Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 221

Wed, 04 Nov 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:40:15 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] short marriage


rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Tangentially a chaveir claims that Rackman relied upon "get zikkuy".
> I'm not a dayan, but AIUI
> A BD issues a get as shluchim on behalf of a recalcitrant husband, since
> it is a "z'chus" for him not to be a sarvan etc.
> 
> Frankly, I'm not sure this was Rackman's method or not. If anyone knows
> more, please verify

According to R Broyde's article, this is not the case.  Rather, the
Rackman "beis din" relies on "mekach ta'us", but makes no attempt to
ascertain the facts, and will always "find" grounds for annulment,
whether they exist or not.


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



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:38:11 -0800
Subject:
[Avodah] Faur's rewrite of history (was Re: RAYK's Orot -


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Only if I fell for Faur's absurd rewrite of history. Recall, the
> publisher of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew.


Your style is rather telegraphic here, and I may be mis-parsing, also I
never heard of Faur before today, but surely everybody agrees that the
*publisher* of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew? Where is the absurd rewrite?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/c8489d88/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:24:08 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] daas torah and voting


<<do elections fall under the purview of daas tora?
should one ask who or what to vote for?
must one listen to general exhortations of who do vote for, or only if one
personally asked for a psak?
do gdolei one country have purview over another  on such type issues?>>

If this was daas Torah it shows that daas Torah is fallible as the
republican won

In EY it is common for rabbis to tell people how to vote. My impression is that
in places like BoroPark it is also common.

However, this makes sense only for local rabbis who understand the situation.
For an outsider to give an opinion is fairly ridiculous as he never understands
all the nuances.
In general I have problems with piskei halacha given by gedolim based on
the presentation of the gabbai to the gadol of the problem. Frequently the
presentation itself determines the psak.

As to listening to general exhortations this is not different than exhortations
on any topic. Is everyone required to give up shabbat elevators because of
a psak of R. Elyashiv together with some other poskim? Depends who you ask.
The general consensus is that it does not apply to members of other communities.


-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:20:08 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Faur's rewrite of history (was Re: RAYK's Orot -


On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:11PM -0800, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Your style is rather telegraphic here, and I may be mis-parsing, also I
: never heard of Faur before today, but surely everybody agrees that the
: *publisher* of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew? Where is the absurd rewrite?

I ws telegraphing a topic I had out with RMM repeatedly.

Jose Faur's version of history is one in which the Rambam had the only
aauthentic mesorah, a continuation of the ge'onim, qabbalah was inventd
by the Ashkenazim in a power play to legitimize their authrity despite
the geonic tradition. Along the way he trashes most Ashkenazi rishonim,
depicts all of Sepharard as rationalist, etc...

Prof Faur is personally O, in that he fully follows the Yad as understood
by Andalusiaan mesorah. But he teaches at JTS.

My point was that RMM was repeating this notion that the Sepharadim were
rationalists. The Ibn Ezra was not, and R' Moshe de Leon certainly wasn't
(althugh he was Castillian, not Andalusian).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "david guttmann" <david.gutt...@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:47:42 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] having a melech: lechatchila or bideved???


RMB quoted the Narboni explaining Rambam's reason for Korbanot ending with -
 >As a concession to human nature, Hashem specified an expression of this
will to give something physical. It gives us a way to be lead away from
concepts of deity that actually need or want appeasement gifts.

This 2nd shelav isn't about living with the limitation -- it's about
overcoming it. As opposed to the ideal mitzvah, which would exist to expose
man to the truth regardless of the errors that come naturally to humans.<



I would like to add that the extreme limit setting that we find in Korbanot
where even a Machshavah passels the Korban is part and parcel of the system.
It tells us that even when we find it necessary to do something physical, we
cannot let our emotions take over and must do it within very narrow
constraints otherwise it becomes the Chet of Nadav and Avihu. However once
this limitation is imposed it becomes a tzivui, a Mitzvat Hamelech, and
takes on the form of a paradigm for all Mitzvot as Avodat Hashem. That
explains our praying for the return of Avodah, as Yemot Hamashiach will
allow us to be totally immersed in HKBH which is the Tachlit.

