Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 87

Sun, 17 May 2009

• 1. Re: Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of GedoleiHaposkim (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Re: Hashgacha sources (Micha Berger)
• 4. Jewish History (martin brody)
• 5. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: ARe: [Areivim] Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei HaPoskim (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: electricity (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: ain mikreh v. shabbas 55b; re: reuven, dovid, etc, (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. shabbas 55b; neged pshat? (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Tinokos Shenishbu today - opinion of Gedolei Haposkim (Doron Beckerman)
• 13. Re: Modern Orthodoxy (Michael Makovi)

Just after I sent my previous message, I saw that the following two
quotations PERFECTLY summarize what I'm saying:

Rn' Ilana Sober Elzufon
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n084.shtml#10
> I don't really understand the reasoning here.
> etc. (see there; I'd quote the entire message she wrote, but that'd be too redundant)

R' Micha Berger
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n084.shtml#01
> Starting from first principles, the Rambam's position is compelling. How
> does knowing about the existence of something that he were taught by
> his upbringing to be prejudiced against make him not anoos to follow
> them? (One might even argue that since he has much to unlearn, teshuvah
> would be harder for him than someone who encountered Yahadus for the
> first time.)

R' Ben Waxman also makes a great point:
> Secondly, where do secular people
> see Shomrei Torah and Mitzvot in any way that makes a difference? They see
>some guy at work with a kippa who goes to Mincha for 10 minutes?

Indeed. I can personally testify that I did not meet any Orthodox Jews
until a year AFTER I became a BT. And even then, it's because I went
out of my way to go meet some! If I hadn't gone out of my way, I doubt
I'd have met a single Orthodox Jew in my life until I made aliyah. And
no, I do not live out in the boondocks. I actually live about 15
minutes by car from Kemp Mill, which has a large Orthodox community.
The issue, however, is that except for a chance meeting at the
supermarket, it simply isn't very likely to meet an Orthodox Jew, at
all. My public school certainly had very few Orthodox Jews attending!
As for meeting Orthodox Jews at work: as far as I know, neither my
father (a traveling salesman, selling primarily to car dealers) nor my
mother (a chemist for the USFDA) have any Orthodox coworkers (mother)
or customers (father).

Also, I don't know NY very well, but I'll say that when I visited the
Upper West Side recently, I didn't meet a single Orthodox Jew on the
streets. I was only there for three days, but I didn't even meet a
single Orthodox Jew. And even if I had, it would have probably been
the two of us standing at a cross-walk together, waiting for the light
to change. Not exactly a promising venue for intense and involved
philosophical discussion.

I have a friend living in Florida, that she lives in a city (no, not
the boondocks) where she wasn't even sure she could buy matzah at the
stores, so rare are Orthodox Jews. Even my hometown's local gentile
supermarket had an entire Pesah aisle, and even there I never met any
Orthodox Jews! (Actually, once or twice in my life, I did see an
Orthodox Jew in the checkout line, but I didn't actually speak to
him.)

What R' Feinstein said was probably true for his time, for Eastern
European immigrants. But I doubt it applied well to Western European
Jews - after all, Germany was the heart of Rabbi Ettinger's and Rabbi
Hirsch's philosophy of TsN! Certainly, it does not apply to today's
Jews.

-- 
Michael Makovi
????? ???????
mikewindd...@gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com

Rabbi Seth Mandel has sent me an email regarding these topics and 
given me permission to disseminate what he wrote.

He began by referring me to a post of his dated 5/21/2003 on Avodah. 
It is available at

http://www.ais
hdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17b>http://www.ais
hdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17b 


In this post Rabbi Mandel begins by discussing the origin of the term 
bonfire. It comes from the terminology bone fire. Such fires using 
bones were made by Christians and this is where the term bonfire comes from.

