BeisTefila Email List
June 1998
BAISTEFILA Digest 106
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Theological Conundrum!
by palix@juno.com (Moshe Pollack)
2) Re: FW: Theological Conundrum!
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
3) Re: Rambam's 13 Principles -- M. Shapiro article
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
4) Re: Fw: JO Article
by Arnie Kuzmack
5) Succinct quote from Dr. Isaac Breuer
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
6) The Weaker Sex?
by Harry Maryles
7) Theological conundrum, shelo asdani isha
by cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
8) Re: Theological conundrum, shelo asdani isha
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
9) a brief response to Russell
by "Moshe J. Bernstein"
10) Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
11) Re: BAISTEFILA digest 105, Meir Shinnar-Yosef Bechofer exchange on the Kuzari
by "Lawrence M. Reisman"
12) FW: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
by "Clark, Eli"
13) Re: Fw: Conservative prayer
by "Clark, Eli"
14) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Clark, Eli"
15) Re: Rambam's 13 Principles
by "Clark, Eli"
16) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
17) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
18) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
----__ListProc__NextPart__899319398449659699
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_106"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:57:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID: <19980630.230450.9302.3.palix@juno.com>
From: palix@juno.com (Moshe Pollack)
>I confess I never understood that midrash. After all, what kind of
>nevu'ah was it? Was there a message? Chazal divide nevua'h into
>two
>categories -- nevuah that is le-dorot and therefore written down --
>and
>nevuah which is not le-dorot and therefore is not written down. The
>nevuah of Yehezkel was written down. The nevuah at yam suf wasn't.
>So
>in what way was it superior? Moreover, we normally think of nevuah as
>a
>communication, yet we do not know what was communicated there.
I have been under the impressionthat the uz yashir is directly related to
this nevuah of klall yisroel, is that not a communication??
_____________________________________________________________________
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_106
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:17:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: FW: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have a sensation akin to something like "you're moving the finish
line further back." I cite Medrash that is essentially one of the most
mainstream exegetical (not a "story" Misrash) Midrash - one that iss borne
out by the pesukim themselves, i.e., "Zeh Keli v'Anveihu" - and you
dismiss it! So, mixing metaphors, where are the goal posts?
But, I comment below:
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
> I confess I never understood that midrash. After all, what kind of
> nevu'ah was it? Was there a message? Chazal divide nevua'h into two
> categories -- nevuah that is le-dorot and therefore written down -- and
> nevuah which is not le-dorot and therefore is not written down. The
> nevuah of Yehezkel was written down. The nevuah at yam suf wasn't. So
You are defining nevu'ah as a message. That is not necessarily the case.
As the Ramchal in Derech Hashem 3:3:4 puts it (my translation):
Its [prophecy's] definition is that a person shall attain and connect to
the Creator may His name be blessed, and achieve dveykus in Him in the
literal sense of clinging, in a manner that he can sense that clinging in
Him - that is His honor, may His name be blessed, in the way that we shall
explain, and the matter will be clear and senssed by him without any doubt
at all - in the ssame way that one has no doubt in that which his physical
senses sense,
The primary compontent of prophecy is - the attainment of that dveykus and
connection thereto, while one is yet alive, which is certainly great
perfection; however *this will occasionally be accompanied by* knowledge
an insight...
> in what way was it superior? Moreover, we normally think of nevuah as a
> communication, yet we do not know what was communicated there.
> Moreover, looking at Rambam's description of what is necessary to be a
> navi, I find it inconceivable that all of bnei Yisarel, including the
> shifhot, could have met his criteria. All of which leads me to assume
> that what happened at yam suf was not nevuah in the conventional sense.
> Indeed, the entire midrash sounds like a guzma. In any case, I would be
> leery of building a weighty theological argument upon its thin frame.
>
I cannot understand how they could *not* have experienced nevu'a yet said
Zeh Keli etc., and, even moreso, how the result of "va'ayaminu ba'Hashem"
would have occured otherwise.
As to their worthiness, it cannot be that the Rambam, despite the Yad
Yesodei HaTorah 7 and Moreh 2:32ff. holds that unworthy people do not
receive *prophecies* - Scripture is rife with such epissodes, including
Mano'ach and the Malach, the Navi Ha'Zaken in Bet El, and the prophets of
Ach'av - who, indeed more than Bil'am - rather, to the best of my
understnding, he meanss they cannot become *prophets*.
> I am unaware of any statement of Chazal which makes clear that the
> noncorpreality of the Ribbono shel olam is an ikkar emunah, nor,
> apparently, was the Raavad aware of any. (Of course, I don't have
C'mon, it is explicit in the passuk - the literl meaning ofthe vers that
contains "v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem!"
> Finally, not only are the actual 13 ikkarim not clearly established by
> Chazal, but the idea of defining a list of ikkarim is not clearly drawn
> from Chazal either. What do you make of R. Yosef Albo, who has only
Chazal did not have an inclination toward any codification - the Rambam
did.
> three ikkarim? And what about all the important things left off the
> list? For example, Chazal say that a mechallel Shabbat is a kofer. But
> the Rambam doesn't. Curious, no?
He most definitely does - the last halacha in Hilchos Shabbos.
Kol tuv,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:22:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Rambam's 13 Principles -- M. Shapiro article
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
> >But, whether that was the author's intent or whether he may be blamed begs
> >the question of ratzon Hashem - what would be a more accurate fulfillment
> >of His will - its publication, or non-publication?
>
> I try to not to spend too much time reading the mind of the Ribbono shel
> olam.
>
How can one not?
How else does one determine how to lead one's life?
>
> But my point is a more general one. The simplicity of the ikkarim is a
> double-edged sword. They are easy to memorize, but hard to analyze. We
> all agree that the Torah does not change. But what is included in the
> concept of "Torah"? Reform always cite prozbol as a precedent (!) for
> their abandonment of Halakha. I don't take that seriously. But we
> would agree that that takanah, as well as those of R. Gershom, are not
> considered "changes" in Torah. Does that mean any takanah would be
> legitimate? Presumably not. Chasidism didn't exist 300 years ago. Yet
This is a fine thread of inquiry - but I find it very distinct from the
thread we are pursuing - this returns, indeed, to the evolution of
halacha/practice. Even theology may evolve, although within far more rigid
parameters. The Rambam's Ikkarim are, to my mind, a successful attempt to
distill that which does not change.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980630234052.0087b100@cpcug.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:40:52 -0400
To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Arnie Kuzmack
Subject: Re: Fw: JO Article
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> What siddur are you referring to? That phraseology is not within the
>> standard Conservative "Silverman" siddur. I don't dispute, however, that
>> this phraseology has been added ad hoc by some Conservative synagogues. .
>
>
>If I had to guess, it was the Siddur put out by the conservatives probbaly
>at least a decade ago, Sim Shalom. It has lots of egalitarian stuff, like
>a Reshus le-Kallas ha-Torah and th elike, and reflects the new wave of the
>Conservative movement.
>If its not the standard Siddur by now, I would guess its gettign there.
Sim Shalom is indeed getting to be the standard Conservative siddur.
However, it does *not* have the "elokei imoteinu" language referred to.
The only changes to the amidah that I noticed was "shalom rav al yisrael
amkha v'al kol yoshvei tevel" and an "al hanisim" for Israel's Independence
Day.
It is true that some Conservative congregations have recently introduced
changes to include the imahot as well as the avot in the amidah. Others
reject this. They have their left and right wings as well.
I am not aware of any that have only the imahot.
Kol tuv,
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:36:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Succinct quote from Dr. Isaac Breuer
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>From one of my heroes:
Moriah pp. 62-63 (my translation):
And immediately, with the Torah, each abd every Jew in each and every
generation recieves his Jewish task. Between Hashem, baruch hu, Creator of
the World, King of Nations, Giver of the Torah, and the individual, there
stands the Torah Nation. Not each and every individual, nor each and every
generation, leaves Egypt in body and hears with its bodily ear the voice
of G-d b"h at Mt. Sinai, hewing flames of fire. "Remember, do not
forget!": This is the primary worry that fills the heart of Moshe Rabbeinu
a"h in his orations of his last oratories before the children of those who
left Egypt. And the book of "HaDevarim" is a tract of mussar to the Torah
Nation, with the "heh of awareness." It is impossible to deny or
contradict the foundations of Judaism, for they are not questions of logic
or extrapolation, but historical realities. One cannot deny or contradict
history. History is a matter of - memory. To forget history: this is
possible. And this is the danger. "Remember, do not forget!"
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID: <359A0907.4361@neiu.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 06:01:43 -0400
From: Harry Maryles
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: YGBList
CC: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: The Weaker Sex?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Russell Hendel wrote:
>
> Harry Maryless' original question about SHELO ASANI ISHAH was never
> really addressed. Instead we got into a thread about SHELO ASANI GOY.
>
> I would like to offer a simple explanation based on parallel blessings
> right there in the siddur.
>
> *We thank God for not being blind but for having sight! Now no one
> thinks we are making fun of the blind. We are simply acknowledging
> our better physical status (and presumably the need to help those
> less fortunate than ourselves).
>
> *We thank God for not being naked but having clothes. Now no one is
> screaming that Rabbis make fun of naked people. We are simply
> acknowledging our better status and perhaps encouraging helping the
> less fortunate.
>
> So to with SHELO ASANI ISHAH. We are thanking God for not being woman
> (who are physiologically more vulnerable than men) and for being a man.
> Presumably we are encouraging helping the less fortunate (ie woman).
This is not a satisfying answer. You can't compare being a woman to
being blind! I can't believe you are serious when you say that men are
thanking G-d for being physiologically superior to women, who are more
"vulnerable". I think many women would disagree with that. Vulnerability
is a sociological phenomenon and in some cultures it is the women who do
the hunting, etc. and men are the "domestic" ones. Also, Women are the
ones who give birth making them in a most significant way
phisiologically superior to men. So, Russel Hendell, No Cigar! Please
try again.
HM
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Theological conundrum, shelo asdani isha
Message-ID: <19980701.100038.4559.1.cbrown106@juno.com>
From: cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:51:51 EDT
RE: historical reality argument. Very difficult - how could b'nei
Yisreal build an eigel while experiencing the "historical reality" of
ma'amad har Sinai?! Possibilities: a) the reality of the experience did
not impress itself in the way we conceive of it, or b) unreinforced
impressive experiences are not a roadblock to sin (don't the b'alei
mussar take this approach?)
Re: 13 principles. Couldn't one argue that it was known that Moshe was
the "adon hanevi'im", but Miryam did not see this as adequete reason for
Moshe to leave his wife. Regarding Korah: I fail to see the question:
why make the assumption that Korah was not a kofer? (I think D.
Eidensohn's Yerushalmi clinches that point). Also, couldn't one argue
that Korah beleived Moshe to be a navi, but felt that the appointment of
Alitzafan was of Moshe's own volition and not nevuah?
-Chaim
_____________________________________________________________________
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_106
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:06:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Theological conundrum, shelo asdani isha
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Charles Brown wrote:
> RE: historical reality argument. Very difficult - how could b'nei
> Yisreal build an eigel while experiencing the "historical reality" of
> ma'amad har Sinai?! Possibilities: a) the reality of the experience did
You know, while I cannot deduce your actual opinion from your question, I
have been seriously bothered since yesterday by what I sense to be a whole
new divide between left and right - or any other fault line you choose -
in Orthodoxy: Whether Judaism is an evidence gounded religion - as all the
Rishonim impress upon us; or a faith grounded religion - no different in
kind than other religions, just in tenets and theology. If I understand
the positions advocated by you, Reb Meir and Reb Eli yesterday correctly
(without accounting for the devil's advocate factor) you are all of the
latter school of thought. The implications of such a divide are
significant, perhaps even staggering, and, if confirmed, would require
much exploration.
As to the Chet ha'Egel, surely you are aware that Chazal had the same
difficulty, as did all the Mefarshim, and explain it in various different
ways - one, even, the Kabbalistic one, being that the calf was chosen
*because* it was one of the animals manifest in the prophetic vision of
the Merkava they had recently experienced.
> not impress itself in the way we conceive of it, or b) unreinforced
> impressive experiences are not a roadblock to sin (don't the b'alei
> mussar take this approach?)
Yes, they do, yedi'ah vs. hashava el halev.
>
> Re: 13 principles. Couldn't one argue that it was known that Moshe was
> the "adon hanevi'im", but Miryam did not see this as adequete reason for
> Moshe to leave his wife. Regarding Korah: I fail to see the question:
> why make the assumption that Korah was not a kofer? (I think D.
> Eidensohn's Yerushalmi clinches that point). Also, couldn't one argue
> that Korah beleived Moshe to be a navi, but felt that the appointment of
> Alitzafan was of Moshe's own volition and not nevuah?
These are all valid possibilities - the question was on the Or Gedalyahu
l'shitaso.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:40:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Moshe J. Bernstein"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: a brief response to Russell
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
i don't know whether russell is accusing me or chaim of having the gall to
suggest that Rashi was ignorant of simple grammar (Nu 7:1), but it's clear
that the statement of which i spoke is indeed editorial and not by Rashi,
ON THE OTHER HAND, there are certainly places where Rashi shows that his
knowledge of Hebrew grammar is inferior to that of other rishonim (e.g.,
Ibn Ezra, Radaq, and perhaps even Rashbam) and to that of students of
Tenakh today. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE STOPS BEING RASHI!! The sources
available in Hebrew to Rashi on Hebrew language were virtually limited to
Menahem and Dunash whose conception of the language was less sophisticated
than that of the Judeo-Arabic grammarians (ibn Jannah, ibn Hayyuj etc.)
who influenced the mefarshim of the Spanish school (but whose works had
not been translated into Hebrew yet). to point out that Rashi may have
erred here or there on the basis of an incomplete understanding of
biblical Hebrew is not to demean Rashi's greatness or the debt which we
owe to him in so many other areas. where he was right he was right; where
he was wrong, he was wrong. the rishonim were gedolim, not mal'achim!
moshe bernstein
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Russell Hendel wrote:
> As to the content of the message: My point was outrage over a group
> member who had the gall to suggest that Rashi was ignorant of simple
> grammar (Nu 7:1). [The comment is made in parenthesis and is therefore
> not do to Rashi].
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899301654@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 09:52:18 -0500
To:
Subject: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Let me explain. Rav Yehuda Halevy makes two related empirically based arguments
for the validity of Torah. These arguments are no longer valid for us, because
the empirical validity of their assumptions is itself a matter of doubt, and is
accepted essentially only by those who already accept the Torah.
The first is the historical reality of yetziat mitraim. In Rav Yehuda Halevy's
time, this was generally accepted even outside the mesora community. He
therefore could use the historical nature of the humash to buttress theological
arguments. Today, the reality is that outside of the mesora community and
conservative Christian groups, the historical reality of the Exodus and all of
humash is not accepted. Therefore, one has to have accepted Torah before these
arguments have any validity.
The second is the reliability of the transmission of the mesora. He argues that
it is highly unlikely that all of a sudden, an entire community would accept
innovations as being Torah misinai.
For the outside community, this is no longer (if it ever was) an acceptable
argument, because of the evidence of distortions of general history are now so
well known . However, even within the mesora community, this empirical argument
becomes less sustainable, as we seen evidence of falsification gaining
acceptance. Rav Bechhofer may quibble at my "gratuitious" swipe at Artscroll.
However, (and this was previously discussed on mail-jewish), there is a
recognition among many (including haredim) that Artscroll tends to sanitize and
change history to conform with current perceptions and theological beliefs
(witness the flap over My Uncle the Netziv). Examples could be multiplied if
desired. One can argue for the positive theological value of such alterations,
as our interest is really in the lessons to be derived from history, rather
than in the facts per se. However, in my perspective, it strikes at the root of
the second argument, by showing that current theological fashions and perceived
communal needs dictate the accuracy with which the past is transmitted. Anyone
who argues for Torah on the basis of the Kuzari - the unlikelihood of invented
traditions being accepted, and the empirical reliability of the historical
transmission within the mesorah community - has to argue against invented
traditions now being propagated.