If you want to transfer this thinking to  the Mitzvah of Melech you will
explain the idea of Melech Hamashiach. If Malchut is only a bedieved how
else do you explain the Bracha Et Tzemach we say three times daily during
the weekdays?

 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 




Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:24:39 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Faur's rewrite of history (was Re: RAYK's Orot -


Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>> Only if I fell for Faur's absurd rewrite of history. Recall, the
>> publisher of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew.

> Your style is rather telegraphic here, and I may be mis-parsing, also I 
> never heard of Faur before today, but surely everybody agrees that the 
> *publisher* of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew? Where is the absurd rewrite?

Obviously one that would be inconsistent with this fact.  I've never
heard of Faur either, but from the context it's clear that he set up
an image of Spanish Jewry that is contradicted by R Moshe de Leon and
R Avraham ibn Ezra.

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



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:34:42 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Question


rw wrote:
: Your response sounds logical but there is only one problem with that.
: The first sin was bein adam laMakom.
: The sin of murder was bein adam l'chaveiro.
: So there are two categories of sin here.
: Therefore, since murder was the first sin of the second category, your
: argument is not as strong.

R' Micha wrote:
I am not as sure. Is the nature of the defiance of G-d's law significant
enough to turn Qayin's sin into the first of a whole new category?

Chavah and Adam showed themselves and the rest of history since that the
entire concept of defiance is possible. I don't see a parallel "just"
because the aveirah is in a different domain.

Follow up response:
I'm not clear what you are saying. What do you mean that Qayin's sin  
was defiance
of G-d's law when there was no mitzvah yet given for Lo tirtzach?
Secondly, you write that you "don't see a parallel." I didn't make a  
parallel; you did.
My point was that the first sin and Qayin's sin was NOT parallel,  
l'hefech.
ri



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:37:27 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question


On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 06:34:42AM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: I'm not clear what you are saying. What do you mean that Qayin's sin  
: was defiance
: of G-d's law when there was no mitzvah yet given for Lo tirtzach?

No, I"m saying that something fundamental happened when the human being
saw that he could defy G-d's will. The second sin had a different victim,
but it already was committed by someone who knew that sin was an option.
The internalization of the yh"r had already occured.

: Secondly, you write that you "don't see a parallel." I didn't make a  
: parallel; you did.
: My point was that the first sin and Qayin's sin was NOT parallel,  
: l'hefech.

Well, you were saying they're both firsts, and I was trying to reply that
you can't compare the firsts -- eating the fruit was unique in its impact
on the human condition simply by being the first sin of any sort. Even
before we explore the content of the particular sin. The difference
between BALM and BALC pales in comparison to having no experience with
defying the law, and I can't even figure out how to frame that BALM-BALC
difference in terms of impact on the human condition.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:40:09 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Children at a Wedding


On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:09:17PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:                                       ..., I would like to point out that I 
: was  consistently careful to use the word "practice" and not "minhag" 
: because I don't think there really was a minhag in the same way you
: might refer to a minhag to wear a gartel. Minhag Yisrael kedin hu
: means you generally don't change a  minhag but this was not a "minhag"
: in that sense...

Anyone have in mind a chiluq by which one could know which practices get
labeled "minhag"? My intuitive feel is similar to RnTK's, but the
contrarian in me is wondering... How do we know? Maybe they all are
minhagim, albeit some are minhagei shetus or ta'os. So, a formal chiluq
would be of help.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:44:12 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] daas tora and voting


On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:18:16PM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2009/11/rav-steinman-decid
: es-nj-elections.html
: do elections fall under the purview of daas tora?

I would ask a different question...

