Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 003

Tuesday, March 23 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:02:19 +0100
From: OUAKNINE Salomon <salomon.ouaknine@etam.fr>
Subject:
abreviations


Shalom,

Can you please explain those roshe teivos :
	IMHO
	RRD
	RRW
	RET

Thank you	


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:57:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Daf Yomi Pshat


I was dared to come up with a sensible connotation for the kos of Dovid
holding 221 log l'asid lavo, the gematria of "revaya" ("kosi revaya").

This is what I cam up with:

Two Hakdomos:

1. The advent of Moshiach ben Dovid is associated in Perek Chelek with
epochs of seven years, ayain sham.

2. On Rosh HaShana, al pi din one may fast during the day, making kiddush
and eating only at night.

Now, in 221 log there are the equivalent of 884 kosos for kiddush
(kos=revi'is).

On every Shabbos and Yom Tov we make Kiddush twice, once at night and once
during the day, except, as noted, on RH when it is not a chiyuv during the
day.

In Galus we have two days YT. Me'shum kevoda shel Eretz Yisroel lo gazru,
true, but since the Galus occurred, rov minyan u'binyan of Am Yisroel has
maintained YT sheni.

So altogether we make kiddush twice a day on four days of Succos & Shmini
Atzeres/Simchas Torah, four days of Pesach, two days of Shevuos, and once
a day on RH - 22 more kiddush's a year, 154 over seven years. In seven
years there are approximately 365 Shabbosos, 730 over seven years. 

So, in seven years:

Shabbos Kiddush:    730
Yom Tov Kiddush:    154
                    ___
                    884 = the amount of kiddush cups in the "kosi revaya".


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: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:01:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: abreviations


The firrst RT is not my fault, it predated my expereince with e-mail. The
last two are probably my fault, as I have taken to addressing previous
postings by list members by adding the honorific "R" for Reb (it has not
yet come up, but I would probably do the same when referring to a post
written by one of the women on our list) and then their initials. I assume
the RRD is of that ilk, although I do not recall off hand to whom it
refers.

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, OUAKNINE Salomon wrote:

> Shalom,
> 
> Can you please explain those roshe teivos :
> 	IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
> 	RRD
> 	RRW  = R' Rich Wolpoe
> 	RET  = R' Eli Turkel
> 
> Thank you	
> 

You're welcome!

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: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:45:14 -0500
From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
Subject:
Chazal and probability theory


Many folks have been making statements to the effect that Chazal knew
probability theory, or discovered logarithms, or hit upon any number of
mathematical results.  While I have not read R. Rabinovitch's book on
the subject (which lacuna probably invalidates mucn of what I'll say
here), I would ask people to respect the difference between knowing
certain results which, with hindsight, we know to be generalizable from
theory (e.g., (1+1/n)^n --> e as n --> infinity), and knowing (i.e.,
deriving and proving) the theory itself, from which an infinite number
of results can be derived.  This is akin (lehavdl) to the existence in
many other cultures of ethical principles which we know to be derivable
from our system of exegesis, but which do not correspond to any
underlying knowledge of that system.

Thus while Chazal certainly knew more mathematics than most people give
them credit for, and while they certainly knew a great many empirical
mathematical facts, I would be skeptical of any claim that they "knew"
probability theory.  To give a contemporary example: the Babylonians
were terrific astronomic observers, but knew very little about astronomy
on a theoretical basis.  (Yes, they had their theories, but we know them
now to be incorrect.)

Let Chazal do what they do best, and let mathematicians do what they do.
I don't think our faith has to depend on some sort of magical
scientific foreknowledge on the part of Chazal.

Sholem Berger


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:40:53 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Niskatnu


Micha: >>
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.<<

Indeed. And  I agree that the Gro had every right to dispute Tosfos and question
his rationale.  

I question the right of Klal Yisroel to run off and take the Gro's lomus and use
it to repeal excepted hanhogo.  And I postulate that the Gro himself might not 
have intended that to happen.

BTW, the Gro's point wrt to Bayis Sheini MIGHT have been that the real life 
experience of SEEING baysi shieini in action beats any textbook version of it.  
IOW, seeing, living, and experiencing Torah first hand might provide greater 
insights and knowledge than simply accepting a 1500 year old Mesorah of what it 
might have been.

The philosophy of TSBP is that it is by nature not something that can be reduce 
to text.  I asked my son's mohel what percentage of his learning was textual vs.
practical?  He said the practical hands-on learning was 90%! think of the Avoda 
on Yom Kippurim.  One live experience beats reams of paper descriptions.

In the meantime, when he read something besheim Rabbeinu Taam or the Rambam, we 
must realize that the written word might be a smalle subset of that Rishon is 
trying to say.  That had we the priviledge of living in their communities, that 
it all might make better sense.

EG, Rav Shcwab's one weekedn with the chofetz Chaim spawned dozens of great 
stories.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:53:36 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
The Soloveichiks


RYGB: >>This humility is indicated most poignantly in the defrence that the Rav,
RYB Soloveitchik, displayed vis-a-vis his father, whom others, such as R' 
Gilbert Klapperman in his history of YU, regarded as an inferior scholar
to his son.<<

I once stated in the YU BM that the Brisker Rav, Reb Velvel was a bigger Talmid 
chochom than his older Brother R. Moshe Soloveichick, the Rov's father.

I was told that was lav davka.  That R. Moshe S. (true to his first name) was 
simply a bigger onov than his younger brother.  And as an Onov, he might have 
been quite underrated.
  
There is an anecdote that, that R. Moshe S. once said, if you think I can learn 
wait till you see my son (ie. RJB).

From my own limited Brisker epxerience, I got the feeling that the Rov didn't so
much outlearn his fellow Briskers as out-articulate them.  His Sevoros were very
similar to other Brikser lamdonim; it was his koach hahesber that was  unequaled
by any other Contermporary Gadol (at least so far as I could tell).  When he 
finished his shiur, the Gemoro was crystal clear and you were convinced there 
could be no other way fo seeing the peshat.

I was told by his Talmidim in Yoreh Deah circa 1962, that he took a hiatus and 
another Rosh Yeshiva subbed.  When the Rov came back, he covered the same sugyos
all over, and they said, NOW we understand it. 

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:46:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Today's Daf


On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Just like to note an example of the unique level of divine relationship
> with the Amoraim indicated by the visitation of slav to the generations of
> R' Yehuda, R' Chisda and Rabbah.
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 

In todays daf we read that Gavriel is punished for asking the cherub to
give him the coals and not taking it himself---sounds like bechira for
angels
Elie Ginsparg
 
p.s. I write this b/c I believe that this point is torah and not battalah


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:50:35 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Chaval al D'avdan


"...We regret to announce the passing of Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky,  ....{who} was a
founder and one of the giants of the day school movement in the United States." 

Dr. Kaminetsky was the successor To R.Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz (sp?) and 
spear-headed the growth of the Hebrew Day School Movement in North America.  As 
such, he is one of a handful of key Marbitzei Torah" in North America following 
the holocaust and was an intimate of nearly every Rosh Yeshiva, both Chareidi 
and Modern.    

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:13:20 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Nightfall


David Riceman:>>One is based on astronomical phenomena observed at the onset of 
night (e.g. number of observable stars of some dimension).  The other is a 
duration of time after shkia (which is an observable astronomical phenomenon no 
matter which definition you choose).  The sources seem to view these as 
interchangeable.<<

Onset of night is aparently a bit more complex.  Here are a few possiblities:

Major categories include:
1) Plag haMincho
2) Shkio (Sunset)
3) Tzeis haKochaovim


Within these 3 general categories there are differences of opinion, some of them
minor some not so minor.

BTW R. Leo Levi's assumes that the calculated times are relative as to laittiude
etc.

I was taught that observable phenomena are required only in absence of reliable 
chesbonos.  IOW the absoluate times are basic, the phenomena were only used as 
indicators and are not as relibalbe.  Yom Ham'unon is an example of how the 
exact time can get clouded <pun>.  However, since we can determine an exact 
time, we need not be chosshesh for meteroligical phenomena.

There is definitely room to argue on this premise.  Altitude, IOW being in a 
valley or atop a mountain can be a factor.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:00:46 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
What vs. Who


>> How do you approach the gemera in Chagiga where R' Meir learned from Acher 
even as Acher was being mechalel Shabbos? <<

Lich'ora from R. Meir, and the Mishno in Avos IV:1 (halomeid kikol odom) that 
the ikkar is not WHO said it but WHAT was said.

I would guess that legabei Mesorah (lemoshol halocho lemoshe misinai) WHO said 
it carries a lot of weight, but perhaps legabei sevoro, "frumkeit" is not a 
criteria for determining the truth.

RSR Hirsch seems to question the Rambam's use of Aristotelian Lomdus and states 
that one should stick to internally Jewish Sources.  (See 19 Letters and the 
Intro to Chorebi by Dayan Grunfeld).

In a similar vein, what about secular music in the litrugy?  A lot of secular 
music made it into our liturgy about 150-200 years ago.  Nowadays, the late 
Chazzan Shlomo Carlebach's music is not "kosher" enough in some circles?
Rich Wolpoe  


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:45:06 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Spirituality & Torah study


C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> >>>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<<<

>   How do you approach the gemera in Chagiga where R' Meir learned from Acher
> even as Acher was being mechalel Shabbos?

As far as I recall - R' Meir's behavior is not viewed as an option readily
available to everyone else exactly because Acher was spiritually defective.

> In any case, that is a technicality - no one argues that yiras shamayim is
> irrelevant to being a ben Torah.

But that is exactly the issue - why? What I am getting at is that the issue of
ruach hakodesh and yiras shamayim are similar qualifications. Why is it so obvious
that yiras shamayim is needed but that the quality of ruach hakodesh is not
relevant?

> What is troubling (at least to me) is the attitude that being a critical
> questioning student somehow goes hand in hand with a lack of appreciation of
> earlier doros.

Critical questioning is in the context - as the Baal HaMeor points out - created
by those previous giants whom we are totally dependent  to understand Torah. When
one asks it is with the conscious awareness that the ability to question is from
the Torah taught from the previous generation, from the guidelines taught from
them. "I am not coming to detract from the greatness of this man and to degrade
him - in fact I am coming to glorify him because all have been nourished from the
field of his wisdom and from the wealth of his understanding and we have harvested
from the fruit of his intellect and we swim in the ocean of his knowledge and he
is the one who opened our eyes and taught us and elevated us and increased our
intellect in this Wisdom and as we learned from his mouth we are merely
contrasting and questioning from his words against his words." One would not bring
a question from Newton or Velikofsky to Tosfos in a halachic discussion. According
to you - why should it make a difference? A question is a question.

In sum, there are two types of critical questioning. One assumes the *spritual*
superiority of previous generations. A critical question can surely be asked - but
with humility and reverence. The alternative is to ask a question - with the
implied assumption of equality. Do you agree that  the attitudinal difference
makes a difference? Do you agree that their spiritual level is a significant
reason for the attitude or is it entirely intellectual?

There is a story told about the Chasam Sofer. One Purim his students trained a goy
to give over a devar Torah.  Shortly after the "drasha" started - the Chasam Sofer
walked out. They asked the Chasam Sofer how he was able to realize so quickly that
it was an imposter. He replied, "He didn't shuckle properly when he spoke".

                                          Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:26:18 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Knesses Yisroel, Ruach Hakodesh


Dear RYGB:
     Can you expound for us your peshat on the ma'ase with Erev Pesach beShabbos
with specfic regard to the problem of transporting the "chalef"; and re:  
Hillel's comment, "Im einon nevvim heim, bnai Nevi'im heim..."  IOW were Klal 
Yisroel as a collective invested with some sort of Rauch haKodesh that allowed 
them to be mechavein as to how to bring a knife for Korban Pesach? etc.