I believe in the mesorah at least partially because I know that my teachers
wouldn't lie, even for the sake of Torah. I am sure that Rav Bechhofer would
agree with regard to his teachers. The fashion of changing the past so it fits
current norms strikes at the very heart of the mesorah.
Meir Shinnar
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Theological Conundrum!
From: at SMTP-for-MSSM
Date: 6/30/98 7:50 PM
I do not understand how you can possibly say this - I think, to be
honest, your gratuituous, uncalled for swipe at Artscroll is beclouding
your reason. To be more honest, the swipe tempts me to forgo the
conversation altogether, as it shows that there are negi'os in place here
that occlude reason.
But, nevertheless, to turn it around - this is precislely the pint! If
Artscroll cannot deceive Meir Shinnar, surely a false Mesorah could not
have deceived so many generations - why then was it accepted as historical
reality with no divergent opinion for thousands of years? For one
inescapable reason - as we have evidence that there was a person named
Napoleon and we accept he existed because of such, so do we accept the
historical reality of ma'amad Har Sinai.
YGB
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> One major difference between Rav Yehuda Halevy and us. Much of the
> major opposition in the Kuzari - Christians and Muslims - accepted the
> essential historic accuracy of humash. Therefore, the 600,000 of
> yetziat mitzraim and ma'amad har sinai was accepted as fact, and he
> could furthermore argue that the historical accuracy is guaranteed by
> the transmission, and could not have been made up. For us, general
> culture no longer accepts this historicity. Artscroll histories show
> how quickly we can distort and forget the history of even 50-100 years
> ago. Thus, for us, emuna is required to believe in history, rather than
> history being available to bolster our emuna. The 600,000 are no longer
> a given, but are part of our emuna.
>
> Meir Shinnar
>
>
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Tue, 30 Jun 98 20:55:37 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 26753 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 00:51:09 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 00:51:09 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 26708 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 00:50:52 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 00:50:52 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA03105
for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:50:50 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:50:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Theological Conundrum!
In-Reply-To: <9806308992.AA899245656@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID: <000601bda503$29f8d460$4851fbd0@default>
From: "Lawrence M. Reisman"
To:
Subject: Re: BAISTEFILA digest 105, Meir Shinnar-Yosef Bechofer exchange on the Kuzari
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:16:02 -0400
While I don't appreciate Meir Shinnar's dig at ArtScroll, I will concede he
has a point, at least as to how we relate to the rest of the world. We
believe maimad Har Sinai out of emunah, and as a result, we accept it as
history. When the Kuzari was written, most of our gentile neighbors also
accepted it as history. Today, not only don't most of our gentile neighbors
accept it, but most Jews don't accept it either. As a result, when we
discuss it as history with outsiders, they are not gorais our discussion.
Having been around long enough on both sides of the emunah bridge, I can
warn you: This is a serious gap in understanding that we must be aware of
when talking to "non-believers."
By the way, for the rationalists, there is very nice discussion of how to
prove the divine origin of the Oral Torah, or at least its existence as a
unified entity, in the Rambam's introduction to the Mishneh. Again, you
have to know what he's talking about, but it does make some sense.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: FW: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:21:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
R. YGB writes:
>I have a sensation akin to something like "you're moving the finish
>line further back." I cite Medrash that is essentially one of the most
>mainstream exegetical (not a "story" Misrash) Midrash - one that iss borne
>out by the pesukim themselves, i.e., "Zeh Keli v'Anveihu" - and you
>dismiss it! So, mixing metaphors, where are the goal posts?
I apologize for any such feeling I may have caused. I do not disagree
that the midrash you quote is mainstream. I don't know if I would call
it exegetical. It is not written in exegetical form. To the contrary,
its formulation involves a kind of broad comparison that, to my ears,
sounds rhetorical. [For example, in a number of places, Chazal write
that a mitzvah is ke-neged kullam, or otherwise equivalent to all the
other mitzvot. I am sure others may read it differently, but I have
always understand these as Chazal's way of saying they are very
important, not making a precise qualitative comparison. Maybe this
should be a separate thread.] After all, the midrash singles out the
shifcha. Why? Surely the point is to emphasize that what benei Yisrael
saw at yam suf was not confined to neviim or zekenim or any elite but
everyone. The midrash is simply using a rhetorical device. Note too
that the comparison is made to Yechezkel. Why him? Is yechezkel
considered a greater navi than all of the others after Moshe? I assume
that Yechezkel is singled out because the ma'aseh merkavah is such an
awesome vision, that Chazal wanted to compare what happened at yam suf
to that. But I still am not sure that what they experienced should be
called nevuah.
Consider: the midrash says that the whole world heard the Aseret
ha-Dibberot at ma'amad Har Sinai and they were spoken in 70 languages.
These are mainstream exegetical midrashim. But does this mean that
everyone alive at the time of ma'amad har Sinai was a navi?
You argue that the words "Zeh Keli ve-Anvehu" are clear evidence of
nevuah. But Chazal -- echoing the pasuk -- say that what benei Yisrael
were doing was saying shirah. When you or I recite zeh Keli ve-anvehu,
we certainly do not mean that we have just experienced Hashem be-nevuah.
(Or I don't at least.) Moreover, according to your reasoning, when
benei Yisrael say: Hashem yimlokh le-olam va-ed, they could be speaking
be-nevuah. Yet, I have always assumed that they were speaking shevach.
The nusach ha-tefillah we say every day (shibbekhu ge'ulim) suggests the
same.
Finally, whereas i think zeh Keli can be understood poetically, coming
as it does in the context of lots of other poetic language, I direct
your attention to the non-potic pesukim in parashat be-ha'alotekha,
where Moshe clearly indicates that the entire am are not nevi'im.
>You are defining nevu'ah as a message. That is not necessarily the case.
>As the Ramchal in Derech Hashem 3:3:4 puts it (my translation):
I have never experienced nevu'ah, so I rely on others to define it for
me. Chazal enumerate a list of nevi'im, all of whom had a message.
Chazal also distinguish between nevi'im whose nevuah was le-dorot and
those whose nevu'ah was not le-dorot -- this too indicates a message.
I think it is suggestive that I have been quoting the Rambam's ideas
about nevuah, while you quote the Ramchal. The Rambam, as I noted in
comments to Elie, is a rationalist, which appeals to my way of thinking.
The Ramchal is a mekubbal which I find harder to appreciate. Certainly
the equating of nevua'ah with devekut is a mystical concept. To my
knowledge you won't find it in Chazal (but please correct me if I'm
wrong!).
But with the little I know about devekut, I think it is very hard --
given what is written about how to achieve devekut -- that an entire
nation, including shifchot, could attain such devekut en masse. If you
have the Ramchal handy, can you tell me if he speaks to that?
>I cannot understand how they could *not* have experienced nevu'a yet said
>Zeh Keli etc., and, even moreso, how the result of "va'ayaminu ba'Hashem"
>would have occured otherwise.
I am speculating, of course, but if i saw a sea split open, then swallow
the mitzrim, I think it would do a lot for my emunah, even if I did not
become a navi in the process.
>As to their worthiness, it cannot be that the Rambam, despite the Yad
>Yesodei HaTorah 7 and Moreh 2:32ff. holds that unworthy people do not
>receive *prophecies* - Scripture is rife with such epissodes, including
>Mano'ach and the Malach, the Navi Ha'Zaken in Bet El, and the prophets of
>Ach'av - who, indeed more than Bil'am - rather, to the best of my
>understnding, he meanss they cannot become *prophets*.
I am afraid I find that distinction semantic. What is a navi if not
someone who has had nevu'ah.
>C'mon, it is explicit in the passuk - the literl meaning ofthe vers that
>contains "v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem!"
Let us clarify something. We are speaking of what constitutes an ikkar
emunah. Yetziat mitzrayim is also explicit pasuk. But the Torah -- and
the Rambam -- do not classify belief in yetziat Mitzrayim as an ikkar
emunah.
>Chazal did not have an inclination toward any codification - the Rambam
>did.
Actually, the Mishnah is a code. And the Mishnah does address ikkarei
emunah in Perek Chelek. But what appears there differs greatly from
Rambam's formulation.
>He most definitely does - the last halacha in Hilchos Shabbos.
Quoting Chazal. But it's not one of the ikkarei emunah. Why not? Why
does it not appear in Hilkhot Teshuvah, where the Rambam seems to be
formulating what makes a person a kofer? As you noted, the Rambam is
inclined toward codification, yet doen't codify shemirat Shabbat as an
ikkar emunah. Do you not find that strange?
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Fw: Conservative prayer
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:29:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Arnie Kuzmack writes:
>Sim Shalom is indeed getting to be the standard Conservative siddur.
>However, it does *not* have the "elokei imoteinu" language referred to.
>The only changes to the amidah that I noticed was "shalom rav al yisrael
>amkha v'al kol yoshvei tevel" and an "al hanisim" for Israel's Independence
>Day.
I read an article once about the Siddur Sim Shalom. It reported that
there are three different versions of the amidah. I believe that at
least one of these versions does use language of E-lokei Avraham
ve-Sarah, etc. I welcone anyone who can confirm or refure this
information.
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:55:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
R. YGB writes:
>You know, while I cannot deduce your actual opinion from your question, I
>have been seriously bothered since yesterday by what I sense to be a whole
>new divide between left and right - or any other fault line you choose -
>in Orthodoxy: Whether Judaism is an evidence gounded religion - as all the
>Rishonim impress upon us; or a faith grounded religion - no different in
>kind than other religions, just in tenets and theology. If I understand
>the positions advocated by you, Reb Meir and Reb Eli yesterday correctly
>(without accounting for the devil's advocate factor) you are all of the
>latter school of thought.
I can speak only for myself, of course, but I would reiterate what I
wrote in an earlier post. I think it is our mesorah vs. their mesorah.
I think ours is true and theirs is not, but I cannot prove it to them
based on their assumptions.
Regarding the statements of Rishonim, I think it would be well to
remember that much of their writing on this subject was polemical and
directed kelappei chutz. In other words, they were trying to defend our
mesorah against gentile attacks on Torah. Thus, for example, there is a
great debate about how to understand various statements of the Ramban in
his famous vikua'ch.
Secondly, I think the term evidence needs clarification. There is no
single standard for evidence. What constitutes evidence in a secular
court is not evidence in a beit din. Most of what we accept as true is
based not on our own exploration of the facts (=evidence), but on
mesorah, as R. YGB pointed out with respect to (I think) the French
revolution. On the other hand, many blacks believe that AIDS is a plot
by whites against the black community. I cannot prove that they are
wrong, but I remain skeptical in the absence of what I would consider
evidence.
In the time of the Rishonim, it was common to try to prove the existence
of Hashem. Today these proofs are not viewed as conclusive "evidence,"
though I know many people who are convinced by them. But, as long as
different people have different assumptions (or biases), I cannot prove
to anyone that Hashem exists and I cannot prove to anyone that our
mesorah is true. Many Rishonim did believe that one could prove
Hashem's existence and many believed that they could prove that our
mesorah was true (or prove that other people's proofs against our
mesorah were not true, which is different).
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Rambam's 13 Principles
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:43:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
R. YGB writes:
>Even theology may evolve, although within far more rigid
>parameters. The Rambam's Ikkarim are, to my mind, a successful attempt to
>distill that which does not change.
I am sure we are not far apart on this issue. I assume we agree that,
just as in the halakhic sphere, the Rambam's distillation in the Mishneh
Torah was shaped by his own hakhraot (with which others disagree), so
too in the theological sphere.
One difference is that Asheknazim tend to follow him less in one sphere
than in the other.
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> Let me explain. Rav Yehuda Halevy makes two related empirically based
> arguments for the validity of Torah. These arguments are no longer
> valid for us, because the empirical validity of their assumptions is
> itself a matter of doubt, and is accepted essentially only by those who
> already accept the Torah.
>
I have no idea what you mean by emprical - does he cite a statistical
analysis? It is not empirical, it is anecdotal. Of course it is accepted
only by those who accept the Torah - were it to be accepted by others they
too would be in the camp of those who accept the Torah.
> The first is the historical reality of yetziat mitraim. In Rav Yehuda
> Halevy's time, this was generally accepted even outside the mesora
> community. He therefore could use the historical nature of the humash
> to buttress theological arguments. Today, the reality is that outside
> of the mesora community and conservative Christian groups, the
> historical reality of the Exodus and all of humash is not accepted.
> Therefore, one has to have accepted Torah before these arguments have
> any validity.
>
The Khazars certainly knew nothing of the mesora - Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi
seems to have been of the opinion that his arguments could even convince
pagans. I guess you would disagree.
> For the outside community, this is no longer (if it ever was) an
> acceptable argument, because of the evidence of distortions of general
> history are now so well known . However, even within the mesora
> community, this empirical argument becomes less sustainable, as we seen
> evidence of falsification gaining acceptance. Rav Bechhofer may quibble
Falsification never has gained complete, total and ongoing acceptance.
Artscroll's misdeeds are copiously recorded and scored at the vaunted
Journal Of Torah U'Madda. Where is the Journal that contemporaneously
noted that Ma'amad Har Sinai was in doubt?
Communism attempted to eradicate all those who bravely stood up to deny
it, yet failed - how were we so successful?
Again, the category of evidence of Ma'amad Har Siai is no less valid than
that that "proves" there was a Napoleon.
> with which the past is transmitted. Anyone who argues for Torah on the
> basis of the Kuzari - the unlikelihood of invented traditions being
> accepted, and the empirical reliability of the historical transmission
> within the mesorah community - has to argue against invented traditions
> now being propagated.
>
I just did - and I think quite cogently .
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:30:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
>
> I can speak only for myself, of course, but I would reiterate what I
> wrote in an earlier post. I think it is our mesorah vs. their mesorah.
> I think ours is true and theirs is not, but I cannot prove it to them
> based on their assumptions.
So why do you think its true? Is that faith on your part - a leap to the
irrational?
>
> Regarding the statements of Rishonim, I think it would be well to
> remember that much of their writing on this subject was polemical and
> directed kelappei chutz. In other words, they were trying to defend our
> mesorah against gentile attacks on Torah. Thus, for example, there is a
> great debate about how to understand various statements of the Ramban in
> his famous vikua'ch.
I never fathomed that approach and I never will, and it implies pretty
negative things abpout the Rishonim. Sorry.
> In the time of the Rishonim, it was common to try to prove the existence
> of Hashem. Today these proofs are not viewed as conclusive "evidence,"
> though I know many people who are convinced by them. But, as long as
> different people have different assumptions (or biases), I cannot prove
> to anyone that Hashem exists and I cannot prove to anyone that our
> mesorah is true. Many Rishonim did believe that one could prove
> Hashem's existence and many believed that they could prove that our
> mesorah was true (or prove that other people's proofs against our
> mesorah were not true, which is different).
>
So why can we kill non-Jews who refuse to accept Sheva Mitzvos Bnei No'ach
- if our mesorah cannot be rationally convincing, and they have theirs
which is of equivalent weight to ours, that seems like a pretty unfair
mitzva, don't you think?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899319650@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 14:55:11 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>I have no idea what you mean by emprical - does he cite a statistical
>analysis? It is not empirical, it is anecdotal. Of course it is accepted
>only by those who accept the Torah - were it to be accepted by others they
>too would be in the camp of those who accept the Torah.
We are talking about two different definitions of evidence and proof. One
definition is that we inherently believe in the Torah, and wish to find ways to
be mehazek emuna. Clearly, the Kuzari works today for many on that level. The
other is that this is evidence for someone who does not start out believing.
Empirical here means based on accepted facts, and yetziat mitzraim was viewed as
an accepted fact.
