BeisTefila Email List
May 1998
BAISTEFILA Digest 19
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Atzmus links (fwd), Dr. Hendel's Summary
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
2) Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Rambam, Jewish autonomy and Chanukah
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
4) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
5) Shameless Self Promotion
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
6) RE: highfalutin' concepts
by Ken Miller
7) Sources
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
8) "Summary"
by Saul Weinreb
9) Re: Rambam, Jewish autonomy and Chanukah
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
10) Re: Shameless Self Promotion
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
11) Lrabos Talmidei Chachomim
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
12) RE: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
by The Jewish Music Webmaster
13) Re: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
by margol
14) RE: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
by Ken Miller
15) The Torah Codes
by "Richard K. Fiedler"
16) Re: The Torah Codes
by Claude Schochet
17) Re: Sources, Forwarded, from Reb Avrohom Allswang
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__893995261446997630
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_19"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:18:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
cc: yyk@lubavitch.chabad.org
Subject: Atzmus links (fwd), Dr. Hendel's Summary
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I generally read my e-mail in DOS on a dialup connection, so it is a great
inconvenience for me to open my Netscape and browse the following links.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to Rabbi Kazen of Lubavitch for providing them
to me and offer them to our group to pursue.
I will note that the sources that Likutei Sichos provide in Chazal for
atzmus melubash beguf are very dangerous if taken literally, as the atzmus
doctrine seems to do. They are as follows:
Yerushalmi Bikkurim 3:3 (11b):
"Yaakov from Giboraya interpreted [the passage in Chabakuk 2]: 'Woe to
those who say to wood awaken, arise; to a silent stone it shall instruct'
- does he know how to instruct? - 'Behold it is siezed with gold and
silver' - was he not appointed for money? - 'And no spirit is within it' -
and he know nothing, woe to those who say they want him appointed - 'And
G-d is in his holy sanctuary' - while Rabbi Yitzchok bar Lezar is in the
lower synagogue of Cesaera."
The Zohar's exact location I do not see offhand, but Reb Yosef Engel
quotes it in the Gilyonei HaShas there:
"'All your males will be seen before the master G-d' - this is Rabbi
Shimon bar Yochai."
It seems to me that understood literally these quotes would be heretical,
but they are obviously homiletical. I do not see how anyone could
countenance taking them literally.
I have some difficulty with the "upteitch" of intemediary cited by Rabbi
Kazen, as the understanding might well apply to the aspeklaria ha'me'ira
of Moshe Rabbeinu, but cannot apply to anyone else, without, to the best
of my understanding, contradicting the tenet that Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah
was unique.
As far as Dr. Hendel's summary of Chassidus and Tzaddikim, just as Dr.
Schochet did, I found the summary of the evolution of Chassidus pejorative
and inaccurate. This is something that Reb Shaul Weinreb has noted to me
several times, however, that to a certain extent we are all tinokos
shenishbu in this area because we have been influenced by the secular
historians negative spin on the Chassidic movement.
Interestingly, a sympathetic portrayal of early Chassidus that I have not
read in many years but made an impression on me which I find lasting, is
the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Reb Yosef Yitzchok's) Memoirs.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Yosef Y. Kazen"
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Cc: "Yosef Y. Kazen"
Subject: Atzmus links
B"H
Hi,
I did a quick search on our site for the one word "intemediary" and
got back over 90 potential links. I noticed that a number are duplicates.
In any case, I am giving you a number of the pertinent links so that
you can read them and become better acquainted with the issues of
a "Memutza Hamechaber" as well as info on Brachos from Tzadikim.
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/daily/tanya/leap/11-Elul/25elul.htm
This is the Igeres Hakodesh of the Alter Rebbe in Tanya which is
referenced.
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/weekly/Archives/torastud/exodus/tisa.htm
This explains Idolatry.
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/weekly/Archives/welsprng.w7/deutrnmy/devarim.htm
I am including the excerpt from this essay since it is very relevant to the
issue on hand:
"The inherent sanctity of Torah is such that it completely transcends this
physical world; in order for it to descend within this world an intermediary
is necessary - one who is both higher than this world yet within it.
This intermediary bridges the gap between the sacred Torah and this
corporeal world. Moshe served as the intermediary, inasmuch as he combined
aspects of this world with higher levels. His humility was truly
otherworldly; concurrently, he attained the highest degree of completeness
possible for an earthly being.
Information flows through an intermediary in one of two ways:
a) The information passes through but does not become united with the
intermediary; all he does is bring about its descent.
b) The communication becomes so wholly unified with the intermediary that
it is refashioned - personalized - by its passage through him. This, in
turn, enables the recipients to receive the information according to
their own personal levels of intellect. When a flow of divine knowledge
is not clothed in the intellect of a human intermediary, it eludes
comprehension, for such knowledge is by definition beyond the grasp
of the receiver, and the intermediary did nothing to make it more
accessible."
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/weekly/exodus/007/w7.htm
The following excerpt is regarding any Jew who give Tzedakah - that
person becomes an "intermediary" between Hashem and the receipient!
Why did He ordain that they had to receive it as tzedakah from
the rich? Because G-d wanted kindness and charity to be an
integral part of the world's makeup. [57] If every person would
derive His sustenance without an intermediary, kindness and
charity would not exist within the world.
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/chabad/classics/toras/toras.003.htm
In the above URL you will find the expression of Atzmus Melubash
Bguf. See the footnotes 48-58 specifically and the sources cited
there.
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/chabad/classics/toras/toras.007.htm
The above URL addresses:
"The appended words ("as in... Machnisei Rachamim, as
explained in the responsum of Mahariv Zal") cite why it is
permissible (when it might otherwise appear to involve an
intermediary) to address a pidyon to a Rebbe; this is explained
in the responsum of Mahariv Zal on the recitation of Machnisei
Rachamim."
I hope the above will provide the "serious student" sufficient insight to
the issue and give them an opportunity to understand that no one is G-d
Forbid "deifying the Rebbe."
--
YY
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:29:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I was teaching tonight Shmuel 2:15 where it says that Avshalom rebelled at
the end of 40 years - a problematic number that Chazal and the Meforshim
grapple with. I, personally, proposed that this was Avshalom's age at the
time, although that necessitates a little fudging on Shmuel 2:3 where it
says Avshalom was born in Chevron.
Be that as it may, the Da'as Mikra Shmuel cites Josephus and the "Greek"
and "Syrian" that say "four" instead of forty. This is shades of Josephus
who says that Shaul was king for twenty two years, as opposed to the two
mentioned in the Nach (which would bar him from accepting Chazal's
interpreatation of the forty dating back to Shaul's coronation).
My question is to what extent the non-Prophetic parts of the Navi are
considered to be written "etched in stone" and whether there is any wiggle
room at all - and, if not, how could these other sources have different
numbers?
On a related topic, I am under the impression that the non-Prophetic
(i.e., not outright nevu'os) pars of Nevi'im Rishonim, are written on the
same level of ruach hakodesh as Kesuvim. The reason that these seforim are
in Nevi'im instead of Kesuvim is because they contain segments of outright
nevu'ah while Kesuvim do not. Is there any validity to this impression?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-Id: <199804301204.IAA27560@dvqa1.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: Rambam, Jewish autonomy and Chanukah
To: baistefila@shamash.org (Highlevel Torah topics discussion group)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:04:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul Rothbart writes:
: In fact the Rambam never says that
: Chanukah was established because of Jewish autonomy, he is merely
: recounting the miracles that Hashem did for Klal Yisrael in this period
: in history that are associated with the Chashmonaim.
Actually the Rambam shows the reversal of fortune, first listing all the things
Antiochus prohibited, and how we were oppressed, and then all the kavod,
freedom and opportunity to do mitzvos (if that's distinguishable from freedom)
the Ribbono Shel Olam restored to us. He also clearly demarcates Chanukah as
the central point when our fortunes reversed -- the end of the decline, and
the begining of our return.
: In fact it is only in halachah 3 that the Rambam mentions the
: reason for Chanukah which is based upon what he said in halachah 2, which
: is the miracle of the oil which is exactly what the Gemorah in Shabbos
: says.
I read halachah 3 as being the motivation for the mitzvah of neiros Channukah,
but that the earlier halachos explain Chanukah as a whole.
: Chanukah was established for Jewish independence (which is any way
: historically impossible)
I made a mistake in the subject line of my previous email. While the title
said "sovereignty", which post-dated the establishment of Chanukah and didn't
last 200 years (as Paul points out), the content refers to autonomy, which was
my intent.
We had autonomy under Herod. It may have not been full sovoreignty, but we had
much self-determination.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5795 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 30-Apr-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID: <19980430.095218.11895.0.cbrown106@juno.com>
From: cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:44:06 EDT
I do not know why the discrepency between texts bothers you here more
than anywhere else. I do not know what you mean by "etched in stone".
It seems clear that concepts such as Keri and Ktiv indicates that there
was some "flux" in the text at some early point in time (Radak in his
into I think makes this point). Even famous manuscript texts such as
Allepo Codex and the Leningrad manuscript, though they match our text
most of the time, do not follow a 100% correlation. Just as in the area
of halacha there was never a "referendum" to establish a certain shittah
as more correct than another one, just convention has established certain
shittot as halacha while others were rejected, so too in the area of text
we have taken certain texts to be the ones we follow to the excusion of
other ones which are equally legitimate. Of course, by doing so we have
opened the pandora's box of trying to now justify our text despite
problems like the one you raise with Avshalom.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:03:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Shameless Self Promotion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am happy to announce that my new sefer:
The Contemporary Eruv
has hit these shores and is being distributed aggresively, as I write, by
the publisher, Feldheim. This is a much expanded version of "Eruvin in
Modern Metropolitan Areas", hardcover, with beautiful diagrams.
Call Feldheim, 914 356 2282 for more information. Better yet, call your
local seforim store. In the Chicago spirit, call early and call often!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A198@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group ,
'David Riceman'
Subject: RE: highfalutin' concepts
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:08:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
David Riceman feels that Rabbi Berger and the Rambam are in sharp
disagreement with each other. He wrote: <<< Another one is the idea,
cited (with apparent approval) by Rabbi Berger, that the human soul
contains something divine. The Rambam at the beginning of the Moreh
(part one chapter one if my memory serves me well) says that any
comparison between the human soul and God is metaphorical. He would
clearly disagree, and would consider that someone who assented to such a
doctrine was failing to fulfill the mitzvah of yichud hashem. >>>
It seems to me that when we talk about HaShem, the line between
"metaphorical" and real is very fuzzy, at best. Perhaps there is no
disagreement between R. Berger and the Rambam, because perhaps R. Berger
is simply using the Rambam's metaphors.
How can one deny that "the human soul contains something divine"?
We were created in HaShem's image. So our image is divine. Whatever that
means...
G-d personally breathed the breath of life into Adam. However you choose
to understand that, whether rhetrical or literal or somewhere in
between, it must certainly mean that something of *Him* is now in *us*.
Where is G-d? G-d is everywhere, and for this reason, He is called
HaMakom. For one cannot ask "Where is G-d's place in the universe", for
he has no such place, but rather one must ask "Where is the universe?"
and the answer is that HaShem is the Place where the universe is
located. And so not only is it true that there is something of G-d in
the soul, but also in the animals, stones, trees, and there is something
divine even in the vacuum between the stars.
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-Id: <199804301411.KAA21641@no-knife.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Sources
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:11:58 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
The Zohar quoted by Reb Yosef Engel cited by Rabbi Bechhofer is found in
Parshas Bo Volume 2 38a. (Even a total ignoramous like myself can appear
to be well-educated with the aid of the Bar Ilan CD ROM. Unfortunately,
there are those who really think that owning the CD transforms them into
a Posek.)
One source which struck me years ago as being in support of the prayer
Machnisei Rachamim is a Rashi in Sanhedrin 44b on the gemara: Resh
Lakish amar kol hameametz atzmo btefilah milmatah ain lo tzarim
milmaalah. Reb Yochanan amar l'olam yevakesh adam rachamim sheyehu hakol
meamtzin es kocho v'al yehu lo tzarim milmaalah. Rashi says
...sheyesayuhu malachei hashares levakesh rachamim v'shelo yehu lo
mastinim milmaalah...
I don't know if that is cited in the teshuvah cited by Rabbi Bechhofer
in defense of machnisei rachamim, but I don't have time to conduct a
search on my Bar Ilan CD ROM right now. (It is possible that just owning
the CD ROM, even if you keep it on a shelf and never use it, is enough
to certify you as a scholar.)
Finally, the concept that the word haadon hashem in the above-mentioned
zohar could be darshined to refer to Reb Shimon Bar Yochai may be along
the lines of "Es hashem elokecha tira--lerabos talmidei chachamim."
(Pesachim 22b).
Heard a beautiful vort from the Kotzker on that gemara, don't have time
to type it now, but will send it soon.
Barry
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980430095932.006cc3c4@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:59:33 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Saul Weinreb
Subject: "Summary"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I do not think that the definition of Chassidim in the "summary" of Mr.
Hendel is in the proper Ruach of our forum, nor in the spirit of darchei
noam at all. Especially the mention of ignorance of talmud. "---they were
ignorant of advanced talmudic analytical methods" We are moving on to
other subjects, and that it wonderful, but I found that remark, and others
to be a gross misundersatnding at best, and hotzoas shem ra and bizayon
talmidei chachamim at worst.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:49:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Rambam, Jewish autonomy and Chanukah
Message-ID: <19980430.114919.4302.0.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
Not to belabour a point that I am sure not to many people are interested
in but just for the sake of accuracy. Michael Berger wrote that the
Rambam in Halchah 3 of Hilchos Chanukah is only speaking about the
mitzvah of the neiros of Chanukah not Chanukah in general. That clearly
is not possible since the Rambam writes there that "Therefore Chazal of
that generation established that these eight days should be day of
rejoicing and saying praise and lighting candles" THe Rambam is talking
about all aspects of the Yom TOv.
As for autonomy, it means self-rule. Herod was a gentile king who was
forced upon the Jews by Mark Antony despite there protests. He killed
every surviving member of the CHashmonaim ruling class, wiped out untold
number of people including Chazal, and was able to act with total
immunity. In what sense did we have any control of our situation or were
able to rule ourselves?
Shraga Rothbart
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-Id: <199804301622.MAA04691@w20-575-59.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Shameless Self Promotion
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:22:12 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Zol zayn mit mazel un bracha.
Barry
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-Id: <199804301706.NAA04753@w20-575-59.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Lrabos Talmidei Chachomim
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:06:12 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
As I mentioned earlier, the gemara (Pesachim 22b) says that Reb Shimon
haamsuni v'amri lah Reb Nechemiah haamsuni (Please forgive me if I
misquote, as I am in school with no reference material now) hayah doresh
kol esin shebatorah. Kaivan shehigiya l'es hashem elokecha tira
piresh (couldn't conceive that anything should be similar to
HKB"H). Amru lo talmidav kol shear esin mah tihei aleihen. Amar lahem
ksheim shekibalti schar al ha drishah, kach ani mkabel schar al
haprishah. Ad sheba Rebbe Akiva vdarash es hashem elokecho tira--lrabos
talmidei chachomim. The Kotzker asks, why does it say ad sheba Rebbe
Akiva, what was the seeming delay here? He answers that Rebbe Akiva
would never have equated mora shamayim to mora talmidei
chachamim. It was only after he saw the total intellectual honesty of
Reb Shimon or Reb Necehmiah haamsuni that he was prepared to throw out
his entire life's work because of one small discrepancy which he could
easily have ignored or fudged. This made him realize that talmidei
chachamim are deserving of such fear and respect. Only then did he darshen
Es hashem elokecho tira--lrabos talmidei chachamim.
In this vein, Reb Chaim Shmulevitz says that there is a Chazal on the
verse Kedoshim tihyu: yachol kamoni--talmud lomar ki kodosh ani hashem
elokechem--kedushasi lmaalah mikdushaschem. Reb Chaim asks, what kind of
a hava amina is that? Would we really think people are as holy as G-d?
He says ain hachi nami. Only a special miyut teaches us that kedushasi
lmaalah mikdushaschem. This is supposed to make a person realize the
gadlus haadam, he could potentially be as holy as the Ribbono shel olam
himself except for some small differential, as the posuk says
Vatichasreihu me'at me'elokim.
May we use our vast G-d given potential properly and constructively.
I think Reb Chaim Shmulevitz also says that the pefect belief that the
chassidim have in their Rebbe's ability is what gives the Rebbe the
koach to perform mofsim. Still, there is a line between the human and
the divine. (I am not a chassid, just trying to be melamed zchus).
Barry
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-ID: <01BD7439.2B99CEA0.webmaster@jewishmusic.com>
From: The Jewish Music Webmaster
To: "'BaisTefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: RE: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:09:11 -0500
>
A serious rabbinical prohibition would be "NOLAD" which refers
to ANY thing new that originated on Shabbath. All NOLAD is
rabinically prohibited.
I'm not sure how this would apply to the internet? If you cause your computer to crash is it considered a Toldeh of "Schita" or Chabalah :)?
Is sending an email to a list server considered giving birth to quintuplets or more.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-ID: <3548C2B7.A6DFA55C@ms.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:28:07 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BaisTefila@Shamash.org
Subject: Re: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
How concrete ae the gedarim of Nolad when applied in this fashion? I'm
pretty sure that the ice cube thing is not universal. In fact I heard
that one Rav was matir making ice cubes but felt that if ice cubes
melted, the water is nolad. What is the root of this machlokes? Does
it apply to these other modern day cases of Nolad?
Take care,
Joel
Russell Hendel wrote:
>
> A serious rabbinical prohibition would be "NOLAD" which refers
> to ANY thing new that originated on Shabbath. All NOLAD is
> rabinically prohibited.
>
> The classical example is an egg that was laid on Yom Tov.
>
> I am indebted to Rabbi Avrohom Litvin (Mara DAthra in Louisville
> Kentucky) who pointed out to me that this should apply to e.g.
> a FAX that was sent from where it was sent on a weekday but
> received on the Shabbath. Since the fax was NOLAD=BORN on Sabbath
> one may not read it on Shabbath.
>
> I am similarly indebted to Rabbi Weiner, Rosh Yeshiva of the
> Medical Institute in Jerusalem for pointing out the example
> of apparel that were lain above a steamer with a perfuming
> device (this was an ancient practice designed to give the
> apparel a pleasant odor). The apparel WITH ITS NEW ATTRIBUTE
> of pleasantness was NOLAD=BORN on Shabbath and hence prohibited.
> Rabbi Weiner showed how this example could apply to a variety of
> "electric appliance problems"
>
> While the other issues raised in the posting are interesting I
> believe it is sometimes useful to start with those
> prohibitions which CLEARLY apply even if they be only rabbinical.
> One can then build up and seek the applicability of other
> prohibitions. The reason this "start at clear; discuss others later"
> approach is useful is that you know from the BEGINNING that the
> action is prohibited and the question becomes HOW PROHIBITED.
>
> In passing I note that NOLAD has far reaching consequences..e.g.
> it prohibits "giving birth" to icecubes on Shabbath and many
> more things
>
> Russell Jay Hendel;PHd; ASA; rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
>
> [D[D[D[D[D
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A19B@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'BaisTefila@shamash.org'" ,
'The Jewish Music Webmaster'
Subject: RE: Websites on Shabbath: Issues of Prohibitions
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:30:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Someone wrote that <<< All nolad is rabbinically prohibited. >>> and The
Jewish Music Webmaster commented <<< I'm not sure how this would apply
to the internet? If you cause your computer to crash is it considered a
Toldeh of "Sh'chita" or Chabalah :)? Is sending an email to a list
server considered giving birth to quintuplets or more. >>>
Lest anyone discount that comment because of its humorous nature, please
let me point out that NOT EVERYTHING which one might consider "new" is
indeed nolad.
For example, the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa explains why melting or
freezing water IS a nolad situation, but melting or freezing juice or
milk would NOT be.
More relevant to faxes which are printed on Shabbos would be the cases
of newspapers which are printed on Shabbos. I have seen it argued that
it might be prohibited to read such papers because one has benefited
from the Shabbos violation (kesiva in the printing, hotza'ah in the
distribution, etc), albeit of a non-Jew, and I have seen arguments that
allow it despite those problems. But I do not recall seeing nolad
mentioned in this regard.
Akiva Miller
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1318153046==_ma============"
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:50:45 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org (Highlevel Torah topics discussion group)
From: "Richard K. Fiedler"
Subject: The Torah Codes
--============_-1318153046==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Many years ago I attended a special "Discovery" presentation at the Nigil &
Silva Wallace home in the old city. At that time Aish HaTorah was telling
how the codes in the Torah "prove" God's authorship.
