Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 22

Sun, 08 Feb 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:58:36 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] When Is A Kiddush Not A Kiddush?


On 02/08/2015 05:56 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> The common shul kiddush presents a puzzling halakhic case because it
> seems to contradict a basic rule.

This article is not up to the column's usual standards.  There is nothing
at all puzzling about the common practise, because it is exactly in accord
with the Shulchan Aruch.  That some recent poskim raised questions about
it doesn't make it puzzling, because the vast majority are unaware of these
issues, and simply rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

Pace RYBS, they are not joining the Raavad to the SA in order to overrule
the GRA; they are unaware of either the GRA's *or* the Raavad, and those
who are aware of them consider both to be daas yochid and irrelevant.  It
was only RYBS who worried about the GRA's chumra, but resolved his problem
by also taking into account the Raavad's kula.





Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 14:46:26 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] how binding is minhag


<<On the other hand, the Prushim picked up some of the S'faradi customs,
even though the Gra did not follow them, such as saying Ein Keilokeinu
daily,  ...  replacing Sholom Rov with Sim
Shalom in Mincha of Shabbos, and repeating Borchu after ma'ariv, and after
Shacharis on days the Torah is not read.>>

RYBS (presumably following more the Gra than sfardim) was very insistent on
always
saying sim shalom rather than shalom rav since shalom rav is not mentioned
in the gemara.
OTOH he indeed opposed saying borchu at the end of a tefillah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/fd9b1d53/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:01:19 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] How did Rashi make a living


<<There is no indication that Rashi ever studied anything but Torah. >>

In general the Rishonim who lived in Ashkenaz didn't learn seculat studies.
Prof. Haym Soloveitchik points out that the Tosafot in France concentrated
completely on Gemara while those in Germany included other subjects such as
responsa, writings on halacha, minhagim etc

OTOH in Spain it was much more common that rabbis knew secular subjects
including medicine, poetry, philosophy etc. In fact Rif and Ri Migash were
one of the exceptions to this rule.

Also the suggestion that Rashi headed a yeshiva and was paid by the
community has nothing backing in and is just a suggestion. I personally
find this hard to accept. His grandson Rabbenu Tam was accepted by all as
the leader of ashkenazic Jewry and had many talmidim. Nevertheless Rabbenu
Tam was not supported by the community but rather was personally wealthy
based on his business of finances and wine business
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabb
inics/Talmud/Gemara/Commentaries/Tosafot/Rabbenu_Tam.shtml

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/931fbd8e/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:05:48 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] How Did Rashi Make a Living?


At 07:40 AM 2/8/2015, Zev Sero  wrote:
>There is no indication that Rashi ever studied anything but Torah.

I recall learning a gemara in which a rectangle 50 by 100 is to be 
made into a square.  What is involved is dealing with the square root 
of two.  RASHI presents way of getting the square by cutting it into 
strips.  Is this not mathematics?  Is this Torah?

I am sure that there are other places in the gemara where RASHI's 
commentary involves mathematics and astronomy.  Are you saying that 
mathematics and astronomy are Torah?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/6019775b/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:07:12 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Torah only


> studying them at a time when they are not needed, either for survival or
> for understanding what one has learned in Torah.

Question: When did the members of the Sanhedrin learn 70 languages?
If while they were students they did not need the 70 languages for their
immediate learning.

If they began learning only at an advanced age when they were already
judges it seems quite hard to start and learn many languages.

From the megilla it seems that Mordecai already knew many languages
though we have already debated how old Mordecai would have been at the
time of the megillah

[Email #2]

> Of course, this is true for Torah too. And the time spent insuring that
> one understands the other topics will detract from the time he has to get a
> deep understanding of Torah topics

As has been mentioned innumerable times the Gra learned many secular
topics to increase his knowledge of the Torah.

In more modern times it is well known that CI learned spherical geometry
to better understand kiddush ha-chodesh. It also seems that while in
Russia he studied medical texts to increase his knowledge in chullin
and other mesechtot.

I would venture that the time he spent learning geometry etc. is counted
as time he spent learning Torah

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 08:59:31 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Torah Only


At 07:40 AM 2/8/2015, Zev Sero wrote:
>What is not "Torah only" is giving independent value to non-Torah studies,
>studying them at a time when they are not needed, either for survival or
>for understanding what one has learned in Torah.

How can studying non-Torah studies "for survival"  (whatever this 
means) not be needed at any time?

[Email #2.]