     And can we extrapolate that Klal Yisrole as a whole ,as a Tzibbur have 
certain Halachic authority?  (consider Ezra's takknon being rejected: "sh'ein 
rov hatsibubr yochol laamod bo."  Also consider the Rambam in HilchosTeshuvo 
that even if one follows halacha al tifrosh min haTzibbur is a "cardinal" sin.
Could this be related to the Tzibbur's "power" to affect hanghogo?  Could one 
cut off from the tzibbur be cut off from "Ruach haKodesh".

Rich Wolpoe 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:41:01 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Knesses Yisroel, Ruach Hakodesh


On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      Can you expound for us your peshat on the ma'ase with Erev Pesach
> beShabbos with specfic regard to the problem of transporting the
> "chalef"; and re:  Hillel's comment, "Im einon nevvim heim, bnai Nevi'im
> heim..."  IOW were Klal Yisroel as a collective invested with some sort
> of Rauch haKodesh that allowed them to be mechavein as to how to bring a
> knife for Korban Pesach? etc. 
> 

Yes.

>      And can we extrapolate that Klal Yisrole as a whole ,as a Tzibbur
> ve certain Halachic authority?  (consider Ezra's takknon being rejected:

Yes. That is why nispashta is an essential component of the authority of
takkanos d'rabbonon; why we  have principles like: "puk chazei mai ama
dvar"; and, I might add, why I have not yet committed to keeping Chodosh.

> "sh'ein rov hatsibubr yochol laamod bo."  Also consider the Rambam in
> HilchosTeshuvo that even if one follows halacha al tifrosh min haTzibbur
> is a "cardinal" sin.  Could this be related to the Tzibbur's "power" to
> affect hanghogo?  Could one cut off from the tzibbur be cut off from
> "Ruach haKodesh". 
> 

Sorry, I don't understand the last question. Peirush?

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: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:46:23 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: The Incredible Shrinking Generations


<<
It seems to me that the entire thread about whether our generation can 
contradict previous generations or whether we can even contradict 
present day Gedolim should be nothing more than an issue of common 
sense.  There are several factors that one must consider.  One is the 
concept of Yeridas Hadoros, which tells us in effect that previous 
generations were: 
(A)closer to Maimad Har Sinai, and, therefore,
(B)more knowledgeable about the Emes of the Torah, 
(C) smarter than us, 
(D)had less transmission of mesorah (by this I mean that each time one 
generation transmits mesorah to the next generation there is a factor of 
error introduced)and, consequently
(E) less confused by millenia of debate on what original halacha was. 
>>

How do you reconcile this with Halacha k'basra'i?  And while we're at it, how
does 2 follow from 1, and in #3 are you measuring IQ, or some other yardstick
of "smartness"?  Points 4 & 5 still need clarification in light of halacha
k'basra'i

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:51:22 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #194


 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:38:26 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Academy Awards


I would first like to thank RYGB for his wonderfully kind installation of me
in the academy.  And I must also thank...oh, but wait, I only get 30 seconds
and I don't want to waste it all on thank yous.

While RYGB is entitled to his opinion of how I view prior generations, I think
I too should have an opportunity to say a few words.

(I would like to thank him for saying academy and not university as that would
have been a much more obvious stab at YU, but we are not that blind as to not
notice).

I would like to ask RYGB about the mindset of a person asked to pasken a
question.  Does that person, that rav, merely rehash the ideas previously
written, or does he try to reach an independent conclusion and then see how it
fits with those who preceeded him?

I have the utmost respect for those who lived within the last 200 years.  But
when I am asked a question, I have to research the issue myself, using
traditional sources.  As a last step I would look into shu"t literature.  But
only to see if I missed something in my analysis.  I use the p'sak of the
shu"t as a finishing point, not as a starting point.