The notion that belief in the historical accuracy of humash mandates acceptance
of Torah is, however, wrong - ask any fundamentalist Christian.
>The Khazars certainly knew nothing of the mesora - Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi
>seems to have been of the opinion that his arguments could even convince
>pagans. I guess you would disagree.
Actually, I agree, and that is exactly the point. The Khazar agrees with the
essential historic accuracy of yetziat mitzraim, because the Christians and
Muslims both accepted the essential historical accuracy of the Torah. (he did
know about some aspects of the mesora, and was validated for him by outside
sources). Therefore, that was a legitimate starting point to argue for Torah
and mitzvot. rav Yehuda Halevy is trying to show that one can convince someone
who is not already convinced (the second level of evidence). It is here that
because of the change in commonly accepted beliefs in the outside world, it no
longer works.
Note that Rav yehuda Halevy specifically contrasts the validity of the
historical traditions of the humash, widely accepted, against the historical
validity of the Hindus, which he views as not valid.
Today, unless you already accept the Torah, you are unlikely to believe that
there were 600,000 people who left mitzraim and stood at mattan torah.
Therefore, arguments based on that 600,000 are not convincing (except perhaps
for arguments with missionaries who do accept that 600,000). (ask any Reform
Jew or anyone who has taken any Bible course in college or read any popular
Bible history book))
> For the outside community, this is no longer (if it ever was) an
> acceptable argument, because of the evidence of distortions of general
> history are now so well known . However, even within the mesora
> community, this empirical argument becomes less sustainable, as we seen
> evidence of falsification gaining acceptance. Rav Bechhofer may quibble
>Falsification never has gained complete, total and ongoing acceptance.
>Artscroll's misdeeds are copiously recorded and scored at the vaunted
>Journal Of Torah U'Madda. Where is the Journal that contemporaneously
>noted that Ma'amad Har Sinai was in doubt?
>Again, the category of evidence of Ma'amad Har Siai is no less valid than
>that that "proves" there was a Napoleon.
Outside the mesora community, some right wing Conservatives, and conservative
Christians and perhaps Muslims, most of the world does not believe in the
historical reality of yetziat mitzraim as described in the Torah. This
starting point of the Kuzari is denied by them. You may think their denial
foolish, but how do you prove it without using emuna in the Torah?
There does not exist a comparable body of doubters for the existence of
Napoleon. If there was, there would be discussions about the validity of
historical references and the possibility of mass delusions, with the final
conclusion dependent on the quality of contemporaneous documentation and the
reliability of that documentation. There has been quite a bit of doubters, for
example, whether William Shakespeare actually wrote his plays. The farther back
one goes, the more doubts exist.
Outside of the Torah, we have no contemporary journal or record that validates
it. The Torah is enough for us, but it is not evidence for its own truth for
those who do not accept it. Lastly, our acceptance of the Torah is based on the
acceptance of the accuracy of its transmission, and that is why we have to be
extra vigilant about attempts to change the mesora from within.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Wed, 01 Jul 98 14:10:15 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 18289 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 18:05:50 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 18:05:50 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 18097 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 18:05:32 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 18:05:32 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA20094
for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
In-Reply-To: <9807018993.AA899301654@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_106--
----__ListProc__NextPart__899319398449659699--
From baistefila@shamash.org Wed Jul 1 19:08:50 1998
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:08:48 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 107
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__899334528449667264"
----__ListProc__NextPart__899334528449667264
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 107
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
by "Clark, Eli"
2) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by Cheryl Maryles
3) The Ikkarim
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
4) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
5) Re: The Weaker Sex?
by Cheryl Maryles
6) RE: Theological Conundrum!
by Cheryl Maryles
7) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
8) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Clark, Eli"
9) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
10) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
11) Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
12) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
13) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
14) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
15) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
16) Re[6]: Theological Conundrum!
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
17) Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
by Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
18) Lonely Man of Faith
by Harry Maryles
19) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
20) Re[2]: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
----__ListProc__NextPart__899334528449667264
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_107"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:54:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>It is an attempt to explain "Zeh Kel v'Anveihu." That is exegesis, no?
Rather than debate the meaning of the word "exegetical," let me draw a
distinction. The Midrash often makes a statement that does not explain
the meaning of a particular pasuk, but bases the statement on a
superfluity or irregularity in the pasuk. A good example is the very
mainstream midrash on the first pasuk in Behar: the addition of the
phrase "Behar Sinai" provides the basis for the midrash about Torah
mi-Sinai. Whether or not we call that an exegetical midrash, I think we
can agree that its purpose is not to clarify the meaning of the
particular pasuk, but to comment on the totality of what Moshe received.
Similarly, the midrash we are discussing is talking about the overall
experience of yam suf, rather than the particular meaning of the words
Zeh Keli.
>Not rhetorical! Indeed, even the shefachos experienced nevu'ah!
Perhaps I should state my point more clearly. The midrash doesn't say:
everyone at yam suf saw more than Yechezkel. Instead it refers only to
the shifcha. Now, of course, we understand that the Midrash is saying
"even" a shifcha. But the style is rhetorical, rather than merely
expository. Thus, for me to say "a nine-year old could do it!" is a
rhetorical way of saying that anyone could do it. I find it significant
that the midrash does not directly say: all of bnei yisrael experienced
nevuah, but says, "what a shifcha saw . . .".
>>But I still am not sure that what they experienced should be
>> called nevuah.
>Elah mah?
Oodles of possibilities. There are all kinds of things that don't
constitute nevuah. Ru'ah ha-Kodesh, for example, and bat kol. But I
think the simplest explanation is that what was seen is what the Torah
says they saw: anan, choshech, and a ruach kadim which split the water.
You know the rest. This was a clear departure from teva and certainly
one which could inspire shirah. Note that we do not assume that those
who witnessed the eser makkot were experiencing nevu'ah.
>I would not have difficulty with this at all - I don't know how one can,
>if one accepts the revelation as a reality.
Excuse me? I am very confused. Do you believe there is any difference
between something which appears in the Chumash and something which
appears in Shemot Rabbah? Given all of the fantastic, not to mention
conflicting, midrashim about mattan Torah, do you really equate each of
them with historical reality? If so, we will have to agree to disagree.
For my part, I am very comfortable drawing a distinction between the
historical reality of mattan Torah as described in the Chumash and the
midrashic descriptions which move in a a number of different directions.
>Sorry, I am unclear as to why you have difficulty in what was once indeed
>nevu'ah being incorporated in tefilla.
No difficulty. Keriat shema was received al derekh nevu'ah. My point
was that I did not think that the words Zeh Keli proved that nevu'ah had
occurred, nor that the words of the pasuk -- az yashir -- or the words
of the siddur -- shibbekhu -- give any hint that that this was nevu'ah.
Now if the Tirah said, Az yitnabbeu, or the siddur said, Nevuah
chadashah hitnebbeu geulim -- I would concede the point.
>But Chazal there say there were millons of Nevi'im - I believe it is there
>in Megilla where you refer us! And when Shaul was ba'nevi'im, if you will
>please look at the Radak (one of your fellow rationalists :-) ) in Shmuel
>1:10:5 you will see that a nevu'ah can be defined as shevachos
>v'tishbachos! Cf. Yesodei HaTorah 7:7.
>(Hey! the episodes with Shaul are further evidence to my position - not
>refuted by you as far as I can see - that prophecy - not consistent high
>levels thereof but occasional "spells" - can befall anyone! Cf. ibid.
>1:1.)
No question. The Tanach is full of episodes which support your
position. Same with ma'amarei Chazal and rishonim. My argument has
been rooted in the Rambam's view, which is very much his own. Why?
because your original question -- at least as applied to Miryam -- was
based on the Rambam's ikkar about the prophecy of Moshe. Generally,
other Rishonim who compiled list of ikkarim did not include this.
Therefore, the question shold be on the Rambam le-shitato. But
consitency demands that we grant the Rambam his shitah on nevu'ah as
well.
>But, it is true that the Rambam sees nevu'ah differently than the Ramchal,
>he sees it as more of an exposure to high levels of emes - an intellectual
>experience. Thus, in the Moreh2:32 he regards the revelation at Sinai
>(the cornerstone of Emuna according to the Rambam as well - see Iggeres
>Teiman) as distinct from nevu'ah. It is, therefore, plausible that the
>Rambam holds that a revelation like that of Yam Suf can be universal, and
>divine - but not prophetic according to his definition.
We agree entirely on this point.
>Oh, one last thing - althought I already deleted your comment - the Mishna
>is a code?!
Yes, actually. It is an organized compilation of law. Though perhaps
not intended to be comprehensive in detail, the Mishnah meets the
ordinary defintion of a code. It is organized by subject. It is
different from the midrashei Halakhah, which are organized by pasuk .
The mishnah often presents more than one opinion (as does the Tur and
SA), but generally guides one regarding the proper Halakhah. In
contrast, the Gemara is not organized topically, contains a vast amount
of non-legal information and rarely gives any indication of what the
final halakhic rule is.
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:01:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
A few comments on the current topic: First of all the book Eye of a
Needle
which I quoted the 600,000 person mashal from, is the kiruv primer put
out by Aish Hatorah. It instructs those who try to be mekarev nonbelieving
jews to use that mashal aswell as other maamad har sinai proofs.
Therefore, although many on the list claimn that this is not a valuable
and current way of being mekarev jews, it would seem like they are wrong.
Second of all, I am obviously missing something in meir, Eli's etc.logic.
If something is accepted as fact for almost three thousand years, and then
someone says it's not true and even gets millions of people to say its not
true, how does their statements affect the truth. I can still maintain
that all the people who lived within the last two hundred years are more
likely to be wrong then the billions of people who have lived since 2448
who didn't and couldn't deny the truth of mamid ha sinai. It's precisely
the fact that this truth hasn't been challenged until recently which
serves as the greatest proof to its truth. I will admit that nothing can
serve as 100 PROOF of Hashem's existence (exept a personal expierience of
prophecy) However, I do believe that maamid har sinai serves as very
strong evidence in favor of beliving in a of a G-d who speaks with man.
It's becoming clear
that I wil not be able to convince those who don't want to accept this
evidence, but I'm happy I do, since the Torah (which is eternal) told me
to
accept this evidence (devarim 4, pasukim 9-10).
Elie Ginsparg
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Message-Id: <199807012002.QAA21503@dvqa1.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: The Ikkarim
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
According to Rav YB Soloveitchik zt"l (I can't recall which tape, sorry), the
Rambam chose ikkarim to not only be sufficient to derive the rest of
Yiddishkeit, but also to pose limits between what is Yiddishkeit, and other
beliefs of his time.
So, for example, belief in Moshe is listed separately than belief in the Torah
because both Christianity and Islam claim their founder superior to Moshe.
I'm more interested, though, not in the ikkarim as the Rambam wrote them, but
the ikkarim as Klal Yisrael has accepted them. Do they have halachic power, as
piskei din for defining meenus or apikursus, because the ikkarim (perhaps in
their Yigdal or Ani Ma'amin variants) have been so universally accepted?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5852 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 1-Jul-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_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
>
> So why can we kill non-Jews who refuse to accept Sheva Mitzvos Bnei No'ach
> - if our mesorah cannot be rationally convincing, and they have theirs
> which is of equivalent weight to ours, that seems like a pretty unfair
> mitzva, don't you think?
>
The Hazon Ish in Hilkhot Shehitah posits that the din of Moridin for a
Kofer only applies when there is empircial evidence of hashgahat Hashem,
because thats the only time that kofrim are brazenly defying the will of
Hashem. LAD, the Hazon Ish is responding to a similar issue to that which
R YGB raised: if, in fact, the Mesorah (in this case, Hashem's existance,
control, etc....or the truth of Torah mi-Sinai) is not provable by
evidence, how can we kill people for not surrendering its dictates?
The answer of the Hazon Ish is that we cannot. Until Hashem re-reveals
(what an ungainly formulation!) Himself, ve-sechezena eineinu be-shuvo
le-Tzion be-Rachamim, Kofrim do not get the full halakhic treatment they
would seem to deserve, I don't see why maintaining that the evidence for
Har Sinai is missing is any more problematic than claiming that
Hashem's
presence is less palpable now than bimei HaBayis.
Whether or not this applies to goyyim or not is unclear, is there any
literature on the topic?
As to the issue of rational proof of God's existance, the Rav in Lonely
Man of Faith p.51 points out rational proof of God's existance is
difficult, and more productive is Kierkegaard's comments, does a bride in
her beloved's embrace ask for proof of his existance? In other words, its
only through the experience of Emunah that we can hope to attain Emunah
be-zman ha-zeh. I think this would equally apply to Har Sinai, which, as
been cogently point out by an number of people, is not considered valid
empirical evidence by much of the world today.
daniel
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:29:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles
To: YGBList
cc: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Re: The Weaker Sex?
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Harry Maryles wrote:
> Russell Hendel wrote:
> >
> > Harry Maryless' original question about SHELO ASANI ISHAH was never
> > really addressed. Instead we got into a thread about SHELO ASANI GOY.
I think the shelo asani ishah problem is made bigger than it really is.
When a man says shelo asani issah-he's not saying a women is inferior in
any way and can't achieve greatness like a man (just look at Sara, rivkah,
rochel,ester etc.)It's the same chazal who have us say this bracha that
say many wonderful things about women including how sara was a greater
prophet then avraham. it would be illogical to think that chazal had
a negative approach to women. So what's p'sat in the beracha, it's a
statement of metzius. If we look at berashis we see that women were
cursed "vhu yimshal bach" (berashis 3-16) If you had to be created as the
ruler or the ruled you'd be happier to be the ruled. Therefore, we make a
beracha that we were created as men and not women. But does this fact mean
that men are better, smarter... than women? no. It just means that ther is
a status in the metzius which make it beracha worthy not to be a women.
Maybe this is why we say shelo asani issah and not sassni ish. Ie. there
is no maalah in being a man, it's not being a women, not being under the
curse of Chava which is being blessed. For example, I'm thankful that I
didn't grow up in New York because I would view it as very bad to have to
grow up in New York. But that doesnt mean New Yorkers are inferior or
can't achieve greatness. I'm sure there is at least one New Yorker who is
greater than a Chicagoan ( My mashal is meant at least partially in jest
but I hope it helps convey my point). This explanation also works with
Rashi to Menachos daf 43b where he explains the gemaras question
"heeinu issah" eiyen sham. I hope this helps explain what I believe Russel
was also
saying and provides sufficient explanation for Rabbi Maryles-I'm sure I'll
hear whether or not it does
Elie Ginsparg
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:34:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: RE: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
After writing my last post I thought of a possible answer to Rabbi
Bechoffer's original question concerning the Rambam's reference to Korach
as a proof for the fact that the whole Torah is from heaven.Maybe the
Rambam divided up the belief in the existence in Hashem and the belief
that all the mitzvos are from Hashem. The first principle states that we
must believe in a creator etc, the proof for this in th first of the ten
commandment "anoche Hashem", which allof klal yisroel heard and thus can't
be refuted. However, one can still maintain that even though there is a
G-d we have no way to know how to serve him. One could argue that Moshe
made up all the mitzvos while on har sinai. The actual maamad har sinai
only proved there was a Hashem who spoke with humans, but the fact that
all the mitzvos were faithfully recorded from Hashem to Moshe wasn't
proven. In fact someone named Korach actually challenged this very fact,
and therefore another proof was required to prove that not only was there
a G-d which everyone "saw" but that G-d gave mizvos which Moshe faithfully
wrtoe down and transmitted. This was proved (according to the rambam) when
Moshe said "this shall demonstrate to you that Hashem sent me to do all
these deeds, and I DIDN"T MAKE UP ANYTHING MYSELF" In fact this episode
also happened in front of all klal yisroel . This might explain why the
Rambam brought Korach as a proof to the fact that Moshe transmitted the
word
of hashem independant of maamid har sinai as a proof to the existence of
Hashem.