Does halakhah mandate a particular vote.

Eg my state had two candidates for governor. Among the differences in
their plateform was that one backed a marriage law for MZ and the other
opposed. Would the prohibition of MZ under the 7MBN force me to vote for
the latter -- barring some other issur? And does does the issur under
7MBN include kemaasei eretz Mitzrayim of weddings and living arragenments
or "only" the act of MZ itself?

: should one ask who or what to vote for?

This is the general daas Torah question, and one we'll never get to
resolution and are even unlikely to say anything new about it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@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



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:47:42 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] daas torah and voting


On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If this was daas Torah it shows that daas Torah is fallible as the
: republican won

It wasn't descriptive, it was prescriptive. Sometimes you ought to back
the loser just to make a statement that hopefully the winner will take
with him into office.

Simularly R' Dovid Cohen's formulation of daas Torah. Not that DT is
the product of siyata diShmaya and thus better at leading you to where
HQBH wants you to be. Rather that the authority of the melekh fell to
the Sanhedrin when the melukhah ended, and from the Sanhedrin to the
Rabbanim. Leshitaso, there is a chiyuv to ask the gedolim regardless of
whether it's a successful strategy. Prescriptive, not descriptive.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:47:42 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] daas torah and voting


On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If this was daas Torah it shows that daas Torah is fallible as the
: republican won

It wasn't descriptive, it was prescriptive. Sometimes you ought to back
the loser just to make a statement that hopefully the winner will take
with him into office.

Simularly R' Dovid Cohen's formulation of daas Torah. Not that DT is
the product of siyata diShmaya and thus better at leading you to where
HQBH wants you to be. Rather that the authority of the melekh fell to
the Sanhedrin when the melukhah ended, and from the Sanhedrin to the
Rabbanim. Leshitaso, there is a chiyuv to ask the gedolim regardless of
whether it's a successful strategy. Prescriptive, not descriptive.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:02:04 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] short marriage


On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:40:15AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: According to R Broyde's article, this is not the case.  Rather, the
: Rackman "beis din" relies on "mekach ta'us", but makes no attempt to
: ascertain the facts, and will always "find" grounds for annulment,
: whether they exist or not.

RERackman undid tav lemeisiv, saying it doesn't apply in the modern world,
and therefore opened the door for far more marriages to be declared ta'us
-- the minimum required for "had I known I never would have married him"
was lowered.

In the YU world, everyone remembers RYBS's statement that tav lemeisiv
isn't a pyschological observation but inherent in the nature of women
ever since "ve'el isheikh teshukaseikh". And the beauty of that thought
distracted people to objecting to the whole notion of turning tav lemeisiv
into a paruq rather than a measurable law of human nature.

In his shiur, RARakeffetR expressed RALichtinsteins's understanding that
RYBS didn't center his objection on the chazaqa of tav lemeisiv. Rather,
the majority and focus of his talk was on the idea that if hafka'as
qidushin were that easy, much of Mes Yevamos could have been reduced to
a single amud! If in any bad marriage the wife could say "had I known
it was going to turn out this way, I wouldn't have married the guy",
then so much of EhE goes out the window.

There is nothing relevent about the new female independence, since every
case under discussion, even back when women couldn't get jobs, was a
case where the woman came to beis din saying that she didn't find it tav
lemeisiv with the guy.

It's one thing to invent a new mechanism where it's easy to argue that
no one else bothered finding it before. It's another to start utilizing
a mechanism that simply could not have been missed by the millenia of
rabbanim before you. IOW, RYBS takes the implication from all the long
teshuvos RER's methodology would have made drastically simpler that
there is obviously something incorrect about it.

That something might be what RYBS said about tav lemeisiv, but that was
(in the opinions of RAL and RARR, who were there) just one example of
what may be hidden under all that precedent that makes it unignorable.

