Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 122

Thu, 03 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: R' Berkovits = Conservative halacha?? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Skipping Korbanos (D&E-H Bannett)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: schechtworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Shabbat erev pesach (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: What is a saris? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Chazzan pacing the tzibur/long tachanun (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: R' Berkovits = Conservative halacha?? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Tiqun Olam (Richard Wolpoe)

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:32:25PM IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
: The topic moved to discussing Rabbi Berkovits's halachic approach,
: compared to Conservative.

"Compared to" doesn't mean equated, despite your choice of new subject
line.

...
: B'kitzur: Logically-sound Talmudic rules are overriden by ethical
: imperatives themselves intrinsic to the Torah (and not borrowed from
: Western society and Enlightenment values- "darkei shalom" is a Torah
: value). This is EXACTLY what Rabbi Berkovits said, not more and not
: less. Rabbi Jakobovits says that "This argument may be capable of further
: development", and I think that perhaps Rabbi Berkovits did davka this.

The problem is in placing such aggadic values at greater importance than
textual and mimetic precedent. By playing down the fact that halakhah
is a legal process, he removes the anchor that insures that the values
used actually are Torah ones.

Values are passed on largely mimetically. Even articulated values require
shemush to know relative importance and feel. If you can put them into
words, you have already formalized somewhat.

Which means that there is no way to know when you've crossed the line
from implementing Torah values to pulling halakhic strictures into
accomodating alien ones.

This is why a society that is culturally closer to Sinai needs fewer
formal legalisms.

He is lamenting the formality rather than lamenting the reason why we
need it. Reducing the role of the formal legal process without restoring
the culture is opening a Pandora's box.

Add to that that REB doesn't trust Chazal's statements about the
limitations of the process they used, and assumes (as per academia and
C) that they had more tools at their disposal.

He repeats the old (within C) line that pruzbul as precedent for abrogating
deOraisa as opposed to enginerring around them. The chakhamim say there
never was a ben sorer umoreh, he makes that statement into finessing
the din out of existence through uqimta.

His call for values translates into much more of the same. That's
different than the full scope of liberties C takes with the legal process.
However if you invite flexibility in response to the ineffible and thus
unverifiable, is the difference one of quality or degree?

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:56:52PM EDT, Rich, R Joel wrote:
:> Because one rule is that bit in Edios 1 about precedent being binding
:> until one finds a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan. Therefore, as
:> chokhmah is lost, codified halakhah will increase. If someone refuses to
:> collect it in one place, they won't prevent ossification, they will just
:> cause more loss, and more chumros to be safe would ensue.

: AIUI Gadol mimenu only applies to gzeirot, not drashot.

It sounds like you're thinking of Hil' Mamrim pereq 2, and/or our previous
discussions of it. That is only discussing the creation of new law. The
Rambam holds that derashah is a constructive system by which one can
find new deOraisos, so it's included.

This is neither, it's pesaq. We're talking interpretation, not
legislation.

Which is the case in Ediyos 1:5, where it is explained that shitas
hayachid is recorded to provide ideas for a future beis din hagadol
mimenu bechokhmah uveminyah to possibly change the din to that shitah.
Isn't the overwhelming number of machloqesin in mishnayos ones of pesaq
that is neither arguments over derashah or new gezeiros?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Re: REMT's question <<So why is hoiche kedusha never said on 
Shabbos? >>.

It is not exactly hoikhe kedusha, but many Sefaradi shuls do 
not have chazarat hasha"tz for musaf.  The chazan starts 
aloud immediately after kaddish but continues aloud for the 
entire "seven", a.k.a. "shemoneh esrei". The kahal says it 
with him.  In a Dardai minyan I have seen older men in 
weekday mincha who do not say the words but concentrate on 
the chazan's words.