He then goes on to discuss the origin of cutting a child's hair, and 
its relationship to bonfires. He writes in part:

Can the custom of bonfires on Lag Ba'omer have arisen among the Jews
separately and independently from the non-Jewish sources? Theoretically
it's possible. Books like Minhag Yisroel Toyre he brings all sorts
of reasons from various chasidic rebbes and from the book Ta'amei
haMinhogim for the origin of the bonfires on Lag Ba'omer. The problem
with all the explanations is that a) they are all of recent origin, and
b) they somehow ignore the fact that the custom was completely unknown
to any Jews up until the time when it is recorded in EY in the 16th
century. Furthermore, it was the custom there of only one group of Jews,
the Musta'ribim, about whom other Jews complained that they had adopted
a lot of Arab customs (the very name mean "Arabicized).

  From contemporary documents we learn the Muslims (and a few Jews) cut the
hair of children as well as lit a bonfires on the yohrtzeit (28 of Iyyar)
of non other than the aforementioned Shmu'el haNavi. However, in the
1560s the Arab authorities forbade Jews to go there. Shortly afterwards,
we have the testimony of R. Chaim Vital that he was told by R. Yonatan
Sagiz that a year before he started learning by the Ari, in the Ari's
first year after he immigrated from his homeland of Egypt (also 1570),
that "Mori v'Rabbi Z'L took his small son and all of his family there
[to the celebration on RaShBY 's yohrtzeit in Meron] and there he cut
his hair in accordance with the custom." R. Chaim Vital is careful to
note, however, that "I do not know whether at that time he was expert
and knowledgeable in this wondrous wisdom [Qabbolo] as he became after
that." IOW, R. Chaim Vital himself is cautioning the reader that he has
doubts about whether the Ari did this in accordance with his views in
Qabbolo, or just because it was a popular celebration, and he might not
have participated had he already been an expert in Qabbolo.

Some historians believe that once the Musta'ribim were forbidden to go
to the qever of Sh'muel haNavi, they transferred their celebration to
Meron and the date to Lag Ba'Omer. Others claim that the custom at Meron
predated 1570. But both groups agree that both of these customs, cutting
the hair of the children and making bonfires, were practiced by the Arabs
and the Musta 'ribim, but not by any of the Ashk'nazi and S'faradi Jews
in Israel. Of great interest is that the local rabbis in Tz'fat, who had
the practice of going to the all the known q'vorim of the Tano'im from
the middle of Iyyar until Shavu'os and having a seder in learning there,
opposed the celebrations of the Musta'ribim on Lag ba'Omer and tried
to forbid it. They made little headway, and once it became known that
the Ari participated one year, any opposition was swept away. We know
from travelers to EY in the 18th and 19th centuries that the "hilula"
at Meron on Lag Ba'Omer with bonfires and the cutting of children's
hair had become an affair of the masses. A well known talmid chochom
from Europe, R. Avrohom Rozanes, writes that in his visit to EY in 1867
he saw an Ashk'nazi Jew who had taken his son to the "hilula" and was
giving him a haircut. R. Rozanes says that he could not restrain himself,
and went to that Jew and tried to dissuade him but was unsuccessful, and
that most of the Ashk'nazi and S'faradi Jews of EY participate in this
"craziness," with "drinking and dancing and fires."

Please see all that Rabbi Mandel wrote at 
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17

In a message to me today, Rabbi Mandel added:

As you can see, both the bonfire and "opsheren" are probably 
borrowings from other religions, which should be problematic due to 
"uvhukkotehem al telekhu."  The fact that these customs were not 
known to the BeShT or R. Berel Mezricher or to anyone in Europe has 
not stopped the chasidim from making a bid deal out of it. The source 
for the date of LaG Ba'Omer as the yohrtzeit of RaShBY is the 
Zohar.  The identification of his grave in Meron is attributed to the 
Ari.  However, there are other holy graves in Meron that predate the 
Ari and, as I state in the article, the celebration was moved to 
Meron only after Jews were prohibited from going to anNabi 
Samwil.  And the importance of these customs being known only among 
the Musta'rabim (Jews who adopted Arab customs) cannot be 
overemphasized; the S'faradim themselves did not know them, let alone 
the m'qubbalim, who would have been expected to be most scrupulous 
about customs relating to the Ari.  For a linguist, the importance of 
the ceremony being called "halaqe" (Arabic for "shaving, haircut") 
also cannot be overemphasized.  As most people are aware, Jews have 
always used Hebrew words for old Jewish minhogim, even if there was a 
suitable term in the spoken language (e.g. Shabbos rather than 
Sabbath, or bris rather than circumcision), because the Hebrew term 
carried with it the connotations of the Jewish dinim and minhogim 
associated with it.  Arabic (and Germanic/Yiddish) were only used for 
customs that did not have a Jewish background (e.g. shtreimel or 
yarmulke or farbrengen). What I did not put in the article, because 
it was too long already, is that there is historical evidence that in 
the years after the Ari, this celebration became a bone of 
contention.  The m'qubbalim used to gather at the grave of RaShBY (as 
identified by the Ari) on his yohrtzeit, fasting and saying over 
things from the Zohar (in accordance with the authentic Jewish 
custom, mentioned in the G'moro, of giving honor to someone niftar by 
saying things in his name).  They used to quarrel with the Jews 
coming to do the Arab celebration, trying to stop it. But, as I have 
said many times: Jews (or Gentiles), given the choice between two 
practices, one involving fasting and studying, and the other 
involving music, singing, dancing, and other frivolities, will 
inevitably chose one.  And I scarcely need to tell you which one.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090515/40634d8c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:10:43AM -0400, Yehoshua Steinberg wrote:
:  1. Does anyone know of any pre-Geonic sources for the terms "hashgacha
:  pratis"/"hashgacha klalis"?

The Bar Ilan CD, sections Tanach, Safrut Chazal, and Zohar didn't have
any hits for "hashgachah". Neither "Geonim". So then I spent a lot more
time asking around and looking. Notice that this was sent in late March,
and I'm replying in the Ides of May.

Basically, I couldn't find the term itself used until the rishonim,
and then it gets embraced by all parties, Rav Saadia (Emunos vehaDeios
II) Rambam and Emunah haRamah by the Raavad, Kuzari, the Ikkarim, the
Mirkeves haMishnah...

:  2. Which source would you consider to be the definitive definition for the
:  expressions?

Hashgachah Peratis: Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz miYir'as Shamayim
Hashgachah Kelalis: ... chutz mitzinim upachin

The terms weren't used by Chazal, but I think the concepts are
authentically theirs.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

"Why did Jews stop recording history in any real way after churban?"

Because it was depressing!
One day a year we revisted post Biblical history.Tisha B'Av.
Fortunately, unlike other ancients, our glory days are in the future.

-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090515/3fd97248/attachment-0001.htm>

RSM:
>> For a linguist, the importance of the ceremony being called "halaqe" 
>> (Arabic for "shaving, haircut") also cannot be overemphasized.  As 
>> most people are aware, Jews have always used Hebrew words for old 
>> Jewish minhogim, even if there was a suitable term in the spoken 
>> language (e.g. Shabbos rather than Sabbath, or bris rather than 
>> circumcision), because the Hebrew term carried with it the 
>> connotations of the Jewish dinim and minhogim associated with it.
Me:
> Yahrzeit?
They're not exactly customs, but I might add:

Bentsching? Licht bentsching?
>
> David Riceman
>

Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> From contemporary documents we learn the Muslims (and a few Jews)
> cut the hair of children as well as lit a bonfires on the yohrtzeit
> (28 of Iyyar) of non other than the aforementioned Shmu'el haNavi.

The Bartenura's letter doesn't seem to make it out as a minority
custom, or as a goyishe one.   Could the Arabs not have learned it
from the Jews, perhaps in the 70 years or so between the Bartinura's
day and the Radbaz's?


> However, in the 1560s the Arab authorities forbade Jews to go there.

There is a teshuva of the Radbaz to a father who had vowed to take his
son to Shmuel Hanavi for a haircut, and was now unable to do so.  IIRC
the Radbaz doesn't say anything negative about the custom, but merely
deals with what to do about the neder.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

David Riceman wrote:
> RSM:
>>> For a linguist, the importance of the ceremony being called "halaqe" 
>>> (Arabic for "shaving, haircut") also cannot be overemphasized.  As 
>>> most people are aware, Jews have always used Hebrew words for old 
>>> Jewish minhogim, even if there was a suitable term in the spoken 
>>> language (e.g. Shabbos rather than Sabbath, or bris rather than 
>>> circumcision), because the Hebrew term carried with it the 
>>> connotations of the Jewish dinim and minhogim associated with it.
> Me:
>> Yahrzeit?
> They're not exactly customs, but I might add:
> Bentsching? Licht bentsching?

Davnen/Orren  (rather than Tefilloh)
Treibern (rather than Nikur)
Negel Vasser (rather than Netilas Yodayim Shacharis)
Zich Vashn (for a meal) (rather than NY Lis'udoh)
Badeckn  (rather than Hinumo)
Milchig/Fleishig/Pareve
Di Drai Vochen / Nain Teg

AFAIK none of these are of goyishe origin, and yet Ashkenazim, at
least, have not traditionally named them in Hebrew.

For that matter, Sandek is not Hebrew, though it far predates
Yiddish.  And going back a bit further, nor is Talles.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I wrote:
> > In general, as I have said before, the question of tinok
> > shenishbah comes up halacha l'ma'ase most commonly in
> > three situations:
> > a) can a non frum man be counted in a minyan?;
> > b) can a non frum man be given an aliya?; and
> > c) can a non frum kohen duchen?

And RKM replied:

> I'd add a few more:
> 
> d) Can I cook for a non-frum Jew on Yom Tov?
> 
> e) Can I offer food to a Jew who presumably won't make a bracha on it?
> 
> f) IIRC I've seen this question regarding tenants and an Eruv Chatzeros
> 
> AIUI, this question applies to *any* case where a special privilege or
> status is granted to a fellow Jew.

Yes, sorry, what I was trying to say is this is where it is most commonly
discussed in the modern responsa literature.  The question does indeed come
up in many many other areas.  The key text is, inter alia, Shulchan Aruch
Yoreh Deah siman 2 s'if 5:

"A mumar l'hachis even in respect of only one matter or one who is a
mumar for idolatory or who violates the shabbat publically ... Their din
is like a non Jew".

While, as ROY argues in Yabiat Omer chelek 1, Yoreh Deah siman 11 - on
balance this is probably to be understood as a psul d'rabbanan, there is
quite extensive rishonic literature to the effect that in fact it is a psul
d'orita, with the consequence that, even bideved, his kiddushin is not a
kiddushin, a woman who falls in yibum to such a man is in fact mutar l'shuk,
wine he has touched is not just assur to drink but assur b'hana'a etc etc.

And there are some fascinating discussions about whether, for example, you
can lend to him at ribus.

But it just so happens that most of the key modern (by which I mean last 200
years) teshuvos tend to be about situations in shul, and particularly
minyan see eg Mishna Brura in Orech Chaim siman 55 si'if katan 46 "The Pri
Megadim writes this is davka for an averah which he did l'teyavon but
l'hachis even for one matter or a mumar for avodah zara or l'challel shabbas
b'farhesia his din is like a non Jew and he is not counted."

> On the other hand, I have not (or have only rarely) seen cases of treating
> our non-from brothers so harshly. Unless I'm mistaken, this is NOT because
> the halacha allows these things for a sinner -- it is because nowadays we
> do not treat these people as sinners.

Agreed, that is precisely my point.  But in order to halachically not treat
these people as sinners, you have to have some sort of halachic analysis
that permits this.  Otherwise we are all (well most of us anyway) over on
the Shulchan Aruch by treating non Jews (at least rabbinically) as Jews.
Tinok shenishba is the analysis that is used by the majority of modern(ish)
poskim that permits the current normative practice.  

> (PS: Vocabulary note: I have used the word "sinner" here because it is
> deliberately vague. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of
> what kind of sinner is in which category, such as merely "l'tayavon" or
> full-blown "l'hachis". Wherever you want to put that line, I'm simply
> mentioning which mitzvos it will be relevant to.)

Ah but that gets tricky - because while with somebody who acts l'tayavon
there may be a problem vis a vis the particular area in which he has the
tayva, it does not generally disqualify him elsewhere - making the
fundamental issue about l'hachis and the two categories which are deemed to
be so beyond the pale that they operate the same way - avodah zara and
mechalel shabbas b'farhesia.  

> Akiva Miller

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 08:40:26AM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: There was an exchange of letters between CI and RSZA sothe opinion of each one
: should not be that mysterious.
: CI actually mentioned 2 reasons that he considered electricity to be Boneh.

Yes, an entire week-and-a-half ago. Forever in email time.

As I already wrote, I understood the CI as given one two-part reason.

: One that it is completing a circuit (and RSZA objected based on the
: water plumbing
: analogy) and another that one is turning a dead matter in something
: "living" (chai).

My understanding, upon reading it, was that the CI defined "boneh" as
including completing a circuit that makes something live. Of course,
that means that I not only saw the CI differently than RET did, but RSZA
as well. It would be shakey, if it were not that my approach eliminates
RSZA's question from plumbing, and thus could well have been peshat.

: IMHO this is a major chidush of the CI that this constitures boneh
: which has little precedent.

Well, the chidush is slightly smaller if the CI was only talking about
things plugged into a binyan.

: I have been told that several gedolim before CI suggested electricity
: is prohibited because of
: boneh and they all rejected it. To the best of my knowledge it is
: still considered a
: daas yachid but respected at leats lechatchila because of the stature of CI.

2- Well, the Beis Yitzchaq (2:31) gives the second part of the CI's sevara
alone, and says that's enough for molid. He compares to molid reicha --
scenting clothes on Shabbos.

3- Alternatively, the first half of the sevara can be turned into makeh
bepatish eacily enough.

Then there are the sevaros that don't cover every circuit:
    4- heating a wire until it glows = bishul / havarah
    5- sparking is havarah
    6- tunable circuits or sound-making systems are included in the
      gezeira against kelei zemer.

7- There is also the issue of causing the power plant to burn more fuel,
but that is obviously dismissed by anyone who uses Chevrat haChashmal's
power on Shabbos.

Besach hakol, RSZ (Nimchas Shelomo pg 74) dismisses that entire list
of issues before deciding
8- it's minhag Yisrael, not groundable in halakhah.

FWIW, my greatgrandfather wrote two teshuvos on the use of electricity
on shvy"t. In the first, he was matir. He dismisses some of the grounds
for issur, and concludes there is no problem; and on YT it's a davar
pashut.

But that teshuvah was written in a shtetl in Litta. When he moved to
Frankfurt, and electricity was commonplace -- and its prohibition well
accepted, he wrote a second teshuvah le'esor. But the topic wasn't about
hilkhos Shabbos, it was about acharei rabbim lehatos.

...
: Similarly CI doesnt make any differentiation between actively closing
: the circuit and
: removing a resistor that allows electricity to flow through an existing circuit.

Which fits my read, that it's two factors in one answer.

: A question that did not exist in the days of CI is completing a
: wireless circuit. If the
: prohibition is making the circuit "live" one doesnt need physical
: wires however, if
: it depends on closing a circuit one may need a physical circuit ie real wires

AISI, he would matir, because you only have one of two necessary elements
to a single argument. Of course, all this is based upon believing my
own naive reading of the CI over RSZA's, a somewhat dubious proposition.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

PS: RDB's description of a particular security system is atypical of
modern systems. Nowadays, arming the system means powering up a computer,
not closing one of two switches needed to cause the alarm to wail.

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

 
 
From: _harveybenton@yahoo.com_ (mailto:harveyben...@yahoo.com) 


>> chumash: "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that  land,
that Reuven went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine,  and Israel
heard."





...Rashi cites the midrash brought on Shabbat 55b:

Because he  switched around his [father's] bed, the Torah treats him as if 
he slept with  her. 


....the "headline" for this midrash as it appears on Shabbat 55b is: "If  
you think that Reuven sinned, you are mistaken." How are we to understand 
this  rabbinic statement? Clearly Reuven sinned -- it is explicitly written in 
the  Torah text! <<
 

>>>>>
When it says "Anyone who thinks he sinned is mistaken" it MEANS "Anyone who 
 thinks he committed this particular sin is wrong."  
 
You have the same language used in reference to Dovid Hamelech, where Nasan 
 Hanavi tells Dovid Hamelech that he has sinned and Dovid acknowledges it 
and  immediately confesses and repents, yet Chazal say,  "If you think he 
sinned  you are mistaken."    It clearly means, "If you think that  he 
committed actual adultery, then you are mistaken."  
 
Bas-sheva's husband had given her a get so Dovid gets off on a technicality 
 but his "non-sin" is nevertheless treated very seriously indeed.  The same 
 with Reuven, he didn't actually sleep with Bilhah, but interfering with 
his  father's marital arrangements was a serious misdeed nevertheless.






--Toby  Katz
=============




_______________
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nation
al-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090515/2d260d57/attachment-0001.htm>

Shalom Toby and good Shabbas:> from golus, 

1. the chumash clearly states reuven slept with bilha. any other
interpretations that say he didn't sleep with her, open up a very dangerous can
of worms: who is to say "chazer" or "ribis" or
"shabbas" prohibitions really mean ""chazer" or "ribis"
or "shabbas"?? maybe they mean something else??? ....... along the
same lines, who is to say adam actually "ate" from the tree of
knowledge? maybe (according to similar reasoning) he did an aveira, but not
necessarily the exact aveira described....which was specified in the chumash?

2. if reuven only moved his father's bed, why not say so? why say somthing that
would make him appear worse in the reader's eyes??

3. if reuven "only" moved his father's bed, why did yaakov
say:(bereishis) "Unstable as water, have not thou the excellency; because
thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it--he went up to my
couch? Why would yaakov, his father, tell him that he had "defiled"
his couch simply by moving it??

4. http://www.utj.org/Torah/mfriedfertig/08Vayeshlach5760.html:

The Mishnah tells us that the Metargeman should not read the Aramaic
translation of this verse. Some say this is because translating it would bring
disgrace upon Reuven (Rashi on Megillah 25a). Others claim that it would tarnish
Yaakov?s honor (Ron on Megillah 16a in the pages of the Rif).
HB: there is obviously something going on here deeper, than meets the eye;
there are many instances of gedolei yisrael sinning/making errors in the
chumash; why try to cover up these specific 2 (mishna megillah; golen calf
& reuven); and/or explain away the one?s others in gemarra shabbas (55)??
Since when do jews hide their dirty laundry??? (spinka/mondrowitz and madoff
aside?)

5. RTK re: reuven: When
it says "Anyone who thinks he sinned is mistaken" it MEANS
"Anyone who thinks he committed this particular sin is wrong." 

RTK re: dovid: "If
you think he sinned you are mistaken."??? It
clearly?means, "If you think that he committed actual adultery, then
you are mistaken."? 

HB: 

A. mekoros? that the gemmara "clearly" means that, when it doesn't say
anywhere what you say it does (again, another dangerous can of words to
avoid opening: e.g., interpreting the words of our sages to mean something
they didn't actually say (or possibly even mean), without written proof
from the originaly authors (not meforshim on their words). 


B. the words used in the gemmarra are not ?if you
think? but rather ?anyone who SAYS??.is only mistaken?; there is a specific use
of loshon here by the authors of the gemmara, that I think we need to
understand; if their words were exact (like we believe they are) why 1. try to
paint a picture neged pshat in chumash/novi 2. why use the loshon ?kol mi
sheOMER? versus another loshon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090515/a92241ac/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Michael Makovi:

I don't see anything in your reply that would distinguish today's R and C
(and certainly not the Chilonim in EY) from what the Radvaz opines regarding
the Karaites. The Radvaz writes that the Rambam would agree "If they have
been warned to return to the strength of the Torah and they still retain
their rebelliousness and do not want to heed, just as we do to these
Karaites every day; and on the contrary, they become bigger heretics."

This is speaking of people who were raised to believe that Karaism is
correct, no less than people today raised to believe their own version of
religion (or lack thereof) is correct, and obviously did not find the
arguments of the non-Karaites very convincing.

Rabbi Yom Tov Schwartz is more or less following the opinion of the Chazon
Ish, though without nuance vis-a-vis blanket determination of all of them
vs. judging each one individually.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/33f13a38/attachment-0001.htm>

> Why did Jews stop recording history in any real way after churban?
> Perhaps we became cyclical and lost our historical/prophetic voice -
> Rabbis  Hirsch, Kook and  Soloveitchik all were moving back to
> covenantal/prophetic approach which hadn't been seen in millennia
>
> R' Rich Joel

(I'll note I haven't yet listened to the recording yet.)

Indeed, due to the vagaries of history, we see the shift from
prophetic geula IN history to apocalyptic geula DESPITE history, with
but a few exceptions (Yerushalmi Berachot 1:1 - The geula is like the
rising sun, kim'a kim'a). Similarly, Professor Epharim Urbach notes
the general similarity in conception of geula between the apocalypses
and Hazalic aggadah, and he says that the historical prophetic model
was but rarely upheld any longer. I'm not learned in Rav Soloveitchik,
but we see Rav Hirsch and the Zionists both restored the sense of
Judaism and Torah winning man, over time, sociologically and
pedagogically, over time, in a practical and mundane and temporal
manner; "ikkar b'tachtonim" (R' Kook was a semi-Habadnik, after all,
and R' Hirsch quotes this aphorism only 10,000 times in his writings),
if one wishes to phrase it this way.

Of course, Jews were perhaps never much into history to begin with.
While the Greeks were concerned with the technical details of history,
Hazalic aggadah seems to have been more concerned with the lesson that
could be gained from history, with the moral lesson taking priority
over historical felicity. Dr. Eliezer Berkovits and Professor G. F.
Moore alike note that Hazal would aggadically interpret passages
contrary to their plain meaning (the "sword" is allegorical for the
Torah, the "warrior" is the Talmudic scholar, etc.), because they were
theologians and not critical Bible scholars; they sought the ethos of
Scripture, not its actual plain meaning (in aggadah). (Hazal knew what
the plain meaning was; it's not that they were ignorant, but rather,
the plain meaning did not impress them. Scripture meant only what one
could creatively take out of it for moral or spiritual edification;
critical textual studies were irrelevant, even if accurate. It was not
until the Rishonim that such studies were pursued.) Rev. Abraham Cohen
notes that when discussing historical institutions (the Sanhedrin,
etc.), the Talmud will anachronistically assume that what is true in
the present was always true in the past as well. Similarly, Abraham
was said to keep the whole Torah, etc.

The very historical Tanach is a problem to this thesis of mine, but
somehow one nevertheles gains the general impression that Hazal were
not so interested in history for its own sake. Indeed, compare what is
said in I Maccabees to what is said in Mesechet Shabbat, regarding
Hanuka. Of course, one might argue that I Maccabees was essentially a
prophetic book, albeit too late to be included in the Tanach. (Really,
how much separates Maccabees from Megillat Esther?)

Perhaps someone can refine my thesis a bit? This is all a bit inchoate
in my mind, and I admit I haven't really been able to think this over
much.

Michael Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 87
**************************************

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..."