Elie Ginsparg
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:
> A few comments on the current topic: First of all the book Eye of a
> Needle
> which I quoted the 600,000 person mashal from, is the kiruv primer put
> out by Aish Hatorah. It instructs those who try to be mekarev nonbelieving
> jews to use that mashal aswell as other maamad har sinai proofs.
> Therefore, although many on the list claimn that this is not a valuable
> and current way of being mekarev jews, it would seem like they are wrong.
The fact that an argument is used, and has been successful, doesnt mean it
is water tight. I would tend to believe that many of those who have been
exposed to presentations like Aish ha-torah's have not weighed the
arguments suggested for the giving of the Torah against the state of the
art in Academic Bible study and Ancient Near eastern History. Frankly, I'm
glad--- I prefer to have them as Shomrei Torah u-Mitzvos. On the other
hand, i am curious if those arguments would be compelling to someone who
did such rigorous research. I have met people who have been turned off by
the Aish ha-Torah approach.
> Second of all, I am obviously missing something in meir, Eli's etc.logic.
> If something is accepted as fact for almost three thousand years, and then
> someone says it's not true and even gets millions of people to say its not
> true, how does their statements affect the truth. I can still maintain
> that all the people who lived within the last two hundred years are more
> likely to be wrong then the billions of people who have lived since 2448
> who didn't and couldn't deny the truth of mamid ha sinai. It's precisely
> the fact that this truth hasn't been challenged until recently which
> serves as the greatest proof to its truth. I will admit that nothing can
People have believed all kinds of strange things. i think the Samaritan
community believes they are descendants of Malkhus Yisrael, and are
maintaining the Mesorah as passed down from Har sinai. That doesnt PROVE
anything.
People also believed for thousands of years that bugs spontaneously
generated. Today, we don't, partially because what qualifies as evidence
has changed. Similarly, a proof of Matan Torah that was useful for a long
time may no
longer be useful, because the evidence, as evidence, may not be
acceptable.
> that I wil not be able to convince those who don't want to accept this
> evidence, but I'm happy I do, since the Torah (which is eternal) told me
> to
> accept this evidence (devarim 4, pasukim 9-10).
No one on this list denies the fact that we stood at Har Sinai and
recieved the Torah amidst an unparalleled revelation of God's glory, and I
resent the implication that some of us do.
What we are arguing is that the historical data of Har sinai is not
sufficient to serve as a proof to an outsider of its having happened.
> Elie Ginsparg
>
>
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:25:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> I can speak only for myself, of course, but I would reiterate what I
>> wrote in an earlier post. I think it is our mesorah vs. their mesorah.
>> I think ours is true and theirs is not, but I cannot prove it to them
>> based on their assumptions.
>So why do you think its true? Is that faith on your part - a leap to the
>irrational?
No, I think it's true based on the evidence. But I accept the evidence
based on my assumptions. And my assumptions are based (in part) on
faith. So are yours, I suspect.
I accept that the Torah's account of yetziat Mitzrayyim is true. All of
the evidence I know supports it and I the evidence against it (i.e.,
lack of archaeological records) does not persuade me toherwise. But I
can accept the Torah's account of Hashem's miracles only if I believe in
Hashem. That is one of my assumptions and it is based on faith (though
not entirely).
>I never fathomed that approach and I never will, and it implies pretty
>negative things abpout the Rishonim. Sorry.
Don't be sorry. Viku'ach was a critical part of Jewish life in the
Middle Ages and we can be proud of what the Rishonim achieved in that
area. It is also a direct mandate of the Mishnah. But is absurd to
think that a rishon would express himself in exactly the same way in the
bet midrash as he would while defending Torat Hashem in Tortosa.
>> In the time of the Rishonim, it was common to try to prove the existence
>> of Hashem. Today these proofs are not viewed as conclusive "evidence,"
>> though I know many people who are convinced by them. But, as long as
>> different people have different assumptions (or biases), I cannot prove
>> to anyone that Hashem exists and I cannot prove to anyone that our
>> mesorah is true. Many Rishonim did believe that one could prove
>> Hashem's existence and many believed that they could prove that our
>> mesorah was true (or prove that other people's proofs against our
>> mesorah were not true, which is different).
>So why can we kill non-Jews who refuse to accept Sheva Mitzvos Bnei No'ach
> - if our mesorah cannot be rationally convincing, and they have theirs
>which is of equivalent weight to ours, that seems like a pretty unfair
>mitzva, don't you think?
I admit I don't understand the question. Do you think we can prove that
Hashem exists? And if so, why should that change our right to kill
people the Torah tells us to kill? Forget the non-Jew, let's talk about
a Jew who commits murder with edim and hatra'ah. We agree that he is
chayyav mittah whether or not he believes in Hashem. If I am the
shaliach bet din, it is my job to execute him, not be mekarev him. I
suspect that he will not be comforted if I say to him before I kill him:
you may not believe, but I could prove to you that Hashem exists. I
just don't see how fairness enters the discussion. What is fair is that
Hashem gives us bechirah and we make our own choices. The choice we
make will not only determine whether we live or die in this world, but
whether we have olam ha-ba. If, as you suggest, it isn't fair to kill
someone who has a mesorah with equal logic to ours, then it is certainly
unfair to deny such a person olam ha-ba!
Speaking of proving Hashem's existence, R. E. Berkovits (to bring
someone back from an old thread) notes in God, Man and History that it
is a mitzvah to believe in Hashem (one of his uncontroversial statements
:)). But, he asks, if one could prove that Hashem exists, why should it
be a mitzvah to believe in Him?
Kol tuv,
Eli
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:50:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> The notion that belief in the historical accuracy of humash mandates
> acceptance of Torah is, however, wrong - ask any fundamentalist
> Christian.
>
They fully concede their religion is based on faith - non-empirical, as
you put it. They are, therefore, not relevant.
> Today, unless you already accept the Torah, you are unlikely to believe
> that there were 600,000 people who left mitzraim and stood at mattan
> torah. Therefore, arguments based on that 600,000 are not convincing
> (except perhaps for arguments with missionaries who do accept that
> 600,000). (ask any Reform Jew or anyone who has taken any Bible course
> in college or read any popular Bible history book))
>
So, in essence, there is no way that a Reform or Conservative Jew can be
convinced thet Orthodoxy is emes - we have no way to prove or evince emes
to others?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> So, in essence, there is no way that a Reform or Conservative Jew can be
> convinced thet Orthodoxy is emes - we have no way to prove or evince emes
> to others?
Halevai!
But to the best of your knowledge, has there been anyone who has been able
to consistently convince committed Reform and Conservative Jews of the
Emes based on the Kuzari's proof?
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:53:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Oodles of possibilities. There are all kinds of things that don't
> constitute nevuah. Ru'ah ha-Kodesh, for example, and bat kol. But I
> think the simplest explanation is that what was seen is what the Torah
> says they saw: anan, choshech, and a ruach kadim which split the water.
> You know the rest. This was a clear departure from teva and certainly
> one which could inspire shirah. Note that we do not assume that those
> who witnessed the eser makkot were experiencing nevu'ah.
>
The Rambam classifies ruach hakodesh as prophecy.
You asked me where the Rambam links nevu;ah with dveykus - Moreh 3:51 in
the "He'ara."
> For my part, I am very comfortable drawing a distinction between the
> historical reality of mattan Torah as described in the Chumash and the
> midrashic descriptions which move in a a number of different directions.
>
That's good enough!
> SA), but generally guides one regarding the proper Halakhah. In
It does?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:58:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut wrote:
> Whether or not this applies to goyyim or not is unclear, is there any
> literature on the topic?
To the best of my knowledge this does not apply to goyim.
>
> As to the issue of rational proof of God's existance, the Rav in Lonely
> Man of Faith p.51 points out rational proof of God's existance is
> difficult, and more productive is Kierkegaard's comments, does a bride in
> her beloved's embrace ask for proof of his existance? In other words, its
> only through the experience of Emunah that we can hope to attain Emunah
> be-zman ha-zeh. I think this would equally apply to Har Sinai, which, as
> been cogently point out by an number of people, is not considered valid
> empirical evidence by much of the world today.
>
Aha, so this begins to confirm my suspicions - the Rav himself seems to
reject the mahalach of the Rishonim in favor of existential evidence for
emuna. This connotes a great gap - between what can be defined as "Toras
Emes Muchletes" (if one finds rational evidence compelling) and "Toras
Emes Yachasis" (if one bases emuna on one's own experiential faith). Not
everyone is as in love with the Torah as the Rav. If, then, they fall into
the latter camp...
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:01:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut wrote:
> art in Academic Bible study and Ancient Near eastern History. Frankly, I'm
> glad--- I prefer to have them as Shomrei Torah u-Mitzvos. On the other
Why? Strength in numbers?
> What we are arguing is that the historical data of Har sinai is not
> sufficient to serve as a proof to an outsider of its having happened.
What is the proof.
Hey! Another "revelation." Perhpaps this is why there is very little
"modern orthodox" kiruv. There are no tools (other than pure experience,
say, a la NCSY).
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899327192@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 16:59:37 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
A few comments on the current topic: First of all the book Eye of a
Needle
which I quoted the 600,000 person mashal from, is the kiruv primer put
>out by Aish Hatorah. It instructs those who try to be mekarev nonbelieving
>jews to use that mashal aswell as other maamad har sinai proofs.
>Therefore, although many on the list claimn that this is not a valuable
>and current way of being mekarev jews, it would seem like they are wrong.
Difference between not being valuable in kiruv, and being accepted as logical
proof. Codes work in kiruv, and many here will dispute their logical efficacy.
The question is, how much does someone know or accept the prevailing dogmas
beforehand?
>Second of all, I am obviously missing something in meir, Eli's etc.logic.
>If something is accepted as fact for almost three thousand years, and then
>someone says it's not true and even gets millions of people to say its not
>true, how does their statements affect the truth. I can still maintain
The issue here is, I hope, not the truth of ma'amad har sinai. I and Eli both
accept that truth. The question is convincing others who do not start out
with that belief. While the fact it was accepted is something that we can use
to support our emuna, clearly it has not convinced millions of people. People
have believed for thousands of years strange things.
The Kuzari posits that our emuna is empirically (factually) based, rather than
on philosophical proofs or emuna (ani hashem asher hozeticha me'eretz mizraim,
rather ani hashem asher barati et hashamaim v'ha'aretz). The starting point for
the Kuzari is the unquestioned historical reality of yetziat Mizraim as
described in the Torah, validated by the universal acceptance by Jews and
gentiles. This historical reality is then used to validate hashem as the
creator and lawgiver.
For us today, yetziat Mizraim is not an unquestioned historical reality
universally accepted, but something that is an unquestioned historical reality
because of our emuna, just as briat haolam is part of our emuna. One can bring
many reasons why to believe in yetziat mizraim, as rav Ginsparg does, but it is
no longer the primary, unquestioned fact that can be used to found our emuna on.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Wed, 01 Jul 98 16:03:46 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 6808 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 19:59:20 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 19:59:20 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 6733 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 19:59:09 -0000
Received: from orion2.neiu.edu (HELO orion.neiu.edu) (207.241.96.11)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 19:59:09 -0000
Received: from localhost (cmaryles@localhost)
by orion.neiu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA27086
for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:01:06 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:01:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
In-Reply-To: <9807018993.AA899319650@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:04:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
> area. It is also a direct mandate of the Mishnah. But is absurd to
> think that a rishon would express himself in exactly the same way in the
> bet midrash as he would while defending Torat Hashem in Tortosa.
>
Why? I hope I do. (Except in that I use better English outside the BM.)
> just don't see how fairness enters the discussion. What is fair is that
> Hashem gives us bechirah and we make our own choices. The choice we
"Fair" here means that this is a mishpat, not a chok. Is the chiyuv to
kill them mishpat or chok?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899327971@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 17:11:46 -0500
To:
Subject: Re[6]: Theological Conundrum!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>So, in essence, there is no way that a Reform or Conservative Jew can be
>convinced thet Orthodoxy is emes - we have no way to prove or evince emes
>to others?
Whether such a proof can exist today is a different issue. However,
we clearly have not found such a way that works consistently (the ba'al tshuva
movement, for all the wonderful things it does, is a minute portion). For the
current generation, who are a tinok shenishba, this is not because of willful
rejection, but at least partially because of our inability to formulate a proof
that will convince them. I would be very happy to be wrong about this.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Wed, 01 Jul 98 16:55:03 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 16453 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 20:50:37 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 20:50:37 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 16407 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 20:50:25 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 20:50:25 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA14973
for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:50:24 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:50:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
In-Reply-To: <9807018993.AA899319650@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Theological Conundrum!
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut wrote:
>
> > art in Academic Bible study and Ancient Near eastern History. Frankly, I'm
> > glad--- I prefer to have them as Shomrei Torah u-Mitzvos. On the other
>
> Why? Strength in numbers?
I assume youre asking why i want them to be shomrei toraah umitzvos.
i think it is obvious that members of klal yisrael following the Torah is
a good thing.
>
> > What we are arguing is that the historical data of Har sinai is not
> > sufficient to serve as a proof to an outsider of its having happened.
>
> What is the proof.
>
> Hey! Another "revelation." Perhpaps this is why there is very little
> "modern orthodox" kiruv. There are no tools (other than pure experience,
> say, a la NCSY).
You may be right.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
Message-ID: <359AA443.2A75@neiu.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:04:03 -0400
From: Harry Maryles
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Lonely Man of Faith
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > As to the issue of rational proof of God's existance, the Rav in Lonely
> > Man of Faith p.51 points out rational proof of God's existance is
> > difficult, and more productive is Kierkegaard's comments, does a bride in
> > her beloved's embrace ask for proof of his existance? In other words, its
> > only through the experience of Emunah that we can hope to attain Emunah
> > be-zman ha-zeh. I think this would equally apply to Har Sinai, which, as
> > been cogently point out by an number of people, is not considered valid
> > empirical evidence by much of the world today.
> >
>
> Aha, so this begins to confirm my suspicions - the Rav himself seems to
> reject the mahalach of the Rishonim in favor of existential evidence for
> emuna. This connotes a great gap - between what can be defined as "Toras
> Emes Muchletes" (if one finds rational evidence compelling) and "Toras
> Emes Yachasis" (if one bases emuna on one's own experiential faith). Not
> everyone is as in love with the Torah as the Rav. If, then, they fall into
> the latter camp...
>
Just Briefly:
As I recall, the subject of the essay by Rabbi Joseph B.Soloveitchik
is the biblical dichotomy of Man. And it, of course, is a masterful
exposition of why a man of faith must, by definition, be "lonley". His
refrence to the Kierkegaardian rhetorical question of:
"does a bride in her beloved's embrace ask for proof of his existance?"
is a statement recognizing simultaneously the impossiblity of tangible
proof in G-d's existence, while at the same time utilizing the
experiencial fact of our own existence, i.e. his embrace, as evidence of
His existence.
HM
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899331566@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 18:12:10 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>So why can we kill non-Jews who refuse to accept Sheva Mitzvos Bnei No'ach
>- if our mesorah cannot be rationally convincing, and they have theirs
>which is of equivalent weight to ours, that seems like a pretty unfair
>mitzva, don't you think?
The mesora does seem to accept that some notion of moral code (as distinct from
belief in torah misinai) is derivable by reason. Note that we do not kill a non
Jew who follows the mitzvot bnei noah, but does not believe in their divine
origin. The rambam, who does put acceptance of their divine origin as part of
the mitzvot, also accepts that one can logically derive the existence of hashem.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Wed, 01 Jul 98 14:35:07 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 22646 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 18:30:42 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 18:30:42 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 22586 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 18:30:28 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 18:30:28 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27872
for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:30:26 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:30:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807018993.AA899334772@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 19:06:50 -0500
To:
Subject: Re[2]: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>Aha, so this begins to confirm my suspicions - the Rav himself seems to
>reject the mahalach of the Rishonim in favor of existential evidence for
>emuna. This connotes a great gap - between what can be defined as "Toras
>Emes Muchletes" (if one finds rational evidence compelling) and "Toras
>Emes Yachasis" (if one bases emuna on one's own experiential faith). Not
>everyone is as in love with the Torah as the Rav. If, then, they fall into
>the latter camp...
There is an extensive discussion by rav Soloveitchik of different approaches to
hashem (philosophical, empirical, existential..) in Uvikashtem misham. He
agrees that post Kant, rational proofs of God's existence are very problematic.
However, it is probably true that very few people actually believe purely on the
basis of rational proofs, but rather, those that believe, use logical proofs to
validate their faith. (Of course, according to the Rambam, Avraham was one of
those few, but (unfortunately) we are not Avraham, and have different
philosophical issues.
With regard to the rishonim: The arguments brought down for hashem's
existence are mostly standard ones, and were accepted by the "science" and
philosophy of the time. Those arguments today are no longer viewed with the
same equanimity. Furthermore, basing acceptance of the Torah (rather than
existence of a Supreme Being) on reason is today far more difficult, given the
current state of biblical criticism and archaeology.
We accept Torah misinai on the basis of emuna. A reason based proof,
however, would have to have evidence to discard that modern scholarship.
I know of no Toras Emes hamuchletet camp writer who has given a convincing
rational proof for Torah misinai, accounting for current knowledge, which can
convince someone who is not already convinced. The best have been works showing
that Torah misinai is consistent with current evidence. The recent Orthodox
Forum publication on Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah struggled with
this issue.
Again, I would love to find such a convincing, evidence based rational proof.
Finally, I don't believe that the difference is one of fundamental theology, but
one in appraising the metziut. If someone believes that he can base emuna in
torah misinai and mitzvot on a firm, evidence based, rational approach, I would
love to see the details. However, we may disagree on what we consider to be
convincing evidence. Perhaps the real difference is that while I have emuna in
Torah misinai, the toras emes hamuchletet camp has, in addition, emuna that a
rational proof for Torah misinai can be found...
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Wed, 01 Jul 98 17:03:01 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 17358 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 20:58:35 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 20:58:35 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 17313 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1998 20:58:31 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 1998 20:58:31 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18286
for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:58:31 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:58:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_107--
----__ListProc__NextPart__899334528449667264--
From baistefila@shamash.org Thu Jul 2 00:01:16 1998
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:01:11 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 108
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__899352071449676035"
----__ListProc__NextPart__899352071449676035
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 108
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Being clean shaven
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
2) blindfolded leading the blindfolded
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
3) Re: The Weaker Sex?
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
4) thinking about belief
by Shalom Carmy
5) Source in Rambam: Mashiach Ben Yosef = David
by rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
6) Re: Invented traditions
by alsilberman@juno.com
7) Re: thinking about belief
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
8) Re: The Weaker Sex?
by Harry Maryles
9) Re: The Weaker Sex?
by
10) An Esrog Used for only Part of Sukkos
by kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
----__ListProc__NextPart__899352071449676035
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_108"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:09:57 -0400
Subject: Being clean shaven
Message-ID: <19980701.191609.29622.0.gershon.dubin@juno.com>
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
> All of the discussions I've seen of why the Torah prohibits shaving
>mention the result (i.e. being cleanshaven or removal of hair) rather
>than the process, yet, as we all know, it is the process which is
>prohibited.
One idea I've heard, which would speak for having a mustache
even if a beard is not an option, is Lo Silbash Gever.
Gershon
_____________________________________________________________________
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_108
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:15:58 -0400
Subject: blindfolded leading the blindfolded
Message-ID: <19980701.191609.29622.1.gershon.dubin@juno.com>
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
>of 1 million people are marching in the desert. You are at the back
of the line of one group, I am at the back of the other group. We start
>to talk. I tell you that I've been told that my group is being led by
>one person. You tell me that you've been told that your group is being
>led by 600,000 people.
I think that to say "at the back of the line" is misleading.
You-we all-are at the end of thousands upon thousands of parallel lines.
The fact that so many mesoros-plural-exist to the same event is what
gives the Kuzari's argument its power. As long as we're recommending
reading, I suggest Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Somayach's book on truth,
which is available on their web site in PDF or HTM format. He makes the
Kuzari's argument, but very well.
Gershon
_____________________________________________________________________
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_108
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 20:08:49 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199807020008.UAA22930@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: C-Maryles@neiu.edu, baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: The Weaker Sex?
Cc: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
A short comment on Harrys reply. A summary of what has transpired is
as follows:
A)Harry asks why we say SHELO ASANI ISHAH
B) I respond by analogy that we say "Thank God for not being blind
but having sight" and "Thank God for not being naked but being clothed
(by God)" and these blessings are NOT construed as attacking blind or
naked people but encouraging appreciation of Gods gifts and helping the
lest fortunate. So to I suggested that we thank God for not making
us women (who are physiologically inferior) but made us men
C) Harry Responds that this is cultural bias since in some cultures
women do hunting etc
D) So now it is my turn to respond. Look, I try and strike a balance
between discretion and details.
When I said "Vulnerable" I meant "can be forcibly raped". You can't
rape a man (if you threaten him he has the right to die--a woman
doesn't). [Please Harry (and everyone else) don't ask me to prove
this from sources or elaborate)
That is ALL I mean by women's vulnerability.
Hence I thank God for not making me vulnerable and making me a man.
Again as to the negative form of the blessing (LO ASANI vs ASANI ISH)
I suggested that the Prophet Sages of the great assembly did not
want to inflate male egos.
Harry may be interested in WHAT CHAZAL did with female vulnerability.
Among other regulations are the following
--a female captive is redeemed before a male (because of her vulnerability)
--a female is also given priority in court appearances (because
very often her vulnerability expresses itself in raising children
not giving her enough time to get to court)
I could go on.
I wish to make it clear however I am not talking about SOCIOLOGICAL
BIASES (a trick brought in by the womens movement). I am SOLELY
talking about the FACT that a women can be raped against her will
without the right to die and a man can't.
I think this is an important topic and should be discussed further
(perhaps with other halachas brought in)
As usual we should all observe DARCAY NOAM particularly in this area
BUt we should also show respect for people (no "You aren't serious"
postings)
Anyway, I am serious. I believe the above argument is solid.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd. ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 20:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: thinking about belief
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am perplexed by several of the assumptions made (or not being
made) in the discussion of proofs for ikkarei emuna. So much so that I
have been moved to jot down some notes on the subject:
1. In real life, as opposed to math, we rarely confront deductive
proofs in the classical sense: arguments proceeding validly from
universally accepted premises. Will it rain tonight? The
weatherman has been wrong before, and the same is true of one's
arthritic bones and any other factor that may come into play. Did
Clinton make the best case he could in China last week? Did Hitler
approve the gas chambers? Is AIDS a Zionist plot? All kinds
of considerations can be brought in, none of which is absolutely
conclusive.
Sometimes it is reasonable to suspend judgment; sometimes the truth
doesn't really matter all that much. But with respect to many matters,
both trivial and momentous, we reach a point where we cannot honestly
refrain from making a commitment. Basing a belief on the coming together
of various considerations, as opposed to one knock-down proof, is called
"consilience" in contemporary philosophy of science.
2. The idea that the Kuzari's argument (the 600,000 at Sinai) is
either conclusive or negligible goes against the common sense
assumption of the last paragraph. Of course one can raise all
sorts of quibbles about the reliability of tradition. But I, and
most intelligent people I know, do not rely on this argument in
isolation from everything else we know.
If, as we know and believe, the Ribbono shel Olam is a living presence and
a moral commander, rather than a mathematical equation, we should expect
our apprehension of Him to be experiential and personal, accessible to the
method of consilience operative in biology and history, rather than
deductive, as is the case in logic and mathematics.
3. Some Rishonim were more sanguine about the validity of the classical
philosophical proofs for the existence of G-d etc. than are most
philosophers of the past 200 years. Others dismissed philosophical
argument totally. I doubt that any Rishonim subscribed to the proofs as a
substitute for living experience; I cannot imagine any of the Rishonim
recommending such an approach to others. As my mentor in this area, the
often slighted Rav Soloveitchik, observed, any proof limited to human
considerations alone inevitably yields a conception of G-d that is
confined by our own interests and perspectives.
4. It is difficult, though not impossible, to reject a short,
direct, irrefutable demonstration. It is much easier to resist
the flow of experience, the coming together of many experiential,
historical and metaphysical threads. As R. Elhanan Wasserman
pointed out, such resistance is even more attractive when the
truth entails accepting burdensome duties. Let me add that such
resistance is also strengthened when people uncritically adopt
unrealistic and inappropriate standards of proof in religion.
Even the most overwhelming experience can be resisted. Ramban,
Shemot 20:17 states that maamad har Sinai is a test (nissayon)
because it highlights the question of whether those who had
direct experience of G-d will choose to obey Him. Even at maamad har
Sinai, the gate of non serviam is not locked.
5. One writer has suggested that if the classical proofs are not airtight
then all we are left with is "experience, a la NCSY." This understanding
of "experience," in its religious context, is surprising, to say the
least. The kind of religious experience which Rav Soloveitchik and Rav
Kook, among others, placed at the center of their existence, is the fruit
of prolonged, intense Talmud Torah, tefilla, self-examination,
understanding of the world, of Israel's destiny, and of the human
condition. If our own experience is less profound and less rich, it is
nonetheless the result of serious self-examination, devotion and work. I
don't wish to demean the emotional value of NCSY events, but the first
religious baby steps of American bourgeois adolescents are exactly that. A
momentary emotional high is NOT religious experience. It is, at best, an
opening through which the Ribbono shel Olam can break in. From the
perspective of the adult, the adolescent's beginnings are laughable. From
the perspective of kiruv or hizzuk the question is how to build from small
beginnings to a mature, honest existence.
6. If I didn't think philosophy has value for a life of yirat
Shamayim, I would stop teaching it. But in all honesty, the real
value of philosophical arguments is to enhance self-understanding
and, as the Bet Halevi said, to help remove intellectual
impediments and excuses from the path of robust emuna.
My intellectual experience leads me to believe that overly
confident, rationalistic claims about what religious philosophy
can and should accomplish are among the impediments that good
philosophy ought to be clearing away.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 20:13:11 -0400
From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Message-Id: <199807020013.UAA22986@mcs.drexel.edu>
To: BaisTefila@Shamash.org, rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Source in Rambam: Mashiach Ben Yosef = David
Rabbi Bechhoffer suggested we would all benefit from this source
It is KINGS, 11:1.
To be sure the Rambam doesn't mention Mashiach ben yosef.
BUT..he mentions the TWO MACHIACHS that the Jews have and
identifies the first as David.
So I assume the first Mashiach = The Mashiach Ben Yosef of the Gemarrah
It seems to me (Laanniyuth daati) that if the Rambam brings this
down in a legal book then it must have legal bearing.
In particular we have no right according to this Rambam to call
The Rebbe or Begin Mashiach Ben Yosef.
Incidentally if all I accomplish is some discussion on this
(touchy) topic and this Rambam I will be happy
Russell Jay Hendel; PHd ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 20:17:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Invented traditions
Message-ID: <19980701.201714.3518.0.alsilberman@juno.com>
From: alsilberman@juno.com
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 YG Bechhofer wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the category of evidence of Ma'amad Har Siai is no less valid than
that that "proves" there was a Napoleon.
> with which the past is transmitted. Anyone who argues for Torah on the
> basis of the Kuzari - the unlikelihood of invented traditions being
> accepted, and the empirical reliability of the historical transmission
> within the mesorah community - has to argue against invented traditions
> now being propagated.
>
I just did - and I think quite cogently .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to give an example of an invented tradition from something
with which I am very familiar with in my circles. I don't know whether
this is true or not in other circles. With this knowledge in my
background I find the "" quite premature !
In chassidishe circles (as I said with which I grew up) not believing
that the Maharal actually created a Golem indicates a lack of Emunas
Xachamim and will get one branded as an "Apiqorus". There is no doubt, of
course that he did create one since everyone in Prague at that time and
the surrounding area actually saw it!! We, of course, have to believe it
is true since we have now received it as a Masora for countless
generations (at least 10) !! The Spinker Rebbe zt"l even has the letter
from the Maharal describing how he created it.
The number of such examples can be multiplied many times over.
Regards,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________________
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_108
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:53:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: thinking about belief
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Since I am the writer I must respond!
Obviously the religious expreience of the Rav, of Rav Kook, of Reb Nachman
Breslever, of any great Torah master, is a profound, prophetic experience,
validation of emuna in and of itself. This emuna peshuta -powerful,
experiential, prophetic, transcendan - is at the core of many schools of
divine service and uplifting growth. I fervently yearn for such
experiences and feel strongly that they are the greatest chizuk of emuna.
My hero Reb Avrohom Elya Kaplan, writes that one would become a Ba'al
Teshuva hearig the Gr"a's Kabbolas Shabbos.
But I am talking about what tools HaKadosh Baruch Hu has given us to
influence our wayward brethren, and ultimately, kol ha'olam kullo. You,
and several others here, are convincing me more and more that you question
the existence of those tools to reach out and provide illumination of the
truth - emes muchketes!! - to others.
I do not wish anymore at this stage to quibble whether the ishonim - the
expositors of Dvar Hashem! - meant what they said or said what they meant.
I cannot fathom otherwise, and I cannot fathom why what they say cannot be
the starting point. or how they are no longer relevant. Forgivr my
ignorance.
But I now understand things I never understood before. How rabbis to the
"left" are into ecumenical activities, granting legitimacy to C/R rabbis
and movements (remember "Validus?"). If "I'm OK, You're OK" - there is no
proof that I am right and you are wrong - well. if I'm the Rav and I am
cheftza chada with the Torah, of course I find the others loathsome. But
if I am Rabbi X...
There are several other lines of thought that have opened before me in the
past twenty four hours, but that is enough for now.
YGB
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> 5. One writer has suggested that if the classical proofs are not airtight
> then all we are left with is "experience, a la NCSY." This understanding
> of "experience," in its religious context, is surprising, to say the
> least. The kind of religious experience which Rav Soloveitchik and Rav
> Kook, among others, placed at the center of their existence, is the fruit
> of prolonged, intense Talmud Torah, tefilla, self-examination,
> understanding of the world, of Israel's destiny, and of the human
> condition. If our own experience is less profound and less rich, it is
> nonetheless the result of serious self-examination, devotion and work. I
> don't wish to demean the emotional value of NCSY events, but the first
> religious baby steps of American bourgeois adolescents are exactly that. A
> momentary emotional high is NOT religious experience. It is, at best, an
> opening through which the Ribbono shel Olam can break in. From the
> perspective of the adult, the adolescent's beginnings are laughable. From
> the perspective of kiruv or hizzuk the question is how to build from small
> beginnings to a mature, honest existence.
>
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
Message-ID: <359ADA91.4712@neiu.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 20:55:45 -0400
From: Harry Maryles
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russell Hendel
CC: YGBList
Subject: Re: The Weaker Sex?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Russell Hendel wrote:
>
> A short comment on Harrys reply. A summary of what has transpired is
> as follows:
>
> A)Harry asks why we say SHELO ASANI ISHAH
> B) I respond by analogy that we say "Thank God for not being blind
> but having sight" and "Thank God for not being naked but being clothed
> (by God)" and these blessings are NOT construed as attacking blind or
> naked people but encouraging appreciation of Gods gifts and helping the
> lest fortunate. So to I suggested that we thank God for not making
> us women (who are physiologically inferior) but made us men
>
> C) Harry Responds that this is cultural bias since in some cultures
> women do hunting etc
>
> D) So now it is my turn to respond. Look, I try and strike a balance
> between discretion and details.