Having had my education in mathematics I remained sceptical. In fact at the
meeting I asked if it should turn out that similar codes were found in the
Koran what would their view of the Koran be. The one of the presenters said
he would have to rethink his views of the Koran. All of this was before the
famous rabbis experiment
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/11/genesis.html.
A year ago I heard Harold Gans talk about the famous rabbis experiment. I
was impressed with Mr. Gans talk but still bothered. What bothered me the
most was to what use were these codes. If indeed God wrote them into the
Torah there must have been some information he wanted us to have. And I
wondered if some rabbi did not have his birth date and yarzeit date encoded
in the Torah was he in fact not a "real" rabbi.
Last week I attended a lecture by Dr. Barry Simon on the Torah codes. Dr.
Simon is currently the IBM Professor of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
and Department Chair for Mathematics at CalTech.
What Dr. Simon had to say can be found on his website
http://wopr.com/biblecodes/index.htm .
Especially disturbing to me was to learn that "You need to understand that
the evidence is purely statistical. Many people I have talked to left codes
presentations with the impression that all 32 Rabbis' names were found
close to their dates of birth or death. This is not so. For example, taking
into account multiple dates and appellations, there are 298 pairs. Of these
135 (45%) don't even occur as ELS pairs."
Have 45% of our Rabbis been made pasul?
"Moreover, Dr. McKay did an interesting test. He took the minimal ELS for
HaRambam (the version of the name that WRR use) and looked for its distance
(using WRR c-values) from all the dates of the year using the WRR form of
dates. Of the 1064 possible dates [35], only 930 occurred as ELSs and he
ranked these dates in c-value order against Rambam's name. When he looked
at distances for the four dates of Rambam's birth and death that are among
the 930, he found they ranked at positions 332, 686, 696 and 890. So
Rambam's name does not occur at all close to his dates of birth and death
compared to other dates."
This makes the famous rabbis experiment of no Torah use. Dr. Simon goes on
to show why the famous rabbis experiment is of little statistical value as
well.
I suggest that the interested reader checkout a graphic shown on Dr. Barry
Simon's website. It is an impressive Chanukah Code graphic. It could well
make anyone a code believer if not for the fact that it came from the text
of a Hebrew translation of "War and Peace".
http://wopr.com/biblecodes/chan3b.gif . If indeed the Torah Codes are true
then we must conclude that the Hebrew Translation of "War and Peace" was
written with Ruach HaKodesh.
What this all comes down to is that Torah is being sold by ruse, as a
gimmick. This must be discredited and stopped.
How and if Aish HaTorah will distance itself from all of this remains to be
seen. Furthermore the Articles that were critical of Dr. Barry Simon that
appeared in Jewish Action make me think that Jewish Action will have some
back pedaling to do as well.
--============_-1318153046==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Many years ago I attended a special "Discovery" presentation at the
Nigil & Silva Wallace home in the old city. At that time Aish HaTorah
was telling how the codes in the Torah "prove" God's authorship.
Having had my education in mathematics I remained sceptical. In fact at
the meeting I asked if it should turn out that similar codes were found
in the Koran what would their view of the Koran be. The one of the
presenters said he would have to rethink his views of the Koran. All of
this was before the famous rabbis experiment
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/11/genesis.html.
A year ago I heard Harold Gans talk about the famous rabbis experiment.
I was impressed with Mr. Gans talk but still bothered. What bothered me
the most was to what use were these codes. If indeed God wrote them
into the Torah there must have been some information he wanted us to
have. And I wondered if some rabbi did not have his birth date and
yarzeit date encoded in the Torah was he in fact not a "real" rabbi.
Last week I attended a lecture by Dr. Barry Simon on the Torah codes.
Dr. Simon is currently the IBM Professor of Mathematics and Theoretical
Physics and Department Chair for Mathematics at CalTech.
What Dr. Simon had to say can be found on his website
http://wopr.com/biblecodes/index.htm .
Especially disturbing to me was to learn that "You need to understand
that the evidence is purely statistical. Many people I have talked to
left codes presentations with the impression that all 32 Rabbis' names
were found close to their dates of birth or death. This is not so. For
example, taking into account multiple dates and appellations, there are
298 pairs. Of these 135 (45%) don't even occur as ELS pairs."
Have 45% of our Rabbis been made pasul?
"Moreover, Dr. McKay did an interesting test. He took the minimal ELS
for HaRambam (the version of the name that WRR use) and looked for its
distance (using WRR c-values) from all the dates of the year using the
WRR form of dates. Of the 1064 possible dates [35], only 930 occurred
as ELSs and he ranked these dates in c-value order against Rambam's
name. When he looked at distances for the four dates of Rambam's birth
and death that are among the 930, he found they ranked at positions
332, 686, 696 and 890. So Rambam's name does not occur at all close to
his dates of birth and death compared to other dates."
This makes the famous rabbis experiment of no Torah use. Dr. Simon goes
on to show why the famous rabbis experiment is of little statistical
value as well.
I suggest that the interested reader checkout a graphic shown on Dr.
Barry Simon's website. It is an impressive Chanukah Code graphic. It
could well make anyone a code believer if not for the fact that it came
from the text of a Hebrew translation of "War and Peace".
http://wopr.com/biblecodes/chan3b.gif . If indeed the Torah Codes are
true then we must conclude that the Hebrew Translation of "War and
Peace" was written with Ruach HaKodesh.
What this all comes down to is that Torah is being sold by ruse, as a
gimmick. This must be discredited and stopped.
How and if Aish HaTorah will distance itself from all of this remains
to be seen. Furthermore the Articles that were critical of Dr. Barry
Simon that appeared in Jewish Action make me
think that Jewish Action will have some back
pedaling to do as well.
--============_-1318153046==_ma============--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Claude Schochet
To: "Richard K. Fiedler"
cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Just for the record, Barry Simon is an Orthodox Jew and a very highly
regarded mathematician. Other very knowledgable Orthodox Jews who are famous
mathematicians and share similar skeptical views on the Codes include
Sylvain Cappell (NYU) and Shlomo Sternberg (Harvard).
I am not in their league, either in learning or in math, but for what it
is worth I share their opinion, and I have told a local Aish person who
is a good friend of mine that I think that Aish is making a mistake by
using the Codes so heavily.
FYI: He told me (a few months ago) that the current "Discovery" seminars
being offered by Aish emphasize the Codes a lot less than they used to.
__________________________________________________________________
Claude L. Schochet claude@math.wayne.edu
Mathematics Department
Wayne State University http://www.math.wayne.edu/~claude/
Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-3177 office
313-577-7596 fax
248-539-8466 home
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:27:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Sources, Forwarded, from Reb Avrohom Allswang
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
At 10:11 AM 4/30/98 EDT, you wrote:
>
>
>One source which struck me years ago as being in support of the prayer
>Machnisei Rachamim is a Rashi in Sanhedrin 44b on the gemara: Resh
>Lakish amar kol hameametz atzmo btefilah milmatah ain lo tzarim
>milmaalah. Reb Yochanan amar l'olam yevakesh adam rachamim sheyehu hakol
>meamtzin es kocho v'al yehu lo tzarim milmaalah. Rashi says
>...sheyesayuhu malachei hashares levakesh rachamim v'shelo yehu lo
>mastinim milmaalah...
IMHO the objection to the prayer Machnisei Rachamim is premised on the fact
that it is a prayer in which man beseeches malachim with instructions with
respect to their intervention and interceding. This has nothing to do with
the fact that malachim and mastinim say all sorts of things which may be
good or bad for us. Reb Yochanan thus is advising us l'vakesh rachamim
(from Hashem, of course) that only good things be said about us.
>Heard a beautiful vort from the Kotzker on that gemara, don't have time
>to type it now, but will send it soon.
Eagerly awaiting the vort.
Avraham Allswang
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_19--
----__ListProc__NextPart__893995261446997630--
From baistefila@shamash.org Sat May 2 00:01:14 1998
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 00:01:10 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 20
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__894081670447040835"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894081670447040835
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 20
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: The Torah Codes
by "Benjie"
2) Early Qabbalat Shabbat
by "Ira L. Jacobson"
3) Re: The Torah Codes
by "Richard K. Fiedler"
4) [Fwd: The Torah Codes]
by Aaron Sheffey
5) Re: The Torah Codes
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
6) Re: The Torah Codes, Addendum
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
7) krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim
by David Riceman
8) Re: krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
9) Web Halachos
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
10) RE: Web Halachos
by "Pechman, Abraham"
11) Re: Web Halachos
by margol
12) RE: Web Halachos
by The Jewish Music Webmaster
----__ListProc__NextPart__894081670447040835
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_20"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
From: "Benjie"
To: "Highlevel Torah topics discussion group"
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:14:38 +0300
Message-ID: <01bd74f2$5457f4c0$LocalHost@ab.b>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
One thought I had about using the Torah Codes in Kiruv seminars -
One of the main obstacles to overcome in Kiruv (at least amongst an
intellectual crowd) is the latent assumption that the world came about by
itself (i.e. Darwinism, post-Darwinism or whatever mutation of Darwinism
prevalant now) and that G-d doesn't exist.
If a person can believe that by an amazing chain of coincidences the world
came about by itself (however infinitesiamal the odds), then he can very
easily believe that whatever Codes can exist in the Torah, however
significant they are, came about by coincidence also.
Benjie Gerstman
Yerushalayim
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980501154343.00ade100@netvision.net.il >
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 15:43:43 +0300
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
From: "Ira L. Jacobson"
Subject: Early Qabbalat Shabbat
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The halakha seems to be clear that one can pray ma'ariv from plag haminha,
provided one prays minha before plag haminha, at least b'diavad, for one
who ordinarily prays minha before sunset, and ma'ariv after tzeit
hacokhavim (Orah Hayyim 233:1, Mishna Berura 233:9; OH 263:4, MB 263:15; OH
261:2, MB 261:25).
This is of course the system used by those who accept shabbat early during
the summer months.
Nevertheless, there are congregations that accept shabbat early by starting
ashrei some minutes _after_ sunset, and qabbalat shabbat immediately after
the end of minha, followed immediately thereafter by ma'ariv.
Can this practice be justified halakhically? (Including the planning ahead
and issuing of a schedule formally undertaking to do so for several months
in advance; in other words, clearly with the stated intention of beginning
minha after plag.)
If so, how? And if not, can the prayer be likened to someone who prays
minha on Rosh Hodesh and omits Ya'ale v'yavo?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Exercise for the day: Rather than just giving them charity help them
help themselves in a fashion that strengthens their dignity.
>From "A Spiritual Guide to the counting of the Omer, Forty-Nine Steps to
Personal Refinement, The Forty-Nine Days of Sefirah"
by Simon Jacobson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ira L. Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:47:32 -0500
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
From: "Richard K. Fiedler"
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes
Claude Schochet replied
>Just for the record, Barry Simon is an Orthodox Jew and a very highly
>regarded mathematician. Other very knowledgable Orthodox Jews who are famous
>mathematicians and share similar skeptical views on the Codes include
>Sylvain Cappell (NYU) and Shlomo Sternberg (Harvard).
>
It is interesting that the codes never really were bought by those with a
mathematical education. But laymen are very attracted to them.
Unfortunately this may be based on their need for scientific validation of
their faith.
>I am not in their league, either in learning or in math, but for what it
>is worth I share their opinion, and I have told a local Aish person who
>is a good friend of mine that I think that Aish is making a mistake by
>using the Codes so heavily.
>
>FYI: He told me (a few months ago) that the current "Discovery" seminars
>being offered by Aish emphasize the Codes a lot less than they used to.
>
This is like being half pregnant or serving kosher style food? Today our
two major outreach organizations are tainted with the need to promote half
truths.
And the tone of the Jewish Action articles seems to belie your friends
statement.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-ID: <3549D5D4.2122ECDD@smgusa.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:01:57 -0500
From: Aaron Sheffey
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Subject: [Fwd: The Torah Codes]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------50E1C7D57F8B429D7F8FAB77"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------50E1C7D57F8B429D7F8FAB77
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Other than theological-intellectual high-handedness, I do not see the
problem with scientific (or in the case of the Bible Codes,
pseudo-scientific) validation of one's faith. [If I recall correctly,
the Brisker Rov on Sefer Sh'mos has an insightful vort on faith
validation on the posuk "Vayaminu Ba'HaShem u'v'Moshe avdo".] If
something in the world helps someone's emunah, and if they can posit
that thing within the Mesorah (re. Rav Moshe zt"l's hakdamah to Igros
Moshe), then that thing should not be denigrated. Even though the codes
might be mathematically suspect, one cannot downplay the net positive
effect they have had on Ba'alei T'shuvah - and since Aish has always
wrapped those presentations in a Masoraitic framework, they fit Rav
Moshe's requirement. More to the point, to sniff at scientific
validation any more than any other type of faith validation is, well,
smug. As we all know, tochachah should only be applied to one whom can
accept it, and then only b'derekh that that person will accept. In a
tzu shtim, the same holds true for kiruv.
--------------50E1C7D57F8B429D7F8FAB77
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path:
Received: from shamash.org ([207.240.86.25]) by imogen.smgusa.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with SMTP id 202
for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 08:46:50 -0500
Received: (qmail 685 invoked from network); 1 May 1998 13:45:27 -0000
Received: from shamash.org (207.240.86.25)
by shamash.org with SMTP; 1 May 1998 13:45:27 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 314 invoked from network); 1 May 1998 13:45:18 -0000
Received: from thor.enteract.com (HELO smtp.enteract.com) (206.54.252.9)
by shamash.org with SMTP; 1 May 1998 13:45:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 12223 invoked from network); 1 May 1998 13:46:03 -0000
Received: from dfiedler-2.soho.enteract.com (HELO ?207.229.137.90?) (207.229.137.90)
by thor.enteract.com with SMTP; 1 May 1998 13:46:03 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: dfiedler@popmail.mcs.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:47:32 -0500
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
From: "Richard K. Fiedler"
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Claude Schochet replied
>Just for the record, Barry Simon is an Orthodox Jew and a very highly
>regarded mathematician. Other very knowledgable Orthodox Jews who are famous
>mathematicians and share similar skeptical views on the Codes include
>Sylvain Cappell (NYU) and Shlomo Sternberg (Harvard).
>
It is interesting that the codes never really were bought by those with a
mathematical education. But laymen are very attracted to them.
Unfortunately this may be based on their need for scientific validation of
their faith.
>I am not in their league, either in learning or in math, but for what it
>is worth I share their opinion, and I have told a local Aish person who
>is a good friend of mine that I think that Aish is making a mistake by
>using the Codes so heavily.
>
>FYI: He told me (a few months ago) that the current "Discovery" seminars
>being offered by Aish emphasize the Codes a lot less than they used to.
>
This is like being half pregnant or serving kosher style food? Today our
two major outreach organizations are tainted with the need to promote half
truths.
And the tone of the Jewish Action articles seems to belie your friends
statement.
--------------50E1C7D57F8B429D7F8FAB77
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Aaron Sheffey
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Aaron Sheffey
n: Sheffey;Aaron
org: SMG Marketing Group Inc.
adr: 875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100;;;Chicago;IL;60611;USA
email;internet: asheffey@smgusa.com
title: Statistical Data Analyst
tel;work: 312-255-4148
tel;fax: 312-255-4303
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------50E1C7D57F8B429D7F8FAB77--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-Id: <199805011504.LAA18325@buscaglia.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:04:33 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
The fact that the Torah contains many mind-boggling and astounding
gematriyos and remazim is not something anybody can argue with. The
Baal Haturim, and the Steipler's sefer Birkas Peretz is filled with
them. The Vilna Gaon revealed numerous ones.
Even something so elementary as taking the last letter of the first word
of each of the five books of the chumash: breishiS, v'eleH (shmos),
vayikrA, vayedabeR, v'eleH (hadevarim) has the gematriya (and almost the
identical letters if you combine the heh from v'eleH (shmos) and the
alef from vayikrA) of the word "Torah" (Vilna Gaon, I think). One is
even tempted to use these cross-volume (my own term meaning formed from
different books of chumash) to argue against bible critics who say that
the various books of the bible were written by different people at
different times. Of course this is not a rigorous proof, but it can be
used to force people to open their minds to a new way of thinking,
whether or not they want to accept it as ultimate truth.
Similarly, when one discovers his own codes, it gives one chizuk. One I
noticed is in the posuk V'asu li mikdash vshachanti bsocham. Kechol asher...
Take the last letters of those words, unscramble, and it spells
yerushalayim. Even though yerushalayim doesn't appear in chumash (only
in neviim and kesuvim), here is a clear cut allusion! Right in the place
dealing with Mishkan, which is called here Mikdash! Also, if you argue
that those words are not all in the same posuk, but spill over into the
next posuk, Rashi comments on those words "Hamikra hazeh mechubar lmikra
shelfonov"! He was talking al derech pshat, but it fits perfectly al
derech remez, as well. The Vilna Gaon said (Even Shlema) that when
eventually learning more esoteric meanings of Torah concepts (derech
sod), they will correspond to the meanings one said when he learned al
derech pshat, in his earlier years. I can't speak for everybody, but I
get tremendous chizuk from discovering these things. Other people may
call it nonsense.
Whether people who look for allusions to current events with computers
should be discouraged is a different question. And whether these things
are a proof is also open to argument, but if it strengthens the emuna of
potential baalei teshuva, I don't see anything wrong.
There will never be an absolute proof of anything in the world. There
will always be those who challenge the voracity of any proof on any
subject. In the course of writing a report, I needed to read a certain
book on evolution. (I think it was called The Origins of Order by
Kauffman.) He says that some have mathematically shown thgat the
probability of evolution is equivalent to the probability of a 747 jet
spontaneously being formed from scrap metal in a junkshop. Also, even
assuming a very high mutation rate, he shows that there is nowhere near
enough time (even according to the oldest estimates of earth's age) for
all the necessary proteins to be formed out of all possible random
strings of amino acids, most of them useless. Yet he goes to all sorts
of contortions to refute this, since he is an evolutionist be'emuna
shelema (lahvdil).
Also, take the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1984 June Peters (I think), a
non-Jew wrote a book called From Time Immemorial containing the most
extensive research ever done on the origins of the Palestinian
claim. Literally thousands of references. She wanted to write a
pro-Palestinian accoubt, but 2 years into her project, she discovered
that nothing made sense. She concluded that it was all lies. SHe uses
(and has reproduced) material from the British archives, from official
US archives, from Arab journalists, and Arab Leaders to show that there
never was an Arab refugee problem. That fellow Arabs never wanted these
people. That they were told to leave Israel (not forced out by Israeli
soldiers) by the Arab leaders while they destroyed Israel, and then
could come back. That Jews were tortured in Arab lands for millenia
because of the dictates of the Koran (not because of the early zionist
movement), and they were the real refugees, etc., etc., etc. Tell me,
did one Arab or US politician ever change his outlook in the face of
this overwhelming evidence? No, because there is no such thing in this
world as an absolute proof. The ones who oppose the proof will always
have some way of clinging to their beliefs, and claiming that the proof
is flawed, and that those who accept the proof are biased. Emotion is
much stronger than logic.
Therefore I feel there is no harm in using the codes for chizuk, Chazal
have said Les midi d'lo remiza b'oraysa. However, they should not be
advertised as absolute proof, or that one's emuna should hinge upon
them.
Barry Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-Id: <199805011524.LAA18343@buscaglia.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: The Torah Codes, Addendum
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:24:31 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Addendum to previous post.
Another example of the impossibility of proof is the fact that there is
a whole movement of Holocaust deniers. There is a billion times more
evidence that the Holocaust occurred than that George Washington
existed. Yet nothing will ever convince somebody of the truth of a
concept he doesn't want to accept. This depressing observation about
human nature is something I have begun to believe recently.
Finally, in addition to the chazal Les midi d'lo remiza b'oraysa, there
is a similar concept in Pirkei Avos: Hafoch bah v'hafoch bah d'kula bah.
Barry Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-ID: <354A045A.7BF1@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:20:27 -0400
From: David Riceman
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As I recall there are prophecies in kesuvim as well (especially in
Divrei HaYamim). So your assertion is not persuasive. Does the
prohibition of reading kesuvim on Shabbas apply also to the
non-prophetic parts of neviim? (for that matter, does it apply to all of
neviim? if so the previous question is irrelevant) That's the only
nafka mina that comes immediately to my mind.
David Riceman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:36:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: David Riceman
cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
As I do not know of the nevu'os in Divrei Hayamim I would appreciate your
noting them. I might still counter that in Divre Hayamim they are being
recorded second hand, as opposed to Nevi'im Rishonim where they are first
hand, but I will go one better and ask you, Reb Dovid, what is, to your
mind, the criterion for the dichotomy between Nevi'im and Kesuvim?
YGB
On Fri, 1 May 1998, David Riceman wrote:
> As I recall there are prophecies in kesuvim as well (especially in
> Divrei HaYamim). So your assertion is not persuasive. Does the
> prohibition of reading kesuvim on Shabbas apply also to the
> non-prophetic parts of neviim? (for that matter, does it apply to all of
> neviim? if so the previous question is irrelevant) That's the only
> nafka mina that comes immediately to my mind.
>
> David Riceman
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:45:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Web Halachos
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The Shearim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha 90:2 quotes the Maharam Schick and Neta
Sorek who state that one who owns a store may leave the display window
intact on Shabbos - I guess because hirhur in commerce is permitted on
Shabbos. At least one is not commiting lifnei iver or mesayeiyah if
another peruses one's commerical website on Shabbos.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-ID: <642B2955645BD0118FEE00805FD4068228DDF1@MWEXCHANGE>
From: "Pechman, Abraham"
To: "'Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer'" ,
baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: RE: Web Halachos
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:13:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
That might be true if the peruser's computer was left on for shabbos.
But if the peruser dials in on shabbos, would there not be an issur of
lifnei iveyr (in certain circumstances) for the owner of the page?
Avi Pechman
-----Original Message-----
From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
[mailto:sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 1:45 PM
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Web Halachos
The Shearim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha 90:2 quotes the Maharam Schick and Neta
Sorek who state that one who owns a store may leave the display window
intact on Shabbos - I guess because hirhur in commerce is permitted on
Shabbos. At least one is not commiting lifnei iver or mesayeiyah if
another peruses one's commerical website on Shabbos.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-ID: <354A1941.8B5F2D02@ms.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:49:37 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Web Halachos
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I have been led to
understand lifnei iveyr is :
You enabled someone, or gave someone an oppurtunity, to do an issur that
he would NOT necessarily have been able to do before. The classic
example places you and your friend on opposite sides of a lake and you
have yayin nesech on your side. If you place a plank on the river so
that he can cross and drink the yayin nesech, that is lifnei iveyr.
However, if he has his own plank and he crosses the river and you just
lift up the jug to give it to him - that is not l"i because he
could/would have done it himself. (Is this mesayei-ah? I don't think
so, what is the exact chiluk between mesayei-ah and lifnei iveyr?)
If this definition is true, unless he is connecting solely to view your
site, you should not be over l"i on his connecting. In fact, if what I
have said is true, unless the person would have stopped surfing had he
not seen your site, you probably have not enabled him to do anything
that he would not have done before; He's just surfing. He may not have
seen your particular page - but I don't think that's assur, just the
actions that he goes through to eventually see your site are assur, and
they would have occurred regardless of the existence of your site
(assuming he is just surfing around).
However, I would assume that if he actually transacts on your site,
there are other problems.
Take care,
Joel
Pechman, Abraham wrote:
>
> That might be true if the peruser's computer was left on for shabbos.
> But if the peruser dials in on shabbos, would there not be an issur of
> lifnei iveyr (in certain circumstances) for the owner of the page?
>
> Avi Pechman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
> [mailto:sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 1:45 PM
> To: baistefila@shamash.org
> Subject: Web Halachos
>
> The Shearim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha 90:2 quotes the Maharam Schick and Neta
> Sorek who state that one who owns a store may leave the display window
> intact on Shabbos - I guess because hirhur in commerce is permitted on
> Shabbos. At least one is not commiting lifnei iver or mesayeiyah if
> another peruses one's commerical website on Shabbos.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> c/o Shani Bechhofer
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20
Message-ID: <01BD7523.5A7A1FA0.webmaster@jewishmusic.com>
From: The Jewish Music Webmaster
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: RE: Web Halachos
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:05:32 -0500
Avi Pechman said
That might be true if the peruser's computer was left on for shabbos.
But if the peruser dials in on shabbos, would there not be an issur of
lifnei iveyr (in certain circumstances) for the owner of the page?
Why Lifne Ever it is considered Chad Avre Dnahara (same side of the river) he could go to other sites - not your to go surfing.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_20--
----__ListProc__NextPart__894081670447040835--
From baistefila@shamash.org Sun May 3 00:01:12 1998
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 00:01:11 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 21
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__894168071447084035"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894168071447084035
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 21
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Early Qabbalat Shabbat
by "Ira L. Jacobson"
2) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by a & y allswang
3) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894168071447084035
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_21"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_21"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_21
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980502223052.00af2630@netvision.net.il >
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 22:30:52 +0300
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
From: "Ira L. Jacobson"
Subject: Early Qabbalat Shabbat
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Because of an unintentional slip on my part, I am re-posting my original
thoughts, with apologies for the error. (And I have added a clarification.)
-----------------------------------------------------
The halakha seems to be clear that one can pray ma'ariv from plag haminha,
provided one prays minha before plag haminha, at least b'diavad, for one
who ordinarily prays minha before sunset, and ma'ariv after tzeit
hacokhavim (Orah Hayyim 233:1, Mishna Berura 233:9; OH 263:4, MB 263:15; OH
261:2, MB 261:25).
This is of course the system used by those who accept shabbat early during
the summer months.
Nevertheless, there are congregations that accept shabbat early by starting
ashrei some minutes _after_ plag haminha, and qabbalat shabbat immediately
after the end of minha, followed immediately thereafter by ma'ariv.
Can this practice be justified halakhically? (Including the planning ahead
and issuing of a schedule formally undertaking to do so for several months
in advance; in other words, clearly with the stated intention of beginning
minha after plag.)
If so, how? And if not, can the prayer be likened to someone who prays
minha on Rosh Hodesh and omits Ya'ale v'yavo? (My intent here is that one
who has omitted Ya'ale v'yavo, according to the aharonim, is as though he
had not prayed at all (and therefore he must repeat the prayer or tashlumim).
Perhaps one who has prayed both minha and ma'ariv after plag haminha and
before sunset is regarded as having prayed only one of these prayed, and
must repeat one of them. If so, which one? And what about tashlumim on
Shabbat?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Exercise for the day: When fighting for something you believe in,
pause a moment to ensure that it is accomplished in a loving manner.
>From "A Spiritual Guide to the counting of the Omer, Forty-Nine Steps to
Personal Refinement, The Forty-Nine Days of Sefirah"
by Simon Jacobson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ira L. Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_21
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980502211324.22c70966@mail.netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 21:13:24
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" ,
baistefila@shamash.org
From: a & y allswang
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:29 PM 4/29/98 -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
>I was teaching tonight Shmuel 2:15 where it says that Avshalom rebelled at
>the end of 40 years - a problematic number that Chazal and the Meforshim
>grapple with. I, personally, proposed that this was Avshalom's age at the
>time, although that necessitates a little fudging on Shmuel 2:3 where it
>says Avshalom was born in Chevron.
A Chazal in Seder Olam quoted several times in the midrashim and Gemara
states that the 40 years refers to the time elapsed since am Yisrael asked
for a melech. No commentary I've seen feels that Avshalom's age has any
significance. What Chazal are teaching by tacitly rejecting such
conjectures is that this rebellion is not to be viewed as merely a family
feud, or even as a crisis vis a vis David Ha-melech's rulership. Rather,
this episode is to be viewed against the backdrop of Clal Yisrael's
vacilating acceptance of and desire for the institution of meluchah.
>
>Be that as it may, the Da'as Mikra Shmuel cites Josephus and the "Greek"
>and "Syrian" that say "four" instead of forty. This is shades of Josephus
>who says that Shaul was king for twenty two years, as opposed to the two
>mentioned in the Nach (which would bar him from accepting Chazal's
>interpreatation of the forty dating back to Shaul's coronation).
To the best of my knowledge, the more accepting voice within traditional
Jewish thought regarding the Josephus text is that of the Mor U'ketzia (the
Ya'avetz, R. Yaakov Emden), who states that to a certain extent, Josephus
is a source to be studied. Josephus is normally accepted as an eye-witness
account, and even then with a grain of salt. However, for periods covered
by the Tanach, his comments are not relevant. To the best of my knowledge,
dates and facts recorded in Josephus which contradict pesukim are not
accepted.
>
>My question is to what extent the non-Prophetic parts of the Navi are
>considered to be written "etched in stone" and whether there is any wiggle
>room at all - and, if not, how could these other sources have different
>numbers?
All parts of the Nevi'im *are* etched in stone. The ba'alei mesorah handle
the discipline of the mesoraetic text of Nevi'im and Kesuvim with absolute
reverence. See the Abarbanel's introduction to Nevi'im in which he comments
that Nevi'im are not called Nevu'os (but rather are called Nevi'im) to
emphasize that the distinction of this section of Tanach is that it is
written by Nevi'im, although not comprised totally of nevu'os (i.e., even
the non-prophetic parts are Divrei Nevi'im).
>
>On a related topic, I am under the impression that the non-Prophetic
>(i.e., not outright nevu'os) pars of Nevi'im Rishonim, are written on the
>same level of ruach hakodesh as Kesuvim. The reason that these seforim are
>in Nevi'im instead of Kesuvim is because they contain segments of outright
>nevu'ah while Kesuvim do not. Is there any validity to this impression?
>YGB
No. Narrative sections of the Nevi'im are in some way inextricably
connected to the nevu'ah of that specific period and for reasons we may or
may not know *had* to be written together. The Abarbanel quoted above
blatantly rejects the school of thought that separately categorized the
narrative portion of Tanach. For all purposes the entire Divrei Nevi'im are
classified as Nevi'im (i.e. both the nevu'os and the narrative). Any
attempt to blur this distinction undermines the principles of canonization
used by Chazal. Furthermore, there *is* nevu'ah in Kesuvim.
One of the 13 Principles of Faith delineated by the Rambam is the
acceptance and understanding that there are people who are of elevated
intellect and spirituality who are prophets. The Rambam's words regarding
the "specialness" of the Nevi'im should be read from the source which is in
the Perush Ha-Mishnayos on Sanhedrin. After reading that I would venture to
say that one would no longer be troubled by a conflicting historical
account which differs from that written by nevi'im.
It is true that the Maharal writes (I don't remember where) that dates in
Tanach are to be understood differently than dates we find in history
books. What I think he is getting at is that the number is right, but what
it refers to might be elusive, necessitating the study of midrashei chazal,
to uncover the intent, meaning and time reference. I would also venture to
say that Chazal used a standard approach to these dating issues whether in
the Torah (e.g. 400 yrs in Egypt), Nevi'im (e.g. the 40 yrs you refer to),
or Kesuvim. Chazal always get down to the most elemental substantive issue,
and this is the mesorah behind the written word.
Avraham Allswang
aswang@netvision.net.il
02-6521019
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_21
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 22:27:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
My comments are interspersed below:
Let me put this in perspective. I was well aware of the Chazal, plus of
the different peshatim given by the Rishonim there on the pasuk. I know no
one else says it might refer to Avshalom's age - this, however, does not
bar us from proposing other peshatim b'geder shiv'im panim la'Torah.
On Sat, 2 May 1998, a & y allswang wrote:
> A Chazal in Seder Olam quoted several times in the midrashim and Gemara
> states that the 40 years refers to the time elapsed since am Yisrael asked
> for a melech. No commentary I've seen feels that Avshalom's age has any
> significance. What Chazal are teaching by tacitly rejecting such
> conjectures is that this rebellion is not to be viewed as merely a family
> feud, or even as a crisis vis a vis David Ha-melech's rulership. Rather,
> this episode is to be viewed against the backdrop of Clal Yisrael's
> vacilating acceptance of and desire for the institution of meluchah.
>
Clearly this is not absolutely correct. The Radak says keri u'kesiv's come
from textual variances which were resolved in this manner. I would also
hesitate, Reb Avrohom, to quote an Abarbanel as a definitive source:
1. He is an Acharon.
2. He often follows his own ideas (which is why his sefer is not in the
Ner Israel Beis Medrash, why the Malbim often takes issue with him, etc.)
3. Kesuvim were also written by Nevi'im! Shmuel, Dovid and Shlomo to name
a few.
> All parts of the Nevi'im *are* etched in stone. The ba'alei mesorah handle
> the discipline of the mesoraetic text of Nevi'im and Kesuvim with absolute
> reverence. See the Abarbanel's introduction to Nevi'im in which he comments
> that Nevi'im are not called Nevu'os (but rather are called Nevi'im) to
> emphasize that the distinction of this section of Tanach is that it is
> written by Nevi'im, although not comprised totally of nevu'os (i.e., even
> the non-prophetic parts are Divrei Nevi'im).
I do not see how you can say this definitively. I have spoken to great
Talmidei Chachomim who have agreed that my proposal that the non-prophetic
parts of Nevi'im are b'geder the Rucah HaKodesh of Kesuvim, and, while we
may disagree, I certainly do not see how this c"v contradicts any
principle in Chazal!
> No. Narrative sections of the Nevi'im are in some way inextricably
> connected to the nevu'ah of that specific period and for reasons we may or
> may not know *had* to be written together. The Abarbanel quoted above
> blatantly rejects the school of thought that separately categorized the
> narrative portion of Tanach. For all purposes the entire Divrei Nevi'im are
> classified as Nevi'im (i.e. both the nevu'os and the narrative). Any
> attempt to blur this distinction undermines the principles of canonization
> used by Chazal. Furthermore, there *is* nevu'ah in Kesuvim.
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_21--
----__ListProc__NextPart__894168071447084035--
From baistefila@shamash.org Mon May 4 00:04:43 1998
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:04:41 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 22
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__894254681447127340"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894254681447127340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 22
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
2) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Re: Web Halachos
by Mechi Fendel
4) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
5) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
6) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
7) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
8) Neviim and Kesuvim
by Saul Weinreb
9) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by a & y allswang
10) 2 forwarded messages from R' David Riceman
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
11) RE: Nolad--A Test, Answers to comments
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
12) Examples of the Accuracy of Nach
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
13) What were the original Goals of Chassidus
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
14) Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
15) Radak on Keri u'Kesiv
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
16) Darchay Noam---Reasons, Criteria..REpost: Original Goals of Chasidus
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
17) Possible Error in Responsum on Theft
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
18) Re: Radak on Keri u'Kesiv
by Daniel Eidensohn
19) Neviim and Kesuvim
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
20) Minority Opinions
by Saul Weinreb
21) Neviim and Kesuvim
by Saul Weinreb
----__ListProc__NextPart__894254681447127340
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_22"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 01:03:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID: <19980503.010322.16678.0.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
To respond to R' Bechhofer's comments about the Abarbanel as quoted
below, (and come to his defense),
Just because someone is an Achron I don't think that is a reason for
rejecting his opinion (Jewish thought did not end in the 1400's),
especially since he is totally based upon the writing of Chazal and the
Rishonim (especially the Rambam). I don't know if the library of Ner
YIsrael is the ultimate criteria by which to judge Gedolim. More
seriously, the Abarbanel himself explains why certain works written by
neviim are included in Kesuvim (such as Tehillim etc.) The Abarbanel
basically says that there are three criteria for a sefer to be included
in neviim,
1. It must have been written by a navi
2. It must have been written as a result of a command by Hashem to write
this work
3. It must contain information that could not have been known except
through nevuah.
If any of these requirements are lacking then it is not considered part
of neviim but rather Kesuvim.
I don't understand, according to your idea that the narrative parts of
neviim are on the same level as Kesuvim then why are seferim that are
totally narrative, (such as SHoftim etc.) included in Neviim? According
to the Abarbanel the reason is obvious since they were not written with a
specific command of Hashem or do not contain information that was only
available through nevuah ie the reasons for events happenings etc.
Shraga Rothbart
I would
>also
>hesitate, Reb Avrohom, to quote an Abarbanel as a definitive source:
>
>1. He is an Acharon.
>
>2. He often follows his own ideas (which is why his sefer is not in
>the
>Ner Israel Beis Medrash, why the Malbim often takes issue with him,
>etc.)
>
>3. Kesuvim were also written by Nevi'im! Shmuel, Dovid and Shlomo to
>name
>a few.
>
>I do not see how you can say this definitively. I have spoken to great
>Talmidei Chachomim who have agreed that my proposal that the
>non-prophetic
>parts of Nevi'im are b'geder the Rucah HaKodesh of Kesuvim, and, while
>we
>may disagree, I certainly do not see how this c"v contradicts any
>principle in Chazal!
>
>> No. Narrative sections of the Nevi'im are in some way inextricably
>> connected to the nevu'ah of that specific period and for reasons we
>may or
>> may not know *had* to be written together. The Abarbanel quoted
>above
>> blatantly rejects the school of thought that separately categorized
>the
>> narrative portion of Tanach. For all purposes the entire Divrei
>Nevi'im are
>> classified as Nevi'im (i.e. both the nevu'os and the narrative). Any
>> attempt to blur this distinction undermines the principles of
>canonization
>> used by Chazal. Furthermore, there *is* nevu'ah in Kesuvim.
>>
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>c/o Shani Bechhofer
>sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 00:57:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
As before, comments interspersed.
On Sun, 3 May 1998, Paul Rothbart wrote:
>
> To respond to R' Bechhofer's comments about the Abarbanel as quoted
> below, (and come to his defense),
> Just because someone is an Achron I don't think that is a reason for
> rejecting his opinion (Jewish thought did not end in the 1400's),
> especially since he is totally based upon the writing of Chazal and the
> Rishonim (especially the Rambam). I don't know if the library of Ner
I guess I am not making myself clear. I do not REJECT the Abarbanel. I
simply am offering an alternative. The dichotomy between Rishon and
Acharon was meant to highlight why it is not necessary to accept the
Abarbanel blindly.
I wrote that the Abarbanel is not to be the "definitive" source, i.e.,
that he need not be the final word on the matter, not that he is not
(c"v!) an "authoritative" source.
> YIsrael is the ultimate criteria by which to judge Gedolim. More
> seriously, the Abarbanel himself explains why certain works written by
> neviim are included in Kesuvim (such as Tehillim etc.) The Abarbanel
> basically says that there are three criteria for a sefer to be included
> in neviim,
> 1. It must have been written by a navi
> 2. It must have been written as a result of a command by Hashem to write
> this work
> 3. It must contain information that could not have been known except
> through nevuah.
> If any of these requirements are lacking then it is not considered part
> of neviim but rather Kesuvim.
I do not know how the Abarbanel would himself know or deduce which seforim
criterion #2 would apply to! How would anyone know, since Chazal do not
tell us, whether Shmuel HaNavi was told to write Sefer Shmuel but not
Megillas Ruth? Or that the Shiros of Dovid that appear both in Shmuel and
in Tehillim were decreed to have been written in Shmuel but not in
Tehillim?
>
> I don't understand, according to your idea that the narrative parts of
> neviim are on the same level as Kesuvim then why are seferim that are
> totally narrative, (such as SHoftim etc.) included in Neviim? According
> to the Abarbanel the reason is obvious since they were not written with a
> specific command of Hashem or do not contain information that was only
> available through nevuah ie the reasons for events happenings etc.
>
> Shraga Rothbart
>
I mentioned that my approach is simple: Shoftim contains nevu'os, those of
Pinchas and Devora come to mind immediately, therefore giving them greater
kedusha. To the best of my knowledege, with the possible exception of
Divre HaYamim, Kesuvim do not contain nevu'os.
I am perfectly willing to accept the Abarbanel's criterion that
information that could not have been known other than by nevu'a qualifies
a sefer for Nevi'im - I just don;t know how "baduk u'menuseh" that
disctinction is.
After all is said and done, however, I do not see in what both Reb Avrohom
and Reb Shraga have written that the Abarbanel specifically says that all
parts of the Nevi'im Rishonim are "prophetic." It seems to me, on the
contrary, that he may well agree with me in this regard!!
YGB
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-ID: <354C1A9B.ABD@terra.co.il>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 10:19:55 +0300
From: Mechi Fendel
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Web Halachos
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just to remind everyone - when a web-site is open in the US on Shabbat,
it isn't necessarily Shabbos in other parts of the wolrd. If any issur
comes out of this discussion, there may have to be "Shabbos Sheni Shel
Chutz LaAretz" in which active Frum sites will have to be closed for 2+
days...
Take care - Bye for now,
Mechi Fendel
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
mechi@terra.co.il
Making Supercomputing Personal...
Terra Computers Ltd., POB 3019
Omer Indusrial Park, 84965 ISRAEL
tel: 972-7-6483444/6/7
fax: 972-7-6483445
http://cool.terra.co.il
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
To: baistefil@shamash.org
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 06:28:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID: <19980503.062820.3382.0.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
Just to clarify what I meant, I know that there is limited amount of
nevuah scattered in Neviim Rishonim, but clearly you have to admit that
the vast majority of these seforim are not made up of nevuah. On the
other hand one does find nevuah in Kesuvim. (Daniel would be an example,
since that is the Sefer which most directly deals with the eventual
geluah and the specific events of Klal Yisrael's future. In that context
what the Gem. in Megilah daf gimel means that he was not a navi just
means that he was not sent to Klal Yisrael to say nevuah like Rashi there
explains. Maybe this would be a proof for the Abarbanel's position that
only seferim written with by a command from Hashem are considered Neviim.
If a navi was commanded to write his work, one could argue that that is
the equivalent of saying his nevuah to Klal YIsrael, because what is the
difference between writing and saying, if so the fact that Daniel is
considered Kesuvim is only because he was not commanded to write it. Or
perhaps only speaking counts?) If so how do you distinguish between
Neviim and Kesuvim? THe Abarbanel does provide an approach to this
problem.
SHraga Rothbart
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID: <19980503.121110.4535.3.cbrown106@juno.com>
From: cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 12:03:08 EDT
Re: Abarbanel - 1) I think of him as a Rishon. 2) I don't know what
difference it makes at all. Aren't we bound to carefully weigh his point
of view in either case and accept it or reject it on its own merits? 3)
You say he follows his ":own ideas" - well, so do most Rishonim and
Achronim. I guess we could say Tos. follows their own idea as well and
didn't show any respect for Rashi. Anyway, the bottom line is evaluate
ideas on their own merit - not on who said it and how big or little a
Rishon/Acharon/gadol he is.
Just to bring a source to light: R' Chaim (in Chiddushe GraCH stencil)
advanced the thesis that it is not the author/speaker or the means of
revelation (nevuah vs. Ruach HaKodesh) that defines the distinction
between Nevi'im and Ketuvim but the means of delivering the nevuah: he
distinguishes between nevuah received in order to be spoken (which the
navi then recorded), nevuah received to be written (which the navi then
read), and nevuah given over to be both written and spoken. - this is
his split between Nevi'im, Ketuvim, and Torah. An example of what R'
Chaim calls ketuvim thrown into a sefer Navi take a look at Yirmiyahu 36.
Of course the whole approach begs the question of why the Niv'im
Rishonim are called Nev'im and not Ketuvim when there seem to be no oral
prophecies.
The statement regarding Ner Yisrael rejecting Abarbanel says more about
the closemindedness of 20th century American yeshiva Judaism than
anything else. Do they have a Moreh Nevuchim there or is that book
banned as well? Do you mean to say that the ideas of Abarbanel are more
radical than those of R Tzaddok?
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:42:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
1. I always understood, and taught, k'pshuto - that Daniel was not a Navi,
and that is precisely why his sefer is in Kesuvim!!
2. So the vast majority of Nevi'im Rishonim are not nevu'os! So? The
bottom line: They contain nevu'os!!
YGB
On Sun, 3 May 1998, Paul Rothbart wrote:
> Just to clarify what I meant, I know that there is limited amount of
> nevuah scattered in Neviim Rishonim, but clearly you have to admit that
> the vast majority of these seforim are not made up of nevuah. On the
> other hand one does find nevuah in Kesuvim. (Daniel would be an example,
> since that is the Sefer which most directly deals with the eventual
> geluah and the specific events of Klal Yisrael's future. In that context
> what the Gem. in Megilah daf gimel means that he was not a navi just
> means that he was not sent to Klal Yisrael to say nevuah like Rashi there
> explains. Maybe this would be a proof for the Abarbanel's position that
> only seferim written with by a command from Hashem are considered Neviim.
> If a navi was commanded to write his work, one could argue that that is
> the equivalent of saying his nevuah to Klal YIsrael, because what is the
> difference between writing and saying, if so the fact that Daniel is
> considered Kesuvim is only because he was not commanded to write it. Or
> perhaps only speaking counts?) If so how do you distinguish between
> Neviim and Kesuvim? THe Abarbanel does provide an approach to this
> problem.
>
>
> SHraga Rothbart
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:46:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 May 1998, Charles Brown wrote:
> Re: Abarbanel - 1) I think of him as a Rishon. 2) I don't know what
> difference it makes at all. Aren't we bound to carefully weigh his point
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and we certainly should weigh
his point of view.
The Abarbanel (and other Rishonim) following their own ideas in this
context was meant as opposed to Chazal.
That, for those who do not know of the issue, is the reason why Rabbi
Ruderman zt"l had the Abarbanel removed from the Beis Medrash - because he
says explicitly by Dovid and Bassheva that he rejects Chazal and holds
Dovid sinned in Eishes Ish.
> of view in either case and accept it or reject it on its own merits? 3)
> You say he follows his ":own ideas" - well, so do most Rishonim and
> Achronim. I guess we could say Tos. follows their own idea as well and
> didn't show any respect for Rashi. Anyway, the bottom line is evaluate
> ideas on their own merit - not on who said it and how big or little a
> Rishon/Acharon/gadol he is.
>
> The statement regarding Ner Yisrael rejecting Abarbanel says more about
> the closemindedness of 20th century American yeshiva Judaism than
> anything else. Do they have a Moreh Nevuchim there or is that book
> banned as well? Do you mean to say that the ideas of Abarbanel are more
> radical than those of R Tzaddok?
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980503133312.0068b01c@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 13:33:15 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Saul Weinreb
Subject: Neviim and Kesuvim
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would like to interject an important source into our discussion. The
Moreh Nevuchim in Chelek Bais Perek 45 explains the difference between
Neviim and Kesuvim. According to him there are different levels of Nevuah,
ranging from "Ruach Hashem" all the way to "Peh el Peh". The second level
is what he calls "Ruach HaKodesh" which is basically when a ruakh hakodesh
overcomes ones soul and inspires one to speak...as opposed to a real vision
of some sort. In his words "HI Sheyargish HaAdam Keilu Davar Mah Chal Bo,
VeKoach Acher Avar Alav Shemedovevo, VeAz Yedaber Bedivrei Chochmah, Oh
Tehillah..." see there.
According to the Ramabam, Dovid, Shlomo and Daniel were "only" Neviim of
this category, and therefore the works written by them were placed in
Kesuvim and not Neviim. Even the Nevuos found in Neviim are B'Geder "Ruakh
HaKodesh" and not "Nevuah."
His shitta then seems to be that since the Sifrei Neviim were written by
Neviim of the "higher" sort, that this is the criteria which places them in
Neviim as opposed to Kesuvim. I wonder if this aplies to the narrative
parts of Neviim as well. I think I can prove that it does, but I will try
to write my proof in a later post.
Shaul Weinreb
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980503195819.27b79fba@mail.netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 19:58:19
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" ,
baistefila@shamash.org
From: a & y allswang
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:57 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
>As before, comments interspersed.
>
>On Sun, 3 May 1998, Paul Rothbart wrote:
>
>>
>> To respond to R' Bechhofer's comments about the Abarbanel as quoted
>> below, (and come to his defense),
>> Just because someone is an Achron I don't think that is a reason for
>> rejecting his opinion (Jewish thought did not end in the 1400's),
>> especially since he is totally based upon the writing of Chazal and the
>> Rishonim (especially the Rambam). I don't know if the library of Ner
>
>I guess I am not making myself clear. I do not REJECT the Abarbanel. I
>simply am offering an alternative. The dichotomy between Rishon and
>Acharon was meant to highlight why it is not necessary to accept the
>Abarbanel blindly.
No one is advocating following the Abarbanel blindly. But, having said
that, the Abarbanel, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the few who
address this issue. His comments are meant to be a rational explanation for
Chazal's position regarding the distinction between Nevi'im and Kesuvim. If
you have additional sources, please share them with us.
>
>I wrote that the Abarbanel is not to be the "definitive" source, i.e.,
>that he need not be the final word on the matter, not that he is not
>(c"v!) an "authoritative" source.
>
>> YIsrael is the ultimate criteria by which to judge Gedolim. More
>> seriously, the Abarbanel himself explains why certain works written by
>> neviim are included in Kesuvim (such as Tehillim etc.) The Abarbanel
>> basically says that there are three criteria for a sefer to be included
>> in neviim,
>> 1. It must have been written by a navi
>> 2. It must have been written as a result of a command by Hashem to write
>> this work
>> 3. It must contain information that could not have been known except
>> through nevuah.
>> If any of these requirements are lacking then it is not considered part
>> of neviim but rather Kesuvim.
>
>I do not know how the Abarbanel would himself know or deduce which seforim
>criterion #2 would apply to! How would anyone know, since Chazal do not
>tell us, whether Shmuel HaNavi was told to write Sefer Shmuel but not
>Megillas Ruth? Or that the Shiros of Dovid that appear both in Shmuel and
>in Tehillim were decreed to have been written in Shmuel but not in
>Tehillim?
The Abarbanel is not attempting to prove that Hashem told various nevi'im
to write this or that. He is actually working in the reverse: he is
formulating plausible criteria regarding what is a sefer nevi'im and what
is a sefer kesuvim based on what Chazal set forth.
>
>>
>> I don't understand, according to your idea that the narrative parts of
>> neviim are on the same level as Kesuvim then why are seferim that are
>> totally narrative, (such as SHoftim etc.) included in Neviim? According
>> to the Abarbanel the reason is obvious since they were not written with a
>> specific command of Hashem or do not contain information that was only
>> available through nevuah ie the reasons for events happenings etc.
>>
>> Shraga Rothbart
>>
>
>I mentioned that my approach is simple: Shoftim contains nevu'os, those of
>Pinchas and Devora come to mind immediately, therefore giving them greater
>kedusha. To the best of my knowledege, with the possible exception of
>Divre HaYamim, Kesuvim do not contain nevu'os.
The Rambam in Perek Chelek describes the imperative of believing in
Nevi'im, and the summary form of "Ani Ma'amin" is "she-kol *divrei* nevi'im
emes" (it is true that this is not the Rambam's wording, but it nonetheless
captures his main thrust, which is that the emes refers to divrei nevi'im,
and *NOT* only their nevu'os). The brachos of the Haftorah emphasize the
emes v'tzedek of divrei ha-nevi'im, again without any mention of the word
nevu'os. I am under the impression that the kedushah of the words and texts
of nevi'im is categorically greater than that of the words and texts of
kesuvim. What other criteria is there for kedushah that would override the
distinction set down by mesorah?
On the contrary, within the Torah proper there is no greater kedushah to
the words Anochi Hashem than to the words u'venei Dan kushim (the Rambam
cited above makes a similar comment). While the Rambam does not say the
same regarding the internal consistancy of kedushah within each of the
nevi'im and kesuvim, it seems like a viable possibility that given the fact
that there are three categories of Tanach, that this axiom applies within
each category.
>
>I am perfectly willing to accept the Abarbanel's criterion that
>information that could not have been known other than by nevu'a qualifies
>a sefer for Nevi'im - I just don;t know how "baduk u'menuseh" that
>disctinction is.
>
>After all is said and done, however, I do not see in what both Reb Avrohom
>and Reb Shraga have written that the Abarbanel specifically says that all
>parts of the Nevi'im Rishonim are "prophetic." It seems to me, on the
>contrary, that he may well agree with me in this regard!!
>
>YGB
As mentioned above, all parts of the Nevi'im are not prophetic. But that is
why they are called Nevi'im (as in Divrei Nevi'im) and not Nevu'os (as in
prophecies).
In summary, although you are correct that no one source should be
considered absolutely infallible, it would appear in this case that the
burden of proof rests on you, to provide sources which would support an
alternative approach.
In another letter you wrote:
>I do not see how you can say this definitively. I have spoken to great
>Talmidei Chachomim who have agreed that my proposal that the non-prophetic
>parts of Nevi'im are b'geder the Rucah HaKodesh of Kesuvim, and, while we
>may disagree, I certainly do not see how this c"v contradicts any
>principle in Chazal!
I'm willing to accept the words of great Talmidei Chachomim that you have
spoken to (even though they are not Rishonim, and may not be in the Ner
Yisrael library), but please be kind enough to share their names with us.
A possible reconciliation between our points of view and an explanation of
what the talmidei chachomim may have meant is as follows. The narrative of
Nevi'im is not prophecy. On this we all agree. It is an expression, not of
nevu'ah, but of something else, which may be called ruach ha-kodesh. The
text of the narrative of the nevi'im has the same kedushah as the actual
nevuos in the nevi'im.
On a final note, the subject reference still bugs me. We cannot debate the
accuracy of the Nach text, only the accuracy of historians. A keri and
kesiv both reflect an accurate mesorah, because it is the mesorah in
resolving machloksos in mesorah.
AA
aswang@netvision.net.il
02-6521019
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:14:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: 2 forwarded messages from R' David Riceman
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 14:23:16 -0400
From: David Riceman
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim
1. Here are a few prophecies in Divrei HaYamim:
1 17:4-14
21:10-12
2 1:11-12
I stopped leafing through there. I think there are a few near the end
(by Yoshiyahu and Hizkiyahu) which don't appear in Melachim.
In addition, there is an opinion in Chazal that the first perek of
Eichah predated the Hurban (Ibn Ezra is opposed to this in his
introduction to Eichah, but I think Rashi cites it there (I didn't check
that - he may say the whole of Eichah)).
If you agree with the opinion in Bava Bathra that David edited Tehillim
there are also some prophecies there (e.g. al naharoth bavel).
2. One interesting nafka minah is psukim for malchioth zichronoth and
shofaroth on Rosh Hashanah. The Rambam says Tehillim rather than
Kethubim (which could fit your thesis, but not easily, unless you think
the Rambam postdates the editing of Tehillim). All the psukim we use
and that the gemara suggests do fit your thesis.
3. Rashi in kol kithvei (the first mishna) says that the distinction is
whether we read haftaroth from them or not. Certainly that does not fit
your thesis, since we read haftaroth from the historical parts of
neviim.
4. The main sugya is at the end of the first perek of Bava Bathra. I
checked out one obscure acharon - the Bigdei Shesh - but he has nothing
to say on the subject.
Feel free to post this if you wish.
DR
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 14:32:03 -0400
From: David Riceman
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: krdusha of neviim vs. kesuvim, appendix
I really don't have a good answer. Except for the megilloth it could
be the time of final editing. I admit to having wondered in the past
why we never read haftaroth from Sefer Tehillim (I've seen that Rashi at
least four or five times before, too - it all goes to show you, dvarim
dlav adatai lo ramei inish a nafshei).
It is true that almost everything in kethuvim is either obviously late
(like Divrei HaYamim) or what the scholars call wisdom literature (like
Tehillim). But then how do you deal with Ruth, which is neither?
So, the question is better than the answer.
DR
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 16:18:35 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805032018.QAA11128@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: RE: Nolad--A Test, Answers to comments
[JewishWebmaster, Joel, Akiva] all responded to my posting that
>>faxs received on shabbath have a status of NOLAD>>
and all NOLAD prohibitions apply
Some clarifying comments which might answer some questions are:
1)A TEST FOR NOLAD---THE >>BEFORE/AFTER NAME >> TEST
==================================================
The status of NOLAD occurs anytime there is a NEW NAME.
So if I freeze WATER it is now called ICE; therefore it has
a new name and a status of NOLAD. Similarly if I thaw out ICE
and it becomes WATER it now has a new name and a status of NOLAD
It follows that if I have a blank piece of paper in my fax tray
--so it has the NAME, PAPER--and then a fax comes in on shabbath
then it has a NEW NAME, namely A FAX. All I am saying is that
people would call the paper PAPER before the fax came in and would
call it FAX after it came in.
So we have developed a NAME BEFORE/AFTER test. Using this test
it seems clear that a received fax is nolad. While there might
be authorities who disagree (no one has yet been cited) nevertheless
it would be useful if SPECIFC COUNTER TESTS and arguments were offered.
I think this test applies to email also. Before the email came
I would call my mailbox (or whereever email is received) as EMPTY.
After the email is received the "contents" of the email box have
a NEW NAME (namely SO AND SOs EMAIL)
Note the NAME test applies EVEN though the email has no physical
substance but is an informational arrangement of ascii codes.
The same NAME test renders a PERFUMED garment as NOLAD since it
has the NAME (or ATTRIBUTE) of PERFUMED...again the PHYSICAL garment
is not severely changed but NOLAD does APPLY and it seems to me
that it applies because of the NEW NAME.
SHCITAH vs NOLAD--computer crashes and shchita
================
2) A rather interesting refutation was suggested:
>>Is crashing a computer shchita...why then is a received fax NOLAD>>
But the answer is simple: Shchita requires TWO ITEMS:
---termination of NAME (it was a LIVE ANIMAL before and it no longer is)
---it was done to something LIVE (like a dog, cat etc)
Computers do not have LIFE status.
By contrast: NOLAD requires ONE ITEM
---change of NAME
---there is NO RESTRICTION on WHAT is nolad.
In fact that is the whole point of the NOLAD prohibition. Blanketly
prohibit ALL new things as a rabbinical fence for the Shabbath.
3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCE:
=============================
I again acknowlege Rabbi Avrohom LItvin of Kentucky for this insight
Most of the above analysis was published on mail jewish about a year
ago.
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d; ASA; rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 16:20:20 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805032020.QAA11145@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Examples of the Accuracy of Nach
There have been several postings on the accuracy of our
texts of Nach and Cethuvim.
I reiterate with details what others have said: The neviim
*are* etched in stone. Any variance in text (or even in
cantillations) were DELIBERATE and done by the original
authors.(In passing the Radack was cited as explaining
kri/ktiv as due to variation of texts--this is new to me
and I would appreciate a source)
We could easily devote much posting space to this topic..
allow me to give two examples:
isiah 45:1 is the ONLY example in all of tenach where we
have a ZARKAH cantillation not followed by A SEGOL. As
Rashi explains on MEGILLAH (12) this was deliberately done to
TONE DOWN the verse which speaks of KORESH as MESSIAH.
Thus even a minute cantillation difference is described as
deliberate (and not a compromise on texts)
For Kri/Ktiv I would go to Rav Hirsch/Malbim who explain it
the same way we might have a TV show player SAYING ONE THING but
SHOWING GRIMACES. Just as the TV show allows TWO contradictory
modes of communication (Verbal and Facial) so to the Kri/Ktiv
allow contradictory modes of communcation for giving nuances.
As a beautiful exercise I invite anyone to go Rav Hirsch's
commentary on Psalms and ONLY read his explanations on Kri/Ktiv
..I have done this and found it to be non midrashic and illuminating
There are clear rules governing them
I should give a Kri/ktiv from Niviim/Ktubim..Please forgive me
if relying on my memory I give one from Chumash. When Joseph
was jailed for flirting with Potipars wife the word is WRITTN
ASOOR (Prison) but is PRONOUNCED (ASIIR--Prison row...the "II" denotes
potential and indicates a :"pre prison" room before they are convicted)
Rav Hirsch simply explains that if a slave like Joseph Really wanted
to have an affair with his wife he would have been executed
instantly. Potifar didn't believe his wife (since he knew her
to be a run around). Now he couldn't just call her a liar...he
had to put Joseph,a slave in prison...but he did it compassionately and
gave him the status of a non convicted prisoner (hence the kri
and ktiv)
If this was shown on TV we would have Potifar coming home and
his wife screaming about "that slave guy" and you would probably
see Potifar yawn and pick up the paper and act like he didn't
believe it. Then you might see him sending Joseph to prison..
but see no anger on his face.
At any rate I believe it is doctrinal to believe that the Mesorah
carefully preserved all these nuances. Also to the best of my
belief we DO accept the Aleppo as final in any controversy of texts
(Again I would appreciate an example if this is incorrect)
I will now try and explain what went into Torah Neviim Ketuvim
TORAH: It is well known that Moses had a higher grade of
prophecy than other prophets. In my humble opinion this
does not mean that EVERY prophecy that Moses had was on
this level. Rather it means that Moses was capable of BOTH
>>DREAM PROPHECIES>> and >>WORD PROPHECIES>>
The TORAH consists of all WORD PROPHECIES given to Moses
He received all of them without a dream image and was told
them word to word.
The other prophecies that Moses might have had if he did
would be in other parts of the Bible (e.g. Job may have
been written by Moses)
KUTUBIM: Even Moses, if he e.g. asked for a glass of water
his statement >>kindly give me a glass of water>> does not
have prophetic status...but it does have a status of SOMETHING
SPOKEN BY A PROPHET. Now if Moses just asked for a glass of
water than there is nothing holy about this. But if Moses say
gave a blessing to someone we say the blessing is given under
Ruach Hakodesh.