If my understanding of the sources is at odds with the conclusion reached by
the shu"t, I will try to assess where we differ on approach to the g'mara, or
rishon, or other source.  But if there are others who agree with my point of
view, even if they didn't make the Top 10 list of whichever group you follow,
I do not see it as lacking respect to disagree with any single person.  After
all, is that not exactly what R. Moshe was quoted as saying, basically, bring
your sources and follow them, and don't follow me blindly.  If, however, there
is a clear consensus on a point and I am in an underwhelming minority, my
intellectual honesty would force me to reassess my analysis.

The right wing world has lost the concept of hachra'ah, decision making,
saying one point of view is right and the other is not.  This has led to the
previously discussed "all the chumros that fit we keep" attitude, as well as
the attitudes of sainthood and infallibility that have been bestowed on anyone
who never set foot on the North American continent.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:42:27 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: halacha k'basra'i


<<
Halacha KiBasrai does not mean that we are allowed to disagree with 
Teshuvos of Rishonim,  It simply means that we follow the Psak of the 
most recent Posek because, knowing and factoring in all the relevant 
Teshuvos of Rishonim as well as current scientific and cultural 
patramenters etc., he will be better able to paskin in our own time, 
Shailos relevant to today's circumstances.
>>

I don't think this is how the g'mara used this term.

EDT


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:46:03 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: definitions


<<
I would assume that it means engaging in the study of either Torah
she'b'Ksav or Torah she'b'al Peh. TSBK is easy = Tanach. TSBAP is more
tricky. I assume it definitely includes everything up to "Rav Ashi
v'Ravina sof Horo'oh" but I do not know how it extends betond that.
Nevertheless, the understanding of Talmudic texts and opinions inherent in
the study of Rishonim and Acharonim is likely TT l'kol ha'dei'os, but
what, indded, would the struggle to understand a passage in the Ktzos that
did not relate to Rishonim and Acharonim constitute? I think it still
fulfills the mitzva me'divrei kabbala of "V'higeisa ba yomam va'lyla",
i.e., to occupy oneself with thoghts that relate to Torah.
>>

RYGB,
Sources please!

EDT


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:53:49 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Keeping secrets


Chevra - Could we please not go back to the "critical" issue Y.U.
or whether academics have more or less yiras shamayim or who is
the "holiest one of all"?

There is no benefit to rating individuals or groups as to who has
more or who has less. Of course each of us already know the
answers to the above - but why don't we agree to keep it our own
personal secret - maybe sharing it within one's wife or closest
friend. In contrast the issue of reverence and yiras shamayim and
Torah authority- should be a separate issue that is of concern to
all groups and I think it is amenable to rational discourse.

I'd just like to correct a minor misimpression which has appeared
in a number of postings. The term hilchosa k'basroi is not found
in the gemora. The Sheloh writes that it is a mesora we have
received from the Gaonim. The Rishonim and Achronim  applied it
to the gemora to determine halacha l'maaseh.

                                 Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:00:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject:
Chazal's authority


I was away for 3 weeks, and I've just caught up now.  800KB of material
takes a long time to read.  Anyway, on the ruach hakodesh thread:

Aryeh Kaplan (Hbk of Jewish Thought I:6) gives a big hierarchy of
various forms of Divine influence, based on the sources RYGB gave
and others.  Here is a guess at how he meant them in a tabular form:

Mosaic revelation
Nevuah
Ruach haKodesh
  Unconscious writing
  Urim veTumim
  Clear knowledge from nowhere
  (other levels?)
  Bat Kol
Divine Influence

Just for reference, here is the Maimonidean model:

Mosaic revelation
Nevuah:
  Waking prophetic visions:
    Angel speaks
    Person speaks
    Words heardA
    Allegorical objects seen
  Through dreams:
    God speaks
    Angel speaks
    Person speaks
    Words are heard
    Allegorical objects seen
Ruach hakodesh (unconscious writing - composition of Ketuvim)
Ruach elokim (what inspires men to do great things.

I can't find my Derech Hashem, so I can't post that model.
  
Kaplan says that the lowest level, Divine Influence, is what directs people
who teach Torah at any time or place, not just Chazal.  When someone's
Torah is accepted by all of Israel, it can be assumed that he had this
level of influence (I:6:29).  Note the causality: it is not *because* he
had that level of influence that his Torah was accepted, but the acceptance
indicates that he must have been truly right.  Rambam implies the same idea
about "ruach elokim" in II:45.  Interestingly, he also doesn't seem to draw
any distinction between ruach elokim for chazal or for (lehavdil) Beethoven.
Whatever ruach hakodesh Chazal had was *incidental* to their statutory
authority. RhK is not determinative of halacha.

You seemed to say something similar, that RhK is not determinative of
halacha.  Absent the kind of post-facto guesses above, what would tell
you whether, e.g., YT Sheini was legislated by RhK, or by a mistake in
logic (the existenc of Tr. Horiot implies that this can happen)?  Both
routes would have equal authority because the Sanhedrin has the authority,
not the source of the ruling.  Without clear knowledge that this ruling
came via RhK, and not being there you can't have that knowledge (unless
you have RhK yourself?), why should you necessarily trust that that rule
was created with RhK?

IOW, what added credibility and/or authority do Chazal have through
having ruach hakodesh, according to you, if RhK doesn't imply infallibility?

As for the higher levels, they are not binding for halacha or rabbinic
authority.  Unconscious writing was the means by which the Ketuvim were
written, and we know how much halachic authority they have - none.  Tanur
shel Achnai tells us that we don't listen to a bat kol.  Individual's
clear knowledge is not determinative of halacha without proof.  So I'm
afraid I must side with the rov against you, that RhK is simply tangential. 

How do I see Chazal's authority?  

1) Someone has authority: go to the kohanim and the judges in your day.
2) Chazal's claim to be that authority: the first perek of Avot.
3) The scope of Chazal's authority: lo tasur - even if it's not logical.
4) The time limitation of Chazal's authority: universal acceptance of
     the Gemara.
5) Explicit rejection of divinity of Chazal's authority - Tanur shel Achnai,
     lo bashamayim hi.
6) Current authority 
   a) is predicated on (4): the logical interpreters of the Talmud are the
        authority.  
   b) without a lo-tasur scope of rabbinic authority, Avot gives a mechanism
        for creating authority: aseh lecha rav.
   c) R' Michael Berger [Rabbinic Authority, A Philosophical Analysis]
        would say that current authority is based on:
        i) the statutory authority of current poskim (the judges in your day)
        ii) convention: their acceptance of Chazal as authoritative.
7) Limitations on chazalic & rabbinic authority (per Rich Wolpoe): consent 
     of the governed, ratification of rules and rulings by the am.  Note that
     the acceptance of the Mishnah was, in effect, the ratification of Chazal's
     claim to be *the* authority, rather than other schools of thought 
     (Sadducee, Essene, etc.) (per Neusner, perhaps)

I note, also, that you use your status as a "red-blooded American" to
determine your attitude towards Chazal.  What aspect of Divine influence
was given to the Founding Fathers in writing the DoI and the Constitution,
such that their attitudes on liberty, rugged individualism, and consent
of the governed determine your attitude towards Chazal?

By the way, you ask what gives YT Sheini kedushah?  Minhag Avoteinu 
Beyadeinu - consent of the governed.  Vitzivanu: we were commanded
to obey the Rabbis.  We create kedushah by separating one thing from
another - a bes medresh from a shul, a building from other buildings
by using it as a shul (you can take bricks from  a new shul to use in
another building, but not from a used shul - the shul and its bricks
are already sanctified by use - 4th perek Megillah), one day from another,
etc.  I wonder, does the text of the bracha say "kidshanu" rather than
"kidashtanu" so that one could read it "kidashnu" - *we* sanctified this
object or action through His mitzvot?  Which of course goes against the
immanent-sparks of Kabbalah, to some extent, but that's a side issue.


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 >