IOW, the real key line of the objection wasn't the clever bit about
"ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh" but "Do you think you're brighter than
the Shagesaryei, Rabbi Aqiva Eiger, the Gra or Rav Chaim?" He saw the
approach as a denial of a basic element of mesorah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:07:07 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dinosaurs


On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:11:17PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Ilana:
: > Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both are true
: > on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted as practice)
: > apply to every single machloket? Up to what point? The gemara? The
: > rishonim? Nowadays? Or are there some opinions that are just not true
: > at all? The posek made a mistake - and perhaps eventually realizes
: > this himself and retracts his opinion. Would we say elu v'elu before
: > the retraction, but not after? Or would we say that this is beyond the
: > bounds of elu v'elu?

: Most Posqim assert that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin are mutually
: exclusive.

: In this week's Ben Ish Chai, the author quotes the Arizal stating they
: are BOTH valid! [Not really as alternatives, rather al pi sod - one
: NEEDS both]

: This is beyond plain vanilla EvE.

: The case of BH and BH re: EvE is AISI more about Talmud Torah than
: practice, but see below

: Halachically we follow only ONE derech - viz. BH. Rather learning the
: opinion of BS is of equal value - which seems to contradict learning
: Torah ONLY for Halachah lema'aseh

: Yet here too is a paradox. Even though
: BS is lav aliba dehilchesa, a through analysis of their sheeta may yield
: theoretical constructs useful in the same or in other contexts.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: bass...@queensu.ca
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:05:44 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings


RE hilchot eretz yisrael-- it has long been known that the hilchot A"Y
is really Amar Yeshoshua for this is how eldad hadani introduces his
laws as if he had a masora from yehoshua. See
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/07/daf-yomi-yevamot-102a-if-eli
yahu-should.html

    "Meanwhile, Tosafot quotes Hilchot Eretz Yisrael that women should
    not shecht because "da'atan kalot" -- however you want to interpret
    it. (E.g. they are delicate such that they will faint a moment at
    the sight of blood and thus will invalidate the shechita, or else
    that they will treat the mitzvah lightly.) (It is actually Hilchot
    Amar Yehoshua, from Eldad haDani.)"

Re children at second marriage-- when I lost my wife after a horrible
illness and i had a 6 year old at home plus teenagers and married
children-- I wanted my children at the chupa (the wedding was so small we
didnt have a minyan because some of them thought they would be superfrum
and not come to the chupa althought they got along better with my now
wife than they did with me). It was a moment of such joy for me I really
wanted to feel their approval and participation. Most did come. Whatever
the reason for the minhag, if there is one-- in some cases it needs to
be ignored if the hassan kallah want the kids there-- they all came to
the meal which for me was secondary-- the moment of raising the curtain
on a new life without closing the old one was what I needed to share
with my family(my wife invited all my kids for their mother's yahrzeit,
kept her pictures in the house and didnt insist we move because my 6
year old wanted to stay in mommy's house without any changes. And we
still live in it and any changes she gets my 19 year olds approval. we
also have 2 children, ages 9 and 10 of our own). To create a divide
between a deceased parent (or even living divorced parent) and a living
step-parent is not healthy.

Zvi Basser



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:03:42 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] daas torah and voting


 
Rather that the authority of the melekh fell to the Sanhedrin when the melukhah ended, and from the Sanhedrin to the Rabbanim. 
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

----------------------------------------------------
What an interesting formulation. What is the source that gives this "fall" halachic force?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.




Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:26:23 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] short marriage


RMB wrote:
> So, R' Zvi Pesach Frank had husband #1 give a get al yedei shaliach and
> while the shaliach carries it, he renegs on the get bifnei eidim. Now
> when the shaliach gives the get to the woman, it was not gittin but
> hafkaas qidushin. And thus the marriage was anulled lemafrei'ah, and
> she wasn't an eishes ish at the time of remarriage.
>
> Now, would we rely on this engineering if it wasn't involving the Shoah,
> survivors, bedi'eved, someone who actually asked rabbanim and was given a
> heter to remarry, and possible children stuck in mamzeirus? I don't know.