Ruach Hakodesh (according to this suggested analysis) has three
components:
>>They were words spoken by someone who had received prophecies
>> They themselves were not prophecies
>> They dealt with spiritual matters
Thus all the Psalms have a RUACH HAKODESH status
..they were prayers to God written by people who
were otherwise prophet and dealt with spiritual matters
(Interestingly the Gemarah distinguishes between LEDAVID MIZMORE
and MIZMOR LEDAVID...we can explain this as follows...sometimes
David was ALREADY dealing with spiritual matters and then wrote
a Psalm (which were his opinions, prayers etc...and hence written
under ruach hakodesh).--this has the opening MIZMORE LEDAVID
On the other hand if David was dealing with
this world (e.g. in the thicket of battle) he might have then
CHANGED to dealing with Gods help then the opening would me
LEDAVID MIZMORE)
NEVIIM: With TWO EXCEPTIONS (Shoftim, Melachim) each of the neviim
dealt with ONE PROPHET (Yehoshua, Shmuel, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyah,
Yechezkel, Hoshaia, Ovadia....)
I personally am at a loss to explain the difference in status
between DIVRAY HAYAMIM and SHOFTIM/MELACHIM
Russell Jay Hendel; phd Asa RHendel @ mcs drexel edu;
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 16:21:58 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805032021.QAA11172@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: What were the original Goals of Chassidus
[Bechhofer, Shochet, Weinreb] all attacked my "conception of Chassidus"
Forgive my ignorance..but to the best of my knowledge and belief
what I said was correct. I *have* read the Rebbes MEMOIRS (as suggested)
and this confirms what I said.
So I recap the FOUR items that were B (Before Chasidus) and
the TWO remedies that were A( After Chasidus). I would appreciate
knowing which are wrong.
(One shliach I spoke to pointed out that EVEN if what I said was
true of the masses RECEIVING CHASSIDUS,nevertheless it was not true of its
teachers (WHO WERE LEARNED PEOPLE). Be that as it may I still
think it was true of the masses.)
I assert that when chassidus first originated that most of the masses
receiving Chassidus were
B1--Ignorant of Talmud
======================
They had never learned or only sporadically and hence were
>>ignorant of advanced talmudic analytical methods>>
B2--Did not think God could be served by studying all day
=========================================================
The average member of the masses found the "way of Gemarrah" with
its distinctions, arbitrary and capricious and therefore could not
serve God by learning all day
B3--JOB INSECURITY
==================
The masses were constantly fired from jobs, prohibited from certain
vocations, evicted for lack of rent etc.
B4--NO TIME TO REMEDY
======================
They had little extra time to remedy the above situation thru learning
and self improvement
So far All I have said was that the original recipients of Chassidus (not
their teachers and NOT ALL of them, just most) were ignorant peasants
with much job insecurity and with no time to remedy.
I would like to know why that is >>inaccurate>>. Who says otherwise?
If Learning vs Mitzvoth was not the issue between Chassidim and
Mithnagdim then what was?
I posited that the chasidic masters remedied this situation by
A1--Mitzvoth vs Talmud torah
============================
the original chassidic masters emphasized that you could find God
by doing mitzvoth joyously (it was not necessary to learn all day)
A2--ROLE MODELS
----------------
To help the chassidim out these chassidim needed an adequate role
model to help them. A Rebbe who could bless them, counsel them and
be a role model.
In summary I said that many of the original recipients of chassidus
were ignorant with job insecurity, could not think of serving God
by learning and did not have adequate time to remedy the situation.
So chasidum suggested doing mitzvoth joyously and following a role model
I in fact used this to justify the custom of seeking a bracha from
a rebbe instead of praying yourself
Now I have some questions? What did I do wrong? Why have I been attacked
by Shochet and Weinreb as violating Darcay Noam? Which one of the
above 4 Bs or 2 As is false?...were the masses all learned in Talmud?
Why is what I said perjorative?...I said people had needs and they
were satisfied by chassidus. If you read the above you find that much
of it is VERBATIM citations from my original post. This is my
understanding of the original controversy between Chassidim and
mithnagdim. If I am wrong then what were they arguing about?
If someone does care to answer this I don't want to be told to read
more books...I have read plenty..and I learned this in high school
not from the secular descriptions of chassidus.
Incidentally, I think part of Darchay Noam is to say WHY you disagree
with someone.
[Shochet] simply said
>>I do not agree with Dr Hendel's
summary and consider it a violation of Darchay Noam>>
...there is no substance to this remark and it can't be dealt with.
It his feelings not his position and most unprofessional
Finally I think it proper to ask Shochet and Weinreb to retrack their
statements that I violated Darchay Noam .. "Darchay Noam" should not
be a word you label people with if you disagree...And that is EXACTLY
what SHOCHET and Weinreb did...Shochet simply cited my posting said
he disagreed and said I violated Darchay noam..and even Weinreb who
gave one detail has still not explained either why he thinks
the chassidim of the time were learned or WHAT chassidus was doing
that the mithnagdim were not doing
I for one, when I disagree with a posting always give SPECIFIC examples
At any rate, I am totally baffled by the above remarks. It would not
surprise me if I have been wrong or misled by some popular conception
of chassidim..it does shock me that an attempted defense of Chassidim
has been labeled as >>violation of darchay noam and slanderous>>
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:21:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Accuracy of the Nach Text
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 May 1998, a & y allswang wrote:
> No one is advocating following the Abarbanel blindly. But, having said
> that, the Abarbanel, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the few who
> address this issue. His comments are meant to be a rational explanation for
> Chazal's position regarding the distinction between Nevi'im and Kesuvim. If
> you have additional sources, please share them with us.
>
What Chazal? The Gemara never specifically addresses the distinction
between Nevi'im and Kesuvim - otherwise we would not be having this
discussion!
> The Abarbanel is not attempting to prove that Hashem told various nevi'im
> to write this or that. He is actually working in the reverse: he is
> formulating plausible criteria regarding what is a sefer nevi'im and what
> is a sefer kesuvim based on what Chazal set forth.
>
And I am doing the same thing!
> and *NOT* only their nevu'os). The brachos of the Haftorah emphasize the
> emes v'tzedek of divrei ha-nevi'im, again without any mention of the word
> nevu'os. I am under the impression that the kedushah of the words and texts
> of nevi'im is categorically greater than that of the words and texts of
> kesuvim. What other criteria is there for kedushah that would override the
> distinction set down by mesorah?
You may certainly be impressed any way you like, but I see no indication
in the bracha that states anything as to whether all parts of the Nevi'im
are of definitively loftier status than Kesuvim or not!
>
> In summary, although you are correct that no one source should be
> considered absolutely infallible, it would appear in this case that the
> burden of proof rests on you, to provide sources which would support an
> alternative approach.
>
Proof is necessary if I am trying to quash other perspectives. I am not. I
am merely presenting an alternative.
> In another letter you wrote:
>
> >I do not see how you can say this definitively. I have spoken to great
> >Talmidei Chachomim who have agreed that my proposal that the non-prophetic
> >parts of Nevi'im are b'geder the Rucah HaKodesh of Kesuvim, and, while we
> >may disagree, I certainly do not see how this c"v contradicts any
> >principle in Chazal!
>
> I'm willing to accept the words of great Talmidei Chachomim that you have
> spoken to (even though they are not Rishonim, and may not be in the Ner
> Yisrael library), but please be kind enough to share their names with us.
>
Rabbi Hirsch Isenberg and Rabbi Yitzchok Sender.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:39:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Radak on Keri u'Kesiv
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>From his Introduction to Nevi'im Rishonim:
I will also write the reason for that which is "written and read": that
which is written but not read and that which is read but not written...
It seems to me that such words are found because at the time of the first
exile the books were lost and dispersed and the sages that knew the Torah
died. When the Anshei Knesses HaGedola restored the Torah to its prior
state they found arguments among the books and followed the majority
according to theri understanding. In places where they could not clarify a
proper understanding they wrote one [version] without vowelizing it, or
wrote one [version] in the margin and no in the text, and similarly, one
manner in the text and another without...
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 17:49:40 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805032149.RAA12034@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Darchay Noam---Reasons, Criteria..REpost: Original Goals of Chasidus
Rabbi Bechhofer told me that part of his conceptions of Darcay NOam
is not to use last names without titles or first names. So I repost
below my posting on the Original Goals of Chasidus(which had only
last names)
This brings an interesting issue up: Namely conflicting standards of
Darcay Noam in various fields. For example in both Mathematics and
Actuarial science it is considered unprofessional to use first names
and considered proper to use 3rd person or last names. This has been
explained to me as due to a reason: When you have to disagree with
someone you should not act to familiar...hence you use their last
name vs their first name to create an atmosphere of didstance(I should
caution that for all I know the reason I heard is inaccurate...but what I
heard about usage is correct).
In the example at hand I actually had intent of darcay noam...I use to
call the list owner Yosef and then accidentally found out he was a Rabbi
and as a matter of principle I don't like to call Rabbis by their first
name (because of my conception of Darcay noam). Unfortunately I don't
know the titles of other people on the list...for example I know that
Claude is a Dr but I don't know if Saul is a Rabbi...so...rather
than err I decided to use last names only.
I incidentally think it would be useful if someone would gather
in one place (mabye the list archives) the rules for Darcay Noam
as well as their reasons. (As another example I recently cited
as a violation of Darcay Noam someone who simply quoted me and
said he disagreed and I violated Darcay Noam WITHOUT GIVING ANY
DETAILS....I think we all have different conceptions of how things
are done and sshould be done.. adn therefore such a list would be
useful
Russell Hendel Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs drexel edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHAT WERE THE GOALS OF THE ORIGINORIGINAL GOALS OF CHASIDUS>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(Please use this version which has last names in citations and
avoid the other one...Thank you)
[Yosef Bechhofer, Claude Schochet, Saul Weinreb] all attacked my "conception of Chassidus"
Forgive my ignorance..but to the best of my knowledge and belief
what I said was correct. I *have* read the Rebbes MEMOIRS (as suggested)
and this confirms what I said.
So I recap the FOUR items that were B (Before Chasidus) and
the TWO remedies that were A( After Chasidus). I would appreciate
knowing which are wrong.
(One shliach I spoke to pointed out that EVEN if what I said was
true of the masses RECEIVING CHASSIDUS,nevertheless it was not true of its
teachers (WHO WERE LEARNED PEOPLE). Be that as it may I still
think it was true of the masses.)
I assert that when chassidus first originated that most of the masses
receiving Chassidus were
B1--Ignorant of Talmud
======================
They had never learned or only sporadically and hence were
>>ignorant of advanced talmudic analytical methods>>
B2--Did not think God could be served by studying all day
=========================================================
The average member of the masses found the "way of Gemarrah" with
its distinctions, arbitrary and capricious and therefore could not
serve God by learning all day
B3--JOB INSECURITY
==================
The masses were constantly fired from jobs, prohibited from certain
vocations, evicted for lack of rent etc.
B4--NO TIME TO REMEDY
======================
They had little extra time to remedy the above situation thru learning
and self improvement
So far All I have said was that the original recipients of Chassidus (not
their teachers and NOT ALL of them, just most) were ignorant peasants
with much job insecurity and with no time to remedy.
I would like to know why that is >>inaccurate>>. Who says otherwise?
If Learning vs Mitzvoth was not the issue between Chassidim and
Mithnagdim then what was?
I posited that the chasidic masters remedied this situation by
A1--Mitzvoth vs Talmud torah
============================
the original chassidic masters emphasized that you could find God
by doing mitzvoth joyously (it was not necessary to learn all day)
A2--ROLE MODELS
----------------
To help the chassidim out these chassidim needed an adequate role
model to help them. A Rebbe who could bless them, counsel them and
be a role model.
In summary I said that many of the original recipients of chassidus
were ignorant with job insecurity, could not think of serving God
by learning and did not have adequate time to remedy the situation.
So chasidum suggested doing mitzvoth joyously and following a role model
I in fact used this to justify the custom of seeking a bracha from
a rebbe instead of praying yourself
Now I have some questions? What did I do wrong? Why have I been attacked
by Claude Schochet and Saul Weinreb as violating Darcay Noam? Which one of the
above 4 Bs or 2 As is false?...were the masses all learned in Talmud?
Why is what I said perjorative?...I said people had needs and they
were satisfied by chassidus. If you read the above you find that much
of it is VERBATIM citations from my original post. This is my
understanding of the original controversy between Chassidim and
mithnagdim. If I am wrong then what were they arguing about?
If someone does care to answer this I don't want to be told to read
more books...I have read plenty..and I learned this in high school
not from the secular descriptions of chassidus.
Incidentally, I think part of Darchay Noam is to say WHY you disagree
with someone.
[Claude Schochet] simply said
>>I do not agree with Dr Hendel's
summary and consider it a violation of Darchay Noam>>
...there is no substance to this remark and it can't be dealt with.
It his feelings not his position and most unprofessional
Finally I think it proper to ask Claude Schochet and Saul Weinreb to retrack their
statements that I violated Darchay Noam .. "Darchay Noam" should not
be a word you label people with if you disagree...And that is EXACTLY
what Claude Schochet and Saul Weinreb did...Claude Schochet simply cited my posting said
he disagreed and said I violated Darchay noam..and even Saul Weinreb who
gave one detail has still not explained either why he thinks
the chassidim of the time were learned or WHAT chassidus was doing
that the mithnagdim were not doing
I for one, when I disagree with a posting always give SPECIFIC examples
At any rate, I am totally baffled by the above remarks. It would not
surprise me if I have been wrong or misled by some popular conception
of chassidim..it does shock me that an attempted defense of Chassidim
has been labeled as >>violation of darchay noam and slanderous>>
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 17:53:38 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805032153.RAA12077@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Possible Error in Responsum on Theft
My brother had a birthday last week. I told him how
I mentioned the Chief Sefardic Rabbi's responsum that the
reasons for theft was ANGUISH not MONETARY loss.
My brother (who used this responsum in one of his
written opinions--he is a Judge in Israel) advised me
that to the best of this memory the responsum was due to
Ben Uziel not to Ovadia Yosef.
Some people mentioned difficulty in finding the responsum and
perhaps the wrong name was a reason
Russell Jay Hendel; PHd ASA rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-ID: <354CE935.35B23658@netmedia.net.il>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 01:01:26 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" ,
Beis Tefila Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Radak on Keri u'Kesiv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> >From his Introduction to Nevi'im Rishonim:
>
> I will also write the reason for that which is "written and read": that
> which is written but not read and that which is read but not written...
>
> It seems to me that such words are found because at the time of the first
> exile the books were lost and dispersed and the sages that knew the Torah
> died. When the Anshei Knesses HaGedola restored the Torah to its prior
> state they found arguments among the books and followed the majority
> according to theri understanding. In places where they could not clarify a
> proper understanding they wrote one [version] without vowelizing it, or
> wrote one [version] in the margin and no in the text, and similarly, one
> manner in the text and another without...
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> c/o Shani Bechhofer
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
The Radak's position is very problematic for modern hashkofa - see the
Maharal Tiferes Yisroel Perek 65 page 198. See Rosenbloom's biography of the
Malbim page 102-107. An example of dangers of the Radak's position is
illustrated by Halivni's Peshat and Derash
Regarding Josephus, see Rav Tzadok's differentiation between History -
reporting of observable facts and Chazal - Emes (Ohr Zaruah 25b-26a.) He also
criticizes the Abarbanel's views of the authorship of Tanach - where they
deviate from Chazal..
In the course of discussing positions, is it sufficient to say that a
particular position can be found in an Abarbanel or Radak. Are the conjectures
made by these Rishonim - and they are clearly conjectures - considered valid
today? The Chasam Sofer (Chelek II Y.D. #356) notes that even though Rav
Hillel's rejection of Moshiach is reported in the gemora (Sanhedrin 99a) and
therefore he was not considered a heretic. Anyone espousing such a position
today - after Rav Hillel's position has been rejected - would be considered a
heretic.
I would appreciate additional sources concerning the validity of minority
positions held by gedolim. [See discussion in Jewish Action regarding the
validity of Rabbi S.R. Hirsh's views of Kabbala] Does anyone hold Ailu v'Ailu
concerning statements on these type of issues?
Daniel Eidensohn
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
To: yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il
Cc: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu, baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:02:09 -0400
Subject: Neviim and Kesuvim
Message-ID: <19980503.200212.3510.0.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
Daniel Eidelsohn wrote:
>In the course of discussing positions, is it sufficient to say that a
>particular position can be found in an Abarbanel or Radak. Are the
>conjectures
>made by these Rishonim - and they are clearly conjectures - considered
>valid
>today? The Chasam Sofer (Chelek II Y.D. #356) notes that even though
>Rav
>Hillel's rejection of Moshiach is reported in the gemora (Sanhedrin
>99a) and
>therefore he was not considered a heretic. Anyone espousing such a
>position
>today - after Rav Hillel's position has been rejected - would be
>considered a
>heretic.
>
>I would appreciate additional sources concerning the validity of
>minority
>positions held by gedolim.
I would tend to disagree with the statement that Rishonim's statements
are "merely conjectures". I was always under the impression that what a
Rishon says is the sum total of his understanding of kol Hatorah and
therefore represents defacto a legitimate Torah position. This is
supposed to be R' Akiva Eiger's statement about a Rosh's "it appears to
me". THe argument from R' Hillel is clearly different because there the
Gemara reaches a conclusion, but without a specific decision I don't
understand how you could reject any Rishons opinion.
Also in the context of this discussion I don't think the Abarbanel's
position is a minority one since his is the only Rishon's position that
has been quoted except for the Rambam which is essentially consistent
with the Abarbanel. To the best of my understanding, the only position
that has been suggested to explain the phenomina of Neviim and Kesuvim,
recognizing as it has been pointed out that there is Nevuah in Kesuvim,
is the Abarbanel or something very simmilar to it that there is a
fundamental difference between the way these seforim were written.
However merely to distinguish between narrative and actual nevuah will
not suffice. (Since apparantley Neviim Rishonim and Kesuvim have the
same combination of Nevuah and narrative)
SHraga Rothbart
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980503204042.006a31e8@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 20:40:47 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Saul Weinreb
Subject: Minority Opinions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In response to R' Daniel Eidenson's question about minority opinions, I
remember reading a speech delivered by Rav Aryeh Kaplan regarding the age
of the universe and he quoted a very relevent Rambam. I could not find my
copy of this speech, and I am very upset about this because it is a
wonderful speech. If someone could fimd it and quote the location of thios
Rambam I would greatly appreciate it.
Basically, when it comes to matters that are of "aggadic" nature, and are
not nogea halachah Lemaaseh, not only are minority opinions valid, but one
has every right to consider it as an ikkar. Only in matters of psak, acc.
to the Rambam, are we required to be Tofes one shitta over another, not in
areas of hashkafah.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980503204846.006a31e8@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 20:48:48 -0500
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Saul Weinreb
Subject: Neviim and Kesuvim
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In my previous post I said that I would present a proof that the
"narrative" parts of neviim have the same kedushah as the "nevuah"
portions. Well R' Allswang beat me to it. I was going to argue that just
as the various portions of the Torah, be they narrative or nevuah have the
same kedushah, deriving from the fact that they were written by Moshe
Rabbeinu with the dictation of HKB'H himself - so to the neviim, each part
has the same kedushah. This is because their kedushah derives from the
fact that they were written by the Neviim. I am especially drawing on the
Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim that I brought in my previous e-mail. It
seems from the Rambam that all of Neviim was written at a level higher than
"Ruach HaKodesh," which is the level at which Kesuvim was written.
By the way, and this is for those who are arguing that Kesuvim contains
nevua. Look at the Rambam that I have quoted, for he specifically argues
that those are not real nevuos. In fact, that is his entire thesis.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_22--
----__ListProc__NextPart__894254681447127340--
From baistefila@shamash.org Tue May 5 00:01:10 1998
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 00:01:08 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 23
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__894340867447170433"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894340867447170433
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 23
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Abarbanel
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
2) Re:Early Kabbalat Shabbat
by Shragai BOTWINICK
3) titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
by David Riceman
4) Re: titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
5) Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quote
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
6) Re: titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
by Heather/Chana Luntz
7) Re: Radak on Keri u'Kesiv, Abarbanel, and Nach issues
by cbrown@bestware.com
8) Minority Opinions
by Daniel Eidensohn
9) Re: What were the original Goals of Chassidus
by margol
10) Re: Minority Opinions
by cbrown@bestware.com
11) Re: Minority Opinions
by cbrown@bestware.com
12) oops!
by David Riceman
13) Re: oops!
by Heather/Chana Luntz
14) Misc
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
15) Did David Sin? And if so What was his sin?
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
16) Re: Minority Opinions
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
17) DANIEL was a full fledged prophet
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
18) Contradictions to Radack's Thesis of Kri Ktiv
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
19) Commerece on the web
by Michael J Broyde
20) Dovid and Bas Sheva
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894340867447170433
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_23"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-Id: <199805040415.AAA18245@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Abarbanel
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 00:15:02 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Today I was in the Young Israel of Brookline and I tried to find a copy
of the Abarbanel on the maaseh of Dovid and Bassheva. They didn't have
one. I thought to myself, imagine how holy Klal Yisroel is. Even a
modern orthodox shul like that has such respect for the words of the
Gaon Rav Ruderman Z"L. I gave the Rov a big Yasher Koach. He asked me
what for. I told him that even in these circles we don't have an
Abarbanel. He looked at me like I had gone out of my mind. I have no
idea why.
All kidding aside, I wanted to check the exact wording of the Abarbanel
to possibly be meyashev his words with the gemara Kol haomer Dovid chata
aino ella toeh. Since I couldn't get hold of a copy, this defense may
not work, but still may be useful in other places where these types of
issues arise.
We know that there are various ways to understand a posuk. There is
Pardes: pshat, remez, drash and sod. In addition, there is shivim ponim
l'torah, etc., and the Vilna gaon may have had as many as 2000 meanings
per posuk according to at least one maaseh in the Aliyos Eliyahu. So
confusion, and I might add downright incorrectness arises as to how we
determine the metzius, the actual historical facts. For certain reasons,
(which we will explain) the vast majority of students of Biblical
exegesis take it for granted that the metzius, the actual circumstances
of the story, are determined from pshat, and not from drash. They do
this since Rashi always says that he comes l'yashev pshuto shel
mikra. And it is hammered into them by their teachers that this is the
ikar. Rashi also says often that although there are a lot of midrashim
on this particular posuk, I have only brought down the ones that fit in
with pshuto shel mikra, hameyashvin davar davur al ofanav. This leads
one to assume that the midrash is only secondary, an artistic
embellishment of the text which is not really rooted in actual textual
scholarship. It has no serious basis, but is just a legend. However, it
is my humble opinion that this is a tremendous error. Nowhere does it
say that the pshat is from where the metzius arises. If anything, the
gemara (Shabbos 63) says that Rav Cahana had learned all shas, and
didn't realize that ain mikra yotzei midai pshuto. Only in the course of
a particular massa umatan did he become aware of this. The Rashbam in
chumash (beginning of Parshas Vayeshev) quotes this gemara and clearly
says that drash is the ikar. However, although all students of Biblical
exegesis are familiar with this Rashbam, they somehow get confused by
the end, where he says that new pshatim are constantly being developed,
and somehow assume that only for the purposes of halachos did the
Rashbam say drash is ikar, not for the purposes of studying the events
of the tanach.
These students feel that real work is required to derive a pshat. One
must know dikduk, and history, and be sensitive to slight textual
variations. Consequently this is the rigorous science of biblical
exegesis. However for drash on the other hand, anything goes. You can say
things which are implausible, which don't really fit into the actual
context, which are seemingly products of the imagination. There are no
real rules.
But this is wrong! An accuarate drash is orders of magnitude more
difficult to say than a pshat. In pshat, I have only to make sense of
the possuk at hand (and it's local context). In drash I have to make
sense in kol hatorah kula. The best proof of this is the gemara I
recently quoted about Reb Shimon or Reb Nechemiah haamsuni where he was
about to abandon an entire system of drash because of one small
inconsistency. If the drasha on a word contardicts the drasha on a
similar word anywhere in tanach, or if it contradicts any of the 13
midos shehatorah nidreshes bahen, or if it contradicts any halacha, or
forces one to reinterpret another word in the posuk which might become
redundant based on my drash of the original word, and then the drash for
this second word contradicts any of the above, it must be thrown
out. (Let's put aside the issue of whether or not a drasha may be
invented on one's own or whether one must have received it from one's
rebbe.)
The bottom line is that pshat requires only local investigation; drash
requires global investigation. The rules for drash may seem freer than
for pshat (and in some ways they are), but in reality correctly creating
a drash is orders of magnitude more difficult due to the overwhelmingly
difficult consistency constraint.
Where does the metzius come from? Let's consider an example. When
Paroh's daughter rescued Moshe the posuk says vatishlach es amasa. Rashi
says it means her maidservant, but he quotes a midrash which says it
means her forearm. She extended it as much as she could, and it became
miraculously lengthened so she could reach him. (I think there is an Or
Sameach here which says that one should learn from this that one must
always try his best to do a mitzvah, even he can't possibly succeed al
pi teva [she knew she was way too far to reach him even by leaning on
her tiptoes, so why bother trying], and he will then get siyata
dishmaya.) As far as the metzius is concerned am I mechuyav to accept
that what really happened was that the maidservant brought him in
(pshat)? Then is the mussar vort based on nonsense which never happened?
I don't think so, (but I may be wrong). Incidentally this will lead us
onto a tangent as to whether midrashim are to be taken literally which
is a huge subject and not for now, but if anybody wants to follow it up
they are welcome to.
So my defense of the Abarbanel is that he may, as the meforshei Tanach
often do, have been speaking on what he feels is the pshat of the
pesukim. (One person once told me, oh, such and such medrash is clearly
wrong as the Ramban on chumash rejects it [as if the Ramban could do
such a thing]. But when we opened the Ramban he realized that the Ramban
only meant that it doesn't fit in with the rules of pshat, which is
perfectly fine to say if you are writing a perush on pshat, but doesn't
delegitimize the medrash in any way). However, the Abarbanel may fully
agree that the metzius is as the gemara says. However, if his language
indicates that he feels that the metzius is that Dovid sinned, then this
defense doesn't work.
Barry Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID: <354D83F9.71D999@sapiens.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 12:01:45 +0300
From: Shragai BOTWINICK
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re:Early Kabbalat Shabbat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> The halakha seems to be clear that one can pray ma'ariv from plag haminha,
> provided one prays minha before plag haminha, at least b'diavad, for one
> who ordinarily prays minha before sunset, and ma'ariv after tzeit
> hacokhavim (Orah Hayyim 233:1, Mishna Berura 233:9; OH 263:4, MB 263:15; OH
> 261:2, MB 261:25).
>
> This is of course the system used by those who accept shabbat early during
> the summer months.
>
> Nevertheless, there are congregations that accept shabbat early by starting
> ashrei some minutes _after_ plag haminha, and qabbalat shabbat immediately
> after the end of minha, followed immediately thereafter by ma'ariv.
>
> Can this practice be justified halakhically? (Including the planning ahead
> and issuing of a schedule formally undertaking to do so for several months
> in advance; in other words, clearly with the stated intention of beginning
> minha after plag.)
>
> If so, how? And if not, can the prayer be likened to someone who prays
> minha on Rosh Hodesh and omits Ya'ale v'yavo? (My intent here is that one
> who has omitted Ya'ale v'yavo, according to the aharonim, is as though he
> had not prayed at all (and therefore he must repeat the prayer or tashlumim).
>
> Perhaps one who has prayed both minha and ma'ariv after plag haminha and
> before sunset is regarded as having prayed only one of these prayed, and
> must repeat one of them. If so, which one? And what about tashlumim on
> Shabbat?)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ira L. Jacobson
The Mishna Berura in 233:11 and in 235:8 and the Magen Avraham in 233:7 state
that there is a minhag to daven both mincha and maariv in between plag hamincha
and the 'erev'(sunset or 3 stars). Even though this minhag appears to go against
the halacha, as in this scenario it is a 'tartei d'satrei', nevertheless there is
a minhag to be maykil for the tzibur. The Mishna Brura explains the reason
behind this minhag:1.there is a difficulty in gathering the tzibur later on to
come back to shul.
2.some am haratzim may not daven at all later.
Should an individual follow the tzibur or daven privately?
The Bur Halacha in siman 235 quotes the Gra that it is better to daven privately.
However, in Egrot Moshe (orach chaim vol.2 siman 60), Rav Moshe Feinstein
questions whether that is accurate - and perhaps even an individual should join
the tzibur and gain a fulfillment in tefilla b'tzibur.
The Aruch Hashulchan in siman 235:1-5 also quotes this minhag, and is mechadesh
that it is 'mekar hadin' and not just a questionable minhag. He states that
especially on leil shabbat it makes sense to daven maariv early, even according
to the Rabanan (who argue on Rav Yehuda). Look there for details.
Lechatchila, according to most poskim, it appears that it is still better to
daven mincha before plag hamincha and maariv afterwards. Nevertheless, from all
the above, it is clear that one who follows this minhag does not have to repeat
shmoneh esrei.
Shraga Botwinick
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID: <354DC0E8.35E5@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 09:21:47 -0400
From: David Riceman
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1. In the academic world (Ivy League, U.S.A. - there are debased
customs elsewhere) one generally refers to someone as Mr., under the
assumption that everyone has a Ph.D. and there's no reason to flaunt it.
My limited experience in the yeshiva world is that one refers to
everyone knowledgable as Rabbi, whether he has semicha or not (there's a
Rama in Y.D. 242 which could justify this, but that's a digression . .
.).
In both cases there are exceptions for very respected people (e.g.
Hillel, who is never called Rabbi Hillel).
So that a polite yeshiva person, arguing about evolution, would
refer to Rabbi Darwin, whereas a polite Ivy League academic, when
discussing modern psak, would refer to Mr. Feinstein.
Since the list seems all male (with the exception of the ghost of
Rebbetzin Bechhofer on Rabbi Bechhofer's account) maybe we should all
just use "Mr. Rabbi" when in doubt.
2. I was very impressed with the cited R. Chaim (should I have said Mr.
Rabbi Soloveitchik?) which explains why Eichah is in ksuvim according to
Rashi. It does not, however, explain the anthologies (e.g. Tehillim) or
the books with oral citations (e.g. Divrei HaYamim vs. Melachim).
3. A naive reading of the sugya in Bava Bathra puts the burden of proof
squarely on Mr. Rabbi Bechhofer, and we have yet to learn how he
explains it.
David Riceman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 08:49:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
1. Titles
Contrary to popular opinion, there are women who are part of the group!
The only one who has posted so far, however, is Mrs. Mechi Fendel.
My general idea is that anyone male may properly be called Reb . Since many of the people in this group are friends with one
another, however, I think first name basis is acceptable. I think calling
someone only by their last name is depersonalizing and unacceptable in
this forum.
As to the women in the group, by Orthodox standards Mrs. Fendel may be
called Reb., technically, because she is Rebbitizin Fendel, wife of the
Rosh HaYeshiva of Sderot, Rabbi David (Duv) Fendel. I leave everyone to
find their own deferent and respectful salutory modes.
2. Nevi'im vs. Kesuvim
I looked once more at the sugya in Bava Basra this morning (BTW, although
the Bigdei Shesh does not address this specific point, he does have some
good things to say on 15a!!), and still cannot find anything that places
the burden of proof on me! The Gemara does not address at all why which
sefer is in which part of Nach. That being the case, no one can "prove"
anything decisively - no Chazals from which to draw. My approach is based
purely on observation and seems quite reasonable. The problem of nevu'os
in Diveri Hayamim is the only valid complaint I have so far received, and
I would address that by responding that the nature of Divrei Hayamim, as a
later reiteration of earlier periods, is why it contains "recycled"
second-hand nevu'os.
YGB
On Mon, 4 May 1998, David Riceman wrote:
> 3. A naive reading of the sugya in Bava Bathra puts the burden of proof
> squarely on Mr. Rabbi Bechhofer, and we have yet to learn how he
> explains it.
>
> David Riceman
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 08:56:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quote
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The principle Reb Shaul quoted from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, that there is no
decisive hachra'a (after Talmudic times, I assume) in matters of Agadata,
may be found in a form of that speech (AOJS, 1972) printed in
"Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic
View" (Ktav/AOJS 1993) pp. 1-2, 6-7.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:38:00 +0100
To: David Riceman
Cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
From: Heather/Chana Luntz
Subject: Re: titles and neviim vs. kesuvim
MIME-Version: 1.0
In message <354DC0E8.35E5@worldnet.att.net>, David Riceman
writes
>
> Since the list seems all male (with the exception of the ghost of
>Rebbetzin Bechhofer on Rabbi Bechhofer's account) maybe we should all
>just use "Mr. Rabbi" when in doubt.
Assumptions, assumptions ;-)
(although I did have the funniest thing happen to me when back in
Australia. A certain young rabbi who was doing shlichus in Australia
saw my postings on mail-jewish, and figured that there *could not* be a
woman knowledgeable enough in Australia to be posting to mail-jewish as
I was, and he had it all figured out which prominent rabbi I really was
writing under a pseudonim. He was most astonished to actually meet me
one Shavuos night - and I was *most* flattered to have been mistaken for
the rabbi in question)
Regards
Chana
heather@luntz.demon.co.uk
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il
cc: Baistefila@Shamash.Org
Message-ID: <852565FA:00538666.00@mail.bestware.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:46:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Radak on Keri u'Kesiv, Abarbanel, and Nach issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I found the Rambam in Moreh which someone posted very interesting in that
the R' Chaim I referenced in my last posting explicitely argues with that
position; he also does not distinguish 'levels' of prophecy within books of
Tanach. R' Chaim argues that kedushat nevi'im and Ketuvim are equal based
on the the din that a Navi may be placed on ketuvim and vica versa. The
reason I posted the R' Chaim is that he advances the idea that there can be
an overlap - a section of navi where the Navi is told to present his Nevuah
as ketuvim, which is the only thing close to YGB's (Rabbi YGB) hypothesis
that I have ever heard.
The Minchat Chinuch asks why anyone who violates a din dorayta is not
simultaneously in violation of rejecting and violating the divrei Navi -
Moshe. The Rav zt"l answered this by pointing out that the words of Torah
as spoken by Moshe were transmitted as a 'cheftza' of Torah and not a
'cheftza' of nevuah. I think we have to define a similar distinction
between words which were given to a navi as a 'cheftza' of nevuah vs. words
which were given to him/her as a 'cheftza' of ketuvim. Exactly which
sections of Nach fall into which category and how exactly to distinguish
the categories, well R' Chaim I think is an attempt at this but has a lot
of shortcomings, so the question can still be debated.
Regarding the Radak being problematic for modern hashkafa - it is modern
haskafa which is problematic when its intolerance reaches the level that it
finds the audacity to begin questioning even conjectures of the Rishonim
that do not square absolutely with its world view. Afilu sichas chulin
shel talmidei chachamim tziricha Talmud - kal v'chomer what a Rambam,
Radak, or even Abarbanel avdanced even as a conjecture!
Regarding Abarbanel (and YGB and I have debated this before) if we were to
count up the # of places Rashi, Ramban, and particularly Ibn Ezra reject a
view of Chazal (particularly but I stress NOT LIMITED TO AGGADAH) we would
have a sizeable list. Either we have to expand our list of banned books or
readjust our thinking to accomodate a broader spectrum of positions.
-Chaim B.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID: <354DEF7B.4928DAF9@netmedia.net.il>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 19:40:27 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Beis Tefila Discussion Group
Subject: Minority Opinions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul Rothbart wrote:
> Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> >In the course of discussing positions, is it sufficient to say that a
> >particular position can be found in an Abarbanel or Radak. Are the
> >conjectures
> >made by these Rishonim - and they are clearly conjectures - considered
> >valid
> >today? The Chasam Sofer (Chelek II Y.D. #356) notes that even though
> >Rav
> >Hillel's rejection of Moshiach is reported in the gemora (Sanhedrin
> >99a) and
> >therefore he was not considered a heretic. Anyone espousing such a
> >position
> >today - after Rav Hillel's position has been rejected - would be
> >considered a
> >heretic.
> >
> >I would appreciate additional sources concerning the validity of
> >minority
> >positions held by gedolim.
>
> I would tend to disagree with the statement that Rishonim's statements
> are "merely conjectures". I was always under the impression that what a
> Rishon says is the sum total of his understanding of kol Hatorah and
> therefore represents defacto a legitimate Torah position. This is
> supposed to be R' Akiva Eiger's statement about a Rosh's "it appears to
> me". THe argument from R' Hillel is clearly different because there the
> Gemara reaches a conclusion, but without a specific decision I don't
> understand how you could reject any Rishons opinion.
>
I, of course, would not and can not reject any rishon's opinion on my own.
My point was that if there seems to be a consensus of gedolim who reject it
- it ceases to be a legitimate position. A position is not viable _solely_
because it was articulated by a Rishon.[See Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah I #101
page 186] We see for example in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 that the Rambam
describes philosophy as Davar Gadol. The Kesef Mishna cites the Ran and the
Ritva who strongly reject this position.The Gra (Yoreh Deah 246 18) also
rejects it Is the Rambam's position on this issue a valid one today? I
don't think you will find gedolim supporting the assertion of the Radak that
the text of our Torah has been reconstructed.In fact Rav Moshe Feinstein
asserts such a position is heresy.(Igros Moshe Y.D. III #114 page 358).
Saul Weinreb wrote:
>Basically, when it comes to matters that are of "aggadic" nature, and are
>not nogea halachah Lemaaseh, not only are minority opinions valid, but one
>has every right to consider it as an ikkar. Only in matters of psak, acc.
>to the Rambam, are we required to be Tofes one shitta over another, not in
>areas of hashkafah.
The Ohr HaChaim HaKodesh (Breishis 46 8) makes such a statement concerning
drashas. My point is that questioning the accuracy of our Torah is not
justified by the ability to question a drasha. Is the text of the Torah the
same as given to Moshe Rabbeinu or was it corrupted and then fixed up by the
Anshei Knesses HaGedolah as the Radak asserts? Rashi (Kesubos 57a Ha
Kamashma Lan) states that Ailu v'Ailu does not apply to conflicting
statements concerning historical facts - one side is false. A number of the
Abarbanel's statements are also problematic.
In sum, I questioned whether one can not adopt a position simply because a
rishon made a statement - if there is a consensus of the religious
leadership against it.. If anyone has a specific source that disagrees with
this assertion - I would appreciate the citations.
Daniel Eidensohn
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID: <354DFAEB.5ED75609@ms.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 13:29:15 -0400
From: margol
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: What were the original Goals of Chassidus
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I would like to know why that is >>inaccurate>>. Who says otherwise?
> If Learning vs Mitzvoth was not the issue between Chassidim and
> Mithnagdim then what was?
>
I don't profess to know everything about the argument between Chassidim
and Misnagdim, but I did hear Rav Berel Wein once say that the battle
between Chassidim centered on whether learning Torah was and End or only
a means. Misnagdim felt that learning Torah was the goal of
Yiddishkeit, whereas Chassidim felt that although learning Torah is VERY
IMPORTANT, it is only a means to achieve closeness to Hashem Yisborach
and a way to understand Him better. I believe that Reb Tzadok has a
maamer that proves this point - perhaps Rabbi Bechoffer knows the exact
maar Hamakom.
With regard to your post, I think that people, myself included, took
umbrage at the implication that chassidus was an inferior derech that
only the poor, harried and uneducated were attracted to. This may not
have been your intent, but the "Darchay Noam" factor should make one
think twice about the presentation of such possibly inflammatory and
prejorative remarks.
Take care,
Joel
--
Joel
Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-762-2386
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il
cc: Baistefila@Shamash.Org
Message-ID: <852565FA:005E6E60.00@mail.bestware.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:41:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Minority Opinions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>In sum, I questioned whether one can not adopt a position simply because
a rishon made a statement - if there is a consensus of the religious
leadership against it.. If anyone has a specific source that disagrees with
this assertion - I would appreciate the citations.<<
To answer Daniel Eidensohn, 1) Why do you regard the area of 'hashkafa' as
different than halacha, where although an opinion is not followed as
normative p'sak it is still viewed as credible? Would you suggest that
learning shitas Bais Shammai or Abaya because clearly the majority of
"gedolim" have rejected their position? Is Bais Shami heretical? The
Rambam's position viz. philosophy which you citer brings us to the
Maimonidian controversy of the Middle Ages. I guess you take the side of
those who burned the Rambam's works as heresy - even though in historical
hindsight we know it was this error that motivated R' Yonah to write Sharei
Tshuvah. 2) The Chovos HeLevavos writes citing the pasuk in Parshas
Shoftim "bein dam l'dam, bein din l'din, ubein nega l'nega" etc. that only
in areas of halacha - din, dam, nega, is it possible to pasken what is
right and wrong and not in areas of hashkafa (I heard this from Rav A.
Soloveitchik shlita). 3) Even if we were to entertain your position, how
do we determine the normative hashkafa? Do all the 'gedolim' vote and
whoever loses is a heretic? Does history decide? 3) Aderaba - please
cite a source that would warrant the rejection of the opinion of any Rishon
or acharon as invalid!
Doesn't the gemara in Kiddushin quote that already in the days of Chazal
they could not determine the middle letter of the sefer Torah - anan lo
baki'in b'chaseirot v'yetairot - "we are not experts in missing and extra
letter" (i.e. where a word is spelled maleh and where chaseir). Clearly
the implication is that even in the times of the gemara the text was
corrupted to a certain degree!
I'm willing to assume that entertaining one heretical belief makes one a
heretic. If so, let's cut to the chase- Reb Eidensohn - I would appreciate
a yes/no to the following:
Was the Radak a heretic?
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
From: cbrown@bestware.com
To: yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il
cc: Baistefila@Shamash.Org
Message-ID: <852565FA:0064C5F6.00@mail.bestware.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:27:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Minority Opinions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It was brought to my attention that my prior post might have been too
confrontational. If so, I ask mechila from Daniel Eidensohn. I do not
mean to insinuate that you burn Rambam's (to single out a confrontational
line) nor was any personal attack intended. I merely meant to demonstrate
that when taken to an extreme the labelling of views and books as heresy
has proven historically to have dangerous consequenses. I still think many
of the intellectual points I raise bear attention.
-Chaim B.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID: <354E0D10.72BE@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:46:42 -0400
From: David Riceman
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Heather/Chana Luntz ,
baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: oops!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry about that. I was hoping to avoid the Mrs. vs. Ms. issue (is
that a major problem in the U.K.? I used to think it would be easily
solved by simply replacing the abbreviation with the full term, but my
wife says that "Mistress" is even more insulting - so she violates the
rules and uses "Dr." on formal occasions).
Any suggestions on appropriate formal titles not indicating gender?
Would the answer depend on whether you think there's a halachic
difficulty with women getting semicha?
Instead of Mr. Rabbi how about M. R.?
David
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 20:56:45 +0100
To: David Riceman
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Heather/Chana Luntz
Subject: Re: oops!
MIME-Version: 1.0
In message <354E0D10.72BE@worldnet.att.net>, David Riceman
writes
>Sorry about that. I was hoping to avoid the Mrs. vs. Ms. issue (is
>that a major problem in the U.K.?
No, in the UK it seems to be either Mrs or Miss (but of course you have
to know who is which).
>I used to think it would be easily
>solved by simply replacing the abbreviation with the full term, but my
>wife says that "Mistress" is even more insulting
Quite.
>- so she violates the
>rules and uses "Dr." on formal occasions).
But you have to have one of those (I only have a masters).
> Any suggestions on appropriate formal titles not indicating gender?
Well the Broadway play M Butterfly tried using the french M - I don't
know if that is really good french though.
>Would the answer depend on whether you think there's a halachic
>difficulty with women getting semicha?
the modern halachic world has been faced with precisely this issue -
and if I say to Nechama to you, my guess is that everybody on this list
will know precisely who I am referring to.
> Instead of Mr. Rabbi how about M. R.?
>
Well that seems a bit silly to me - especially as I have no claim to
anything that has anything to do with an R.
Conventional Netiquette is to use first names - I think for exactly this
reason (actually, for an even more complicated reason that, when
communicating across the globe, the chances that you can identify
whether or not the name is a male or female one becomes more remote - at
least on this list, people are likely to recognise the gender of the
first names - but when publishing on Usenet, one always needed to use
gender neutral language when responding to another post unless one was
sure one could identify the gender of the original poster). It does
become odd though when you meet people in "real life" - people I had
been happily referring to by their first names in cyberspace turned out
to be old enough to be my grandfather, and I *couldn't* in real time -
but again, that is the point, you have to know enough about the person
you are addressing to know that they are old enough to be your
grandfather - and, although a number of people on this list know each
other in person, certainly there will be others who know or who are
known only to the extent that they post, which may or may not include
significant biographical details. I understand the concern that first
names are too familiar, but on the other hand, the medium itself is a
distancing one (despite its apparent intimacy) - the fact that first
names in cyberspace do not naturally translate to first names outside of
cyberspace illustrates this point - as does the easy of flaming and
offence taking - it is because the medium is naturally a cold one, and
one does not have all the non verbal cues that make a regular
conversation less likely to erupt, that flaming and offence occurs so
often. I suspect that the use of first names might also act to dampen
this volatility, in that it reminds all of us that there is a real human
being attached to a post.
Just my 2c (actually, pence in this country - which given the exchange
rate at the moment, is probably over 3c)
Chana
>David
heather@luntz.demon.co.uk
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-Id: <199805042216.SAA11237@hayden-7.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Misc
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 18:16:58 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Dear Friends:
It seems that one person thought I was saying something derogatory about
the Rosh Yeshiva Harav Ruderman Z"L. Obviously, that was not the intent,
chas veshalom. I just thought it was very funny that the Brookline Bais
Medrash also didn't have a copy of the Abarbanel. It seems that any time
one makes a joke, it is guaranteed to be misinterpreted and offend
someone. (I have no idea why the reader thought it was derogatory to Rav
Ruderman, if I wanted to read in a negative interpretation, I would have
thought it was more derogatory to modern orthodox. The truth is it was
not intended to be derogatory to anyone, only to be funny.)
Second, I don't know if Rabbi Brown read my post from last nite, but I
would like to recap that in most cases when Rashi, the Ramban or the Ibn
Ezra, (and possibly the Abarbanel in question regarding Dovid and Bas
Sheva) "argue" with or dismiss a chazal, they are saying that it doesn't
conform to the rules of pshat. This is not a value judgment on the
validity or truth of the maimer chazal, since there is no reason or
requirement for a chazal to follow the rules of pshat--only the rules of
drash. There is similarly no reason for meforshei pshat to concur with
any particular midrash. (Note that this does not imply that one can say
pshatim which are obviously k'neged ruach chachomim. One must still use
his sechel, and realize who the avos are.) It is like chess and
checkers, each has separate rules. They are independent. There is no
conflict here. The only conflict arises when one incorrectly assumes
that the ultimate "emes" or "metzius" must be according to the
pshat. This is not restricted to aggadta, it applies equally well to
halacha. The subject matter is irrelevant. My point is only about the
independence of the different types of methodologies which Klal Yisroel
were given to decode the Torah.
As far as titles go, I like the idea of referring to everyone not as
Reb, but as Rev (Reverend). We can than rate everybody, and will have
some Reverends, some Very Reverends, and some Extremely Reverends, and
one Most Reverend (Mr. Rabbi Bechhofer). We may also choose to refer to
him as Monsignor, or Father, or Grand Rabbi. (Again, please don't anyone
get offended, we are high school friends. In those days, he was known as
Robbie.) :)
Finally, the following was received from heather@luntz.demon.co.uk on
Mon, 04 May 1998 20:56 :45 BST:
> in that it reminds all of us that there is a real human
> being attached to a post.
>
This is absolutely dreadful. In the USA we don't permit this.
Barry Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:25:45 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805042325.TAA01899@tweedle.mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Did David Sin? And if so What was his sin?
Rabbi Bechhofer mentions that
>>Rabbi Ruderman zt"l had the Abarbanel removed from the Beis Medrash..
>>because he says explicitly by Dovid and Bassheva that he rejects Chazal and
>>holds Dovid sinned im Eishes Ish
I have posted on this in the past in both Mail Jewish and Torah forum. The issue
is not whether Dovid sinned..the issue is whether we are obligated to ignore
explicit Pesookim because a Gemarah or some Taanaim suggest a different possibility
To make a long story short I cite just one Posook (I am writing from memory
but anyone can look this up with a Konkordance). The verse occurs in Kings and
explicitly says
>>..and he was not like David who always did the proper things before God
>> EXCEPT IN THE MATTER OF URIAH HACHITI
Thus we have in black and white that DOVID did sin and that the source for
saying this is the TENACH itself. I certainly am cognizant of Gemarrahs
to the contrary. I certainly have no objection to ATTEMPTING to interpret
the texts that he didn't sin...but since neither the Gemarrah nor
any Midrash says to the contrary I FEEL OBLIGATED TO SAY HE SINNED AND
REJECT THE GEMARRAH (not because *I* can reject Gemarrahs but rather because
the Gemarrah did not deal with this Posook). Further supportive evidence
that he sinned lies in the severe punishment meeted out to him (including
a civil war).
So I raise the question....NOT did dovid sin?...but rather...CAN we accept
a Gemarrah which blatantly contradicts a posook without our having the
gemarrahs explanation of how that posook should be dealt with?
(In passing there is a beautiful Zohar in I think VaYikrah (again memory)
that claims that Dovid sinned in murdering Uriah (in other words we
should deemphasize the adultery). The learn this (in my opinion) from the
word "MATTER=DVAR" which they interpret as DIBUR (word or order to kill Uriah)
A similar derash on DVAR occurs at the end of SHLACH. (The point is it is
contrary to Biblical style to say "..because of the matter of X" instead of
"..because of X". The only two exceptions I know of are the ones at the
end of shlach and the above one in Kings and they are interpreted there
as a construct state of Dibbur).
Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated...and please...I (and the
rest of the members of this group) know about the gemarrahs attempt to
exonerate DOVID...my question was formulated as CAN we accept such
gemarrahs if they contradict a posook that hasn't been dealt with...and
can CAN we interpret those gemarrahs as recorded ATTEMPTS to defend Dovid
(which we assume must have failed)
Russell Jay Hendel; rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu; PHD ASA
:wq
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
To: yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il
Cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:14:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Minority Opinions
Message-ID: <19980504.191438.3646.0.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
In terms of Daniel Eidensohn's question (Im still not sure what was
decided upon about how to adress people!) about whether the TOrah was
corrupted and then fixed up, it seems to be that this a an explicit
Massechet Soferim that says that is exactly what happened in Perek vav
halachah gimel that there were three sifrei TOrah in the Azarah and the
correct text was decided based upon the majority of two out of three.
This process was apparantley done later in history by the Ramah to create
an accurate sefer Torah. There are many examples of descrencies in the
TOrah text as R' Akiva Eiger points out in Shabbos, the Minchas CHinuch
in the last mitzvah etc.
In terms of R' Moshe statement that we are not bound by Rishonim, I think
if anything it implies the opposite. R' Moshe says that only if one has
definitive proof from Chazal can one reject a Rishon , but other then
that the implication is that the RIshon must be accepted.
SHraga Rothbart
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:36:36 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805042336.TAA01909@tweedle.mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: DANIEL was a full fledged prophet
I haven't yet been convinced by any of the reasons for NEVIIM/KETUBIM (including
my own). I make a small comment on whether Daniel was a prophet.
It says explicitly throughout DANIEL that he saw the VISION (this is the IDENTICAL
word used in Nu 12 to describe prophecy).
If I memory serves me correctly both the words MAREH and MARAH are used in
Daniel. According to Nu only Moses could have a MAREH. Does anyone know of
an explanation? (I suggested that maybe all prophets were capable of both
MAREH and MARAH but Moses was CONTINUALLY capable of MAREH (see the Mincath
Shai on MOSHE MOSHE in Exodus 4)
Russell Jay Hendel; rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu; Phd AS
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:48:12 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199805042348.TAA01919@tweedle.mcs.drexel.edu>
To: baistefila@shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Contradictions to Radack's Thesis of Kri Ktiv
I thank Rabbi Bechoffer for leading me to the Radack's introduction to Neviim
I was a bit shocked by the Radack's statement. One posting noted sources showing
its dangers. Allow me to suggest several ways of refuting it.
METHOD 1:
=========
Radack posits that KRI and KTIV are preservations of different texts in Neviim.
But we have KRI and KTIV in the Torah...would he hold his position there.
If he doesn't and e.g. says that KRI and KTIV denote different nuances why
can't we use a similar thesis on KTUVIM
METHOD 2:
=========
The Radack holds that KRI and KTIV is a vehicle for preserving diverse opinions.
But there are extant today a few "diverse opinons". Some examples are cited below
None of these "diverse opinions" today use KRI/KTIV as a vehicle for noting
the diversity. So why should the KRI/KTIV be used for the particular diversitys
it is preserving.
Some examples of diversity today are
--The controversies of Ben Naftali and Ben Asher (you say...but we pasken
like Ben asher...fine...why not make Ben Naftali a Kri or Ktiv)
--e.g. the two posookim we reread in megillath esther
--the queer custom of reading Zaycher and Zecher (you say but this was late
in Jewish history and done to preserve two readings...fine...why not preserve
them with a kri/ktiv)
METHOD 3:
=========
I hope people take this seriously. There is a rich beautiful NON MEDRASHIC literature
viewing Kri and Ktiv as a subtle exercise in nuances (the same way a TV actor
can say one thing but show differnt grimmaces). This literature sees these
Posookim as pregnant with meaning (I gave one example last time: Potipar couldn
not have possibly believed his wife and hence treated Joseph nicely...). Is the
Radack rejecting all these nuances (Yes? You say? But then he would have to hold
that for example Potifar DID believe his wife...so why didn't he kill Joseph
immediately). If you think about it the rejection of all these nuance interpretations
poses a very serious threat to someone who thinks that they were not intentional..
there are just TOO MANY THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE
Russell Jay Hendel; PHD; ASA;RHendel@Mcs.Drexel.edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:52:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael J Broyde
cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Commerece on the web
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
One writer asked about "hits" on a web page, and selling items through the
web on shabbat? How is this any different that the low tech question of a
person who ownes a vending machine that sells candy who wants to know if
he can allow his machine to "do bussiness" on shabbat with people who
deposit money in it, and purchase candy from the machine (and thus, really
from its owner). This shayla is discussed by a number of achronim,
including Maharshag 2:117, Baer Noshe 6:84, Mishnah Halachot 4:323,
Minchat Yitzchak 3:60, Chelkat Yaakov 2:102, Shaarim Metzuyanim behalacha
80(63). (At least so says my notebook on this topci; no absolute
promises!)
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that based on Rabbi Akiva Aiger's
Principle (I think 259, but maybe I am wrong) that maase shabbat requires
an action by the Jew who is selling in order to be assur for the seller,
such passive sales are mutar al pe din, but of course, check with a
responsible Orthodox Rabbi.
Michael J. Broyde
Emory University School of Law
Atlanta, GA 30322
Voice: 404 727-7546; Fax 404 727-3374
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23
Message-Id: <199805050254.WAA15456@cathedral-seven.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Dovid and Bas Sheva
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 22:54:47 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Due to a shortage of time, will to Dr. just say a few brief words on Dovid and
Bas Sheva in response to Dr. Hendel's points.
1) It is simply impossible to say that a gemara was not aware of a
posuk. Even forgetting about the propriety of the statement, just by
learning gemara for a few minutes, one sees the vast expertise chazal
had with not only the ability to recall every posuk (without computers),
but the ability to recall every mishnah. They are telling us that that
posuk is not to be taken at face value (King James translation), rather
it means that there was an appearance of impropriety not befitting a
person of Dovid's caliber. (Recall that one amora said that if he so
much as bought an item on credit, that would be a chilul hashem, since
it might arouse the slightest suspicion in the observer that a great
Rabbi took an object without paying for it.)
2) We are required to believe in Torah Sheb'al Peh as much as Torah
Shebechsav. In Perek Chelek: Vaafilu amar kol hatorah min shamayim chutz
midikduk zeh, mikal vachomer zeh, migezeirah shavah zu zehu ki dvar
hashem bazah.
3) There is a medrash that says that at the time of moshiach there will
be a problem finding somebody to bentsh at the big seudah. Avraham will
say he isn't worthy because he had a son Yishmael. Yitzchak will say he
had an Esav. Yaakov will say he married two sisters while they were both
living (something which was permitted for him, as the prohibition hadn't
been issued yet). So guess who finally agrees to bentsh--Dovid
Hamelech! According to you, what any of the others had done pales by
comparison. (I realize you may want to reject this medrash, as well),
but it shows a hashkafa towards what type of person Dovid was.
There is a lot more to say on this, I'm sure some of the others will
pick up on it.
Barry Jacobson
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_23--
----__ListProc__NextPart__894340867447170433--
From baistefila@shamash.org Wed May 6 00:01:08 1998
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 00:01:05 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 24
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__894427265447213632"
----__ListProc__NextPart__894427265447213632
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 24
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Dovid and Bassheva
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
2) Forwarded Message from Akiva Miller on Counting Letters
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Re: Commerce on the web
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
4) Dovis and Batsheva
by Ben Waxman
5) Re: Abarbanel on Dovid and Batsheva
by Shragai BOTWINICK
6) Re: Dovid and Bassheva
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
7) Re: Dovid and Bassheva
by Mordechai Torczyner
8) Re: BAISTEFILA digest 23
by David Riceman
9) Re:Pshat - & counting letters, David & Bat Sheva
by cbrown@bestware.com
10) Simple reading of the text
by "Barry D. Jacobson"
11) Re: Dovid and Bassheva
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
12) Bava Basra 14b
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
13) Abarbanel
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
14) Hachra'a on Aggadita
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
15) David did *what*???
by Ken Miller
16) RE: Commerce on the web
by The Jewish Music Webmaster
17) [Fwd: Simple reading of the text]
by Aaron Sheffey
18) Re: Dovid and Bassheva
by Mordechai Torczyner
19) unsubscribe baistefila
by
20) Re: Minority Opinions
by Daniel Eidensohn
21) Re: Minority Opinions
by Daniel Eidensohn
22) RE: Commerce on the web
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
23) Gadol Mei'Rabbon Shemo: Titles
by Michael Frankel
24) Re: Simple reading of the text
by Daniel Eidensohn
25) Re: Minority Opinions
by cbrown@bestware.com
26) The Tzlach in Arvei Pesachim
by Mordechai Torczyner
27) Accuracy of Nevi'im, Torah too.
by Michael Frankel
28) Cantillation also "etched in stone?"
by Michael Frankel
29) For those discombobulated over Volume
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
30) (no subject)
by sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
31) Darchei Noam
by Saul Weinreb
32) Re: Did David Sin? And if so What was his sin?
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
33) textual accuracy and the codes
by Saul Weinreb
----__ListProc__NextPart__894427265447213632
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_24"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 23:03:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Dovid and Bassheva
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I would like to address both Russell's and Barry's postings on the issue,
briefly.
1. There is precedent to say that Chazal sometimes did not know pesukim. I
forget where the sugya is where this appears, but it is a case and Tosafos
there comments that we see that Chazal were not completely, always,
beki'im in Tanach.
2. There is, according to many Rishonim, no definite chiyuv to accept
Chazal in Agadda and Derush. The Ramban in the Viku'ach makes this point,
and R' Chavel there brings others who held that way as well (including,
clearly, the Radak and Ralbag). Torah she'be'al Peh is not necessarily
co-extensive with Shas.
Let me make it clear that as a "talmid" of Reb Tzadok and Rav Dessler I
personally am most uncomfortable with this perspective, but it is a real
one and a legitimate one.
3. That having been said, I find it higly untenable that Chazal would have
made a decisive comment on a grave issue in Tanach in blatant disregard of
the pesukim bearing on the issue! When Chazal say Dovid did not sin the
are not excusing the sin of having Uriah killed, they are not even
excusing the episode with Bassheva, they are saying, on a technicality,
that Dovid was off the hook on "Eishes Ish" - no more, no less. This is
all explicit in the Malbim there.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 23:10:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Forwarded Message from Akiva Miller on Counting Letters
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Chaim Brown wrote: <<< Doesn't the gemara in Kiddushin quote that already
in the days of Chazal they could not determine the middle letter of the
sefer Torah - anan lo baki'in b'chaseirot v'yetairot - "we are not
experts in missing and extra letter" (i.e. where a word is spelled maleh
and where chaseir). Clearly the implication is that even in the times of
the gemara the text was corrupted to a certain degree! >>>
That is certainly one way to understand that quote, but I have heard
another explanation, that although the text is correct, we do not know
how to count the letters. In other words, our text is perfect and NOT
corrupted, and the vav of 'gichon' is indeed the middle letter, but only
if we count all the missing letters. Or maybe it's only if we skip all
the extra letters. Someone suggested to me that the blanks between the
words count as letters. Or maybe it's only if we count the "ches"s as two
zayins. Or maybe... who knows?
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 23:14:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Michael J Broyde
cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: Commerce on the web
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Are we sure a shtar mechira is not required for a vending machine?
I looked up the She'arim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha quoted by your notebook and
he is machmir on several counts, and certainly where a Shem Yisroel (such
as "Jewish Music") is indicated on the machine in question. The
payment issue is also a problem, he says, unless somehow the "chalos" of
the transaction can be delayed until Motzo'ei Shabbos. He mentions there
several other factors as well.
I don't think this is the way to go in being mattir websites.
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Michael J Broyde wrote:
> One writer asked about "hits" on a web page, and selling items through the
> web on shabbat? How is this any different that the low tech question of a
> person who ownes a vending machine that sells candy who wants to know if
> he can allow his machine to "do bussiness" on shabbat with people who
> deposit money in it, and purchase candy from the machine (and thus, really
> from its owner). This shayla is discussed by a number of achronim,
> including Maharshag 2:117, Baer Noshe 6:84, Mishnah Halachot 4:323,
> Minchat Yitzchak 3:60, Chelkat Yaakov 2:102, Shaarim Metzuyanim behalacha
> 80(63). (At least so says my notebook on this topci; no absolute
> promises!)
>
> My opinion, for what it is worth, is that based on Rabbi Akiva Aiger's
> Principle (I think 259, but maybe I am wrong) that maase shabbat requires
> an action by the Jew who is selling in order to be assur for the seller,
> such passive sales are mutar al pe din, but of course, check with a
> responsible Orthodox Rabbi.
>
> Michael J. Broyde
> Emory University School of Law
> Atlanta, GA 30322
> Voice: 404 727-7546; Fax 404 727-3374
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980505092141.007e0380@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:21:41 +0300
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Ben Waxman
Subject: Dovis and Batsheva
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When talking on this subject everyone focuses on a single Gemara whether or
not Dovid sinned. However, besides the posukim, and besides the fact that
a single amora said that Dovid did not sin, there is an explicit gemara
that he did sin.
The gemara in Ketubot 7 ( I forget the amood) gives as an answer to a
problem that Dovid raped Batsheva. That is the word the gemara uses - rape.
________________________________
Ben Waxman
Technical Writer, Foxcom Ltd.
Telephone: 972 2 589 9822
Fax: 972 2 589 9898
Have you seen Foxcom's Website?
http://www.foxcom.com
*******************************
Visit us at NAB, Booth 4046
*******************************
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-ID: <354EBEC3.6DCE481@sapiens.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:24:52 +0300
From: Shragai BOTWINICK
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: Abarbanel on Dovid and Batsheva
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If one looks at the the Abarbanel inside (yes Extremely Reverend Barry,
I admit that I was able to find a copy of the sefer in Yerushalyim, in
my living room), the Abarbanel says that the Gemara in Shabbat 56a
contains 2 opinions. Rav in the Gemara says that Rebbi being a
descendant of Dovid is 'mehaphek bezcute' of Dovid. The Abarbanel
explains that Rav is arguing with Rebbi and Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni amar
Rav Yonatan who claim that Batsheva was not married. Rav holds that
that is a drash and not the emet, and in reality she was a married lady.
In addition, as R. Ben Waxman correctly pointed out the Gemara in
Ketuvot 9a gives 2 explanations why Batsheva was not forbidden to Dovid.
1. That it was an 'onus' and therefore she is not forbidden to the
'baal' or the 'boel'. [I prefer to not use the word rape with Dovid
Hamelech - in addition based on a Gemara in Sanhedrin (if I recall
correctly) the Gemara says that Batsheva was a Ketana, so the pshat may
be due to the principle of 'petui ketana onus hu'.]
2. That Batsheva was not married at the time.
It is therefore clear that Chazal has 2 opinions concerning how to view
this event. [For those who will claim that the second reason is
rejecting the first reason: a) it doesn't appear that way - though it
could be said. b) the Shita Mekubeset quotes the Ritvah who says that
R. Eliezer himself would hold of the first answer and not the second
answer.
Therefore, the Abarbanel, at least in this case, is not going against
Chazal, rather he is simply choosing the opinion in Chazal that best
fits into the pshat.
All the above, is not coming to chas veshalom argue on the approach of
Rav Ruderman Ztl. Rather, I am coming to defend the Abarbanel and many
fine Yeshivot and Talmedai Chachamim who do posses the sefer. In
addition, form this approach to Dovid we can learn at least 2 important
things: a) how careful everyone has to be with the yetzer harah. b) the
tremendous power of teshuva and the tzidkut of Dovid Hamelech who
teshuva was totally accepted by Hashem.
Shraga Botwinick
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 08:06:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Dovid and Bassheva
Message-ID: <19980505.080936.4462.1.sroth4@juno.com>
From: sroth4@juno.com (Paul Rothbart)
Just to provide R' Bechhofer's Tosefos it is Baba Basra 113a the top
Tosefos. Here, however I don't think the idea is relevant. It seems very
strange to say that Chazal were discussing a topic in Tanach without
having read through the inyan and being familiar with it (certainly about
the major issue whether Dovid Hamelech sinned)
Shraga Rothbart
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
cc: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Dovid and Bassheva
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 3. That having been said, I find it higly untenable that Chazal would have
> made a decisive comment on a grave issue in Tanach in blatant disregard of
> the pesukim bearing on the issue! When Chazal say Dovid did not sin the
> are not excusing the sin of having Uriah killed, they are not even
> excusing the episode with Bassheva, they are saying, on a technicality,
> that Dovid was off the hook on "Eishes Ish" - no more, no less. This is
> all explicit in the Malbim there.
I have been waiting for someone to cite Avodah Zarah 4b-5a, which states
that "(paraphrase) Dovid was not fit for such a deed; rather, he did it
(the Gemara uses the word _Cheit_, too!) to teach the power of Teshuvah
for individuals."
Further, we have the Gemara in Yuma 22b, which states Dovid was Nichshal,
although it doesn't use the term, "Cheit."
Further, don't we have a Gemara (can't remember where this is) about Dovid
asking for a test from HaShem, and receiving his test here and failing it?
I am not a BAr Hachi to have an opinion in these matters, but it seems
that these three sugyos cannot be overlooked.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-ID: <354F163A.2BBA@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:38:04 -0400
From: David Riceman
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group ,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: BAISTEFILA digest 23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In re. the gemara in Bava Bathra:
I forget the exact lashon, but it is on the order of "seder neviim . .
. , seder kethuvim . . . ", with lists of what we traditionally view as
neviim and kethuvim. Rabbi B needs to read that in a less than obvious
way. It couldn't just be "the majority of the contents of this book are
to be classified as . . ." because melachim and divrei hayamim should
have the same classification and Eichah (if we follow Rashi) should be
classified as neviim.
It is quite true that the gemara does not motivate its classification,
and that the Abarbanel's classification seems arbitrary (was sefer
Yehoshua really meant to be oral rather than written?), but Rabbi B.'s
classification should have been expressed in a totally different way.
So, as I said before, we need a convincing reading of the gemara. Why
does the gemara classify whole books, and why does it classify them as
it does?
David Riceman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
From: cbrown@bestware.com
cc: Sbechhof@Casbah.Acns.Nwu.Edu,
Baistefila@Shamash.Org
Message-ID: <852565FB:004928B1.00@mail.bestware.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:38:45 -0400
Subject: Re:Pshat - & counting letters, David & Bat Sheva
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
A general comment: in the efforts to deal with the Radak's thesis, the
gemara of ein anu biki'im b'chaseirot v'yetairot, the sin of Bat Sheva &
David, the Tos. that states that Chazal were not aware of pesukim various
people have offered many interpretations which all involve a common theme:
ignoring the simple reading of the text . What is the problem of taking a
Radak or a Tos. or the gemara in Kiddushin at face value? It is only if
you approach these texts with preconceived notions about concepts of the
canonization of text, mesorah, hashkafa etc. that you have to offer
interpretations. However, my shitah is very simple - let the text speak
for itself. I notice people have been invoking the deracheha darkei noam
bylaw recently so let me state I do not mean this in an offensive way to
anyone, just as a general methodological consideration.
The Minchat Chinuch deduces from the gemara in Kiddushin which states that
Chazal were unsure of how to count the letters in a sefer Torah that if you
spell a word written maleh as chaser or vica versa it does not pasul the
sefer Torah. Clearly Minchat Chinuch did not read the gemara like Akiva
Miller's suggestion which is that the text was totally accurate and Chazal
were unsure about how to count. While you are certainly entitled to
disagree with the Minchat Chinuch, his approach follows the simple reading
of the gemara more closely.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-Id: <199805051400.KAA12774@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Simple reading of the text
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:00:16 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Very short of time now. Rabbi Brown, do you also recommend the simple
reading of the text which says ayin tachas ayin? Should we poke people's
eyes out if they accidentally do it to another? Clearly, we must weigh
all things in the balance before deciding whether to go with an
interpretation which is far from the simple meaning, but better in other
ways (including not contradicting other psukim), or to make consistency
with the simple meaning the overriding consideration at the expense of a
lot of other problems.
More to come later.
Barry
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:03:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: Dovid and Bassheva
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
See the Maharal there in the Chiddushei Agados who makes it clear that the
Gemara in A.Z. in no way is intended to diminish Dovid's personal
culpability for whatever the sin consisted of.
The Gemara about the Test is in Sanhedrin, somewhere in the 90's, although
off hand I don't remember exactly where.
YGB
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
> I have been waiting for someone to cite Avodah Zarah 4b-5a, which states
> that "(paraphrase) Dovid was not fit for such a deed; rather, he did it
> (the Gemara uses the word _Cheit_, too!) to teach the power of Teshuvah
> for individuals."
> Further, we have the Gemara in Yuma 22b, which states Dovid was Nichshal,
> although it doesn't use the term, "Cheit."
> Further, don't we have a Gemara (can't remember where this is) about Dovid
> asking for a test from HaShem, and receiving his test here and failing it?
>
> I am not a BAr Hachi to have an opinion in these matters, but it seems
> that these three sugyos cannot be overlooked.
> Mordechai
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:06:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Bava Basra 14b
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am still bewildered. The Gemara merely lists, not explains, and I
believe my explanation is plausible. I have already been metaretz D.H. as
a repetition, similar to the Gemara relating nevu'os not making the Gemara
therefore a part of Kisvei HaKodesh. Eicha, perforce, true, is not a
prophecy, and I do not know what to do with Rashi.
YGB
On Tue, 5 May 1998, David Riceman wrote:
> In re. the gemara in Bava Bathra:
> I forget the exact lashon, but it is on the order of "seder neviim . .
> . , seder kethuvim . . . ", with lists of what we traditionally view as
> neviim and kethuvim. Rabbi B needs to read that in a less than obvious
> way. It couldn't just be "the majority of the contents of this book are
> to be classified as . . ." because melachim and divrei hayamim should
> have the same classification and Eichah (if we follow Rashi) should be
> classified as neviim.
> It is quite true that the gemara does not motivate its classification,
> and that the Abarbanel's classification seems arbitrary (was sefer
> Yehoshua really meant to be oral rather than written?), but Rabbi B.'s
> classification should have been expressed in a totally different way.
> So, as I said before, we need a convincing reading of the gemara. Why
> does the gemara classify whole books, and why does it classify them as
> it does?
>
> David Riceman
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:22:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Abarbanel
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am sure that it was this comment in the Abrabanel that was found
controversial. After bring R. Yehuda HaNassi's comment that Dovid did not
sin (and the other opinions on the topic) the Abarbanel says:
"And thes comments by Chazal are pathways of Derash, and I need not
respond to them. It is sufficient that which they said 'Rebbe came from
Dovid ans turned the matter over for his [Dovid's] merit.' For this was
for then [Chazal] a pathway of Derash, and Rebbe turned the matter over
because of his kinship and his origin in the House of Dovid, and not
according to truth."
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-Id: <199805051450.KAA18392@dvqa1.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: Hachra'a on Aggadita
To: baistefila@shamash.org (Highlevel Torah topics discussion group)
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Our host, R' YGB, writes:
: The principle Reb Shaul quoted from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, that there is no
: decisive hachra'a (after Talmudic times, I assume) in matters of Agadata
I'm not sure why the assumption. According to the Rav Tzadok you showed me,
"eilu va'eilu" means that both positions are, k'lapai shimaya, emes. The
problem is that while bimachshava both possibilities can be entertained,
bipo'el, only one can actually be followed.
In the subject of aggadita, though, there is no po'el. Therefore, why would
there be a process to reduce the plurality of divrei Elokim to a single
position?
I understood Rav Aryei Kaplan zt"l (although we're going back 19 years to my
early NCSY days, I was just bar mitzvah, and may well have misunderstood him
or be misremembering), he actually held that any hashkafah that lead to a
halachic lifestyle was equally correct.
To be sure, there is overlap between halachah and aggadita. There are beliefs
(e.g. shutfus) which are assur lihalachah under the first two dibros. Rabbi
Kaplan understood (again, with the same disclaimer) Klal Yisrael's acceptance
of the Rambam's list was on a halachic level -- that we paskened that these
beliefs are required lihalachah.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5800 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 5-May-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-ID: <4CAE1408EC88D1118CC00060971BEF4805A1AC@smtp.datacorinc.com>
From: Ken Miller
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: David did *what*???
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:29:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Dr. Hendel wrote <<< The verse occurs in Kings and explicitly says "...
and he was not like David who always did the proper things before God
EXCEPT IN THE MATTER OF URIAH HACHITI" Thus we have in black and white
that DOVID did sin and that the source for saying this is the TENACH
itself. >>>
I respectfully disagree. Words cannot be taken at face value. They mean
different things in different contexts. The quote cited above is not as
explicit as it might have been.
Even if I would find a source which says "David sinned" or "David did
not sin", that is not as meaningful as I wish it would be. We need to
know what the writer meant by the word "sin".
"David sinned" could mean that he violated the specific prohibition
against relations with an eishes ish. Or it could mean that he violated
a less obvious (but unspecified) prohibition. Or it could mean that he
did something which he *shouldn't* have done, even though it was not
technically forbidden.
"David did not sin" might mean that he did absolutely nothing wrong. Or
it might mean that he did nothing which was technically forbidden,
although he did do something which he ought not to have done.
I suggest that we ignore ALL ambiguous sources, whether in the
commentaries, or whether they be supposedly explicit p'sukim. Let's look
only at the sources who explain what they mean. Are there any who
explicitly say that David violated the prohibition of eishes ish and was
subject to the death penalty for it? Are there any who say that he did
absolutely nothing that was wrong in any way? Is it possible that
everyone agrees that what he did was wrong but not forbidden?
Let me echo Rabbi Bechhofer's comment that <<< When Chazal say Dovid did
not sin they are not excusing the sin of having Uriah killed, they are
not even excusing the episode with Bassheva, they are saying, on a
technicality, that Dovid was off the hook on "Eishes Ish" - no more, no
less. This is all explicit in the Malbim there. >>>
Furthermore, many seem to have alleged that the Abarbanel does explictly
say that David was indeed guilty of Eishes Ish, but Shragai Botwinick
seems to read it differently than others. I'd appreciate it if Mr.
Botwinick could point out on which posuk this famous Abarbanel appears,
so I could see it myself.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-ID: <01BD781A.AAB1BE20.webmaster@jewishmusic.com>
From: The Jewish Music Webmaster
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: RE: Commerce on the web
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:40:55 -0500
If the owner of the site does not process the transactions until after
shabbos - This is the norm, unless the site is using cybercash where the
credit card is debited immediately. If would be interesting to know when
the chalos Kinyan is on a cybercash transaction since the mekabel kinyan is
a machine. If someone leaves a box of tapes for sale in shul with a
collection box nearby when you put the money in the box the owner is being
makneh it to you by what mechanism. Is the same scenario Assur on Shabbos -
Yes it is Similiar to a vending machine but not mechanized. One can make a
case of distinction if the total transaction is mechanised ie. You pay via
cybercash and the product is delivered automatically via electronic media
(i.e. software purchases on line - in my case buying electronic forms of
sheetmusic for printout on the client computer, or shortly the ability to
buy cd quality downloadable files for creating customized cds) these
complete transactions occur in a totally automated way without human
intervention. In reality most vendor of hardgoods have a scenario where the
transaction can not be consummated on line since it is not clear that all
the items or inventory is in stock. In these scenarios and according to ftc
regulations the transaction can only be charged at the point that the
products are ready to ship which would be after Shabbos. Therefore it is
hard to say that the transaction is complete. On the other hand does the
halacha require a completed transaction in order to be "over" the Issur?
Is Jewish Music considered A Problem of Shem Yisroel? I had a situation
where I had 120,000 order forms printed on Shabbos, at the convenience of
the non Jewish printer, which had Jewish Music all over it and the local
Posek said it was not an issue....
>I looked up the She'arim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha quoted by your notebook >and
>he is machmir on several counts, and certainly where a Shem Yisroel (such
>as "Jewish Music") is indicated on the machine in question. The
>payment issue is also a problem, he says, unless somehow the "chalos" of
>the transaction can be delayed until Motzo'ei Shabbos. He mentions there
>several other factors as well.
I don't think this is the way to go in being mattir websites.
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Michael J Broyde wrote:
> One writer asked about "hits" on a web page, and selling items through
the
> web on shabbat? How is this any different that the low tech question of
a
> person who ownes a vending machine that sells candy who wants to know if
> he can allow his machine to "do bussiness" on shabbat with people who
> deposit money in it, and purchase candy from the machine (and thus,
really
> from its owner). This shayla is discussed by a number of achronim,
> including Maharshag 2:117, Baer Noshe 6:84, Mishnah Halachot 4:323,
> Minchat Yitzchak 3:60, Chelkat Yaakov 2:102, Shaarim Metzuyanim behalacha
> 80(63). (At least so says my notebook on this topci; no absolute
> promises!)
>
> My opinion, for what it is worth, is that based on Rabbi Akiva Aiger's
> Principle (I think 259, but maybe I am wrong) that maase shabbat requires
> an action by the Jew who is selling in order to be assur for the seller,
> such passive sales are mutar al pe din, but of course, check with a
> responsible Orthodox Rabbi.
>
> Michael J. Broyde
> Emory University School of Law
> Atlanta, GA 30322
> Voice: 404 727-7546; Fax 404 727-3374
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Message-ID: <354F3B4B.A8B85E15@smgusa.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 11:16:11 -0500
From: Aaron Sheffey
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
Subject: [Fwd: Simple reading of the text]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------D653533B74518CD276CD2235"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D653533B74518CD276CD2235
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------56EA2889976CCEEB24CA523C"
--------------56EA2889976CCEEB24CA523C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Going with straight textual interpretation flies in the face of the
Gemarah in Bava Metzia (sixth or seventh perek?...) which states that
learning Gemarah is the highest form of learning. Why? Because then
you know what the posuk is actually saying. Straight textual
interpretation is probably best left to
non-Tanakh/Mishnah/Gemarah/Midrash literature, where its more of a
WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) format. Also, isn't it the
Maharal whom notes that anyone whom reads an Aggadah at face value is
misreading the text?
--------------56EA2889976CCEEB24CA523C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Going with straight textual interpretation flies in the face of the Gemarah
in Bava Metzia (sixth or seventh perek?...) which states that learning
Gemarah is the highest form of learning. Why? Because then
you know what the posuk is actually saying. Straight textual
interpretation is probably best left to non-Tanakh/Mishnah/Gemarah/Midrash
literature, where its more of a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
format. Also, isn't it the Maharal whom notes that anyone whom reads
an Aggadah at face value is misreading the text?
--------------56EA2889976CCEEB24CA523C--
--------------D653533B74518CD276CD2235
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path:
Received: from shamash.org ([207.240.86.25]) by imogen.smgusa.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with SMTP id 119
for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:21:48 -0500
Received: (qmail 18857 invoked from network); 5 May 1998 14:09:34 -0000
Received: from shamash.org (207.240.86.25)
by shamash.org with SMTP; 5 May 1998 14:09:34 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 16982 invoked from network); 5 May 1998 13:59:37 -0000
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (HELO MIT.EDU) (18.69.0.28)
by shamash.org with SMTP; 5 May 1998 13:59:37 -0000
Received: from TEN-THOUSAND-DOLLAR-BILL.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
id AA04658; Tue, 5 May 98 10:00:34 EDT
Received: by ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU (8.8.7/4.7) id KAA12774; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199805051400.KAA12774@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: bdj@MIT.EDU
Subject: Simple reading of the text
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:00:16 EDT
From: "Barry D. Jacobson"
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.05 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Very short of time now. Rabbi Brown, do you also recommend the simple
reading of the text which says ayin tachas ayin? Should we poke people's
eyes out if they accidentally do it to another? Clearly, we must weigh
all things in the balance before deciding whether to go with an
interpretation which is far from the simple meaning, but better in other
ways (including not contradicting other psukim), or to make consistency
with the simple meaning the overriding consideration at the expense of a
lot of other problems.
More to come later.
Barry
--------------D653533B74518CD276CD2235
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Aaron Sheffey
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Aaron Sheffey
n: Sheffey;Aaron
org: SMG Marketing Group Inc.
adr: 875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100;;;Chicago;IL;60611;USA
email;internet: asheffey@smgusa.com
title: Statistical Data Analyst
tel;work: 312-255-4148
tel;fax: 312-255-4303
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------D653533B74518CD276CD2235--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_24
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 12:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
cc: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group