Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 350

Wednesday, February 9 2000

• Re: science and halacha
• Birkas Kohanim
• Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael
• Yotzeros -- Nusach?
• Re: Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael
• Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE
• Re: Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: Yotzeros -- Nusach?
• Re: Yotzeros -- Nusach?
• Re: Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael
• Re[2]: Yotzeros -- Nusach?
• (Fwd) Off topic: Jewish Men Needed for DNA Study
• Re: Gezel Akum
• Re: Halakhah and Contemporary Reality
• Re: (Fwd) Off topic: Jewish Men Needed for DNA Study
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Beano
• Re: Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE
• Re: Gezel Akum
• Re: Beano
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 11:45:38AM -0500, remt@juno.com quotes RYBS's
address to an RCA convention:
:                                           For the chazokos Chazal spoke
: of rest, not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but on
: permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depths of the
: metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens
: above.

I think the Rav's point that while it may appear that "tav l'meisav..." is
untrue in some society or psychology, it's merely superficial, a mask on top of
"a metaphysical curse in the feminine personality". After all, the Rav does
not remove "tav l'meisav" from the realm of personality. As he says later,
"It is not psychological fact; it is an existential fact." The chazakah is
on a deeper level than the psychological theory is.

What is interesting to note about this is that it means RYBS is denying
a priori the possibility of scientific inaccuracy in a chazakah. Not that
chazakos wouldn't change if the science were wrong, but that the science
can't be wrong.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:57:04 EST
> From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: Birkas Kohanim (was: gaa-al yisrael)

<< In contrast, in Chutz Laaretz, many (most?) places have the minhag
that the chazan says the preceding paragraph ("Elokeinu...").>>

	I believe that in yeshivos,  this narrative is not said.  In some
yeshivos,  the call to the kohanim is also not made by the shatz, but by
the Rosh Yeshiva,  or Gabbai.

Gershon

> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:03:39 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.ilal>
> Subject: Re: Gaw'al Yisrael

<< To the extent that you are talking about yoztros and the like, some of
the undoing is simply a question of time. In "Yeshivish" davening on Rosh
HaShanna and Yom Kippur, unless you daven netz, it is almost impossible
to say all the yotzros (let alone slichos) and give the amount of time
they give for the shtiller Shmoneh Esrei and still get through davening.
I think that's where doing away with yotzros came from (although I have
no source to prove it).>>

	This also explains another piyutim-deleter:  Ger.  They needed to leave
them out in order to leave enough time to learn.

	FWIW Lakewood says the yotzros/musafim for the arba parshios,  but after
chazoras hashatz,  not during.

	Pet peeve:  a netz is an eagle.  Hanetz hachama is sunrise.  (I feel
better already!).

Gershon

Richard -- I was always under the impression that whether communities say
Yotzeros or Tachanun by Mincha or Baruch Hashem Bayom by Maariv weren't
strictly Nusach issues as much as they were community of origin issues. 
Hence, the reason that appears to have been normative practice within
Nusach Ashkenaz to say Yotzeros by the Arba Parshiyos and Shabbos Hagadol
was because that was the minhag of German and Hungarian Jewry -- in fact
most of the Hungarian Chassidim do recite yotzeros -- Lubavitch,  being
from Russia only does so RH and YK (the Baal HaTanya only forbade
insertions into the text prior to the Shemona Esreh not during).  Maybe
someone more versed can correct me if I am wrong -- does Karlin-Stolin
say Yotzeros, do truly Litvishe Kehillas in New York say Yotzeros?   

Carl Sherer Dubin wrote:


> << To the extent that you are talking about yoztros and the like, some of
> the undoing is simply a question of time. In "Yeshivish" davening on Rosh
> HaShanna and Yom Kippur, unless you daven netz, it is almost impossible
> to say all the yotzros (let alone slichos) and give the amount of time
> they give for the shtiller Shmoneh Esrei and still get through davening.
> I think that's where doing away with yotzros came from (although I have
> no source to prove it).>>

Now I'm curious. What is "Yeshivish" davening? Fast or slow?

I'm truly curious, never having been in an Ashkenazi shul for RH or YK
(and not likely to, either). I suppose I should just pick up a mahazor
and find out what the differences are. Among Sefaradim (at least minhag
Yerushalaim) the shaliah zibbur says every word out loud from Nishmat on,
lots of piyyutim (not necessarily all) are sung (interactively), we say
selichot in all the tefillot, and there's still time for a break between
Musaf and Minha.


---sam

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 at 08:48:05 EST, David Finch (DFinchPC@aol.com) wrote
(Avodah V4 #348):

<<I don't know if there was a "valid heter" to print these obviously
very 
private letters in the first place. At this time, however, they are
very 
valuable historical sources.>>

This reminds me of a somewhat analogous debate that has popped-up in
the medical/scientific community now and then regarding the question of
utilizing scientific data collected by the Nazi's, yemach shemam, from
experimentation on our kedoshim, HY"D, in the concentration camps.  Most
of this data is scientifically worthless because of poor study design
and execution, but not all.  Does the evil history of this data make it
unethical to use it?

This question has been debated by the ethicists.  From a halachic
perspective the (limited) analogy to mitzvah ha'ba'ah b'aveira comes to
mind at first, but I am inclined to think that the real benefits that
could be gained, and the pikuach nefesh that could be accomplished,
might override the historical/ethical taint.

The particulars in the case of improperly published letters differ,
though there is a similar conflict between tainted history and present
utility.  This does not suggest that the ends justify the means
l'chatchila, but rather that one could argue that once the data are
publicly available they should be used, b'dieved.  Personally, I don't
think the analogy to medical data is strong enough to carry over to the
letters, but I could see the argument.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

On 9 Feb 00, at 11:58, Gershon Dubin wrote:

>  Pet peeve:  a netz is an eagle.  Hanetz hachama is sunrise.  (I feel
> better already!).

You're making me miss my old chavrusa who always used to 
correct that for me :-) 

-- Carl (who actually DOES know the difference)


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

IIRC letters are the property of the recipient.  Thus if in this case, Prof.
Atlas provided the letters for publication. . .
----- Original Message -----
From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> >>>the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been published
b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be aware
that it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these letters,
<<<
>
> I won't bother to discuss whether the SE wanted the letters published, as
form a purely legal standpoint it is irrelevant.  I am curious, though,
about what issur there is in publishing the letters...it is hard to say
there is gezel on information, and the only other thing that comes to mind
is maybe takkanas R' Gershom.  Please clarify.
>
> -Chaim
>

AFAIK so did the Gro!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Yotzeros -- Nusach? 
 (the Baal HaTanya only forbade insertions into the text prior to the Shemona 
Esreh not during).  

On 9 Feb 00, at 12:13, Alan Davidson wrote:

> Richard -- I was always under the impression that whether communities
> say Yotzeros or Tachanun by Mincha or Baruch Hashem Bayom by Maariv

In Eretz Yisrael Baruch Hashem is universally (AFAIK) NOT said 
by Maariv. IIRC Baruch Hashem is meant to accomadate 
latecomers catching up because the shuls were outside the city, 
and therefore we would not want them to have to walk back alone 
after Maariv. In Eretz Yisrael, the shuls were and are within the 
city, so a latecomer having to walk back alone was never a 
chashash.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

On 9 Feb 00, at 12:14, sambo wrote:

> Carl Sherer Dubin wrote:

Who's he? :-) 

> > << To the extent that you are talking about yoztros and the like,
> > some of the undoing is simply a question of time. In "Yeshivish"
> > davening on Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur, unless you daven netz, it
> > is almost impossible to say all the yotzros (let alone slichos) and
> > give the amount of time they give for the shtiller Shmoneh Esrei and
> > still get through davening. I think that's where doing away with
> > yotzros came from (although I have no source to prove it).>>
> 
> Now I'm curious. What is "Yeshivish" davening? Fast or slow?

"Yeshivish" davening (and since I wrote the post, I get to define it!) 
includes a long time for the silent Shmoneh Esrei (I know of 
Yeshivas where they get as much as 45 minutes for Rosh 
HaShanna Musaf), and relatively few yotzros and piyutim. 
Minhagim with respect to singing vary - and in my experience 
generally depend on the baal tfilla and not on the kahal.

> I'm truly curious, never having been in an Ashkenazi shul for RH or YK
> (and not likely to, either). I suppose I should just pick up a mahazor
> and find out what the differences are. 

You won't find it in the Machzor. In Yeshivish davening, much of the 
Machzor is skipped.

Among Sefaradim (at least
> minhag Yerushalaim) the shaliah zibbur says every word out loud from
> Nishmat on, lots of piyyutim (not necessarily all) are sung
> (interactively), we say selichot in all the tefillot, and there's
> still time for a break between Musaf and Minha.

IIRC most Sphardim following Minhag Yerushalayim (at least in my 
neighborhood) daven k'vasikin. Correct? That would explain why 
you can do all that and have a break between Musaf and Mincha.

To give you an idea of our length of davening - 

On Rosh HaShanna we start about 4:30 A.M. (depends on 
*hanetz* and finish around 10:30 A.M. (five minute break for the 
baal Musaf to go to mikva before tkiyas shofar - most people do not 
make Kiddush then).

On Yom Kippur we start around 4:45 A.M., finish Musaf around 
12:00 and come back for Mincha around 2:30 P.M. (depends on 
length of day).

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

>>In Eretz Yisrael Baruch Hashem is universally (AFAIK) NOT 
said by Maariv. IIRC Baruch Hashem is meant to accomadate 
latecomers catching up because the shuls were outside the city, 
and therefore we would not want them to have to walk back alone 
after Maariv. <<

ad kahn you I concur -BUT!

>>In Eretz Yisrael, the shuls were and are within the city, so a 
latecomer having to walk back alone was never a chashash.<<

This sounds like a plausible but highly inaccurate rationalization ex post 
facto!  AFAIK this has to do with both the Ari, baal hatanyo, and the Gro all 
opposing Boruch Hashem,    If not for the Gro, nusach ashkenaz/polin would be 
saying BH in Israel too.  

And wearing tefillin on CHhM.. etc.IOW, this is part and parcel 
of a pattern, NOT an ad hoc decision on a change of metzius.!


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  



-- Carl

RC Sherer wrote:

>>Anyone have any comments on this (halachic or otherwise)?>>

>>No needles are involved. All you have to do to participate is stick a cotton 
swab in your mouth and mail the swab to London.>>

That doesn't sound particularly scientific.  What if white supremacists decided 
to ruin the study by sending in their samples?  Shouldn't there be some sort of 
random sampling of some kind?

Gil Student
gil.student@citigroup.com

In a message dated 2/9/00 11:34:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

> Short version of my question: If non-Jews can't steal from each other, what
>  is the hava amina the Gezel Akum might be mutar?
>  
1) See MaHaRShA (and other Mforshim) Sanhedrin 59a.
2) According to many the Rambam rules that "IKA Midi" (HIl. Mlochim 9:12).
3) Yesh Lachkor according to opinion Gezel Akum Muttar what would be the din 
of a Ger where if it becomes Muttar why not use argument of Bonu Mkdusha 
Chamura (Bishlomo Pochos Mishava Pruta is also Ossur for Yid), this question 
can be extended to Eiver Min Hachai but there we can use Bmiktzas Sevoras 
Hatosphos (Sanhedrin 59a) that since Shcihta is a MItzvah for a Yid that is 
the Matir.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/9/00 11:25:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> After all, obviously there is no halakhic obligation to deprive
>  non-Jews of their money.  So an Orthodox Jew who is moved by humanism
>  can simply refrain from acts of hafka'ah, rather than rely on the
>  halakhic loophole.  Call it a "humra" if you will.  Similarly, most
>  people today would probably feel uncomfortable owning an eved kena'ani.

On the one side Chachomim Hizoharu Bidivreichem, on the other hand I feel 
that this presents a Hashkafa problem (already asked what about Loi Sichayeh 
Kol Neshama), see Rambam Hil. Malveh Veloveh 5:1.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Aside from the technical problems Gil raised, the study has been done already.
I'm attaching a very old quote from Mail Jewish about an earlier such
test. It's my standard reply to the "Ashkenazim are Khazars" canard.

Are they looking to confirm the results, or is their a difference in method?

-mi

From: "Dr. Arthur Komar" <komar@yu1.yu.edu>

> Samuel Karlin, Ron Kebet and Batsheva Bonne-Tamir, "Analysis of
> Biochemical Genetic Data of Jewish Populations" American Journal of Human
> Genetics 31 (1979) pp.341-365. There are also more recent papers, but
> this work is quite adequate for our purposes.

> In that paper Karlin, et.al. (Stanford Univ.) presented data describing
> the gene frequency distribution for 14 different genetic markers among 9
> Jewish and 6 non-Jewish populations. The conclusion reached was that
> Ashkenazic  and Sephardic populations were similar to each other in
> genetic profile and distant from the non-Jewish populations with whom
> they were compared (i.e. Germans, Poles,Russians,Arabs, Armenians). To
> quote Karlin: the data is consistant with the thesis that "the present
> day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews were the remnants of several small Jewish
> populations of the 14th and 15th centuries....   Since the Christian
> reconquest at the end of the Middle Ages, the contribution of non-Jews to
> the Jewish gene pool has been extremely small." Note that although Turkic
> peoples were not used for comparison in this study (unfortunately)
> Germans, Poles and Russians were. Most surprising was that Jews, both
> Sephardim and Ashkenazim, were demonstrated to be far closer genetically to
> each other than either of them were to the Arabs.

He didn't. He's dead.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


>
> IIRC letters are the property of the recipient.  Thus if in this case,
Prof.
> Atlas provided the letters for publication. . .

Since Beano appears to be an integral part of some listmembers' diets, I
feel it behooves me to forward this important information.

Kol Tuv
Aryeh
aes@ll-f.com

-----Original Message-----
From: OU Kashruth Department [mailto:kosherq@ou.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:52 PM
To: ou-kosher@yerushalayim.net
Subject: Kosher Alert


February 3, 2000

Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher

In a message dated 2/9/00 8:57:02 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< History does not quite work that way. I am listening now to an illuminating
 book: "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Norman F. Cantor, which demonstrates
 how every school of history brings its own perspectives, and often biases,
 to bear on the data (or blithely disregards the data), which is, of course,
 subject to multiple layers of interpretation. Many - if not all- historians
 "censor" history - they just call it "research".
  >>

Of course. My favorite historian, Carl Lotus Becker, spent his career 
examining how historians of each era, and each historian of any era, invent 
and reinvent "fact" no matter how objective they strive to be. We are all 
victims of our biases, perspectives, world-views, personal paradigms, etc.

On the other hand, a letter is a letter, and a statement is a statement. If a 
great spiritual leader writes a letter confessing his innermost fears and 
conflicts with extraordinary candor and specificity, then from an historian's 
point of view the letter and its contents are opportune facts that must be 
addressed. The fact that historians might unintentionally or unconsciously 
"censor" events by distorting or overlooking them does not mean that they 
should deliberately and consciously ignore facts of significance. 

I'm not addressing the question of whether private letters should or not be 
published. I take it that that subject has already been wrung out on Avodah. 

David Finch

I sent these privately at first, but here is a list of partial mareh mekomos of 
poskim who state that gezel akum is assur:

Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 348:2, 359:1 (see nos'ei keilim)
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:1
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:2, 7:8, Hilchot Geneivah 1:1
Sefer HaChinuch 259
Rashi, Sanhedrin 57a
Chiddushei HaRan, Sanhedrin 57a
Mordechai, Kiddushin ch. 1 (in the name of Ra'avyah regarding inheritances)
Noda BiYehudah I Y"D 81
Maharit Algazi 2:17
R. Chaim Volozhiner, Shu"t Chut Hameshulash, 14, 17
Machaneh Ephraim, Hilchot Gezeilah, 3
Chavos Yair 79
Chacham Tzvi 26

[If you're only going to look up one, look up the Chacham Tzvi]

See also Tanna Devei Eliyahu 16 "Ha lamadta shegezel oved kochavim assur ki 
gezel hu" and Tosefta Bava Kamma 10:8 "Chamur gezel hanochri migezel yisrael 
mipnei chillul Hashem".

I am very much bothered by the approach of looking at the Torah and saying that 
it is wrong.  Or worse, changing Torah by adopting a da'as yachid.  We must 
first establish what is Torah and then try to philosophically understand it.

Sure, paskening like the Meiri avoids all sorts of sticky philosophical issues. 
But it is better to be correct and not understand than to dilute and distort 
Torah?

It also helps when you remember that most of these issues do not apply to gerrei
toshav.

Aryeh Stein forwarded from the OU Kashruth Department [mailto:kosherq@ou.org]:
: Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
: located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher

Is Beano ra'uy la'achilah? Why does it need a hechsher to begin with?

For that matter, I don't understand R' Blumenkrantz's list of medications,
since unflavored pills (non-vitamins) are clearly not ra'uy la'achilas kelev.
R' Frand mentioned this on one of his tapes, but he dodged a question from
the audience about lists that include them (presumably R' Blumenkrantz, since
it's the best known here in the US).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

This reply should also serve for my brother in law R' Chaim's plaint of
ealrier today - I do not want him to think I am c"v ignoring him :-).

----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:05 AM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence


> But RYGB seems less concerned about R. Dratch's agenda than that of the
> Torah u-Madda Journal.  So let us turn quickly to the Seridei Esh
> controversy.  I agree that we should not rehash the halakhic question of
> issur, on which I disagree strongly with RYGB.  Let us turn instead to
> Reb David Finch's questions, which mirrored my own: "I don't understand
> why [RYGB] objects to R'Dratch's use of the SE letters."
>
> In other words, granting for the sake of argument, that the letters were
> published be-issur, what is the problem with quoting them?
>
> RYGB answers: "The concept of mitzva ha'ab'a b'aveira comes to mind. A
> positive use does
> not justify an ill-gotten gain."
>
> Those familiar with US constitutional law will recognize that RYGB is
> proposing something analogous to the exclusionary rule (i.e., US courts
> exclude evidence acquired illegally by the police).  However, those
> familiar with the principle of mitzvah ha-ba'ah be-averah will be
> confused; what does this principle have to do with the topic under
> discussion?
>
> Firstly, there are of course a range of opinions in the Rishonim
> defining mitzvah ha-ba'ah be-averah.  But I think all agree that the
> principle simply forecloses the fulfillment of a mitzvah; it does not
> transmute the attempted mitzvah itself into an averah.  To illustrate:
> If I steal money and donate it to tzedakah, I have not fulfilled a
> mitzvah.  But my donation does not constitute a further averah.  (Of
> course, if I stole a hefetz rather than money, the act of gezel is
> ongoing.  But this kind of gezel does not apply to the content of one's
> letters.  Indeed, the posekim have generally rejected the notion that
> one has ownership over ideas or words, except in physical form.)
>

Hmm. I was moved to do some cursory research. Look at the Sdei Chemed
Ma'areches ha'Mem 77:13. The deficit of mitzva ha'aba'ah b'aveira is
permanent. Thus, while the donation does not constitute a further aveira,
the cheftza (as in lulav shel asheira) remains tainted. So, the illicitly
published letters remain tainted, and, as such, should be considered
"muktzeh machmas me'us" by any ethically inclined individual (i.e., the
Avodah membership).

> Moreover, the "ill-gotten gain" that RYGB refers to is unclear to me.
> Who gained from the publication of R. Weinberg's letters?  (The TuM
> Journal is generally distributed free of charge; neither the editor nor
> the contributors receive monetary compensation.)  And even if you say
> that the author of the article or the editor of the journal gained in
> some illicit way, why should a third party, like R. Dratch, not be
> allowed to make use of the information?
>

REC, REC! Please! Surely in our rarified stratosphere of high intellect and
sophisticated inquiry financial gain is but to be disdained! Money?!

Nay, the gains we seek our ideological and philosophical!

Indeed, we must understand "journal-ism" in its proper historical context,
as a prelude to the next component of our discussion.

It is a hallmark of academia to establish journals to promote schools of
thought and analysis. For example, the book I am currently listening
explains how the French historian Marc Bloch and his associates established
a journal to promote their type of materialistic analysis, a goal in which
they were wildly successful.

The TuM journal clearly serves to promote the view that there exists a TuM
weltanschaunng, that despite the relative recent coinage of the phrase it
has antecedents, and that its perspectives may be traced and identified in
the works of great Jewish minds through the ages. Even anti-TuM essays would
serve to further this goal, as were TuM not a school of thought, it would
not be worth fighting over, no?

Thus, the gain here is actually quite great: Another Gadol has been co-opted
by and firmly palced within the TuM camp (at least vis-a-vis the essential
humanistic component thereof).

> RYGB then goes on to question the agenda of the historians involved and
> to make some sweeping pronouncements in the name of Yahdaut:
>
> >In this regard, the choice of venue for publishing these letters is
> >fascinating, as the TuM journal is not an objective historical journal,
but
> >one whose very name belies an overt agenda. The publication (and,
> >occasionally, the citation) of these letters, was not bias-free "history"
> >(if there is such a thing) but very much agenda driven (prohibition
aside).
> >Yahadus, as formalized by Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, dictates a specific
> >level of privacy in defining the contours of a person's theological or
> >philosophical persona: Unpublished material not authorized for
distribution
> >is seen as rumination and speculation, which may admittedly be frivolous,
> >half-baked or even inane - certainly private and priveleged - and
precisely
> >for that reason its admission as testimony in the historical record is
more
> >harmful - either to the person, the persona, or theology and philosophy
in
> >general - than good.
>
> Well now.  Let us grant, again for the sake of argument, that the TuM
> journal and all of its varied contributors (of whom I am one) all
> somehow share a single agenda, whatever that may be.  Let us also
> assume, again for the sake of argument, that we therefore cannot trust
> the interpretation of the letters by the historian in question.  Does
> that mean we cannot trust our own eyes?  Do the letters not speak for
> themselves?  I submit that the "agenda" issue is a red herring.
>

No, no,no! The letters do not speak for themselves. And here, the choice of
the venue for publication (consciously? subconciously?) pertains very
directly to intepretation! Let me amplify:

Were there to exist a "Journal for Kiruv Methods and Techniques", the same
letter could have been published there by the Rosh Yeshiva of some Kiruv
Yeshiva as an example of how one can approach a secular friend and parlay
with him on his own terms in order to lasso him into frumkeit.

Were there to exist the "Journal of German Jewish Hyperbole and Bombastic
Language" (the journal that, doubtless, will someday analyze my writings
:-) ), a scholar of historic forms of expression might have pointed out how
transplanted Lithuanians adopted the German mode of exaggeration in one's
writings.

Were there to exist a "Journal for the Research of Inaccurate Reflection and
Expression in Private Correspondence", then the letters would have been held
up there as an example of how a Gadol b'Torah, instead of doodling, playing
solitaire, or e-mailing questionable humor across the Internet, wrote lettrs
of the cuff as a form of diversion and recreation.

Yahadus (sheesh, there he goes again with sweeping statements!), via CDRG
(Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom) approximates, as I have noted, the position of
our third journal (the JRIR-EPIC).

But, by printing this essay in the TuM journal, we were (consciously?
subconciously?) being asked to take these letters as absolutley serious,
definitve, accurate and final reflections of the SE's position - and,
triumphantly! - affirm his affiliation with the TuM school of thought.

Sheer interpretation.

> I think RYGB sensed this too, so he followed with an eloquent statement
> about the Jewish concept of privacy.  If someone has not authorized
> something for publication, then we who come after respect that decision
> and refrain from publishing it, on the assumption that the author did
> not wish his umpublished writings to become part of his theological or
> philosophical persona.
>
> The problem is this statement is false.  R. Hayyim Brisker did not
> publish his hiddushim or authorize their publication.  Should his hibbur
> therefore be kept secret -- merely speculative as it was?  How about the
> most recent helek of the Iggerot Moshe -- these were all teshuvot that
> R. Moshe affirmatively chose not to publish in his lifetime.  These, of
> course, are examples of halakhic literature, not letters.  But one can
> argue that the bar should be higher for the former than the latter.
> After all, if I write a hiddush in my notebook, I may or may not feel it
> is complete or fit to be published.  I may write it down simply for my
> own benefit; to help me organize my thoughts or remember them.  In
> contrast, a letter was clearly intended to be read at least one other
> person, if not the whole world.
>

"False"? Or as my dear brother in law claimed "error"? Strong language
indeed! When was the last time you read the Chiddushei R' Chaim Halevi's
Introduction? He certainly did mean for them to be published! As to the IM,
I have addressed that separately. As to your last assertion, and that of the
next paragraph, that touches on the halacha, which we have declared, for
now, out of bounds, but, dear interlocutors, to tone down the language a
tad, I beg to differ...

> Regarding the herem of R. Gershom, it is not at all clear that the herem
> extends after a person's death.  It is a ruling regarding the privacy of
> the living, not the memory of the dead.  It was certainly not written
> with an eye to preserving the mythic image of Gedolim from the predation
> of historians.
>
>

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

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


[ 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         ]