At 07:40 AM 2/8/2015, Zev Sero wrote:
> Limmud hatorah itself doesn't encompass all our lives, it encompasses actual
> learning.

I suggest you read R. Dov Katz's introduction to Tenuas Hamussar that
was recently republished as Perfection: The Torah Ideal. From
http://tinyurl.com/k4m9a23

    What's the purpose of Judaism? Is Judaism merely a set of rules
    or is there some grander aim behind it all? In this book, Rabbi Dov
    Katz, a student of the Alter of Slabodka, argues that God gave the
    Jews the Bible and the Oral Law for man to perfect his character. A
    devotee of the Mussar Movement, Rabbi Katz bemoans the "narrowing of
    Judaism" he sees among many circles of observant Jewish society and
    hails the Mussar Movement as restoring the crown of Judaism to its
    glory. Complete with a biography of the author by his son (Rabbi
    Yehoshua Katz, Ashkenazic rav of Maale Adumim), this book should
    appeal to lovers of Torah and Mussar and anyone dissatisfied with the
    prevailing religious weltanschauung in much of Orthodox society. It
    possesses approbations by Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetsky, Hershel Schachter,
    and Berel Wein, as well as librarian Zalman Alpert.

R. Katz eloquently makes the point that the purpose of learning is for
the learner to perfect his character so that he deals with the world in
a true Torah way. If so, then Limmud ha Torah is definitely supposed to
encompass all aspects of our lives. It is because the focus of learning
is not on perfection of character that one can come to the mistaken
observation that "Limmud hatorah itself doesn't encompass all our lives,
it encompasses actual learning." R. Katz proves that this focus is not
correct from a Torah standpoint.

YL



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 12:14:36 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Torah Only


On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: At 07:40 AM 2/8/2015, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Limmud hatorah itself doesn't encompass all our lives, it encompasses actual
:> learning.

: I suggest you read R. Dov Katz's introduction to Tenuas Hamussar that
: was recently republished as Perfection: The Torah Ideal. From
: http://tinyurl.com/k4m9a23

I am not sure it's of value here.

We shouldn't be trying to argue about what's the One True Derekh, as we've
done that repeatedly over the past 17 years, and should know by now it goes
nowhere.

IMHO, the more productive question is looking at the viability of a
"Torah only" derekh, both in terms of sources and in terms of how many
people would it be a good fit for.

And I inadvertantly split the conversation in two:

1- Torah with or without secular knowledge / culture; and
2- the relative priority of talmud Torah in contrast to the other 612.

The two questions do correlate, but only imperfectly.

Trying to analyze the yeshivish derekh using R' Beuer's or Slabodka's
givens is unhelpful to the version of the question(s) I'm calling more
productive. All you'll show is that it accomplishes TIDE's and Mussar's
perspective on Torah's goals less well than those movements themselves
do. Which we knew before beginning.

I had a similar opinion when learning R AE Kaplan's Shenei Terachim
<http://www.aishdas.org/raek/2derachim.pdf>.

To a large extent, I found this essay (aside from the interesting anecdote
it is framed around) largely boils down to: Chassidus is inferior at being
Mussar than Mussar is. He is measuring one with the other's yardstick,
which of course had a predetermined answer.

Details: To quote RGB's translation from
<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/raek.htm>:

    Mussar does not disagree with Chassidus. Mussar is often satisfied
    with the Jewish strength of Chassidus; its capacity not to submit
    to the environment; its heartfelt openness bein adam l'chaveiro
    that softens petty superficial European etiquette; its readiness
    to dedicate itself to a lofty purpose, and so easily sacrifice
    for that purpose normal conditions of life; its youthful fervor
    in mitzvos, which extends well into old age. Mussar, however, also
    has a significant criticism of Chassidus: It sees Chassidus as too
    external, too theoretical and abstract. The Chasid deludes himself
    into thinking that he is getting more out of Chassidus than he
    actually is. Chassidus deals with profound thoughts and great deeds,
    but it remains outside the essence of the Chasid. Chassidus penetrates
    the depths of the greatest Torah problems - between both Man and G-d,
    and between Man and Man - but it penetrates too little the self of a
    person, so that he might engage in a reckoning as to where he stands
    in relation to his World and in relation to his obligations in his
    World... The average Chasid deludes himself into thinking that a
    nigun that he sings wells up from his heart, and that the dveykus
    that he experiences has its source in his soul, even though it is
    entirely possible that these are transient moods, not associated
    with his true essence. [12] One should not judge hastily. We cannot
    say even to the simplest Chasid, when he experiences dveykus, that
    he does not truly cleave to G-d. But that constant self-critique:
    "Perhaps I am deluding myself;" the query that should accompany every
    step in life: "Have I not strayed in this instance from the path?";
    and, finally, all that is encompassed in the thought that serves as
    a necessary precondition for Shivisi Hashem l'negdi tamid ["I have
    placed G-d before me always"], namely, the thought, "I have placed
    my "self" before me always," - all this is more prevalent in Mussar
    than in Chassidus... [13]

    ...
    [12] Reb Avraham Elya was not negating the power of nigun - he himself
    wrote nigunim of dveykus (see B'Ikvos HaYir'ah pp. 217-218).

    [13] ibid., p. 22. Reb Avraham Elya noted that the founders of
    Chassidus did know and impart the need for Mussar-like introspection
    to their followers, but sufficient stress was not placed on this
    component, and over time it was forsaken (ibid., p. 136).

This attention to making sure the experience is an authentically spiritual
experience, checking the purity of motive, is very much Mussar. Chassidus
would tell you to run with what you get, and let such issues take care
of themselves. Overanalysis itself can ruin the naturalness and reality
of expression.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:40:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How did Rashi make a living


On 02/08/2015 08:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> Also the suggestion that Rashi headed a yeshiva and was paid by the
> community has nothing backing in and is just a suggestion.

It's based on his being referred to as "gaon", and "rosh yeshivas Ge'on
Yaacov", which suggests that he was seen in the same light as the Geonim
of Bavel, who were full-time roshei yeshivah, supported by the yeshivah.

> Rabbenu Tam was not supported by the community but rather was
> personally wealthy based on his business of finances and wine
> business

I wonder whether this claim has any more basis than the one about Rashi
being in the wine business.

[Email #2]

On 02/08/2015 09:05 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I recall learning a gemara in which a rectangle 50 by 100 is to be
> made into a square. What is involved is dealing with the square root
> of two. RASHI presents way of getting the square by cutting it into
> strips. Is this not mathematics? Is this Torah?

This is fairly clear evidence that Rashi did *not* study mathematics,
and did not advocate anyone else studying it either. I doubt any trained
mathematician would have explained it the way he did, or that anyone would
explain it that way to someone who had studied even basic arithmetic.
The method is precisely that which someone with no such training would
come up with, and the explanation expects no background in arithmetic
at all.

> I am sure that there are other places in the gemara where RASHI's
> commentary involves mathematics and astronomy.  Are you saying that
> mathematics and astronomy are Torah?

Figuring out the meaning of a sugya is Torah. When smicha students
anatomise a rei'ah they are learning Torah; when medical students do
the exact same thing they are not.



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 11:48:35 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] These and Those


In light of the discussion about Torah only I have decided to post R 
Schwab's essay These and Those at

<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/these_and_those.pdf>These 
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/these_and_those.pdf>and 
Those    http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/these_and_those.pdf

Note that he writes on page 10

"Most Bnai Yeshiva, however, who after a number of years realize that
they will never become "Torah giants" are in need of some source
of livelihood.  After having spent their best years in a yeshiva gedolah
some gainful occupation has to be chosen,  one which does not
require college training, preferably a teaching job in a Jewish
Day School and/ or afternoon Talmud Torah. Even those who do
not intend to devote their life to religious education will wish to
spend the first few years after marriage in a Kolel in order to
enlarge and deepen their knowledge.

<Snip>

"A number of "Torah Only" disciples do enter various trades and
businesses while most of the professions are closed to them."

Thus it is seems clear that the Torah only derech, i.e.,  full-time 
learning long time, is only for a very select few.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/ca9b24f6/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:12:44 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Torah Only


At 12:14 PM 2/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>: At 07:40 AM 2/8/2015, Zev Sero wrote:
>:> Limmud hatorah itself doesn't encompass all our lives, it 
>encompasses actual
>:> learning.
>
>: I suggest you read R. Dov Katz's introduction to Tenuas Hamussar that
>: was recently republished as Perfection: The Torah Ideal. From
>: http://tinyurl.com/k4m9a23
>
>I am not sure it's of value here.
>
>We shouldn't be trying to argue about what's the One True Derekh, as we've
>done that repeatedly over the past 17 years, and should know by now it goes
>nowhere.

Is it not of value to know what authentic Torah leaning is?  This has 
nothing to do with "the One True Derech."  R. Katz brings many 
sources from rishonim and achronim to back up his thesis that the 
goal of  Torah learning is to lead to perfection of character.  It 
won't be Torah only if it is not Torah, will it? Isn't knowing what 
torah learning is supposed to be about of great value?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/0f5608fe/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: via Avodah
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 14:36:04 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Torah only" - Nefesh Hachaim




 
From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>> Some years ago my LOR saw me  learning Nefesh
haChaim, and advised that I focus on sha'ar 4, because that's  what they
do in yeshivos, and sort of skim over 1-3 and the "perarim between  3 and
4". ....
Well, if you base your hashkafah on cheleq 4 of NhC alone,  you learn
that all of metaphysics revolves around talmud Torah.  <<
 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         





>>>>>
 
Coincidentally -- though there is no such thing as coincidence in reality  
-- providentially, just a few minutes ago I got off the phone with my kollel 
son  who is learning in the Mir in Y-m, and he just told me to look at 
Nefesh  Hachaim, Sha'ar 4.
 
My discussions with him might surprise some people, because I try  to 
convince him of the truth or necessity of Torah Im Derech Eretz while he of  
course totally accepts -- and articulately defends -- the "Torah Only" yeshivish 
 charedi hashkafa. I myself admire and respect and often defend the charedi 
 community (communities) of E'Y and chu'l too, but at the same time I don't 
view  that hashkafa as the one best road or lechatchila for everyone -- I 
view  them as our contemporary Shevet Levi.  Thus my "debates" with my son 
tend  to be complex and meandering rather than a clearcut defense of one view  
against its opposite.  But in any case I am going to look for that section  
of Nefesh Hachaim now.
 
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/9a691ec4/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 15:13:48 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Torah only


On 02/08/2015 08:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>> studying them at a time when they are not needed, either for survival or
>> for understanding what one has learned in Torah.
>
> Question: When did the members of the Sanhedrin learn 70 languages?
> If while they were students they did not need the 70 languages for their
> immediate learning.
>
> If they began learning only at an advanced age when they were already
> judges it seems quite hard to start and learn many languages.

Nu, so it was hard.  What will you say about all the AZ that they had to
know, but which an ordinary person is not allowed to learn?  Obviously
they only began studying it when it became apparent that they might need
it.  The same answer can apply to the languages as well.

  
>>From the megilla it seems that Mordecai already knew many languages
> though we have already debated how old Mordecai would have been at the
> time of the megillah

Despite any dreidlach, the simple peshat is that he had smicha at the
time of galus Yechonyah, so by Achashverosh's time he was at least 90.


> As has been mentioned innumerable times the Gra learned many secular
> topics to increase his knowledge of the Torah.

But presumably only after he had already "filled his belly" with shas and
poskim.


> In more modern times it is well known that CI learned spherical geometry
> to better understand kiddush ha-chodesh. It also seems that while in
> Russia he studied medical texts to increase his knowledge in chullin
> and other mesechtot.
>
> I would venture that the time he spent learning geometry etc. is counted
> as time he spent learning Torah

Of course.  Time spent gaining the information needed to understand a sugya
is no less Torah learning than time spent staring alternately at the page
and at the ceiling waiting for inspiration to hit.





Go to top.

Message: 13
From: via Avodah
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 14:13:07 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How Did Rashi Make a Living?




 

From: Zev Sero via Avodah _avodah@lists.aishdas.org_ 
(mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org) 


>>  There is no indication that Rashi ever studied anything but  Torah.<<






>>>>>>
He could have picked up French by osmosis from the streets but more likely  
he studied French to some degree.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150208/04442596/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Noam Stadlan
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 11:35:02 -0600
Subject:
[Avodah] Definition of Death


I am grateful to the editors of Hakirah for publishing my article "Is the
Concept of Vital Motion a Halakhic Definition of Death?"

http://hakirah.org/Vol18Stadlan.pdf

 I think it illustrates(hopefully for the final time), how neurologically
based definitions of life and death(and more specifically, the respiratory
brain death definition) are the only actual Halakhic definitions of death
that have been thus far proposed.  All the others are not definitions, but
vague concepts, false medical assumptions, or a combination of both.  None
of the non-neurological based definitions of death(with one exception,
addressed in the paper and previously) have identified any specific
anatomic part or physiologic function that is essential to life- and
therefore cannot be applied to any specific case to determine if that
particular collection of human tissue is alive or dead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150208/0236d9b7/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >