were I on such a madreiga
<sic>!

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:12:39 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Halachic Authority


I just want to clarify a point.

When the Gaon paskened differently than the Baalei Tosofos WRT shi'ah he
contradicted TWO sources of authority:

1- Tosfos.
2- Minhag Yisrael since Tosfos.

R' YGB claims the source for the first source of authority is ruach hakodesh.
I'm skeptical, as the tanur shel achnai story clearly tells us "lo bashayim
hi" excludes bas kol and nissim. Tosfos feel obligated to explain how a bas
kol has the authority to say "halachah k'beis Hillel" (either because the
process would say so, or because the process is silent -- depending on how
you read the Tosfos). We saw that in Abayei's generation, the one with the
more ruach hakodesh was not  the gadol hador. And, the one halachicist who
was known to have spiritually derived information, the SA, used a process that
eliminated or at least minimized its impact on the halachah.

In addition, what does ruach hakodesh buy us? If we're using it to say that
piskei halachah are infallible, then it's more an issue of which p'sak becomes
minhag yisrael. That's the "decision" of klal yisrael, not the gedolim. So,
it would speak to the ruah hakodesh of adas yisrael as a corporate entity.

If you want to argue that the earlier generations were infallible because of
that ruach hakodesh, then we're back to the problem of how the Gra, the Besh"t,
Briskers, and pretty much everyone else can find exceptions to the rule.
If we're talking about some quantitative property that decreases over time,
then the gemara's statement that mesiras nefesh decreases over time gives
us the same effect. With less mesiras nefesh to halachah, their identity
of thought with da'as Torah would decline as well.

In terms of niskatnu hadoros, we should remember that the gemara is trying
to explain the relative paucity of miracles in later generations -- despite
having greater knowledge of Torah. I like the Lubatcher Rebbe zt"l's
understanding of this story based on the "midgets on the shoulders of giants"
metaphor. The latter generations knew more, but they had less ability to
add to the pool of knowledge. Since more information is added than forgotten
(in most generations), the total does increase.

Another source of the second kind of authority could "merely" be procedural.
Halachah is defined to take precedent into account. Perhaps because once we
choose a derech to Hashem that derech needs to be followed consistantly. If
we were allowed to switch the halachah back and forth, we as a People would
not follow any particular route to Him.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Mar-99: Chamishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 305:14-20
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 51b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 21-24


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:07:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Achronim asTorah She Bal Peh (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:03:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <cmaryles@neiu.edu>
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Achronim asTorah She Bal Peh

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> Of course, one man's Torah study is another man's Batala.  If one who 
> normally spends many hours in a Beis HaMedrash would, instead, spend 
> time on this list it would probably qualify more as batalah than as 
> Talmud Torah.
> 
> HM
> 
It would seem from this very good point that it is assur for me to be on
this list, I would hate to be involved in Batalah and not Talmud Torah.
Elie Ginsparg


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:03:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Achronim asTorah She Bal Peh


On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> Of course, one man's Torah study is another man's Batala.  If one who 
> normally spends many hours in a Beis HaMedrash would, instead, spend 
> time on this list it would probably qualify more as batalah than as 
> Talmud Torah.
> 
> HM
> 
It would seem from this very good point that it is assur for me to be on
t@kkqe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:30:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Halachic Authority


On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> R' YGB claims the source for the first source of authority is ruach
> hakodesh.  I'm skeptical, as the tanur shel achnai story clearly tells

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but THAT IS NOT MY POSITION!	

I believe that the halachic decision making process is perforce a rational
one, but that it was conducted by those who possess ruach ha'kodesh
b'kirbam, as the Ramban says. The proof of this is the very ma'aseh of
TSA, as:

1. Everyone there heard the Bas Kol.
2. They had the "chutzpa" to oppose it. Only true mekuravim can do as
much, a la Choni Ha'Me'agel.

(Warning: Run On Sentence Alert!)

I do not know why people equate the possession of ruach ha'kodesh, or
da'as torah, or whatever term - usually pejorative, unfortunately - to
connote the profound and HOLY perspective that Chazal (and, to a lesser
extent, Rishonim, perhaps even Acharonim) bring to bear in the rational
process of psak, thus rendering decisions, through their rational
processes, that have very holy and holiness-generating implications - with
infallibility. If people, to use R" Mechy's term, are doing this to set
up a strawman to attack, fine, but keep me out of it!!

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:27 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Chazal and math


Apropos the postings on pi, I came across a paper by Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitz
in TARBITZ from 1972 *al torat ha'histabrut b'sifrut ha'rabanit* that indicates
that the Akedat Yitzchak  (R. Yitzchak Arama) dealing with the 2 *s'ei'rim*
on Yom Kippur discovered the Law of Large Numbers 200 years before Bernoulli.
Rabinovitz also mentions that Chazal had a deep knowledge of probability
theory and lists the Mishna in Bechorot 8:6, the Rambam in Hilchot Bikkurim
11:30, the gemara in Ktuvot 9a (Ha'Omer petach patuach ..), the RIVASH on
the din of Sfek Sfeka (Tshuvot HaRivash 372), the Rashba in Torat HaBayit
on Bitul B'Rov, the gemara in Yevamot 119a on the probability of whether a
woman will give birth to a male or female child, the gemara in Eruvin 97a
(halokeach tfilin..) and the Rambam's comment (Hilchot Tfillin 2:10) that
these tfillin were sold in bundles of 100,  and the gemara in Taanit 19a (on
the definition of an epidemic and the requirement to fast).

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:45:31 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Halachic Authority


Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> I believe that the halachic decision making process is perforce a rational
> one, but that it was conducted by those who possess ruach ha'kodesh
> b'kirbam, as the Ramban says.
> I do not know why people equate the possession of ruach ha'kodesh, or
> da'as torah, or whatever term - usually pejorative, unfortunately - to
> connote the profound and HOLY perspective that Chazal (and, to a lesser
> extent, Rishonim, perhaps even Acharonim) bring to bear in the rational
> process of psak, thus rendering decisions, through their rational
> processes, that have very holy and holiness-generating implications - with
> infallibility. ...

Would appreciate hearing - from anyone who disagrees with the above - an
explanation of the gemora (Sanhedrin 106b) concerning Doeg and Achitofel.
It states that G-d said to Dovid HaMelech "We should bring Doeg to Olam HaBah"
Dovid HaMelech cited verses against this . G-d said, "At least let Torah be
cited in his name in the beis hamedrash?" Rejected. "At least let his children
be Rabbi?" Rejected.
The gemora continues "Doeg and Achitofel raised 400 questions and none were
answered. Rava commented, " What's so great about being able to ask a
question?" He then notes that the main thing that G-d wants is the heart. In
previous generations they were not so learned but rain fell more readily for
them. Another opinion asserted that Doeg and Achitofel were incapable of
learning properly. This is decisively rejected. The gemora concludes that
despite their tremendous erudition in Torah, they did not *merit* [Rashi] to
have the halacha follow their view because 'the secret of G-d is with them
that fear him [Tehilim 25:14].

What does Yiras shamayim have to do with the Halachic process? These former
gedolei hador could tie anyone one of us in knots in a Torah discussion - but
their halachic conclusions are irrelevant - why?
                                              Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:15:31 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Achronim asTorah She Bal Peh


In a message dated 3/19/99 12:08:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< n Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Harry Maryles wrote:
 > 
 > Of course, one man's Torah study is another man's Batala.  If one who 
 > normally spends many hours in a Beis HaMedrash would, instead, spend 
 > time on this list it would probably qualify more as batalah than as 
 > Talmud Torah.
 > 
 > HM
 > 
 It would seem from this very good point that it is assur for me to be on
 t@kkqe
 
 
  >>
Before you all bail out......
In an earlier thread I bemoaned the lack of 'cross pollination' among many
groups -- it sometimes seems we only want to hear people who agree with us.
There is much that can be learned (factually and processes) outside of our own
bet medrash that can improve our havana (if we keep an open mind). More
discussion upon request.
Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

PS wrt the academy- without comment on the appropriateness of the distinction,
I must point out that I have heard that the entire Brisker derech was
originally trashed as too academic/university-like and R' Chaim referred to by
some as "the Professor"


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:58:03 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Talmud Torah Definition


HM: >> find it difficult to understand how you can say that studying any 
portion of Achronim, like the Ketzos HaChoshen, does not qualify as 
legitimate study of Torah She Bal Peh. My understanding of Torah She 
BeKsav is that it includes any portion of Torah Neviim or Kesuvim, (as 
you have stated) and that Torah she Bal Peh study includes anything that 
relates to the understanding of Torah She Beksav, the Mishna, the 
Gemmorah, and any explanation (whether it be drush v'chidush or shailos 
and teshuvos) of Mishna or Gemmorah, which includes any and all Rishonim 
and Achronim.  I fail to see how the study of any portion of achronim 
would not qualify. <<

Indeed.  I would think simply that the ktzos is an example of: Dovor mitoch 
Dovor.   (This works real well with my hypothesis that the SA by itself has a 
status of Mishno bizman hazeh).  Dovor mitoch Dovor Lich'ora does not end with 
Rav Ashi, it's an ongoing investigation lesof hadoros...a 

Rich wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:07:30 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Machshovo on Pi


I find this pi thread fascinating.  One point I just wish to re-empahsize is 
that just because the Chazal used 3 as Pi does not mean that were unaware of 
closer apporximations.  My emunas Chachomim tells me that even if they might 
have had more precise definitions, they were satisfied in using approximations 
for the sake of simplicity.  Similarly, the solar 365.25 days is not precise 
either; yet that does not prove Chazal were unaware of a more precise number, 
just not choseish for it.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:02:44 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Cheirem dRGMH


RYGB:>>Sorry - it is not the cherem that makes them binding,, anymore than the
chermei ha'kehillos in the 1st perek of BB are binding because of the
cherem - rahter, cherem is the penalty that is applied to the avaryan.<<

Agreed. I postulate that he needed to use the "stick" of cherem as incentive to 
make it stick <Pun>, before it became accepted.  But once niskabel and 
nispashet, THAT became the ikkar meachnism of how we are bound by it.  There are
probably a number of Charomim that did NOT beome niskabel; EG the Cherem of the 
Gro wrt Chassidim perhaps is such a case?

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:37:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Cheirem dRGMH


On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Agreed. I postulate that he needed to use the "stick" of cherem as
> incentive to make it stick <Pun>, before it became accepted.  But once
> niskabel and nispashet, THAT became the ikkar meachnism of how we are
> bound by it.  There are probably a number of Charomim that did NOT beome
> niskabel; EG the Cherem of the Gro wrt Chassidim perhaps is such a case? 
> 

Agreed as well!

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:08:43 -0500
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Yichezqel again: re-reply to RYGB.


RYGB writes:
<Stirke 1. (But keep trying.)>
methinks the ump needs a major upgrade to his eyeglass prescription and
probably cataract surgery as wells. That was hit fair by a mile.  

he continues: <The Novi iterates and reiterates that Nevuchadnezzar will
reap the spoils of war - that, should, at least, indicate a Babylonian
general - not a Persian king a generation later. Sorry.
YGB>

Sigh.  Guess I'll give it another shot, though I find the whole thread
peculiar, with RYGB, from MHP* of course, apparently doing his durndest to
mifalpeil a pishat which would manufacture an unnecessary and quite uncalled
for machloqes between our novi and the scholarly community.  God knows there
are many serious factual disputes and no yorei shomayim could possibly
accept much of the common consensus scholarship of the academic biblical
studies community, but this just doesn't happen to be one of them no matter
how badly RYGB is spoiling to pick a fight about it.  As an aside, it is
rather an irony here that it is the halochic community which has always had
most of the problems reconciling yichezqel with reality, not the academic
historical community - and which almost led to its genizoh back when.   

Lo'inyon.  RYGB interprets the novi as meaning that nevuchadnezzar must
personally "reap the spoils of war" and at the very least that it indicates
that a babylonian general - rather than a persian general a generation later
will do so. To which I say, huh?  Even if this were true (which it's not)
there is simply no contradiction with the historian's take on the situation.
As I noted in my original post, historians have documented a major invasion
of egypt by nevuchadnezzar in -568.  They do not have much detailed
information about the results.  Now, where is there a contradiction even to
RYGB's interpretation?  Perhaps nevuchadnezzar did personally reap the
spoils - the historians simply don't know what happened and don't claim to,
absent finding additional evidence, but they certainly don't contradict it.
Aderaba by documenting nvuchadnezzar's forceful attack they provide
considerable support for the divirei hanovi.  There are many nivu'os in
tanach which are lacking any external support (think of references to
various nations which we don't even recognize today) and which may or may
not have come to fruition (people could always have done tishuvoh,
circumstances change etc. who knows how those things all came out or were
meant to come out.)  Why try to squirm out of one of the few potential
success stories? Why manufacture a problem which the poshut pishat will not
support?. That RYGB should presume to speak for the historian's position
(inaccurately imho) is just one more oddity. Speak of role reversal here. 

I could continue by finding fault (I do) with RYGB's interpretation that the
text <should, at least, indicate a Babylonian general> or his understanding
of what it is nevuchanezzar must be personally marviach, but dai with the
above focus on what historians think. it is  clear that we are very far from
identifying any relevance of yichezqel to our 165 year problem despite
RYGB's insistent citation of same.  

* note to ET: that's My Humble Pespective.

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@dtra.mil


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:43:37 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Cheirem dRGMH


Who has the power to make takkanos and gezeiros in the absence of a Sanhedrin?
Is it possible that RGMH had no other way to create a new din (legislate,
as opposed to interpret) other than the cheirem?

IIUC, the Dor Revi'i stated that beis din's power to pasken was from their
power as representatives of Adas Yisrael (as we see ligabei Korbonos Tzibbur).
If the same is true of their power to legislate, then without Sanhedrin that
power devolves to us.

So, I'd basically agree with Richard Wolpoe and R YGB, that the current
authority today of the dinim the charmomim enforced is the acceptance of
the charomim by Adas Yisrael.

I'm just not sure if either of them would agree with my reason why.

To get back to my previous two posts, I think the power to determine which
d'rachim are DEC is in the hands of the gedolei hador. It takes knowledge
of the material to determine truth.

However, the determination of which of the piskei halachah actually becomes
din is in the hands of Adas Yisrael (the observant Jewish community). Gezeiros
and takkanos, which are not about determining DEC, therefore rest entirely
in the hands of the eidah.

In the days of a Sanhedrin in the lishkas hagazis, they both tended to be
in the same body. The eidah's representative body usually included the gedolei
hador. (At least, those who were in Israel.)

-mi

PS: Apologies to RYGB for letting others' posts warp my understanding of
what he said about ruach hakodesh.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Mar-99: Shishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 305:21-306:5
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 52a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:33:37 -0500
From: "JEFFREY ZUCKERMAN" <jzuckerman@cm-p.com>
Subject:
Talmud Torah


	Does HRHGYGBS have a source for his definition of Talmud Torah, or is 
he (in his words) "the original source" for his definition?

Jeffrey I. Zuckerman


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:06:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Talmud Torah


On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, JEFFREY ZUCKERMAN wrote:

> 	Does HRHGYGBS have a source for his definition of Talmud Torah,
> or is he (in his words) "the original source" for his definition? 
> 

I think you misunderstood. I am not presenting an opinion based on any
specific ra'ayos. I actually first inquired of REC if had a ra'aya that
definitvely classifies the study of Acharonim as TT. RRD and RRW, and
perhaps others I don't recollect, brought sevaros to indicate that it is.
Since I enjoy learning Acharonim bery much, I would like to say so as
well. I think, however, it needs a source, and a precise definition: Is
every sefer of pshetlach on Chumash also included in the mitzva of TT?

BTW, I am mochel the HRHG, etc. Thanks, anyway.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:09:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Yichezqel again: re-reply to RYGB.


On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> RYGB writes:  <Stirke 1. (But keep trying.)> methinks the ump needs a
> major upgrade to his eyeglass prescription and probably cataract surgery
> as wells. That was hit fair by a mile. 
> 

Ever anxious over losing my status as a reasonable Charedi, I will
concede this one for the time being (let's hear it for instant replay).

My assertion that Nevuchadnezzar did not conquer Egypt was based on a
source in the debate that was likely biased. If, in fact, the historians
say there was such a conquest, I apologize and concede!

Ever your humble (reasonable?) servant,

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:57:56 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Torah and the "Avodah" List


Cheryl Maryles wrote:
> >
> > Of course, one man's Torah study is another man's Batala.  If one who
> > normally spends many hours in a Beis HaMedrash would, instead, spend
> > time on this list it would probably qualify more as batalah than as
> > Talmud Torah.
> >
> > HM
> >
> It would seem from this very good point that it is assur for me to be on
> this list, I would hate to be involved in Batalah and not Talmud Torah.
> Elie Ginsparg

I think I should elaborate a bit on what I meant.  If one would use time 
on this list as a substitute for time in the beis hamedrash, then I 
believe it is a lessor form of Talmud Torah and, relatively speaking, 
batala. If, however, one does not take away time from Beis HaMedrash 
study, and simply uses time spent on the list as a form of leisure 
activity, instead of say, playing nintendo, then I believe it is not 
batala at all but a form of Torah study.  My original intent was not to 
say that spending time on this list is batala in an absolute sense. It's 
not.  I was exaggerating to make a point. Any time spent on this list 
discussing high level Torah topics cannot do anything but improve the 
level of our understanding of Yahudus through (as Joel Rich put it) a 
'cross pollination' of ideas. Of course Joel feels that there isn't 
enough of that. But I feel that the give and take of this list although, 
sometimes acrymonious, does offer  a sort of 'cross pollination' or 
cross fertilazation of ideas that can enrich us all if we allow it to do 
so. I just wouldn't do it at the expense of "second seder".  BTW, My 
son-in-law, Elie Ginsparg, could never be accused of any kind of batala 
as he is a masmid and hardly wastes a minute.  I happen to know the 
majority of time he spends on this list in the wee hours of the morning. 
It is a leisure time activity for him and he would never skip seder 
limud for this.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:00:37 -0500
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Acharonim and Rishomim again, and again,..


REC writes:
<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...> 
to which RYGB responds: <It's always nice when we agree. I am glad we agree
that..>

and RRW helpfully chimes in: <..explain why we shouldn't be allowed to argue
with previouos generations.  This should apply to the entire history of the
generations of Klal Israel.  Therefore, Rishonim can't argue on Amoroim, and
Amoroim can't argue on Tanaaim..>

Sure hate to be the skunk at the party just when all this agreeable
fellowship is breaking out all over, but I'm puzzled at least with REC's so
readily conceding the claim and RRW's many masiach lifi sumo references to
the effect that we can't argue with a rishon.  This is simply wrong, as we
in fact certainly do.  Modern posiqim can, and will, choleiq lihalochoh with
shitos rishonim, with the appropriate caveats of kovode rosh, solid ra'ayos,
degree of hispashtus etc., which boundary conditions ensure that's its not a
very usual event, but happen it may.  This point was made, with references I
thought, during the first go around on this topic some moons ago and ayein
shom. Thus its odd to see this seeming agreeable consensus to the contrary
as though nothing had happened.  See also RET's recent letter (guess he was
the first skunk on this go round) on the same subject. 

Hilchosoh Kibasroi: Since we're resurrecting well masticated threads I would
also point readers to some previous postings on the related subject of
hilchosoh kibasroi and yeridoh.  I would remind them that one crucial
element missing from the current exchanges is the powerful moshol of the
nanos al gabei ho'onoq.  Biqitzur nimrotz this concept was borrowed from the
christian scholastics and first introduced to the 13th century jewish world
by the tosephos rid who readily acknowledges its external source.  It was
developed by the christians to solve a very similar methodological problem
of yiridas hadoros, a need to and rationale for disputing earlier
authorities who were held in reverence as being much greater than any
contemporary masters.  It was the innovative power of this christian moshol
which first energized the new application of hilchosoh kibasroi, after a
period of 800 years where nobody thought to apply this kilal to any post
talmudic authority.  Since the moshol was spread in the christian theater,
the sephardic world was basically unfamiliar with it and didn't accept
hilchosoh kibasroi.  This sephardi non-acceptance of hilchosoh kibasroi was
precisely the reason the remoh was driven to write his gloss for the
ashqenazi world.  Anyway, ayein shom for references, especially to tashma,
for inter-era dispute, even amoroim on tanoim. 

More on yiridoh: While RYGB blew off RET for questioning how the proposition
of continual yiridoh should be understood in light of implications for
chazal's relative measurement against their own non-jewish contemporaries, I
couldn't help noticing that he never actually responded to the question,
mostly delivering a paean to the giduloh represented by the unbroken chain
of qabboloh. since I have also given passing thought as how a yiridoh
concept could be understood within the context of constant external
interactions - and internal as well- i.e. did this apply to the ordinary
joe, including perhaps jewish amei ho'oretz, or is this yiridoh to be
restricted just to talmidei chachomim? Etc.  I would actually be interested
in a more substantive response from him which directly treats the issues
raised. (I've been all over the place on this myself over the years) I may
also comment on the assertions he did make at another time, though I am sad
to note that his characterization of the difference between the yeshivoh and
non-yeshivoh was not only inaccurate but bordered on that which we've not
come to expect from our usually even keeled house moderate-c. 

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@dtra.mil


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:15:45 -0500
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Chazal were right but we were too.


RRW writes:
<If we have unequivical proof contradicting Chazal, we have two choices.
(1)We can reject reality and say Chazal was right or (2) we can say that
chazal were knoweledgeable of the science of their day and if they had the
information avilable to them that we now have they would have come to the
same conclusions we have and agreed with reality..>

actually there is a third option which has been exercised quite frequently
lihalochoh and even a fourth propounded by prominent members of the mussar
movement.  The third option is to say that both chazal and ourselves were
correct - however things changed, nishtaneh hatevoh so our current reality
is not congruent to the equally true description of chazal - see R. Gutel's
wonderfully informative sefer which has been referenced here a number of
times. The fourth option often identified with R. dessler z"l, though others
have suggested similar explanantions, is that chazal were always right, even
if the specific explanation offered is no longer acceptable, because there
were other reasons which they didn't impart.

Mechy Frankel  	             michael.frankel@dtra.mil


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:06:33 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Chazal were right but we were too.


In a message dated 3/19/99 3:16:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:

<< RRW writes:
 <If we have unequivical proof contradicting Chazal, we have two choices.
 (1)We can reject reality and say Chazal was right or (2) we can say that
 chazal were knoweledgeable of the science of their day and if they had the
 information avilable to them that we now have they would have come to the
 same conclusions we have and agreed with reality..>
 
 actually there is a third option which has been exercised quite frequently
 lihalochoh and even a fourth propounded by prominent members of the mussar
 movement.  The third option is to say that both chazal and ourselves were
 correct - however things changed, nishtaneh hatevoh so our current reality
 is not congruent to the equally true description of chazal - see R. Gutel's
 wonderfully informative sefer which has been referenced here a number of
 times. The fourth option often identified with R. dessler z"l, though others
 have suggested similar explanantions, is that chazal were always right, even
 if the specific explanation offered is no longer acceptable, because there
 were other reasons which they didn't impart.
 
 Mechy Frankel  	             michael.frankel@dtra.mil
 
  >>
Dear Mechy,
I have articulated 3 and 4 many times in conversations on this topic.  I'd
welcome any insights on the following question which was posed in response:  '
I believe you believe these answers to be true, but would you agree that an
objective 3rd party, with no other facts at his disposal, would assign a high
probability to the contention that these answers are after the fact responses
of a debater trying to defend a tenuous position'

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >