Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 037

Tuesday, October 22 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:38:50 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


At 08:05 PM 10/21/02 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:

>Only if it is "my belief."
>But here we are talking absolutes :-) .
>
>By what authority do we determine that they are absolutes?? By the
>mere fact that they are not ikkarim and therefore have no halachic
>significance, on what basis do we determine that they are indeed correct??

The fact that they are in Torah ;-) ...

>RYGB
> > The baraisa in Avos is not an Aggadata of the sort subject to RSG's
> > position. You are confusing different types of Gemaros. His statement
> > refers to Aggadtas of the type of RBBC in BB.
>
>I think that the issue of how far to apply RSG's position (and the
>rambam;s position) is one of the key issues - and here we differ.
>This disagreement (I would venture that most "centrist", even if they
>don't adopt RSG's position, for sure would adopt rambam, but apply it
>quite extensively) is a core haredi/centrist fault line (and your claim
>was precisely that this interpretation of azat gdolim is independent of
>these fault lines)

Please do not be motzi la'az on Centrists as a a group! Many of my friends 
are Centrists and they would vehemently disagree with the view you ascribe 
to them!

There is no issue!

You fail to distinguish between Agados and Hilchos Dei'os v'Chovos 
ha'Levavos (I am being Hutnerian here, and not for naught).

Otherwise, of course, you could dismiss (Hey! Reb Meir! Do you?) many of 
those annoying Yud Gimmel Ikkarim as "Agada."

>RYGB
> > Speaking of BB, the Ramban is, methinks, quite normative (Ritva to boot)
> > and pashut pshat.
>
>The normative interpretation of aggadta is of course the issue at hand...
>However, clearly, a connection to the heavens dovetails nicely with
>the general hashkafa of the ramban and the ritva, while it is (at the
>least) quite problematic for the rambam, so I am not sure why the fact
>that the ramban and the ritva agree on this proves anything about the
>rambam (especially given his position on aggadta), and I think that many
>here also

Baruch hu Hashem she'zimen l'yadi b'etzem ha'erve ha'zeh es divrei 
ha'Nesher Ha'Gadol Ha'Rambam a"h b'derech peleh b'heyosi me'ayen b'sefer 
mussar she'ro'isi mei'eis Maran R' Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch HY"D b'chanus 
seforim lifnie lammah dakkos (ka'muvan knaisi es ha'sefer)!

V'zeh leshono b'Hakdama la'Moreh:

"Ki hasagas ha'sodos ha'hem (sodos inyanei ha'teva v'ha'chochma ha'Elokis) 
efsharis rak al yedei nitzotz Or Eloki ha'mavrik b'nefeshha'adam ub'da'ato."

QED.

>You may not have meant it, but the general discussion was clearly related
>- therefore I stated that one could separate the two (as you did),
>but I think that the discussion on avodah was precisely on daas torah
>(and the ideological issues that are apparent - the normative nature
>of aggadic/hashkafic statements, while not identical, are quite closely
>intertwined)

Clearly? To you, perhaps, but not to me. Lo korav zeh el zeh kol ha'lyla.

To believe in DT may be optional, but to believe in the nitzotz Or Eloki 
that resides in those who know Chocham Ohr Elokis is not.

>A friend of mine has it. I will see what I can do. Of course, we
>sometimes differ in our understanding of simple pshat (a la vealehu lo
>yibol discussion...)

True ;-) .

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Resounding NO!
> Firstly, as I noted, I believe, TT is Hirschian.

> Secondly, more importantly, why allow groups to co-opt terms that should be 
> more broadly applicable?!

It's not a question of who originated the phrase or "allowing" it's
co-opting. It is a question of common usage. Look what happened to the
word "gay". It used to mean "happy". I would never use that word to
describe myself today.

> I think, for example, that every "Dati" should rue the day they allowed 
> "Charedi" to be co-opted! Who does not aspire to be a Chared l'dvar Hashem!

You're right. Charedi used to mean Orthodox. But the word has evolved into
meaning RW Orthodox. If I am not mistaken "Charedi" was first used by the
non-Frum Israeli to describe Ultra-Orthodoxy because they are perceived
to always be "Shukeling" during prayer. Dati has taken the place of the
phrase "Modern Orthodox", at least in Israel. It is taken from the word
"Das" or "Dat" in Sephardi which means "Law" or more specificly Torah
law. A "Dati" is someone who observes Torah law.
The word "Dati" should apply to any observant Jew the same as the word
Orthodox should. But it has been co-opeted by the MOs in Israel, the
same way the word "Charedi" has by the ultra-Orthodox.

The word "Orthodox" has itself evolved and has connotaions of
moderation. No self respecting Ben Torah would use the word Orthodox to
describe himself today, would he?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:23:40 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


At 04:13 AM 10/22/02 -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>(deleted)

Not sure I saw anything that specifically was a request for  a response 
from me, rather than an assertion of your position :-) .

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:22:26 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


The speech of the rav on advice and moral choices is found in Rav
Rakeffet-Rothkoff's book,  the Rav, section 21.06 (vol 2, p. 236-237), from
a speech in 1975.
 
Some quotes

Apparently, there is a subjective element in making moral decisions.  If one
is confused, he can ask for  guidance.  I have been presented with such
moral questions.  I never give a yes or no answer.  The questions may
determine the future of the particular individual.  I will explain the
options but tell him that the final choice is his.  There are occasionally
the most important problems.
...

I resent very much that certain roshei yeshiva and certain teachers want to
impose their will upon the boys.  It is against the law.  Both ways are
correct, the options are correct, and it is up to the individual to make the
decision.  I cannot make the decision for him.....
I do not like to impose my will upon somebody else.  Only the Almighty can
do that, but not a human being

(from me)
This would suggest a dramatic difference in the role of advice proposed by
others and that suggested by RYBS, and relying on advice from gdolim is not
part of minimal torah true judaism...

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:54:45 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


>I think that the issue of how far to apply RSG's position (and the
>rambam;s position) is one of the key issues - and here we differ.
>This disagreement (I would venture that most "centrist", even if they
>don't adopt RSG's position, for sure would adopt rambam, but apply it
>quite extensively) is a core haredi/centrist fault line (and your claim
>was precisely that this interpretation of azat gdolim is independent of
>these fault lines)

RYGB
Please do not be motzi la'az on Centrists as a a group! Many of my friends 
are Centrists and they would vehemently disagree with the view you ascribe 
to them!

There is no issue!

You fail to distinguish between Agados and Hilchos Dei'os v'Chovos 
ha'Levavos (I am being Hutnerian here, and not for naught).

Otherwise, of course, you could dismiss (Hey! Reb Meir! Do you?) many of 
those annoying Yud Gimmel Ikkarim as "Agada."

Me
There is a well known Rambam in the perush hamishnayot (actually, it
appears, IIRC, 3 times, although now at work I can't cite it directly)
that on issues of machshava we do not pasken. The issues of psak in
hovot halevavot is quite complex (the rambam clearly does pasken in those
issues - but not quite as simplistically). The ikkarim are unique in
that regard. (I will ignore the tone of the above post)

The mishna/baraita in avot 6:1 is (IMHO) a classical case of guzma
applied to show the greatness of talmud torah. As the value and message
enshrined, there is agreement. As to the literal understanding of the
different components mentioned, well, let us say we disagree (and my
understanding I think is quite according to the principles laid down in
maamar al agadot hazal by rav Avraham the son of the rambam)

(I would point out, however, that even according to the pshat approach,
malchut is one of the characteristics associated with haosek betorah
lishma, and those who haven't achieved malchut perhaps aren't zoche for
nehenin mimenu etza vetushia....)


However, let me make another remark. It is one thing for people to decide
that someone is sufficiently great that they wish to ask him for advice.
It is another for someone to decide that his torah learning is of such a
level that others should ask him for advice. The latter is (IMHO) a case
of magbiah atzmo al divre torah. I am happy that there is one maamar
hazal that I (in this case) and RYGB (he as a matter of principle)
agree in interpreting literally - that in avot drabbi natan perek 11
(on hamagbiah atzmo al divre torah) - I would add that for many (?most)
centrists/leftists, this maamar hazal is a very accurate reflection of
their attitudes.

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Not sure I saw anything that specifically was a request for a response 
> from me, rather than an assertion of your position :-) .

What I was trying to do was to get you to agree that sometimes, no
matter how we dislike it, words  and phrases evolve into meanings
different than their intrinsic meaning, through the co-opting of them
by agendized groups. So a phrase like Torah-true which I agree is a
better definition of Torah obserance, has evolved into a catch phrase
meaning Agudist or the like, to the exclusion of Centrist, TIDEist,
or other legitimate Hashkafos which are as Torah-true as Charedist
Judaism.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:01:03 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


At 09:22 AM 10/22/02 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>The speech of the rav on advice and moral choices is found in Rav
>Rakeffet-Rothkoff's book,  the Rav, section 21.06 (vol 2, p. 236-237), from
>a speech in 1975.
...
>I resent very much that certain roshei yeshiva and certain teachers want to
>impose their will upon the boys.  It is against the law.  Both ways are
>correct, the options are correct, and it is up to the individual to make the
>decision.  I cannot make the decision for him.....
>I do not like to impose my will upon somebody else.  Only the Almighty can
>do that, but not a human being
>
>(from me)
>This would suggest a dramatic difference in the role of advice proposed by
>others and that suggested by RYBS, and relying on advice from gdolim is not
>part of minimal torah true judaism...

Hmmm...

What exactly were you trying to prove from this. More correctly, how do
you propose to prove your thesis from this citation?

RYBS opposed making decisions for others, not giving advice.

You are conflating decision-making with advice-giving.

This is unfortunate (and incorrect!).

Perhaps you have a passage which *does* sustain your thesis that is only
on the tape, not in the transcript?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:55:24 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
FW: Orthodox vs. Torah-true


From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> What exactly were you trying to prove from this. More correctly, how do you 
> propose to prove your thesis from this citation?

> RYBS opposed making decisions for others, not giving advice.
> You are conflating decision-making with advice-giving.
> This is unfortunate (and incorrect!).

sigh...
 my original post

Furthermore, the issue of advice is frequently a matter of moral choice -
the different options have different consequences with  different
consequences with different moral values attached. RYBS has a tape where he
specifically says that one should not rely on gdolim to make moral choices -
the gdolim may clarify the moral and halachic issues involved, but not
decide for the individual the right course, suggesting that my demurral is
not quite as hutz lamachane as RYGB supposes.

My quote backs this up quite well.

The issue is not whether we should go to wise men for advice - something I
never denied (and do - but my definition of wisdom is far broader..) - but
rather I was contesting the claims, both explicit and implicit that 

1) Torah wisdom confers wisdom to advise in all matters

2) This wisdom has "connections to the heavens"

3) One therefore should be guided by that advice (even if it is not viewed
as explicit direction


It is quite clear that the nature of the advice given by RYBS is quite
different from what has been discussed previously on avodah - eg, going
to America pre war, advice about medical decisions, etc - it is not
prescriptive (this is my advice about what you should do) but descriptive
( these are potential consequences, but both options remain viable and
you have to weigh the costs/benefits). In your original post you said,
as a paradigm of what advice is needed, that you were sent to RSZA to
"determine what to do with your future". Similarly in the post you quote
about Rav Sholom Gold asking RYK and the LR about making aliya. It is
precisely this type of advice that RYBS rejects - he will advise you
about the consequences of different choices, but the different choices
remain yours. RYBS's position is completely against prescriptive advice
as given to Rabbi Gold. Clearly, other gdolim have a different viewpoint,
and this is very much a fault line between haredi/centrist.

It is also quite clear that there is no sense that this advice has
"connections to the heavens", which is why it remains so non prescriptive.

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:32:18 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
R. Chaim and psak


> 1. Reb Chaim would not pasken major questions - he would send them
> to RYE and ask him to send back psakim without rationales. Reb chaim
> understood that RYE's psak would manifest Ratzon Hashem even though he
> could invariably dispute the lomdus. In our generation we witnessed a
> similar phenomenon with RMF zt"l.

This is not how I understood the situation. R. Chaim was a RY and not a
posek. Psak is not always based strictly on lomdus. As such RCS wanted
the psak of RYE. I don't think it had anything to do with Ratzon Hashem,

-- 
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 10/22/2002


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:04:36 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: R. Chaim and psak


At 03:32 PM 10/22/02 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>1. Reb Chaim would not pasken major questions - he would send them to
>RYE and ask him to send back psakim without rationales. Reb chaim
>understood that RYE's psak would manifest Ratzon Hashem even though
>he could invariably dispute the lomdus. In our generation we
>witnessed a similar phenomenon with RMF zt"l.

>This is not how I understood the situation. R. Chaim was a RY and not
>a posek. Psak is not always based strictly on lomdus. As such RCS
>wanted the psak of RYE. I don't think it had anything to do with
>Ratzon Hashem,

1. RCS was a Rav, not a RY!!!

(BTW, your position would imply he pulled a fast one on the residents of 
Brisk!).

2. Psak should *always* be based on Lomdus.

(How do you think RYE arrived at his psakim - tarot cards?)

3. If it had nothing to do with Ratzon Hashem (or Lomdus) why not just ask 
Reb Simcha Zelig - or, rather, Rabbi Tom, Rabbi Dick or Rabbi Harry to pasken!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:40:40 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: R. Chaim and psak


>1. RCS was a Rav, not a RY!!!

As you yourself mention Reb Simcha Selig (why is Reb and not Rav)
was the posek in Brisk and RCS (who was also RY  Voloshin)

...
>2. Psak should *always* be based on Lomdus.
>(How do you think RYE arrived at his psakim - tarot cards?)

Of course every posek uses lomdus. However, psak is not only based on 
lomdus but uses other factors.

>3. If it had nothing to do with Ratzon Hashem (or Lomdus) why not
>just ask Reb Simcha Zelig - or, rather, Rabbi Tom, Rabbi Dick or 
>Rabbi Harry to pasken!

Because these were serious questions. Did people go to RMF Feinstein 
with their questions rather than their LOR because he had more retzon 
hashem or because the hard questions went higher up the ladder in 
lomdus and psak.

For that matter I would ask the same in Chumash. When Moshe says
"kol hadavar hakashe taviu elai" is that because Moshe Rabbenu had 
more ratzon  hashem (is that the same as siyata dishmaya?) or is that 
because Moshe rabbenu knew the halachot better (in his case he could 
even ask hashem but that option doesn't exist for other poskim)

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 10/22/2002


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:19:28 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Atzas Gedolim


At 09:54 AM 10/22/02 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>Otherwise, of course, you could dismiss (Hey! Reb Meir! Do you?) many of
>those annoying Yud Gimmel Ikkarim as "Agada."

>Me
>There is a well known Rambam in the perush hamishnayot (actually, it
>appears, IIRC, 3 times, although now at work I can't cite it directly) that
>on issues of machshava we do not pasken.  The issues of psak in hovot
>halevavot is quite complex (the rambam clearly does pasken in those issues -
>but not quite as simplistically).  The ikkarim are unique in that regard. (I
>will ignore the tone of the above post)

Please do not ignore the above post - the tone is not material - as I 
recall you yesterday citing Dr. Shapiro's essay with approval, and not in 
the same vein as my approval (i.e., that his essay proved the 
counte-position to his thesis), I suspect. The question is, therefore, 
legit. Whether you choose to respond is, of course, entirely up to you.

As I said, and you are, I am pleased, modeh b'miktzas, machashavah is 
different that Hil. Dei'os and Chovos ha'Levavos. "Complex," indeed. Try 
me, I can deal a bit with complexity - but so far I see none.

>The mishna/baraita in avot 6:1 is (IMHO) a classical case of guzma applied
>to show the greatness of talmud torah.  As the value and message enshrined,
>there is agreement.  As to the literal understanding of the different
>components mentioned, well, let us say we disagree (and my understanding I
>think is quite according to the principles laid down in maamar al agadot
>hazal by rav Avraham the son of the rambam)

Guzmah, huh?

Let me reiterate that somewhat differently:

Bechhofer brought a good proof which I can only reject by claiming it
to be an exaggeration.

As I have noted, the RABhRambam is irrelevant (I had him in mind in my
previous discourses). You are s

>(I would point out, however, that even according to the pshat approach,
>malchut is one of the characteristics associated with haosek betorah lishma,
>and those who haven't achieved malchut perhaps aren't zoche for nehenin
>mimenu etza vetushia....)

You forgot:
Mahn malchei - Rabbanan.

>However, let me make another remark.  It is one thing for people to decide
>that someone is sufficiently great that they wish to ask him for advice.  It
>is another for someone to decide that his torah learning is of such a level
>that others should ask him for advice.  The latter is (IMHO) a case of
>magbiah atzmo al divre torah.  I am happy that there is one maamar hazal
>that I (in this case)  and RYGB (he as a matter of principle) agree in
>interpreting literally - that in avot drabbi natan perek 11 (on hamagbiah
>atzmo al divre torah) - I would add that for many (?most)
>centrists/leftists, this maamar hazal is a very accurate reflection of their
>attitudes.

How exactly do you decide which ones you take literally and which not?!

In any event, the Chachamim to which we go for advice are not those who
have set out shingles!

Let me mention, once we are on the topic of Sage Advice, a story I heard
many years ago (someone in Har Nof should go verify my accuracy):

R' Sholom Gold, our rabbi at YIWH when I was growing up, consulted (at
least) two Ba'alei Eitzah before making Aliyah, R' Yaakov Kamenetsky
and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

R' Yaakov advised him that he may go, the LR that he may not (he consulted
the LR after RY). He then went back to RY who said he might still go, but
that if he went back again to the LR to attempt to get him to change his
mind and the LR still was admant, then he (RSG) should not make aliyah,
as if an Odom Godol advises you not do something in a definitive manner,
you should not go against that advice...

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:49:19 -0400
From: Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject:
Re: RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot


On Saturday 19 October 2002 14:48, Chana Luntz wrote:
> a) can RMF make gezerahs?
Not really, however, I saw one tshuvah, in which he discusses a practice
becoming minhag hamaqom. It would seem that, after having urged to act
in a certain manner by a major poseq, people would become obligated to
maintain that practice in that particular locality. For all practical
purposes, this means that yes, RMF can make gezeirot, however it is a
tad harder than it was for 'Hazal.

> b) if he can make gezerahs, can he, as you are suggesting  at least in
> the abortion situation, make a gezerah but claim that it is not in fact
> a gezerah,  but a full fledged Torah issur (in the case of abortion, an
> issur chayav misas beis din).
He is not making a gezeirah and shrouding it in language of issur
deOraita. Instead, he is convinced that the halakhah is that abortion is
a form of retzi'hah. However, knowing that REW disagrees, he decides to
pull the rug from under his feet as a public policy. IOW, he thinks that
following REW in this matter would be so wrong that he undermines him.
Not exactly a gezeirah, just trying to instill in people the (according
to him) 'right' psaq.

> Very briefly, given the mass of material and opinions referred to above,
> the probable answer to a) is Yes, but the probable answer to b) is No.
> Even those that allow some falsification, tend to draw the line where
> additional punishments would result from the higher classification.

> I would also note, paranthetically, that one of the principles of gezera
> making is that b'makom d'ikar tzara ei gazaru rabbanan -
Please elabortae; I am not sure what you are talking about.

You also, inter alia, suggested that there may be issues of bal tosif
and of midvar sheqer tir'hoq. Well, there is no bal tosif at all. In
the abortion tshuvah, RMF really believes it is completely assur
mideOraita. In the Shabbos timers tshuvah he wants to extend an issur
derabbanan (that of amirah le'aqum). Other examples welcome (may be
I should collect such tshuvot, of RMF and others, to show the role of
public policy in halakhah?).

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:14:37 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Rambam: Pesicha to the Moreh


After quoting the Rambam second hand in a post earlier this evening, I
looked in the R"Y Kaffich ed. tonight in the Pesicha to see it inside. Of
course, it hit me then: The Rambam's shitta is that nevu'ah is a form of
intellectual elevation, In the Pesicha he states the obvious corollary:
Heightened intellect is necessarily linked to Ruach ha'Kodesh.

Since most Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's definition of nevu'ah,
seeing it rather as a revelation than an education, they will learn
Chacham adif me'Navi a la the Ramban.

But like the Rambam, s'iz doch pashut: A Navi and a Chacham are al oso
ha'gvan, the Navi, however, is constrained by the intellect that is
"awarded" him; the Chacham can, at will, expand his intellect.

V'ayein.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:32:39 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: am'ru vs. amaru, RC, pinkies


At 11:22 PM 10/21/02 +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
>A short time ago, a poster (RYGB, perhaps) noted that some say 'anu
>v'amaru before mi khamokha instead of v'am'ru and requested sources.
>
>Obviously, amaru is a pausal form so the question is whether there is
...

Yes, it was I who queried after noting that the Stoliner Chasidim with 
which I davened this summer would say "amaru."

Thank you for the response, informative as always. Now my question is why 
and how, would you surmise, Stoliners adopted RZ"H as their guiding light 
in this respect? Historically, who followed him and why?

BTW, once we are on the topic of tefillos, a friend queried:

>Since you had all these e-mails about tefilo inyanim and Shabbos Mevorchim,
>I thought of a question about Shabbos Rosh Chodesh that has bothered me for
>years. The nusach of musaf for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh only has the Rosh
>Chodesh b'kashos such as "chadesh aleinu es hachodesh hazeh l'tovah l'brocho
>etc. It omits the normal b'koshos of every Shabbos and Yom tov of "kdsheinu
>b'mitvosecha v'sen chelkainu b'toresecho etc. The Chabad nusach Ari siddur
>has both the rosh chodesh and regular Shabbos b'kashos at the end of the
>brocho. What's the explanation for the nusach ashkenaz (and ashkenaz nusach
>s'fard) version?

IIRC, I think the Aruch ha'Shulchan has a not-too-satisfying discussion of 
the issue.

Another correspondent wrote about pointing with the pinkie topic of an 
e-mail from Sun.) and posited that the ten fingers correspond to the ten 
sefiros, thus the pinkie to Keser, hence, pointing with the pinkie connotes 
Keser Torah. Not bad!

KT,
YGB


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:45:58 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>
Subject:
FW: oseh shalom


>>>Any reason, besides lo plug, that we end the tefila "oseh shalom
bimeromav" with "ve'imru amen" even in the silent shemoneh esrei?>>>

According to RSZA in Halichos Shlomo (p. 5) (b'sheim the Magen Avrohom
in OC 66, s'k 7), we say "oseh shalom...ve'imru amen" in our silent
shemonah esrei (and in benching) because we are asking the malachim who
accompany and watch us to answer amen. RSZA would often mention that we
should regularly ask ourselves if the shemona esrei that we just davened
is "good enough" that we should ask our malachim to answer amen.

KT
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:21:57 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Rambam: Pesicha to the Moreh


"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:

> But like the Rambam, s'iz doch pashut: A Navi and a Chacham are al oso
> ha'gvan, the Navi, however, is constrained by the intellect that is
> "awarded" him; the Chacham can, at will, expand his intellect.

No.  Nevuah ends up in the faculty of imagination, chachma in the faculty of
intellect.  "Yishma chacham v'yosif lekach" does not apply to a navi qua navi
(of course, "ein nevuah shoreh ela al chacham ...", so the distinction is
moot).

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:24:31 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: FW: oseh shalom


In a message dated 10/22/2002 1:03:32 PM EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
> According to RSZA in Halichos Shlomo (p. 5) (b'sheim the Magen Avrohom
> in OC 66, s'k 7), we say "oseh shalom...ve'imru amen" in our silent
> shemonah esrei (and in benching) because we are asking the malachim who
> accompany and watch us to answer amen. RSZA would often mention that we
> should regularly ask ourselves if the shemona esrei that we just davened
> is "good enough" that we should ask our malachim to answer amen.
 
Does RSZA discuss why these 2 cases in particular?

KT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Atzas Gedolim


"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Let me mention, once we are on the topic of Sage Advice, a story I heard
> many years ago (someone in Har Nof should go verify my accuracy):
> R' Sholom Gold, our rabbi at YIWH when I was growing up, consulted (at
> least) two Ba'alei Eitzah before making Aliyah, R' Yaakov Kamenetsky
> and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
> 
> R' Yaakov advised him that he may go, the LR that he may not (he consulted
> the LR after RY). He then went back to RY who said he might still go, but
> that if he went back again to the LR to attempt to get him to change his
> mind and the LR still was admant, then he (RSG) should not make aliyah,
> as if an Odom Godol advises you not do something in a definitive manner,
> you should not go against that advice...

This raises another question. If one gets opposing advice from two Gedloei
Israel, chooses to follow one Gadol over the other and is then Matzliach,
does this mean that one Gadol was right and the other was wrong? Does
it mean that one Gadol is greater than the other? Or should we interpret
that Elu V'Elu applies and had the other's advice been followed he would
have been just as Matzliach, perhaps in a different way?

If Elu V'Elu applies, then why bother asking? He could have just decided
on his own?

How should we look at the above scenario?

HM


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 >