I have heard that this is occasionally used, when nothing else will
work. This gives a new meaning to R'nTK's "Schroedinger's Mamzer" - if
you ask whether he/she is a mamzer(et), the annswer is: you'll know
when you look into the [rabbis' tool] box.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!



Go to top.

Message: 18
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:11:11 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dinosaurs


I'm replying to four posts sent yesterday, Tue Nov 03, 2009 CE. Also,
sorry for that faulty "send" earlier today. I have no separate mod to
reject my own errors.

At 11:55am EST, R' Chaim Manaster wrote:
...

I'm going to skip down to what I think is the fundamental point, and
then skip back to the beginning of RCM's email to use that to explain
the other issues.

:> That way, we can blame eilu va'eilu on the human
:> ability to entertain conflicting thoughts, to be ambivalent, to hold
:> dialectics and antinomies.

: So you are saying EvE is not a sublime truth in Torah, but rather a
: reflection of human failing?

The way I understood the Maharshal and Maharal is that it is a sublime
truth of Torah AND a reflection of human limitation. Divrei E-lokim
Chaim is inherently infinite. Man is finite. Torah has to bridge the gap
from infinite to finite.

Thus it's the nature of Torah to allow us to grasp simplifications --
models, shadows, whatever you wish to call it -- that is as much of
Hashem's Infinite "Thought" that can fit in our world. This is part of
the sublimity of Torah AND a consequence of our being human.

Notice I wrote about human limitation, not human failing. It's not an
error; it's the point of Torah to be a human-sized snapshot of the
Infinite.

People may come up with different fully accurate snapshots of the bigger
Truth.

That's why I like the metaphor of a shadow. A 3D object contains an
infinite number of 2D slices -- it is infinite compared to any of its
shadows. Shadows taken from different angles might be very different.
We each look at the Torah from where we stand, so some difference in
"shadow", in how we understand the halakhah should go, is inevitable.

But that's how the Torah is supposed to be. (According to this explanation
of machloqes.) Because man is supposed to be finite.

Jumping back now:
:> Usually eilu va'eilu isn't about a question of truth, but of law. You
:> could have two valid rulings that contradict, each flowing from TSBP
:> following the proper rules of pesaq.

: You seem to take solace in the fact that the rules of TSBP can lead to
: inconsistent pesak (but not inconsistent truth) under EvE. (BTW this
: seems to contradict your previous position vs R'nTK)...

I'm not sure why. I'm saying there that labeling something kefirah means
that it's not even a proper shadow. Saying there is a plurality of
truths doesn't mean everything is true. And saying something is kefirah
is, AFAIK, assuming that it isn't a product of the process we call TSBP.
And is in fact, incompatible with any such product -- otherwise, why is
the belief "dangerous" enough to be assur?

:                                                       Shifting the
: paradox from ultimate truth to Halacha does not put me any more at ease
: with the problem of understanding EvE. Halacha reflects the underlying
: truth so in principle nothing has really changed with inconsistent pesak
: (in cases with no middle ground such tamei or tahor, mamzer or not etc)

Halakhah is a human construct that must be consistent with a shadow
of a Truth that doesn't fit in our world. That's a looser connection
than "reflects". The idea of halakhah is to bring us ever closer to the
Truth. "Emes mei'eretz *tatzmiach*" -- "vechayei olam *nata* besocheinu".
(As per the haqdamah to the Qetzos.) Truth, like perfection, is a goal
we'll never actually reach, since we're betzelem of the Infinite.

This is also captured by RYBS, when he calls halakhah as creative
partnership between man and G-d. There is an element of human creativity,
which means that Hashem left room for a variety results that the person
creates one of.

:> Someone who can only see shadows could see two very different shadows of
:> the same object. Both shadows accurately represent a mapping of G-d's
:> supernal truth to the limitations of human experience, even though
:> they contradict.

: This does not help me much in understanding EvE either (with all due
: respect to the Maharal). First of all, you have now introduced a case
: that DOES have a middle ground, which here is the whole that neither A
: or B sees in its entirety. (eg. think f(x,y,z), but A only sees f(x,y,k)
: while B sees f(x,k',z)). But more to the point, EvE still leads to paradox
: because you now need to explain the reason for different perspective,
: why A saw only points "a" while B chose to see only points "b." If EvE
: tells us both are right in their choice of perspective, you have not
: answered anything.

I don't see the problem you're trying to describe. Nu, Beis Hillel had
one approach to the Torah and its goals, Beis Shammai a different one.
(Perhaps, as the mequbalim would say, it was chessed vs din. Or perhaps
R' Zevin's idea of actual vs potential. Or...) They therefore approached
the topics of their machloqesin from different perspectives, and got
different shadows of the same Emes (capital "E").

Why is there a paradox in that? Please explain further.

:> R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) writes about how the law of contradiction
:> only exists bepo'al. When dealing in machashavah, a thought always
:> invites contemplation of its opposite. People believe contradictory
:> things all the time. 

: Again, I am left without an answer I can be happy with. Shifting the
: discussion to the realm of machashava doesn't help. It still must be
: rationally consistent. 2+2=5 isn't OK just because it is in
: machashava...

OTOH, people do believe both sides of a contradiction. Gadlus haadam vs
shefeilus haadam. Hashem is everywhere vs Hashem is in shamayim. RYBS
founded his entire philosophy on these: Every person is Adam I and Adam
II, cognitive man and religious man, etc...

In the world of thought, contradiction is NOT a show stopper.

That said I can't identify with R' Tzadoq's approach either. Aval Torah
hi, ulelemdah ani tzarikh.

..
:> Why invoke arcane physics when we can discuss halakhah in terms of the
:> roshem on people?

: Sorry, it was just a metaphor. I liked R'nTK's expression "Schrodinger's
: Mamzer."

:> dialectics and antinomies ....  Kantian or Hegelian dialectics 

: Now we are above my pay grade...

Just see what I said above about R' Tzadoq and how people often embrace
two sides of a contradiction / dialectic and it doesn't stop them.

At 7:11pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Ilana:
:> Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both are true
:> on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted as practice)
:> apply to every single machloket? Up to what point? The gemara? The
:> rishonim? Nowadays? Or are there some opinions that are just not true
:> at all? The posek made a mistake - and perhaps eventually realizes
:> this himself and retracts his opinion. Would we say elu v'elu before
:> the retraction, but not after? Or would we say that this is beyond the
:> bounds of elu v'elu?

: Most Posqim assert that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin are mutually
: exclusive.

: In this week's Ben Ish Chai, the author quotes the Arizal stating they
: are BOTH valid! [Not really as alternatives, rather al pi sod - one
: NEEDS both]

: This is beyond plain vanilla EvE.

: The case of BH and BH re: EvE is AISI more about Talmud Torah than
: practice, but see below

: Halachically we follow only ONE derech - viz. BH. Rather learning the
: opinion of BS is of equal value - which seems to contradict learning
: Torah ONLY for Halachah lema'aseh

: Yet here too is a paradox. Even though
: BS is lav aliba dehilchesa, a through analysis of their sheeta may yield
: theoretical constructs useful in the same or in other contexts.

At 5:26pm IST, Rn Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:
: And what we are discussing here is the trickiest case - a machloket
: about the halachot of what is considered kefirah. The boundaries of
: what is acceptable (even if incorrect) belief, vs. what is heresy are
: not unanimously agreed upon. So does elu v'elu break down in this area
: of halacha? ANY machloket about what is or isn't kefirah raises this
: question.

My understanding of kofeir baTorah is that it's saying
1- the idea is wrong,
2- it's not part of our derekh, and
3- it had to be eraticated because it can't be part of any derekh.

I was arguing that it did simply because it is no longer a statement
about the permissilibity of something, but any prohibition is based
upon the idea being outside of EvE and in fact inconsistent with any
definition of following the Torah.

Once you go meta-level, making statements about statements, paradoxes
are possible. As long as statements deal with lower levels of logic,
eg statements about actions or objections, two people can disagree, but
you can't construct a paradox.

Bertrand Russel introduced the concept of types of sets to eliminate
the concept of paradox. (Principles of Mathematics, appendix B: "The
Doctrine of Types".)

From <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox>:
    Some sets, such as the set of all teacups, are not members of
    themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all non-teacups, are
    members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members
    of themselves "R." If R is a member of itself, then by definition
    it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member
    of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself. 

Russel's resolution, which is generally rejected because it is too
limiting:
    Recognizing that self-reference lies at the heart of the paradox,
    Russell's basic idea is that we can avoid commitment to R (the set
    of all sets that are not members of themselves) by arranging all
    sentences (or, equivalently, all propositional functions) into a
    hierarchy. The lowest level of this hierarchy will consist of
    sentences about individuals. The next lowest level will consist of
    sentences about sets of individuals. The next lowest level will
    consist of sentences about sets of sets of individuals, and so on.
    It is then possible to refer to all objects for which a given
    condition (or predicate) holds only if they are all at the same
    level or of the same "type."
(See there for a fuller discussion.)

The term "this is kefirah" would be branded by Russel to be of a different
type than "this is chillul Shabbos", even though chilul Shabbos is ke'ilu
oveid AZ. Because it's a statement about statements.

Now, once shitah B says shitah A is kefirah, can shitah A include that
part of shitah A in its EvE? After all, it would be asserting that
I am part of plurality of opinions about whether I myself am part of
that plurality!

One simple way out is to show that there is a flaw in my identification
of kefirah with being outside EvE, not just outside our derekh.

I didn't even get to the uglier secondary effects... If A and B are each
concluding that the other uses a methodology or an attempt at daas Torah
or whatever that is unreliable because it can go beyond the range of EvE,
how can either rely on the other's pesaq for anything? Particularly if
it's about daas Torah or shiqul hadaas, where it's all one gestalt and
you can't isolate the flaw to a single domain?

: Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both
: are true on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted
: as practice) apply to every single machloket? Up to what point? The
: gemara? The rishonim? Nowadays? ...

See below, since you're now touching on what becomes the theme of
RZS's reply to your post (which I address next). The constructionist
model of halakhah of the Ritva and Ramban, the finite-human explanation
of the Maharal and the Maharshal, and the "man thinks in dialectics"
understanding of R' Tzadoq would apply even today.


At 4:42pm EST, Zev Sero replied to RnISE:
: "Elu Va'elu Divrei Elokim Chayim" was a message from Above about BH and
: BS, not about everybody. A similar message is recorded in Shu"T Min
: Hashamayim about the tefilin of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam. Other than these
: two examples I'm not aware of any guarantee that in any given machlokes
: both are DECh...

Except that my post referred to the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b), the Ramban,
Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, "QM"L"), the Maharshal, the Maharal and R' Tzadoq,
all of which assume that the norm for a machloqes is that both sides are
correct. They each might hold that there are rare machloqesin in which
one side erred and isn't Torah, I don't know but that seems reasonable.

BTW, the Ritva gets it from the 49 arguments for tamei and 49 letaheir:
    When Moshe ascended to receive the Torah, it was demonstrated to him
    that every matter was subject to forty-nine lenient and forty-nine
    stringent approaches. When he queried about this, God responded that
    the scholars of each generation were given the authority to decide
    among these perspectives in order to establish the normative
    halakha.
Same basic point, even if not using the EvE terminology.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 221
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >