Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 036

Wednesday, November 8 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:12:58 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: animals / flowers - humor alert


[Sorry for that mess-up with the formatting of two emails. I'll iy"h
fix it in the archives. -mi]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 12:16:48PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Are there guidelines for which Mesoros can be questioned and which ones
: cannot?

: There seems to be a number of revisions in the last few hundred years that
: call earlier presumptions into question.  Illustration:  What time is
: shkiah?

What I've been trying to say, hopefully in a more organized fashion.

Just as an amora wouldn't argue with a tana without a second tana in
support, I wouldn't question a mesorah without another mesorah in support.
And by "support" I don't mean a spelled out conclusion, but something
from which someone with da'as Torah would make a conclusion. (And since I
consider "da'as Torah" to exist in greater and lesser quantity, membership
in mesorah is also to a greater or lesser extent. A fuzzy or probabilistic
set.)

This appeal to authority in defining what is mesorah is in RYBS's thought
as well. He often speaks of R' Chaim as a "ba'al mesorah". (R' Aharon
Soloveitchik repeated his father, R' Moshe, reassuring himself that
he must be a ba'al mesorah. R' Moshe felt that he must be -- he's the
link between R' Chaim and RYBS!)

Second, on a halachic question, the process of p'sak halachah reduces
the number of possibilities in this regard as well. Halachic questions
aren't about what is true, but what is binding. It's different in kind.

But that's a tangent, since here we're discussing beri'ah, the mabul
and the haflagah.

Questioning never happens on the level of "divrei E-lokim chaim" (DECh)
but rather in choosing between eilu va'eilu. Much like the way one would
never question the ultimate in DECh -- halachah liMosheh miSinai.

I therefore would have no problem going with a da'as yachid about the
beri'ah if that solves an external, non-mesorah, question. I would similarly
go with a da'as yachid on a halachic question if there are grounds to
overturn p'sak (c.f. much of Horios).

: Also are there guidelines for what is to taken literally and for what is to
: be taken metaphorically and for what is to be taken allegorically?

Yes, mesorah -- but mesorah in the "eilu va'eilu" and including all da'as
Torah derived conclusions sense, not limited to the one opinion that "der
velt" believes. If there is no mesorah for anything but a literal read,
IOW, the first time someone proposed allegory or metaphor was to solve
an external, non-mesoretic, problem, I would say that the text must
be taken as literal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:10:19 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
Science and Torah - Was animals / flowers


Micha Berger
> I have a problem with those streams of machshavah that take an event
> where we have no internal reason to say it was biderech teva, but
> people try to cast it that way anyway.
<snip>

> This is theinside vs outside / subjective limud Torah vs objective
> scholarship idea that I eluded to earlier.
<snip>

AISI, this presents a classic illustration of TIDE vs. TuM

Michah's previous line articulates a classic Hirschian TIDE concept,
i.e. he criticizes the Rambam for defining debates about Torah from
external paradigms. OTOH TuM allows for the interchange back and forth,
based largely upon the Rambam's use of Greek Philosophy etc. to re-define
his havvana of Torah, IOW machshava.

Illustration: RYBS apparently based much of his philosophy based upon
Kantian and existential influences.

While this is OK afaik in the realm of machshava, I would concede that is
highly questionable in the realm of Halachah. RYBS made it a point that
we cannot use modern psychological understandings to overturn the halachos
that are based upon the "Tan Du" principle. AIUI, the Rav focused his
complaint about the practical problems flowing from undermining chazakos,
and not so much about shifting the meaning of ancient events.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:21:19 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: beriah and dinosaur bones


I want to remind people that we've discussed the topic of changing halachah
in light of changing science. Many of the chevrah post-date the topic, so
I'm sure there is much to add. However, please check the archives for
threads titled "Science and halachah" and "halachah and science" before
doing so.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:34:12 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: animals / flowers - humor alert


MSB:
> Yes, mesorah -- but mesorah in the "eilu va'eilu" and including all da'as
> Torah derived conclusions sense, not limited to the one opinion that "der
> velt" believes. If there is no mesorah for anything but a literal read,
> IOW, the first time someone proposed allegory or metaphor was to solve
> an external, non-mesoretic, problem, I would say that the text must
> be taken as literal.

Perhaps you are correct but this also limits apologetics to saying what's
been said already rather than being open to the possiblity of new insights.

It's my impression that Hertz and other apoloigsts did this stuff.  Were
they wrong to do so?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:58:39 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
RE: mikatzer


From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@segalco.com>
> 1.should the Shatz be mikatzer(due to mishum yuhara) if he knows his normal
> amidah is longer than the Mora D'atra's?

As for (1), I believe the shatz should be mikatzer (due to tircha d'tzibura,
and not necessarily due to yuhara).

> 2. should the individual be mikatzer if he knows that he won't make kiddusha
> (I'm fully aware of the shitot of what to do if you're in the middle of
> amida and the kahal is up to kiddusha, I'm asking whether it's preferable to
> be mikatzer so as not to get into that situation)?

As for (2), RSZA (yes, in the Halichos Shlomo) says as follows:  if a person
realizes that, if he inserts an extra bakasha in Shomaya Tefilah, he will
not finish shemona esrei prior to k'dusha, then the person should omit the
bakasha, (finish shemona esrei) and, after answering to k'dusha, insert the
bakasha at that point (although this should not be done on a regular basis).

(I realize that this does not speak directly to RJR's second question,
but...) 

In the footnotes, it brings a shita which holds that the best time to insert
a personal bakasha (even better than in shemona esrei) is in tachanun,
immediately prior to "Misratzeh b'rachamim."   It also brings (IIRC from the
Chazon Ish) that one is able to daven to Hashem at any time of day, either
by reciting some tehilim or by saying a "Y'hi Ratzon..." (with Hashem's
name).

Finally, on a related note, with respect to the "Y'hi Ratzon" that one may
add in Refoainu (sp?) for cholim, RSZA holds that one should not say this
insertion every single time that he davens shemona esrei, but should
purposely omit it from time to time.  One of the reasons, IIRC, is that it
looks like one is revising the lashon of the chachamim.

If anyone desires, I can obtain the exact cites and/or fax the relevant
pages).

KT
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:07:56 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: noach and continents


In a message dated 11/8/00 8:07:00am EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
>  It would be interesting if Chazal stated that all continents were
>  connected originally, especially since it is not clear that knew
>  about the Americas and Australia. How about islands?

See Breishis 2:11,13.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:08:56 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Birthdays


From: Yzkd@aol.com
>> See Gemara Megila 13b WRT the birthday of Moshe Rabbeinu

In a message dated 11/8/00 1:03:31pm EST, gdubin@loebandtroper.com writes:
>   I seem to recall that everyone's birthday was considered special in
>  Chabad.  When the Rebbe z"l was bekocho,  he granted yechidus to those
>  whose birthday it was,  in addition to such considerations as bar mitzvah,
>  choson,  etc. 

Yes and I was Zoche many times to such Yechidus, I didn't mean to limit it to 
a Leader.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:08 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Yishmaelim


RCS (quoting with permission)
>> Is it pashut that the Arabs today are descended from Yishmael? 
>> Were they not part of the bilbul of Sancherev?

In a message dated 11/8/00 11:19:57am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>  1. I believe that Sennecheriv did not enlist Arabs in his army, and
>  that, historically, they never came under his rule...

>  2. Who says the bilbul was 100%.
...
  
>  5. The Zohar doesn't seem to care about Sennecheriv's exploits; it
>  calls the Jewish enemy in Yemos HaMoshiach "B'nei Yishmael," ...

See the famous question of the Shagas Aryei (# 49) on the Rambam who rules in 
Hil. Mlochim (10:8) , that Bnei Ktura are obligated today in Mila, what about 
"Ba Sancheriv Ubilbeil KOL Houmois" and as the Rambam rules in Hil. Issurei 
Biah (12:25), and see Arichus on this in Minchas Chinuch Mitzvas Milah, I 
want to add to see the Lvush on Even Hoezer 4:10 (brought also in the Mleches 
Shlomo on the Mishne in Yodayim 4:4) that says that he did not exile all 
rather most and some remained which removes this question (we recently 
discussed the same WRT Aseres Hashvotim), see also the Tiferes Yisroel on the 
Mishne, I would further suggest that individual families kept their lineage 
(i.e. Haman Ha'agogi and we find Mibnei Banav Shel...).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:13:33 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re:


In a message dated 11/8/00 2:06:00pm EST, goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> Who is TE

Tzitz Eliezer

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[I will iy"h add TE to our list of standard acronyms at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.html>. In the future, I will
try to make sure to pass questions that arise because one is coming in
mid-conversation to the poster, and not share them with the list. -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:58:30 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Science and Torah - Was animals / flowers


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:10:19PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Michah's previous line articulates a classic Hirschian TIDE concept,
: i.e. he criticizes the Rambam for defining debates about Torah from
: external paradigms.

Although RSRH himself drew from Hegel.

: Illustration: RYBS apparently based much of his philosophy based upon
: Kantian and existential influences.

I think there is a fine line between using outside ideas to model concepts
from mesorah and using them to append concepts onto mesorah. And obviously
RSRH (and the Gra) disagree with where the Rambam placed that line. RYBS
placed it somewhere in between.

:                                               RYBS made it a point that
: we cannot use modern psychological understandings to overturn the halachos
: that are based upon the "Tan Du" principle. AIUI, the Rav focused his 
: complaint about the practical problems flowing from undermining chazakos...

RYBS did NOT phrase his objection in terms of "practical problems" or
that halachah stands on its own authority, based on the legal processes.
He gave a hashkafic reason for why the science wasn't relevent. RYBS said
that "tan du" is an existential reality based on Chava's onesh, and has
nothing to do with psychology.

Again, we've discussed science and halachah too many times before for
me to be that excited about jumping in yet again.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:03:22 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: animals / flowers - humor alert


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:34:12PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
MSB:
:> Yes, mesorah -- but mesorah in the "eilu va'eilu" and including all da'as
:> Torah derived conclusions sense...
:>                 If there is no mesorah for anything but a literal read,...
:>                                      I would say that the text must
:> be taken as literal.

: Perhaps you are correct but this also limits apologetics to saying what's
: been said already rather than being open to the possiblity of new insights.

No it does not. Chiddush is possible. Even chiddush given outside data.
There is a difference between proposing ideas consistant with answers
available from within mesorah, and proposing new ideas that are choleik
with all of those mesorah contains.

Otherwise, one has succeeded in answering the apikoreis -- but has one
succeeded in defending Torah or defending something else?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:19:17 GMT
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim


On 2 Nov 2000 17:36:18, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
>> I believe the mishna brura brings down the fact that one should recite the 
>> first part of this sentence (in an undertone), but Iíve never seen anyone
>> do this.

> I do.  According to the Nefesh HaRav, so did RYBS.

This is one of the several places that the Nefesh HaRav is in error about
what RYBS did, because most of R. Shechter's information was from the
shi'urim rather than observation. Actually, RYBS said the whole posuq out
loud, from the beginning. He said that in this matter under discussion,
splitting up psuqim, R. Hayyim Brisker was very mahmir, and he was just
following his father's and grandfather's custom, although he admitted
that R. Hayyim's custom was based on his own humra and not on any source.

Some of the other places where this shitta was applied by RYBS:

2) Kiddush of the day. Not only he and R. Hayyim not start "'Al
kan berakh," which was a common custom in Lita, they said the whole
parsha. As a matter of fact, they said both parshos, zakhor es yom
hashabbos and veshamru, and said them in that order, since that is the
order in the Torah.

3) 'Al pi Hashem: the pasuq of "vezos haTorah" ends "beyad Moshe,"
and that is where RYBS stopped.

4) A case that has not been mentioned here: in the birkhos qrias Shma'
on Shabbos morning, we way "veyom haShevi'i m'shabbeah v'omer mizmor shir
leyom hashabbos tov l'hodos..." The first pasuq ends "l'yom hashabbos;"
"tov l'hodos" begins the second pasuq; RYBS used to finish up the second
by continuing through "ulzammer l'shikho 'Elyon."

On 02 Nov 2000 16:44:47, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> I say Yom Ha'Shishi because of the kol pasuk shelo paskei Moshe problem. I
> believe this is also Nusach Ari.

Why label it just as Nusach Ari? It was the nusah of the Remo' and it
is clear from the Darhei Moshe that this was the common Ashkenaz nusah
of his time.

Interestingly, all of the earliest sources say you start with
vaykhullu: R. 'Amrom Gaon, R. Sa'adya Gaon, the Roqeah in Ashkenaz,
the Rambam. Perhaps some of our members can help me out in locating
the first source for adding "yom hashishi." But regardless of where the
first source is, it was minhag Ashkenaz in the time of the Remo'.

In regard to the question raised by several about why 2 words are not
a problem of "kol psuqa d'lo paskeh Moshe," and RYGB's response:

There is a mahloqes tanoim in Gittin 6b about how many words one must
write before sirtut is required, and a mahloqes rishonim on which way
we pasken: do three words or more require it, or only four or more. The
Rambam considers this a general rule, and brings it both in Hil. Sefer
Torah (7:16) and in Hil. Yibum (4:34). The connection with Hil. Yibum is
particularly telling, since the connection is that the nusah of the get
a yovom gives and the ksubbo a yovom (yabom) writes quote psuqim, and
so the Rambam notes that they require sirtut. As he states in Hil. Sefer
Torah, "afilu kesovon 'al haniyar," even if they were written on paper,
and so the halokho is not related to one of writing something that has
inherent qdusha, like a mezuza, but rather a halokho in any pasuq from
the TeNaKh. I always interpreted that like RYGB did (borukh shekivvanti);
that it means that less than 4 or 3 words has no qdusho of being part of
kisvei haqodesh. If so, then quoting just 2 or 3 words from the posuq
shouldn't violate any issur, since the issur is based on the fact that
psuqim have to be said kinsinosom, as they were given. I have used it
thus in the past in my shi'urim on the subject, but I have not seen
anybody else who mentions this. But if this is correct, it explains
"HaShem melekh" and "haShem molokh," as well as yom hashishi.

On 3 Nov 2000 12:53:36, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> I could defend the break in Yehallelu on a shomei'a k'oneh bais making the
> completion of the passuk a co-operative one. It is loosely analagous to the
> chazzan saying Hodu Lashem ki tov and the k'hal finishing ki l'olom chasdo.
> This form is in disuse but I do believe there is evidence that this model
> was widely used early in our history.

Your taano is absolutely correct, but I do not understand why you base
it on "a model.. widely used in our history." It is a meforash halokho
in the gemoro Sukkos that the ShaTz says in Hallel "Borukh haBo" and the
tzibbur answers "b'shem Hashem." Despite the fact that only Teimonim do
this nowadays, it is a halokho that if the ShaTz says one thing and the
tzibbur continues, it is as if both said the whole thing. That explains
not only yehallelu, but also the first part of qedusha, where the ShaTz
begins the pasuq "veqoro ze el ze etc." and the tzibbur finishes it,
as well as the second pasuq of qedusha in qedusha deSidra, where the
ShaTz begins the pasuq and the tzibbur concludes.

> Second of all the principle of kal dlo passak Moshe Rabbeinu is not quite
> relevant to Nach. If so you have mucho problems all over the place. There
> are probably dozens of partial psukim throuhgout the liturgy: Rabbo
> Emunasecho, Oseh shalom bimromov, Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach

Although you are correct that "d'lo pasqeh Moshe" implies that this is
only an issue in the Torah, the Redaq and some other rishonim apply it to
all of TeNaKh. As mentioned above, I heard from RYBS that the reason was
that all psuqim have to be said kinsinosom. (Note to Masorah subscibers:
that might mean, according to the Redaq, that psuqim have to be said
with their proper trop! Not the tune, of course, but divided properly
according to the trop, vekm'l.)

Regarding Micha's question, that "if an etnahto is enough of a hefseq
not to violate this rule.. why is there a shitta that one must correct
a leining mistake involving a sof posuq: RYW's suggestion in regard to
stopping in the middle of a posuq is obviously against what the gemoro
meant by "kol psuqa," because, if so, there would be no problem dividing
up the 'aliyos (which is what the gemoro is discussing when it brings
up this issue). Nevertheless, the suggestion does have some merit in
other regards: my friend Eliyahu Beller of Bnei Braq published a study
recently trying to reconcile the number of psuqim in the Torah, Nevi'im
and Ksuvim with the numbers given in the gemoro of Qiddushin. He came
to the conclusion that if you count all zaqefs and esnahtos as pasuq
divisions, the number in the Torah comes out almost exactly to the number
in the gemoro. I have some strictures on his approach, but it is a very
interesting idea, no?

RYWalpoe thinks that this creates problems throughout davening. I
thought so too, until, preparing for my shi'urim, I went through the
entire siddur. There are actually only a few places where the problem
arises, once properly defined. I will discuss them in another posting,
b'n; I have gone on too long as it is, and am quite sure that no one
has bothered reading to the end of this posting ;-).

Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:23:20 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@bezeqint.net>
Subject:
Re: beriah and dinosaur bones


> >While I personally find the issue of science and halacha to be very
> >interesting - gedolim seem to disagree. Rabbi Shurkin told me that Rav
> >Soleveitchik felt it was a waste of time to "reconcile" science and Torah
> >and ridiculed the whole enterprise.
>
> Knowing Rav Shurkin, I have a clear picture in my head of him saying this
> to you! What I'd like to know is, did you happen to ask him why it's a
> waste of time? Especially in light of the fact that at least from what I
> know, there are lots of things that can be reconciled.

But that is exactly my point. The major poskim and roshei yeshiva apparently
don't agree that Torah has to justify itself and don't feel defensive in the
face of scientific or historical facts.  Prof Sternberg obviously feels that
they should be and that they need to be enlightened. Rav Shurkin's point was
simply that despite the fact that Rav Soleveitchik obviously knew the
scientific issues - he also did not feel that they were evidence of errors
and ignorance on the part of our Mesorah. I didn't ask him why because he
obviously also feels that there is no need to justify something which seems
to be a universal attitude of gedolei Torah.


                 Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:30:57 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: animals / flowers - humor alert


MSB:
> Otherwise, one has succeeded in answering the apikoreis -- but has one
> succeeded in defending Torah or defending something else?

Not a bad point, but think about any eis la'assos.
Doesn't it undermine a piece of the Torah to preserve the whole in light of
a threat?  Don't you consider the loss of Jews to seculraims and Reform,
etc. a threat to Torah?

Your argument sounds like a Torah-only argument, or someting that could have
been applied by Hirsch's opponents to TIDE.  

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:38:40 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: beriah and dinosaur bones


Daniel Eidensohn
>                                          Prof Sternberg obviously feels that
> they should be and that they need to be enlightened. Rav Shurkin's point was
> simply that despite the fact that Rav Soleveitchik obviously knew the
> scientific issues - he also did not feel that they were evidence of errors
> and ignorance on the part of our Mesorah. I didn't ask him why because he
> obviously also feels that there is no need to justify something which seems
> to be a universal attitude of gedolei Torah.

FWIW I don't equate reconciling and justifying.

You can reconcile Torah to X not because Torah is invalid w/o being in
agreemnt with X but because you desire to harmonize various disciplines
because you believe they all eminate from ONE creator. You harmonize because
you consider dichotomizing a bedi'eved.

It doesn't mean that Torah is weak and needs external suport.  It means that
Torah is involved in every aspect of Creation (TIDE) and every aspect of
Creation can serve to shed light on Torah and increase out understanding
thereof (TuM)

Justifying is a defensive posture. Reconciling is an outreaching posture.  I
agree that Torah need not be defensive, but it need not be neutral either.
It can emerg from an inertness vis-aivs non-Torah disciplines and enahnce
them. And external disciplines sometimes flavor or spice Torah (parpros shel
chachma).
 
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:27:28 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: animals / flowers - humor alert


MSB:
> No it does not. Chiddush is possible. Even chiddush given outside data.
> There is a difference between proposing ideas consistant with answers
> available from within mesorah, and proposing new ideas that are choleik
> with all of those mesorah contains.

WADR this seems circular

How do you know some statment is literal?  Because a tradition supports it
How does the tradition know? Because it takes the statement literally!
<smile> 

I would say that interpreting a statement as true but not literally true is
a case of chiddush and in no way forces a machlokes.  The machlokes is only
forced by fording a pre-supposition that since no one ever saw the statemtn
as anything other than literal therefore it was always intended to be only
literal.

I still do not understand according to you how a chiddush does not ipso
facto argue on all previous generations because after all they failed to
state it so therefore it could not be true?!

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:28:14 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Science and Mesorah (was Re: animals / flowers - humor alert)


MSB:
:> Otherwise, one has succeeded in answering the apikoreis -- but has one
:> succeeded in defending Torah or defending something else?

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:30:57PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Not a bad point, but think about any eis la'assos.
: Doesn't it undermine a piece of the Torah to preserve the whole in light of
: a threat?  Don't you consider the loss of Jews to seculraims and Reform,
: etc. a threat to Torah?

Not if it means winning Jews to a Torah in which any point of Torah sheBa'al
Peh is suspect, because the mesorah that transmits it could be overridden.

My point was like the stories in the gemara -- examples of "mah lehashiv
le'apikoreis" are generally followed by the Talmidim asking, "That's for
him, but how would you answer it for us?" Mah lehashiv isn't necessarily
Torah -- it's getting him to shut up.

: Your argument sounds like a Torah-only argument, or someting that could have
: been applied by Hirsch's opponents to TIDE.

Funny, I was basing it on RSRH's own opposition to the Moreh!

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:27:28PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: How do you know some statment is literal?  Because a tradition supports it
: How does the tradition know? Because it takes the statement literally!

No, tradition knows because we are told that if you apply da'as Torah to
the extant Torah, you get Torah sheBa'al Peh.

: I still do not understand according to you how a chiddush does not ipso
: facto argue on all previous generations because after all they failed to
: state it so therefore it could not be true?!

There are two differences:

1- In the case of the mabul or hahaflagah, they not only failed to say
it was metaphor or allegory, the mefarshim (with no dei'os yechidim)
explain it bipashtus.

2- We aren't talking about regular chiddush -- using Torah to create more
Torah. In fact, I would consider that discovery more than invention. The
chiddush was a possibility implied by what was already known. The mechadeish
found it.

What we're talking about is taking an outside system of thought and
ammending Torah sheBa'al Peh to fit it.

This gets to the issue of what the Rambam meant in the Moreh II, when
he says that if Aristotle's argument that the universe were infinitely
old were muchrach, he could find a way to learn it into Bereishis aleph.

But the hashkafah of the Moreh isn't the hashkafah of yahadus today.

This is certainly beyond the pale in the eyes two of the people I tend to
draw machshavah from, RSRH and the Gra.


As a side note, I don't see TuM in terms of wissenschaft. I see TuM
as giving inherent value to limudei chol. (As opposed to TIDE's derived
value.) Wissenschaft is a term invented by Geiger, and there's a reason
it originated in that camp. What YU scholarship calls wissenschaft isn't,
because there are limits to what elements of mesorah they would challenge.
But it still crosses my personal line far too often for my liking.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:16:24 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Techelles


									Bs"d

Does anyone know why Rav Kruspadoi is thusly named? I have a suspicion that
it wasn't his real name. Rabbi Purple? I assume there's a story behind it,
but haven't ever found anything.

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:16:29 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Bs"d


Me:

>> Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with
"Bs"d"?

RGS:

>Why should we have to?

									Bs"d

Why shouldn't we? A letter is the main place where it goes. Our posts are
basically letters - they're just written on the screen instead of on paper.
I know this has nafka minas in other areas, such as erasing Hashem's name.
However, I thought that was because the letters aren't really there. If
that chiluk applies to adding Bs"d as well, then I would think that if you
know, for example, that someone's going to print your post, you should add
Bs"d to it. If the chiluk isn't true, then the question stands as is.

Eli


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 >