David

>  I do not understand the focus on *seeing* a religious Jew. Why would seeing a religious
> Jew put a person into the category of "he should've known better than to violate halacha"?
> R' Akiva Miller

>  > You seem to saying that until they are truly gedolei Torah
>  > they can not do any sins deliberately. Which probably means
>  > that maybe some of the members of this list might be
>  > capable of deliberately sinning - but surely not most. This
>  > might be consistent with a mussar approach - but I don't
>  > think it fits in with the poskim.
>  > R' Daniel Eidensohn

I didn't say they had to be gedolei yisrael to be meizid. What I said,
however, is that it seems to me (IMHO) that in order to for him to
cease to be a TsN, he has to cease to be shogeg in the fact of Sinai
etc. If he learns a random halacha or happens to meet a few religious
Jews (Reb Moshe), he won't have learned enough to be convinced that
Torah is min ha-shamayim.

That is why I do not understand the notion of Reb Moshe that the
moment he meets a religious Jew he is no longer TsN. What could have
reasonably changed in his yedia? First, there are many wise and
upstanding gentiles and non-religious Jews. Second, even if he meets a
religious Jew who is the most wise and upstanding person ever, you
still have to give him enough knowledge to know that Sinai occurred.

If I find a random TsN on the street and yell "Guess what? The Sabbath
is on Saturday, and if you rub a piece of leather between two poles,
you're liable for memahek!", and suddenly he's not a TsN??!! Where in
that exchange did he cease to be shogeg in the fact that the Torah was
given from G-d?

And even if I yell to him, "The Torah was given by G-d!!", I haven't
given him enough information to prove it someone who didn't already
know it. In order to not be shogeg, **in anything**, a person has to
learn enough that he known it before, he wouldn't have done it. (Or
rather, a reasonable person wouldn't have done it. If someone knows
about karet but still violates Shabbat, he's being stupid and he's
being meizid. Thus, an FFB who goes off the derech is presumably
meizid.) If Shimon violates Shabbat because he didn't know it was
karet or because he didn't know it was a melacha, then when you tell
him the new information, he'll respond, "Oy va voy, I never would've
done it!". That is why a meizid is not (in a particular act) and a
mumar cannot be (ever, whether meizid or shogeg), a shogeg - because
even if you tell him that he did wrong, he doesn't shav from his yedia
- for him, there's no "had you known...".

What if I went to a shogeg b'karet Orthodox Jew and told him,
"According to Conservative halacha, you get karet for that melacha",
and let's say Conservative halacha is correct here. Well, I haven't
yet told him enough to know that violating Shabbat gets him karet.
Since he's an Orthodox shogeg, he will only listen to Orthodox
opinions, and learning that Conservatives say karet, isn't enough to
prove to him. So he hasn't yet learned enough that had he known he
wouldn't have sinned, and IMHO, he's still shogeg.

So for a TsN, who is shogeg (in everything), to cease to be TsN, which
is to say, cease to be shogeg, shouldn't you have to give him enough
information that a reasonable TsN (again, even if he himself is
masochistic, we go by the rov) would exclaim "Oy va voy, I never
would've...!!"?

So IMHO, he can't simply learn a single halacha. He has to learn
enough for the average person to be convinced that Sinai happened. How
much is this? I don't know, but a suspect it is a LOT.

And perhaps this is why Rabbi Kaplan said that no matter how much he
learns, he is ALWAYS TsN. Because how do you define how much
information is enough for the average reasonable TsN to conclude,
rationally, that Sinai happened?

And I agree with R' Akiva Miller that "Where are the defining limits?
I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide  these
things." With nonreligious Jews today, how can we really know whether
they are meizid or not? How can we really know what their upbringing
was? How can we really know how pervasive the secularism was? We
can't. Things are too open and uncertain. Therefore, I say, be machmir
on the d'oraita of not accusing a shogeg of being meizid (obviously,
you could just as well argue be machmir on the d'oraita of not
accusing a meizid of being shogeg).

I don't know about Tzadukim and Kara'im. I've never met one, so I
cannot argue between Rambam and Ridbaz whether they are shogeg or
meizid. I am inclined towards Rambam that their descendants are
innocently following erroneous teachings, but I've never met a Karaite
and I cannot be sure. I definitely have never met a Talmudic era
Tzaduki or Essene to know why they weren't TsN. But I DO know
nonreligious Jews today - I was one.

That is why I'd be willing to tell G-d to His face that I simply
disagree with Reb Moshe. Because it is as if Reb Moshe told me that
which my own eyes tells me is wrong. I KNOW as surely as I know that
the sky is blue, that one cannot be expected to do teshuva just by
meeting a religious Jew or learning a few random halachot.

>  But isn't the opposite extreme [of needing to be a gadol in order to be meizid] equally
> absurd [as the idea that one must know absolutely positively nothing to be shogeg]?
>
>  If a person can be a meizid even though he falls short of being a Gadol BaTorah, so too it
> should be possible be a Tinok Shenishba even though he falls short of being a total
> ignoramus. IOW: If there are areas of Torah that a person is not yet expert in, and he counts
> as a meizid despite that, then it follows that there can be areas of
> Torah which a person *is* > slightly acquainted with, and he still
> counts as a Tinok Shenishba.
>
>  Where are the defining limits? I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide
> these things.
>
> R' Akiva Miller

I would take a different tack. As I say above, meizid means knowing
enough that you know better than to do what you did. Therefore, one
doesn't need to be a gadol - knowing that smoothing leather and
rubbing the dirt floor in my house smooth are both assur on Shabbat is
enough; I don't need to know (I just learned this sugya) that "ha-shaf
bein ha-amudim" has a machloket between Rashi (smooths the dirt
between the pillars) and Rabbenu Chananel, Ramban, Tosafot, Ran, Rosh,
Rambam, based on Yerushalmi (stretches the leather between two pillars
and smooths it, or rubs the leather against the pillar (Rosh girsas
*al gabei* ha-amudim)).

And shogeg means being ignorant enough that you sinned, but had you
known more, you wouldn't have sinned. (Again, really, we are going by
the rov; if one guy is so stupid that he doesn't mind karet, and so
even had he known karet he still would have sinned - he's still
meizid.)

I prefer my argument to yours, particularly because there's a
machloket in Shabbat between Munbaz and R' Akiva about whether a
shogeg can have yedia. Munbaz says yes, R' Akiva no. Now, "yedia" here
may mean more than a miniscule almost insignificant smidgen of yedia,
so it may be that when you say that a shogeg can have a bit of yedia,
even R' Akiva would agree. I don't know. But your argument is
dangerously close to opening yourself up to the accusation that you're
simply following the rejected opinion of Munbaz. But according to my
model of shogeg and meizid, everyone will agree that even R' Akiva is
happy.

Mikha'el Makovi

D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> Re: REMT's question <<So why is hoiche kedusha never said on 
> Shabbos?

> It is not exactly hoikhe kedusha, but many Sefaradi shuls do 
> not have chazarat hasha"tz for musaf.  The chazan starts 
> aloud immediately after kaddish but continues aloud for the 
> entire "seven", a.k.a. "shemoneh esrei".

Including the middle bracha?  The universal practise I've seen for
musaf in Sefardi and Temani minyanim is that after "hakel hakadosh"
the chazan goes silent, waits just before the end of the middle bracha
until the kahal finishes, and then continues aloud.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

I wrote:

> > And, in many ways it is hard to see (leaving aside the hair covering
> >case) how a man who wants to be shomrei mitzvos can remain married to 
>> such a woman.
> 
> But I thought we were discussing precisely the case of hair covering,

I think the thread has shifted here, and you may not have followed the
shift.

We were discussing hair covering vis a vis a shochet's wife.  And RMB argued
that a husband cannot be considered controlling, and it is his wife's averah
not his.

I pointed out that the Mishna in Kesubos would seem to imply that a man
ought to divorce his wife in such a case.

RMYG queried this, given that the Rambam holds that if a man wants to remain
married to a woman in the case of the Mishna, he does not have to divorce
her.

I brought that while the Rambam does indeed hold like this, the Shulchan
Aruch brings that it is a mitzvah to divorce her (and that the takana of
Rabbanu Gershom which normally prevents her being divorced against her will
does not apply).

As a tangent, I added that while I understood the position of the Rambam in
relation to daas yehudis and those aspects of daas Moshe that involve
haircovering, I struggled to understand him in relation to the general case
of daas Moshe - of which the classic case is that she misleads him as to her
nida status.  How in that case, I queried, could the Rambam say that if a
man wanted to, he could remain married to her, and why did he not have beis
din force the man to divorce her.

> which isn't like the other examples.  Her going out with uncovered hair
> seems to me more like her eating treif, rather than feeding him treif;
> and we don't find that listed among the Das Moshe issues that justify
> divorce.

No, but her not covering her hair is more like the other cases of daas
Yehudis found in the Mishna - such as weaving in the marketplace and other
violations of tznius - and it is precisely in relation to such violations
that the Shulchan Aruch says that it is a mitzvah to divorce her.  What I
was querying was whether in fact the Shulchan Aruch was even stronger on
matters which were not just daas yehudis, and might hold that indeed a beis
din should force a divorce in the case of a woman feeding her husband treif.

> If she had actually been machshil him once then the only way I can see
> that he might not have to divorce her is if he's personally convinced
> that she won't do it again.  If it were a strict requirement that he
> divorce her, then we would not allow him to rely on his own judgment;
> the point here seems to be that he is entitled to judge the situation
> as he sees it, and stay with her if he thinks he can do so without
> transgressing any more issurim.

That might perhaps be the rationale of the Rambam - although it is a
fascinating one - as it would seem to put the husband's assessment of the
situation (and his level of negia is pretty high) over beis din's.  Why is
his judgement to be trusted here but not in regard to whether television
does or does not have an effect on him, for example?

 
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's



> And in any case, this all started because the shocheit's job was saved
> on the grounds that it was she who wasn't covering her hair, not that
> the shocheit himself was violating halachic norm.

That may be true, but he is still, according to the Shulchan Aruch, failing
to perform the mitzvah of divorcing her.  It would seem from this that
failing to perform an explicit mitzvah in the Shulchan Aruch is OK, if it is
the community norm not to perform this mitzvah.  

> Which means that the whole question of whether it's grounds for a get --
> while important in its own right as a discussion of hilkhos gittin -- is
> tangential to the original issue.

No, the issue is not whether it is grounds for a get, but whether or not it
is a mitzvah to give a get.

Try this one for size, how OK would a shochet be from Moldovia (or wherever
it was that the community drank stam yenam)?  According to this, fine - they
have a tosphos on which one might possibly argue a reliance, and the
community does it, and stam yenam is only a d'rabbanan after all.  But beard
trimming and galoshes, no way.

In an earlier posting RZS writes:

> I think what we're dealing with here is not the loss of the standard
> chezkas kashrus that every Jew is presumed to have, but of a higher
> level of proven trustworthiness that is demanded of communal shochtim.
> I imagine that those who fired a shochet for wearing galoshes would
> still allow him to testify at a din torah, and would even eat at his
> home.  But his deviation from communal norms made his yir'as shomayim
> suspect enough not to eat from his shechita.

But where is this all sourced from?  I thought l'hefech, that a good portion
of the dinim regarding chezkas kashrus are learnt out from the first few
dafim of Chullin, and davka specifically in relation to whether one could
eat from a persons' shechita.  This whole idea that we are discussing
elsewhere that a mumar l'chachis is like an ovdei avodah zara  who is
considered like a non Jew and a mechalel shabbas b'farhesia is like an
ovedei avodah zara is brought specifically in relation to shechita (inter
alia, Achav's shechita) there in Chullin.  Whereas a person who is over on
other issurim may be an averyan but their shechita is not assur (and then
Tosphos has a whole discussion about whether being mechallel shabbas
b'farhesia by way of a d'rabbanan is enough, or it needs to be a violation
of a d'orisa b'farhesia).

And then you go from the first few dafim of Chullin to the first few simanim
of Yoreh Deah, and you read things like (siman 2 si'if 2) Mumar ochel
nevelos l'teavon yisroel, bodek sakin v'nosen lo v'mutar l'echol
meshechitaso afilu yishchot beno l'vein atzmo. 

...

(4) mumar l'teaivon sheshochet beno uven atzmo v'yesh imo sakin yafe
v'sheaino yafe, v'omer shb'yafe shachat neman.

And then

(5) Mumar l'chachis afilu ldvar echad or shehu mumar lavodas cochavim or
shechallel shabbas b'farhesia or shehu mumar l'kol hatorah afilu chutz
mshatim elu dino k'ored chochavim   - and even with the Rema adding, mi
sheaino choshesh b'shechita v'ochel neveilos b'lo l'teivon uf al pi sheino
oseh l'chachis dino mumar l'chachis. 

And it was from all this that I thought we learnt out chezkas kashrus in
general.

- this seems an awfully far cry from galoshes. Basically it would seem from
these sources that even if he himself eats treif, so long as he does it out
of desire of the food, and not davka, his shechita is OK.  The only thing
that I thought could be brought to the contrary was the Rema that I brought
previously that the beis din has a responsibility not only to check that a
shochet knows his stuff halachically (ie a mumcha), but that he is a kasher
- because of the reliance placed on him.  

So how did we get from here to galoshes and beards and the like?  I still
don't get it.

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
> Not necessarily. Non-gebrokts people tend to be Ashkenazim who would avoid
> matza ashira on Pesach, and most begin avoiding it when the issur chometz
> begins. So it is a solution for Friday night and the early morning, but
> generally not for Shabbos afternoon.
>
>
While this is probably a fact note that there is room to allow matza ashira
after the zamn issur hametz

See Chok Ya'akov, Derech haschaim, Nodah biHuda, and Aruch hshulchan amongts
those who see no reason to extend the minhag to the morngin.

It is quite obviosu that Rabeinu Tam had no minhag aginst matza ashira on
Erev Pesach, The Rema in question is ambiguous at best. Or to put it best
:the minhag NOT to eat matza Ashira after the zman is either based upon a
mis-understanding of the Rema [most likely] orperhaps  an attempt to equate
minhag with issur possibly for simplicity sake..




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080403/0bc1d2e3/attachment.htm 

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Alternatively, Soncino says that perhaps Achashverosh deliberately
> misunderstood Haman's act as rape just to increase Haman's misery
> (again, Haman was simply begging for her mercy).
>
> Mikha'el Makovi



Hypothesis [not mine I sw this years ago]
Achashveirosh never did anything arbitrarily - he cloaked it with a veil of
legalism. Illlustrations:

   1. With Vashti - he made her rebelliousness a cause celebre of
   anti-Feminist rage
   2. Witt Haman, he would not simply excute him as a personal matter,
   when he could  find him guilty of attempted rape of the queen.



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080403/a2a5d232/attachment.html 

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:45 AM, M Cohen <mcohen@touchlogic.com> wrote:

> I have had the same kasha.
>
> My conclusion was that since the leniences of tachanun are very much
> affected by minhag
> mordechai cohen
>
>
Tur quqotes Rav Natronai [sp??] Gaon: "Tachanun is optional"
Thus anyone has ample Halachici precedent to be meikel.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080403/21e3f876/attachment.htm 

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:32:25PM IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
> : The topic moved to discussing Rabbi Berkovits's halachic approach,
> : compared to Conservative.
>
> "Compared to" doesn't mean equated, despite your choice of new subject
> line.
>

I have only read a smattering of R.E. Berkovits

My general impression is that either he is advocating or better yet perhaps
some are saying in his name the following:

> "So long is one is sincerely a frum ma'amin, halachah is quite plastic"
> Or iow the problem with C playing with Halacha is their lack of emunah in
> the ikkarim, But O's armed with a solid emunah  would imply and  any valid
> interpretation is still Halachic [iow there is no Ortopraxy].
>

For many years I have ben advocating a converse postion:  Namely:

> So long as one is Orthopractic and accepts a minimal set of emunah Axioms,
> thenbelief is quite plastic
>


This is largely simlar to the late Professors Feldblum's defense to me
one-on-one on his methodolgy:

So long as one is loyal to the Sshulchan Aruch, one can use all the modern
> scientific methods to understand the original meaning of the Talmud and not
> worry that the new conclusions will underminee existing Halachic practice-
> just the theoretical Torah lishma will be changed.
>

It is my understanding that Rav David Weiss halivni is more-or-less of a
like mind, that scientific method is about being intellectually honest and
NOT about altering halachic praxis

It is quite clear to me that [aftere reading the bio of Rabbiner Hirsch]that
RSR Hirsch would NOT buy any sort of cognitive dissonance and I would
venture the GRA [and perhaps Rambam] would never accomodate this dichotomy
between theory and practice. But I would venture that many WOULD. That would
probably include not only many of the Hildesheimer and YU universe but also
probably Tosafos and many others in Ashkenaz who lived with a divergence
between text and mimetics.  Sephardim and the Gra [and many yekkes] seem to
find this untanble.

I think R. Berkovits had a point though. Halachah is SO far removed from its
orgins that some flexibility seems reasonable.

Example, explain why does hag'alah require boiling nowadays when a
dishwashwer with soap will poseil any ta'am absorbed in any kasherable keili
[kli cheres exempted].  I cannot give a solid halachic reason except
inertia.

[As regarding ein mevatlin issur lchatchila lets' face it: if you are
allowed to do hag'al in keilim why should it matter HOW?]

So even I - who is in a sense a polar opposite of R. Berkovits could concur
on such an issue.
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080402/19d46dc2/attachment.html 

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Many argue that Rav Hirsch was a Kabbalist, yes, and I have yet to be
> able to understand this.


Yeeks held that kabbalh was for privateyechidei sEgulah as a reaction to
Shabtai Z'vi. Kabbalh was put in the deep background [as nistar should be]





> In 19 Letters, he decries magical mechanism -
> Dayan Grunfeld says he is merely decrying the popular
> misinterpretation of Kabbalah, and DG does have textual basis.
> However, one cannot ignore the fact that everywhere in RSRH's writings
> where he interprets Kabbalah, he always takes the theosophy and
> theurgy out - for example, in Parshat Bereshit near the beginning, he
> says that our deeds influence the heavens because G-d sees what we do,


FWIW Rema equated kabbalh and Philosophy [just differing terminology]. I
assume that his version of kabbalah must have also eliminated or reduced
Theurgy and Theosophy



>
> He takes cognizance, and He responds accordingly. If I am not
> mistaken, I believe he might even have a partial quotation from the
> Zohar here; in any case, notice the parallel to the Kabbalistic notion
> of influencing upper worlds. But, Rav Hirsch has stripped all
> theosophy and theurgy. Dayan Grunfeld will insist that Rav Hirsch did
> so not because he denies, but only because his audience was not
> receptive.


Again see above. it is POSSIBLE that RSRH had a private view of kabbalah
that was nistar




>
> Rather, Rav Hirsch, I would say, simply stripped the theosophy and
> theurgy out of Kabbalah and read it like any midrash - true, he
> accepted Kabbalah per se, but on his own terms.


Quite possibly simlar to Rema
Or perhaps Kabbalh is a form of proto psycholoyg built on spirtual  rather
than Freudian terms but has no Theurgic consequence.



> It turns out that I am
> holding aliba d'Rabbi Shelomoh Danziger. What needs iyun, however, is,
> according to this shita, how did Rav Hirsch view Arizal et. al.?


AISI - Yekkes simply rejected Lurianic Kabbalh EXCEPT perhaps for yechidei
SEgulah as a result of S. Zvi above.  All Zohar, ana bechoach etc. were
removed  from the  liturgy

OTHO Kallirian mysticism remained in the Geramn liturgy

It is ALSO my thesis that the Shelah was NOT banned but widely influential
in Ashkenaz despite SZ.   Yekkes  did  Tikkyn Leil Shevuos and several
other  custosm intiatiated or  promoted by the Shelah


>
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
> _____




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080403/5c5edb0b/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 122
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."