>
> When I said "Vulnerable" I meant "can be forcibly raped". You can't
> rape a man (if you threaten him he has the right to die--a woman
> doesn't). [Please Harry (and everyone else) don't ask me to prove
> this from sources or elaborate)
>
> That is ALL I mean by women's vulnerability.
>
> Hence I thank God for not making me vulnerable and making me a man.
>
> Again as to the negative form of the blessing (LO ASANI vs ASANI ISH)
> I suggested that the Prophet Sages of the great assembly did not
> want to inflate male egos.
>
> Harry may be interested in WHAT CHAZAL did with female vulnerability.
> Among other regulations are the following
>
> --a female captive is redeemed before a male (because of her vulnerability)
> --a female is also given priority in court appearances (because
> very often her vulnerability expresses itself in raising children
> not giving her enough time to get to court)
>
> I could go on.
>
> I wish to make it clear however I am not talking about SOCIOLOGICAL
> BIASES (a trick brought in by the womens movement). I am SOLELY
> talking about the FACT that a women can be raped against her will
> without the right to die and a man can't.
>
> I think this is an important topic and should be discussed further
> (perhaps with other halachas brought in)
>
> As usual we should all observe DARCAY NOAM particularly in this area
>
> BUt we should also show respect for people (no "You aren't serious"
> postings)
>
> Anyway, I am serious. I believe the above argument is solid.
>
> Russell Jay Hendel; Phd. ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
First I want to apologize for any ill feeling that may have been
generated ftom my post.It was not my intention to depart from Darcay
Noam. I respect the high degree of intelligence and thought that goes
into virtually all of the postings on this list. And Russell, you are
certainly no exception. When I said:
"I can't believe you are serious"
I actually believed that you might be answering me "tounge-in-cheek"
because I have never heard an explanation of "Shelo Asani Isha" that
characterized women on any kind of inferior plane, even a physiological
one.
I still maintain that the physiological differences between men and
women are differences in kind rather than in degree. Whereas a man has
superior upper body strength, a woman has superior lower body strength.
A woman may have a greater tolerance for pain than a man. A man may
have a quicker reaction time than a woman. And on and on.
In cases of rape. it is almost exclusively true that women are the
victims here. But again in modern times it has been shown that women
can learn how to protect themselves and therefore not be left
vulnerable. It is in the nature of Mankind that women are the targets
of rape and not men because of the sexual nature of men versus women,
and the nature of such attacks. In this sense, vulnerability is not a
real difference between men and women but their sexual nature is. This
is a difference in kind, not in degree. It is arguable that men might be
more vulnerable than women in certain circumstances.
As for your refference to Chazal's deffinition, i.e.:
--a female captive is redeemed before a male (because of her
vulnerability)
> --a female is also given priority in court appearances (because
> very often her vulnerability expresses itself in raising children
> not giving her enough time to get to court)
I believe in your first reference, Chazal made a woman"s redemption a
priority because of the sexual nature of men towards women combined
with their being captive, and
your second reference to her court appearance priorities... I'm hard
pressed to believe that it was because of her vulnerability. It seems
more likely that her RESPONSIBILITIES towards child-rearing is the
reason that chazal prioritized women's appearances in court. I could be
wrong here because I'm not familiar with, or don't remember the gemmorah
you are talking about.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by:
> (if you threaten him he has the right to die--a woman
> doesn't).
Could you explain. I know you asked not to elaborate but I simply do not
understand what you mean.
HM
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
From:
Message-ID: <33665436.359af32e@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:40:45 EDT
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: The Weaker Sex?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 98-07-01 21:51:49 EDT, you write:
<< your second reference to her court appearance priorities... I'm hard
pressed to believe that it was because of her vulnerability. It seems
more likely that her RESPONSIBILITIES towards child-rearing is the
reason that chazal prioritized women's appearances in court. I could be
wrong here because I'm not familiar with, or don't remember the gemmorah
you are talking about. >>
According to the Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin, 21:6), a woman's case is heard
first because her shame is greater. I'd be interested to know the source of
children impairing her ability to get to court.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_108
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: An Esrog Used for only Part of Sukkos
Message-ID: <19980701.234013.8567.0.KennethGMiller@juno.com>
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:40:58 EDT
Micha Berger wrote: <<< I recall one of Rav YB Soloveitchik's yarchei
kallah in Boston an August in the early 80s, where The Rav discussed the
gemara about an esrog that is used for only part of Succos. It is assur
bihana'ah the rest of the day that it is used, including bein hashmashos.
Then, since it was assur bihana'ah bein hashmashos,
it is assur for the rest of the next day as well. >>>
Another example of this is that the Sukkah remains assur on the last day
(Sh'mini Atzeres in Israel, Simchas Torah elsewhere) merely because it
was muktzah during the preceding bein hash'mashos -- Mishna Brurah 667:2.
But if so, then I have a very serious question which has been bothering
me for years. It will sound ridiculous at first, but please consider it
carefully: If a sukkah remains muktza on the Yom Tov which falls on the
day after Sukkos, then a candle should remain muktza on a Yom Tov which
falls on Motzaei Shabbos. Why isn't it?
I am hoping to find an answer which will fit *either* of these two
descriptions, but I have not been able to find such a source. Either (1)
an explanation of how the laws of muktza apply differently to the sukka
and the candle, or (2) an authoritative sefer which points out that
indeed, the candle and all cooking utensils and related items should
remain muktza over Yom Tov, but an explicit exception was made for this
situation.
Personally, I have not found any rule which distinguishes between a sukka
and a candle. I would easily believe that an exception was made here
(especially since it would be so similar to having Shabbos and Yom Kippur
run into each other) but I'd like to know if it was ever explicitly said.
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_108--
----__ListProc__NextPart__899352071449676035--
From baistefila@shamash.org Thu Jul 2 14:27:57 1998
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:27:55 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 109
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__899404075449702037"
----__ListProc__NextPart__899404075449702037
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 109
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Mashiach BY
by Isser Zalman Weisberg
2) Re: The Kuzari's Proof
by kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
3) You can't rape a man?
by kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
4) Re: Shavers (fwd)
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
5) Faith and Emunah
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
6) RE: The Weaker Sex?
by "Pechman, Abraham"
7) Re: Mashiach BY
by Harry Maryles
8) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Clark, Eli"
9) Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
by "Clark, Eli"
10) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Moshe J. Bernstein"
11) Re: The Kuzari's Proof
by "Clark, Eli"
12) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by "Lawrence M. Reisman"
13) Re: Faith and Emunah
by
14)
by "Newman,Saul Z"
15) Re: Rabbis to the left
by "Clark, Eli"
16) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
17) Re: Faith and Emunah
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
18) RE: Early shabbos
by "Clark, Eli"
19) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
----__ListProc__NextPart__899404075449702037
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_109"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:20 -0500
To: Bais Tefila Learning Group
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg
Subject: Mashiach BY
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to actively participate in the many
interesting discussions lately, or even to read most of the digests.
B'hashgacha pratis I saw the posing in digest 101 from HM and I was very
surprised at the harsh tone which I thought was unacceptable to our group.
I do not wish to dwell on this. Just a few points.
"Please remember that long before he brought up this whole business with
Moshiach, nobody outside of Lubavitch was Gores him"
This, of course, is untrue. Most gedolei Yisroel had enormous respect for
the Rebbe. Rav Moshe and Rav SZ Aurbach zt"l, both considered the
undisputed poskei Hador in their time, publicized their admiration for the
Rebbe and their total support for his massive kiruv efforts. They clearly
did not consider them "questionable". (I can give exact quotes for those
interested). There is a set of seforim titled "Shemen Sasson" which
documents the Rebbe's correspondence (oral and written) with the Gedolei
Yisroel of our generation. A glance at the long list of personalities
demonstrates that Rav Shach was clearly the exception, not the rule.
"R. Chaim Shmulevitz has been quoted as saying (in Yiddish) Az Ehr iz
Moshiach, Gey Ich Nit!"
Anyone who knew R. Chaim realizes that this is clearly a fabrication, and
totally out of character for this great master of musser and humility. I
personally know bachurim from Mir whom Rav Nachum zt"l (Rav Chaim's
son-in-law and one of the most respected Roshei Yeshiva in the world) spoke
to about the Rebbe's gadlus and asked them to please go to the Rebbe when
they returned to NY and ask him for a b'racha for a refuah shleima for
himself (when Rav Nachum was ill).
"...leader of a generation which, I believe to be a minimum requirement to
be even Moshiach ben Yosef"
A little research on this matter would reveal that: MBY has a VERY LIMITED
following, is clearly NOT considered the leader of a generation, is scorned
upon and even ridiculed by many Jews and even Talmidei Chachomim, IS a
descendent of DAVID HAMELECH, IS considered by his followers to be Ben
DOVID, not Ben YOSEF, DOES have very "special significance in Yahadus", and
IS most likely mentioned in RAMBAM. I can cite all the sources if there is
interest.
Isser Zalman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Cc: clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM, meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Subject: Re: The Kuzari's Proof
Message-ID: <19980702.023611.8567.6.KennethGMiller@juno.com>
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 02:37:01 EDT
It seems that several posters understand the Kuzari somewhat differently
than how I do. Please allow me to explain my understanding of the
Kuzari's proof of the Torah's truth.
Rabbi Clark wrote: <<< ... I don't get the same chizzuk from the Kuzari
that you do. After all, the direct access advantage only lasted one
generation. After that we have to rely on mesorah, just like --
le-havdil -- all the other religions. ... >>>
And Meir Shinnar wrote <<< ... Rav Yehuda Halevy makes two related
empirically based arguments for the validity of Torah. These arguments
are no longer valid for us, because the empirical validity of their
assumptions is itself a matter of doubt, and is accepted essentially only
by those who already accept the Torah. The first is the historical
reality of yetziat mitzraim. ... Today, the reality is that outside of
the mesora community and conservative Christian groups, the historical
reality of the Exodus and all of humash is not accepted. Therefore, one
has to have accepted Torah before these arguments have any validity. ...
>>>
Rabbi Clark seems to say that since those who witnessed Maamad Har Sinai
are no longer with us, what had been their testimony is now mere hearsay.
And Mr. Shinnar is saying that the proof is dependent upon a prior belief
- in which case no proof is needed!
I will demonstrate that my personal belief is not based on accepting the
testimony of 600,000 witnesses as evidence, and it is not based on what
percentage of any population might believe the Torah to be true.
Contradictory though it may seem, my belief is based on the mere *claim*
of the Torah's truth. Generations of Jews have *claimed* and *believed*
the Torah to be true, and that is what makes this proof rock-solid in my
eyes.
(Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Kuzari to cite
chapter and verse. But over the years, when I have read or learned
anything relating to this subject, this is how the Kuzari was taught to
me.)
I do admit that most of the world does not accept the historical validity
of the Torah, certainly not as much as we do. However, the fact is that
we do accept it. And why? Because our parents and teachers believed it,
and so they taught us to believe it. And they believed because of their
teachers. And so on.
Of course, this belief proves nothing. The faithful of other religions
believe because of their parents and teachers, who also sincerely
believed. All this shows is that at some point in the past, someone
started passing down a story which succeeding generations believed. This,
on its own, does not prove that the story really occurred.
So we have to look at they story. And this is where the proof comes to
light. Because every other religion in the world started with an
individual, or a small group of people, who gathered a following and
taught them their message. I am not accusing any particular religion of
being false. All I am saying is that ultimately, the proof of the other
religions depends on whether or not the founder(s) really spoke with G-d
(or whatever), or whether the founder(s) made up the story (deliberately
or not). Again, I am not accusing any religion of being false. All I am
saying is that a charismatic individual, or group of same, *could* set a
religion in motion on a false basis, yet the faithful followers would be
totally innocent and unaware of the error, and then they would faithfully
pass this on to their children and students.
But that could not possibly have happened in our case, because our story
CLAIMS that an entire nation experienced it personally. If our faith was
based on what Moshe told us, then a non-believer could claim that Moshe
was a charismatic person who convinced others that G-d had spoken to him,
and we could not prove him wrong. But we believe that every single one of
those millions *personally* experience HaShem's presence. You can't make
this stuff up. No one would believe it.
Let's go back to the days of Yehoshua. Better yet, a few years later,
when absolutely no one is left who had been in Egypt. In Rabbi Clark's
words, "the direct access advantage" is gone, and at this point "we have
to rely on mesorah, just like -- le-havdil -- all the other religions."
But I disagree, because we do not need "the direct access advantage".
Imagine it is Pesach, we're sitting at the Seder eating the Korban
Pesach, telling the story of what happened a few years ago. I ask for
proof, and they tell me this answer: If we were the only people around
having this Seder, the request for proof would be reasonable. But with so
many people doing this, the burden of proof falls to me. Why do I think
that they are all wrong? How could they possibly have made up the story?
And this is true even nowadays. To say that the Torah is *not* true is to
say that at some point, someone wrote it, and managed to get other people
to believe it. But what sane person would believe it if it did not
happen? If I told you that 500 years ago, all of Greece flew to the moon
and back, and they celebrate that trip every year ever since, no one
would ever believe it, because there is no support for its own claims.
So too for us. There is no way that you can convince an entire nation
that their ancestors really spoke with HaShem unless it really happened.
In other religions, the bottom line of the tradition is that a certain
person or group spoke with G-d, which could be true or false; the fact
that the tradition exists is no proof either way. But *our* tradition
boils down to millions of people speaking to Him. Such a claim would
never have made it to the second generation unless it really happened.
Sometimes I feel bad that this is referred to as the Kuzari's proof. I
believe that Moshe Rabenu should get the credit for it. In Moshe's own
words (D'varim 4:32-35)
<<< So go and ask about the old days that came before you, since the day
that G-d created man on the earth, from one end of heaven to the other
--- Has there ever been anything like this great thing? Or has anything
like it ever been heard of? Has a people ever heard the voice of G-d
speaking from a fire, like you heard personally, and lived? Or has G-d
ever miraculously come to take a nation for Himself out from another
nation, with miracles, signs, and wonders, and with war, a mighty hand
and outstretched arm, and with great awesomeness, like everything which
Hashem your G-d did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? You were
shown so that you would know, that HaShem is G-d, there is no other
besides Him. >>>
I am particularly inspired by the words "O hanishma kamohu" - "Has
anything like it ever been heard of?"
True then. True now. 'Nuff said.
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_109
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: You can't rape a man?
Message-ID: <19980702.073536.8567.1.KennethGMiller@juno.com>
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 07:36:29 EDT
Dr Hendel wrote <<< When I said "Vulnerable" I meant "can be forcibly
raped". You can't rape a man >>>
When a person donates blood, they ask the donor a series of questions, in
order to help screen out dangerous blood from the public supply.
Questions about prescription drugs, illegal drugs, recent illnesses and
surgeries, that sort of thing. For several years this has included
questions about one's sexual practices, presumably because of AIDS.
About two years ago, I noticed a new question on the list: "Have you ever
been in prison for over 72 hours?"
What a sad commentary on the state of our prison system. Someone who's
been in jail for three days has lost the chazaka on the quality of his
blood. I think Dr. Hendel's theory is mistaken.
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_109
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:24:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: Re: Shavers (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Forwarded message. Rabbi Rabinovitch is the Rosh haYeshiva of Yeshivat
Birkat Moshe in Ma'aleh Edumim.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:26:54 +0000
From: yeshivat birkat moshe
To: Benjie
Subject: Re: Shavers
Your quote of Rabbi Rabinovitch's position is accurate, though he
wishes to stress that you only quoted the conclusion of a lengthy
teshuva and in order to understand his reasoning he urges you to
read the whole teshuva.
Kol tuv
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-Id: <199807021333.JAA01712@dvqa1.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: Faith and Emunah
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As I see it, there is a spectrum of level of proof to anything a person
accepts to be true:
1- Proof. I have incontravertable proof that X is true. People who don't
believe in X are either ignorant of it, in denial, or delusional.
2- Argument. I can give a line of argument that shows X to be true. (E.g.
Using information theory to prove the existance of a creator.) However,
someone else could pick holes in this argument, or at least believe that
they must exist.
3- Assertion. I have no evidence one way or the other, but I believe that X is
true.
4- Counterproof. I believe in X even though I have evidence otherwise.
I don't think anyone defines emunah to include #4. And, I quoted my LOR a
little while back, who felt that emunah doesn't mean seeking #1. Clearly,
things that are proven should be believed, but that isn't emunah. Even worse,
the need / desire to seek proofs is a chisaron in emunah. IIRC, R' YGB still
disagrees, at least on this last point.
But what the question really boils down to whether emunah is supposed to be
based on argument, or isn't. This is not to say arguments do or don't exist,
just whether it is the obligation of emunah.
The Rambam requires searching for arguments as part of his definition of the
chiyuv of "Anochi Hashem". OTOH, his hakdamah to the Moreh implies that you'd
be better off not needing such arguments, but for those who do, here's a
sefer. And we've already cited those who laud emunah p'shutah. Eilu va'eilu?
About the Riha"l's arguments:
1- Why is it that the widespread acceptance of the events of the Torah is
proof during this acceptance, but evaporates otherwise? IOW, if at any time,
diverse peoples accept a single Great Event as being true, shouldn't that
argue louder than their later rejection of that belief as myth?
For example, it's easy to see how multiple cultures would reject tall tales.
The Riha"l's first argument, though, was about how multiple cultures could all
have very similar stories. Of course in rejection, the absence of a story,
they'd converge.
2- OTOH, I find the oft cited second argument, about the impossibility of
creating a legend about nearly all the ancestors (except those of geirim) of
the people who believe it, to be flawed. (BTW, there were 3million or so
witnesses, not 600,000. The fact that we know that women and children saw it
too adds to the credibility, at least numeriacally.)
In generation 1, the story could be made up, and told as a story. No one
questions it, because it's a story. In generation 5, it's a "legend", it
gains currency, but only the gullible believe it. By generation 10, if
someone were to insist to the masses that it /is/ true, who would question
not having heard the story before? The Rihal assumes the claim was created
overnight, however, a slower process is plausable.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5853 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 2-Jul-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_109
Message-ID: <642B2955645BD0118FEE00805FD4068228DE45@MWEXCHANGE>
From: "Pechman, Abraham"
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: RE: The Weaker Sex?
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:37:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu [mailto:rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 8:09 PM
> To: C-Maryles@neiu.edu; baistefila@shamash.org
> Cc: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
> Subject: Re: The Weaker Sex?
>
...
> --a female captive is redeemed before a male (because of her
> vulnerability)
Actually, if the captors are known to be into mishkav zachor, then the
male captive would take precendence in redemption, because the rape of a
man is worse (unnatural? more painful? more embarrassing?) than the rape
of a woman. Indicating that we measure vulnerability on a case by case
basis.
Avi Pechman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID: <359B8657.81B@neiu.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 09:08:39 -0400
From: Harry Maryles
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Mashiach BY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I haven't had the time to actively participate in the many
> interesting discussions lately, or even to read most of the digests.
> B'hashgacha pratis I saw the posing in digest 101 from HM and I was very
> surprised at the harsh tone which I thought was unacceptable to our group.
>
> I do not wish to dwell on this. Just a few points.
>
> "Please remember that long before he brought up this whole business with
> Moshiach, nobody outside of Lubavitch was Gores him"
>
> This, of course, is untrue. Most gedolei Yisroel had enormous respect for
> the Rebbe. Rav Moshe and Rav SZ Aurbach zt"l, both considered the
> undisputed poskei Hador in their time, publicized their admiration for the
> Rebbe and their total support for his massive kiruv efforts. They clearly
> did not consider them "questionable". (I can give exact quotes for those
> interested). There is a set of seforim titled "Shemen Sasson" which
> documents the Rebbe's correspondence (oral and written) with the Gedolei
> Yisroel of our generation. A glance at the long list of personalities
> demonstrates that Rav Shach was clearly the exception, not the rule.
Rav Shach may not be the rule but he is most certainly not the exception
as there are many roshei yeshiva today that are at least inclined to
question Rebbe"s ultimate accomplishements. Rabbi Chaim D. Keller comes
to mind as does the entire leadership of Telshe Yeshiva. I have also
spoken tomany roshei Yeshiva here in Chicago, who, for obvious reasons,
wish to remain anonymous, who have the same inclination. Furthermore,
Rav Shach is considered the Gadol Hador by most Litveshe charedim in
Eretz Israel today. So, his opinion cannot be so easily discounted.
>
> "R. Chaim Shmulevitz has been quoted as saying (in Yiddish) Az Ehr iz
> Moshiach, Gey Ich Nit!"
>
> Anyone who knew R. Chaim realizes that this is clearly a fabrication, and
> totally out of character for this great master of musser and humility. I
> personally know bachurim from Mir whom Rav Nachum zt"l (Rav Chaim's
> son-in-law and one of the most respected Roshei Yeshiva in the world) spoke
> to about the Rebbe's gadlus and asked them to please go to the Rebbe when
> they returned to NY and ask him for a b'racha for a refuah shleima for
> himself (when Rav Nachum was ill).
The quote by Rav Chaim Shmulevitz I have heard eid mipi eid. And
I'vedouble checked my source on this and he is impeachable. Anyone who
knows about R. Ch.Shmulevetz,knows that he had a tremendous sense of
humor. If he disagreed with what the Rebbe was doing or saying, it is
not a stretch to believe that he said it in this humorous tone.
As to his son-in-law,R.Nuchum, I have heard the same story about his
asking for a bracha from the Rebbe, and have even heard the same thing
about my own Rebbe, R.Aaron Soloveichik, who, after being struck down by
a debiltating stroke, also, asked (I believe personally) for a bracha
from the Rebbe. I really can't say that I understand this except to say
Al todin Chavercha ad shyagya limkomo. And in my Rebbe's case, there was
also, a close personalrelationship with the Rebbe (which the
Mashichistin exploited about a year or so ago for their own purposes).
>
> "...leader of a generation which, I believe to be a minimum requirement to
> be even Moshiach ben Yosef"
>
> A little research on this matter would reveal that: MBY has a VERY LIMITED
> following, is clearly NOT considered the leader of a generation, is scorned
> upon and even ridiculed by many Jews and even Talmidei Chachomim, IS a
> descendent of DAVID HAMELECH, IS considered by his followers to be Ben
> DOVID, not Ben YOSEF, DOES have very "special significance in Yahadus", and
> IS most likely mentioned in RAMBAM. I can cite all the sources if there is
> interest.
There has been so little written on MBY that it is difficult todefine
his characteristics. I would like to see your source material.
Eventhough you addressed some of my points you did not address my other
points so, you must admit to them.
HM
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:12:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> area. It is also a direct mandate of the Mishnah. But is absurd to
>> think that a rishon would express himself in exactly the same way in the
>> bet midrash as he would while defending Torat Hashem in Tortosa.
>Why? I hope I do. (Except in that I use better English outside the BM.)
I think you and I live in a very different time. I certainly can't
imagine being summoned before the ruler of this land and asked to serve
as defense attorney for Yiddishkeit. Moreover, remember the stakes: not
only did Ramban have to flee for his life after the vikku'ach, but there
was a strong possibility of a pogrom depending on its outcome. Other
outocmes of vikkuchim included the serefah of every single copy of the
Gemara.
>"Fair" here means that this is a mishpat, not a chok. Is the chiyuv to
>kill them mishpat or chok?
I do not see how the mishpat and chok distinction helps. Assume the
only evidence is two edim. No other physical evidence. Not even a
corpse. By US standards, conviction is unlikely. But the Torah says al
shenayyim edim yakkum davar. Is that a mishpat or a chok? Answer: it
doesn't matter. We kill him anyway.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Nevuah of Benei Yisrael
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:04:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
R. YGB writes:
>The Rambam classifies ruach hakodesh as prophecy.
Correct. Correct.
>You asked me where the Rambam links nevu;ah with dveykus - Moreh 3:51 in
>the "He'ara."
Well, yes. Two quibbles. One -- his use of the term seems very
different from the Ramchal's and that of other mekubbalim. Two -- he
was writing in Arabic, so it is that much harder to draw the comparison.
(Where the Rambam writes in Hebrew -- i.e. the Mishneh Torah -- I don't
remember seeing the word devekut.)
>> SA), but generally guides one regarding the proper Halakhah. In
>It does?
Basically. I admit it is less clear than, say, Shemirat Shabbat
ke-Hilkhatah. But you have to judge it against the other texts
available at the time -- and for the subsequent 5 or 6 centuries. The
Mishnah is very concrete compared to the Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifre. It
is far more organized than the Gemara. The next closest thing to a
practical Halakkhah guide is something like the Sefer Halakhot Gedolot,
which is still harder to use than the Mishnah.
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Moshe J. Bernstein"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
question for those of us who believe that yahadut is an "evidence-based"
religion: can you conceive of a piece of evidence which could lead you to
believe other than what you believe currently? if not, then what you
believe in is ultimately faith-based.
those of us involved in scholarship in biblical studies frequently get
asked questions of this kind, both sincerely and superciliously (depending
on the questioner), and the issue must be treated in a far more nuanced
fashion than mere citation of the Kuzari. after all, regardless of how the
Kuzari's argument is treated on the evidentiary scale, does it really
surpass all other forms of evidence? if not, then what would happen if
such a piece of evidence were to be presented?
moshe bernstein
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: The Kuzari's Proof
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:19:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am glad to see that many people find the argument of R.[who gave him
semikhah?] Yehudah Halevi just as convincing today as the king of the
Khazars found the argument of the Chaver.
Just a few comments. Akiva, you seem to agree that the issue comes down
to our story against their story, but that our story is better because
harder to fabricate. You mention the state of belief of people in the
dor of Yehoshua or later and ask how could they doubt something seen by
a whole nation. A good question!
The answer of the skeptic: Yehoshua (chalilah!) never existed either!
You may be right that a claim as grandiose as ma'amad Har Sinai could
never have made it to the 2nd generation. But how do we know there was
a second generation? We know about Yehoshua from the same source which
tells us of ma'amad Har Sinai. Do you see why this argument is
circular?
A very large group of non-believers have proposed a theory that the
Torah as we know it was written in the time of Chizkiyah (R"l).
According to them there was no yetziat Mitzrayyim, there was no kibush
by Yehoshua, just a lot of made-up stories of heroic deeds and miracles
that happened long before (chalilah).
Now I don't believe this at all. But I do believe that this is an
accurate description of the origin of pagan myths, Hindu myths,
Christian myths, Moslim myths, and, more recently, Mormon myths.
Armed with your argument, I could tell these Bible critics: yes, but our
story is not a myth because the giluy shekhinah was in front of millions
of people! And dor Yehoshua would not have bought the story unless the
previous generation really experienced it. Do you think this would
convince the Bible critics that the Torah is true, while the religious
legends of all other faiths are myth? Or do you think they would just
say that Chizkiyah's story was better written than (le-havdil) Paul's?
Kol tuv,
Eli
Akiva Miller writes:
>So we have to look at they story. And this is where the proof comes to
>light. Because every other religion in the world started with an
>individual, or a small group of people, who gathered a following and
>taught them their message.[snip]
> All I am
>saying is that a charismatic individual, or group of same, *could* set a
>religion in motion on a false basis, yet the faithful followers would be
>totally innocent and unaware of the error, and then they would faithfully
>pass this on to their children and students.
>But that could not possibly have happened in our case, because our story
>CLAIMS that an entire nation experienced it personally. If our faith was
>based on what Moshe told us, then a non-believer could claim that Moshe
>was a charismatic person who convinced others that G-d had spoken to him,
>and we could not prove him wrong. But we believe that every single one of
>those millions *personally* experience HaShem's presence. You can't make
>this stuff up. No one would believe it.
>Let's go back to the days of Yehoshua. Better yet, a few years later,
>when absolutely no one is left who had been in Egypt. In Rabbi Clark's
>words, "the direct access advantage" is gone, and at this point "we have
>to rely on mesorah, just like -- le-havdil -- all the other religions."
>But I disagree, because we do not need "the direct access advantage".
>Imagine it is Pesach, we're sitting at the Seder eating the Korban
>Pesach, telling the story of what happened a few years ago. I ask for
>proof, and they tell me this answer: If we were the only people around
>having this Seder, the request for proof would be reasonable. But with so
>many people doing this, the burden of proof falls to me. Why do I think
>that they are all wrong? How could they possibly have made up the story?
> But *our* tradition
>boils down to millions of people speaking to Him. Such a claim would
>never have made it to the second generation unless it really happened.
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID: <000a01bda5cf$7ba583e0$3d9cfbd0@default>
From: "Lawrence M. Reisman"
To:
Cc: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:38:36 -0400
Rabbi Bechofer wrote:
>But I now understand things I never understood before. How rabbis to the
>"left" are into ecumenical activities, granting legitimacy to C/R rabbis
>and movements (remember "Validus?"). If "I'm OK, You're OK" - there is no
>proof that I am right and you are wrong - well. if I'm the Rav and I am
>cheftza chada with the Torah, of course I find the others loathsome. But
>if I am Rabbi X...
Excuse me, but at this point, I feel compelled to defend Dr. Lamm. Now,
most people can guess that I'm no lover of Dr. Lamm or modern Orthodoxy, and
I have defended Reb Elya's right to speak his mind more than once. But I
cannot let you get away with using an unfortunate slip of Dr. Lamm's tongue
to imply he said something that he didn't. He used the word "valid" when he
meant to use "viable." In other words, Conservative and Reform have proven
to be viable groupings in the modern era. But at no time during that speech
did he concede legitimacy! His exact words, spoken at the CLAL critical
issues conference on March 19, 1986, and reprinted in Moment Magazine's
June, 1986 issue are as follows:
From a functional point of view, therefore, non-Orthodox rabbis are
valid leaders of Jewish religious communities, an it both fatuous and
self-defeating not to acknowledge this openly.... As an Orthodox Jew, I not
only have no trouble in acknowledging the functional validity of
non-Orthodox rabbinic leadership, but also in granting that non-Orthodox
rabbis and lay people may possess spiritual dignity. ... But neither
funcional validity nor spiritual dignity are identical with Jewish
legitimacy. "Validity derives from the Latin "validus," strong. It is a
factual descriptive term. "Legitmacy" derives from the Latin "lex," law.
It is a normtative and eveluative term. ... Here, I have no choice but to
judge such legitimacy by my own understanding of what constitutes Judaism
and what does not. The criterion of such legitimacy is the Jewish lex-the
halacha: not a specific interpretation of and individual halacha; not a
general tendency to be strict or lenient; but the fundamental acceptance of
halacha's divine origin, of Torah minhashemayim.
It is interesting to note that the Orthodox reaction focused on the use
of "validity," while the non-Orthodox reaction focused on his denying
legitimacy to other groups. If one peruses the letters to the editor of
subsequent editions of Moment, one finds non-Orthodox Jews excoriating Dr.
Lamm for his intolerance. As to the use of the word, in his reply to Aaron
Twerski, printed in the June, 1988 edition of the Jewish Observer, he
conceded the use of the word of validity was unwise and misleading.
I like Dr. Lamm-blaster no more than any other right-wing Neanderthal,
but please don't criticize him for something he never said or meant to say.
Nine years ago at the Agudah convention, Reb Elya was allowed to give a "Wos
Ich hob gemeint ich hob nicht gesogt, und vos hob Ich gesogt, Ich hob nicht
gemeint" (What I meant I did not say, what I say I did not mean) speech to
clarify some remarks he had made earlier on. We should look at Dr. Lamm's
in its entire context, and see what he really meant to say. The pursuit of
emes demands no less.
Yours as ever,
Levi Reisman
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
From:
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Message-Id: <85256635.004DDF86.00@allante.chase.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:33:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Faith and Emunah
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I think that much of the confusion is due to the two separate things we
mean by the term "Emunah".
1] - The knowledge based on logical proof
2] - The emotional "feeling" of believing
I know that my son is really my son because
0] - Chazaka, rov beilos achar habaal
1] - I was in the hospital when he was born
2] - The kid we took home looked something like the one I saw a few moments
after birth
3] - The kid I see every day seems like the one I saw yesterday
But when I beam (kvell) at his kindergarten graduation and feel that strong
feeling of "he's my son", I'm not focusing on the above proof. I'm past
that. I know it in my gut. and don't think about it.
I think this is what Rabbi Soloveitchik meant his by "bride in the embrace"
example. Not that we believe blindly, but that when you know, you know. And
once you know, it's insulting to focus on the proofs. Imagine if I told my
wife: We can go on living together because:
- You have a copy of the Kesubah, and my signature on it matches my Visa
card
- You look (more or less) like the woman I married ten years ago
- The woman I know to be my mother in law recognizes you as her daughter
- Pictures from the wedding indicate that you are the same woman
She might come back with proofs the other way.
Aaron
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
From: "Newman,Saul Z"
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject:
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:10:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <359bbeec1cd4002@laurel.kp.org>
in re proofs and emuna. there's an interesting review of david
halivni-weiss' latest book in the current Forward. from his non-orthodox
orientation to torah and talmud, he's trying to reconcile keeping the
mitzvot while possesing a textually-imperfect torah, l'daato. [this work
may redlect on a previous thread of his halachic status.
szn
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Rabbis to the left
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:29:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
R. YGB writes:
>But I now understand things I never understood before. How rabbis to the
>"left" are into ecumenical activities, granting legitimacy to C/R rabbis
>and movements (remember "Validus?"). If "I'm OK, You're OK" - there is no
>proof that I am right and you are wrong - well. if I'm the Rav and I am
>cheftza chada with the Torah, of course I find the others loathsome. But
>if I am Rabbi X...
I once had a long discussion with a young woman in which I tried to
persuade her that if I thought Orthodoxy was correct, it followed that I
also thought that everyone else was wrong. I did not succeed.
However, I am uncomfortable with the sweeping generalizations implied in
the above paragraph. I assume that all of us want one thing and one
thing only: to reunite all of kelal Yisrael under the banner of Torah
u-mitzvot, to restore the keter le-yoshenah and once again make Yisrael
a goy echad ba-aretz. The only question is: What is the best way?
Aish ha-Torah have their approach, so does NCSY, Chabad and others too
numerous to mention. However, most kiruv today involves inviting the
non-Orthodox to come to us, to our territory, on our terms. Tragically,
the number who decline or ignore our invitation dwarves the number who
accept. As a result, the forces of assimilation are stealing away Jews
on a much larger scale than the kiruv organizations which are working to
bring them back.
Another fact is that most non-Orthodox Jews have a (mostly) distorted
view of orthodoxy as intolerant, arrogant and fanatical. This image is
spread y the Jewish and mainstream media and is occasionally reinforced
by some really stupid statements or actions which emerge from the
Orthodox community.
In this context, I understand why an Orthodox rabbi would be willing to
work with non-Orthodox "rabbis," to dispel this image and make our
(kiruv) invitations more appealing. I understand why someone might
participate in a religious debate with non-Orthodox "rabbis" on
neutral/hostile territory, such as a JCC or a Hillel.
What about legitimization? Here is one answer.
The fact is that many -- perhaps all -- non-Orthodox rabbis are
convinced that what they are doing is the correct path of avodat Hashem.
Strange but true. The fact is that many -- perhaps all -- affiliated
non-Orthodox Jews view their rabbis as knowledgeable and reliable
expositors of Judaism. Sad but true. So when the "rabbi" tells his/her
congregants that their movement is correct and Orthodoxy is wrong, they
are likely to believe it. Especially when the message also makes them
feel better about themselves and acords with their stereotype of
Orthodoxy. In other words, the average Reform Jew thinks Reform is
legitimate and the average Conservative Jew thinks Conservative Judaism
is legitimate. The average unaffiliated Jew couldn't care less about
the whole thing. And the average Orthodox Jew is certainly secure in
the legitimacy of Orthodoxy. So in whose eyes will the feared
legitimization occur?
Kol tuv,
Eli
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:48:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
We would have to submit to that evidence - that is clear. I.e., were to be
presented with stronger evidence of the veracity of, say, Islam, over
Judaism, we would all have to become Moslems.
I think that those of us who are open to thought do modify our beliefs
when presented with evidence (in contradistinction, perhaps, to certain
strains of Chassidus, and, it seems, perhaps, certain strains of Modern
Orthodoxy :-) ). The acceptance of evolution and an older world are
examples thereof.
YGB
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Moshe J. Bernstein wrote:
> question for those of us who believe that yahadut is an "evidence-based"
> religion: can you conceive of a piece of evidence which could lead you to
> believe other than what you believe currently? if not, then what you
> believe in is ultimately faith-based.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:55:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Faith and Emunah
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 Aaron.Berger@chase.com wrote:
> once you know, it's insulting to focus on the proofs. Imagine if I told my
> wife: We can go on living together because:
> - You have a copy of the Kesubah, and my signature on it matches my Visa
> card
You signed your own kesuva?
Didn't I sign it?
Seriously, I like and agree fully with your analysis. Yeyasher kochacha!
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Message-ID:
From: "Clark, Eli"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: RE: Early shabbos
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:02:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Tuesday, June 23, 1998, Elie Grinsparg asked:
>In siman 233 (orech chaim) the mechaber says that if you do like R.Yehuda
>its ok or if you do like the rabbais its ok, provided you are consistent.
>I imagine that most people Daven maariv after sunset, and for that matter
>mincha after plag on a regular basis. So why do we allow people to make
>early Shabbos, which makes it neccesary to daven Mincha before plag and
>Maariv after plagbut before sunset The only heter that is in the shulchan
>orech would be a
>shaas hadchak (see M.B 11) Are we assuming that eating a Shabbos meal at
>9:30 P.M. is considered Shaas hadchak or is there some other piece of info
>that I'm missing
Last night I came across an interesting teshuva in the Terumat ha-Deshen
(siman 1) which addresses this issue. R. Isserlein is asked about a
minhag in Ashkenaz to daven ma'ariv in the summer 3 or 4 hours before
tzeit. He justifies the minhag on the basis of "tashut koach," the
physical weakening of the current generation who cannot wait to eat
until nightfall. But he cites two unnamed Gedolim who considered it
legitimate to daven ma'ariv very early, and cites a Tosafot in Berakhot
(the first one, in fact), that for purposes of tefillah we rely on two
kulot even thought they are a tartei de-satrei.
It is clear that in Ashkenaz they had the same problem we have in the
summer -- tzeit is not til many hours after we normally eat supper. We
also know that the Mechaber lived in a region where this was not as big
a problem. It would appear, speaking on regel achat, that we are
relying on the shitah of Tosafot and the Terumat ha-Deshen (though what
sefardim do, I cannot say). I know ya'akov Katz has written about this
as well. I wonder if anyone can shed more light on this topic?
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:27:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Subject: Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Lawrence M. Reisman wrote:
> Excuse me, but at this point, I feel compelled to defend Dr. Lamm. Now,
> most people can guess that I'm no lover of Dr. Lamm or modern Orthodoxy, and
> I have defended Reb Elya's right to speak his mind more than once. But I
Guess what! I am perfectly happy to love Rabbi Lamm, and am certainly
abhorred, not to say, as listowner, formally and publicly rebuking you, by
your extraordinarily derogatory "kinnui shem" for him in your post, which
common courtesy la'adam ba'asher hu adam prevents repeating.
I am not involved in judgmentalism here, and not attacking Rabbi Lamm. I
think you are projecting. I am observing, and continue to do so below.
There was no "putdown," as we shall presently see.
> did he concede legitimacy! His exact words, spoken at the CLAL critical
> issues conference on March 19, 1986, and reprinted in Moment Magazine's
> June, 1986 issue are as follows:
>
> From a functional point of view, therefore, non-Orthodox rabbis are
> valid leaders of Jewish religious communities, an it both fatuous and
> self-defeating not to acknowledge this openly.... As an Orthodox Jew, I not
> only have no trouble in acknowledging the functional validity of
> non-Orthodox rabbinic leadership, but also in granting that non-Orthodox
> rabbis and lay people may possess spiritual dignity. ... But neither
> funcional validity nor spiritual dignity are identical with Jewish
> legitimacy. "Validity derives from the Latin "validus," strong. It is a
> factual descriptive term. "Legitmacy" derives from the Latin "lex," law.
> It is a normtative and eveluative term. ... Here, I have no choice but to
> judge such legitimacy by my own understanding of what constitutes Judaism
> and what does not. The criterion of such legitimacy is the Jewish lex-the
> halacha: not a specific interpretation of and individual halacha; not a
> general tendency to be strict or lenient; but the fundamental acceptance of
> halacha's divine origin, of Torah minhashemayim.
>
It is evident from Rabbi Lamm's words that he is constained as a ma'amin -
regrettably so, but nonetheless constrained - from conferring legitimacy
in the legal sense. As he correctly noted, no choice is granted an
Halachically observant Jew in this area.
But, he did confer "validus" - not legitimacy, but a strength, a
significance, and spiritual dignity to the non-Orthodox. This is not a
status of legal "legitimacy" but a status of spiritual "reality".
This is very much in line with my impression - confirmed ever more so by
Reb Eli Clark's most recent post - that "torat ha'emet ha'yachasit"
underlies many of the attitudes (eitherin an obvious or subtle manner)
that the MO world espouses, as opposed to the RW world (forgive the
stereotypes, please - but, I should note, that in this context, RW
includes, say, to the best of my understanding, the talmidim of Rav Kook
and others at the RW of the Religious Zionist world as well).
The RW, holding Yahadus as emet muchletet ("emes l'amisa"), can never
accept that there is any spiritual significance to those beyond the pale
- even if they are sincerely misguided and worthy of pity and assistance.
Their strength would only be regarded as "kesher resha'im eino min
ha'minyan" - Hashem's reassurance to Chizkiya in the face of Shavna's
massive threat. Terms like "valid" and "spiritual dignity" cannot apply -
"sheker ein lo raglayim" - human dignity, common courtesy, la'adam
ba'asher hu adam, (BTW, Rabbi Lamm is due much more
respect than that - my remark before merely reflected a minimum that even
his detractors must afford him) - but not more.
In contrast, as Reb Eli pointed out, there is no way in which a person of
the MO world can "prove" or present evidence that his way is "right" and
another "wrong." He may feel such very strongly, have faith in it, live it
- but there is no way to convince others. Aderaba! The case may be made,
however Christianity, Islam, Bhuddisim, Conservative or Reform came to be
- now, a person born into such camps, was placed by Hashem there, this is
their emet yachasit, and while I cannot drink their wine (the Meishiv
Davar about tinokos shenishbu notwithstanding) - no legitimacy - validity
they possess.
These were my points of yesterday. They were and are not meant to
derogate (c"v!), but as observations. I have two more.
1. Torah U'Madda: I am not referring to Rabbi Lamm's "contemporary"
re-definition, which is borrowed from Chassidus, but to a definition I
heard on a Yiddish tape from the Rav from the 50's - where he forcefully
and eloquently described Torah and Secular Knowledge as a "Ramasayim
Tzofim" - two toweing peaks that face each other, with the students of
Yeshivas R' Yitzchok Elchonon building bridges between the two. The tape
is awesome, but I was bothered afterwards by how the Rav could ascribe so
much significance to Secular Knowledge - far more than the "rakachus
v'tabachus" approach of Torah im Derech Eretz. But, lefi devareinu, yesh
lomar that the great secular scholar toiling in his field and achieving
great heights, has a validity and significance that is equivalent from his
perspective, although technically barred legitimacy from ours, and the
rest is obvious.
2. This is much more doubtful, but, we can always discuss it, and I
present it for your consideration (more fun!): The MO camp has, to the
best of my knowledge, not produced a home-grown Posek of epic stature. I
submit that, perhaps, the quest for psak (as opposed to "scholarship") is
one of rigorous pursuit of "emes l'amisa." If all emes is relative, this
quest is diminished.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6147
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_109--
----__ListProc__NextPart__899404075449702037--
From baistefila@shamash.org Thu Jul 2 21:34:55 1998
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 21:34:52 EDT
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
From: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
To: Highlevel Torah topics discussion group
Subject: BAISTEFILA digest 110
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart__899429692449714846"
----__ListProc__NextPart__899429692449714846
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BAISTEFILA Digest 110
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: The Kuzari's Proof
by Cheryl Maryles
2) Gratuitous swipes, JTU'M
by Michael Frankel
3) Re[2]: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
4) MO and Home grown poskim
by "Newman,Saul Z"
5) Trust, Argument, Proof
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
6) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
7) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut
8) Torah written down (rl) in Chizkiyah's time
by Mordechai Torczyner
9) Re: Darkhei Dikduk
by "Clark, Eli"
10) Shelo asani
by micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
11) Re: MO pesak
by "Clark, Eli"
12) emes muchletes
by David Glasner
13) Re: Gratuitous swipes, JTU'M
by "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
14) Re: Shelo asani
by Harry Maryles
15) Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
by cbrown106@juno.com (Charles Brown)
16) Zeh Keli Ve'anvehu
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
17) Re: BAISTEFILA digest 108
by gershon.dubin@juno.com
18) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by Harry Maryles
19) Re: Shelo asani
by Joel Margolies
20) Re: An Esrog Used for only Part of Sukkos
by
21) Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
by Joel Margolies
----__ListProc__NextPart__899429692449714846
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="--__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BAISTEFILA__digest_110"
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:31:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: The Kuzari's Proof
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:
> A very large group of non-believers have proposed a theory that the
> Torah as we know it was written in the time of Chizkiyah (R"l).
> According to them there was no yetziat Mitzrayyim, there was no kibush
> by Yehoshua, just a lot of made-up stories of heroic deeds and miracles
> that happened long before (chalilah).
> Now I don't believe this at all. But I do believe that this is an
> accurate description of the origin of pagan myths, Hindu myths,
> Christian myths, Moslim myths, and, more recently, Mormon myths.
When Chizkiahu came out with his Torah what did the people say. Wouldn't
they question the fact that the jews were taken out of egypt and stood at
har sinai both with commands to tell these events over to their children,
yet the people of cizikiahu's time wouldn't have heard of these events
from
their parents. What would Chizkiahu say--that it was forgotton, but the
Torah itself states that it won't be forgotten. Wouldn't this cast doubt
on Chizkiahu's claim. This will hold true for any generation--lemasah what
did the people say when presented with the Torah. Wouldn't they wonder why
they never heard of events that their parents were commanded to tell them
about.besides the fact that these were events happened to an alleged
millions of people. No its not hard core proof,a nd a lawyer can even
prove OJ Simpsom innocent, but look at evidence and judge what iis more
likely to be true---you're forced to conclude that it is more logical for
the torah to be written by hashem in 2448 then any person at any other
time. It is in this respect that I believ that we have evidence in the
torah's accurecy beyond the fact that our fathers told us so and we follow
blindly.
Elie Ginsparg
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 19:20:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Frankel
Subject: Gratuitous swipes, JTU'M
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
RYGB writes of someone's submission:
> your gratuituous, uncalled for swipe at Artscroll is beclouding
your reason. To be more honest, the swipe tempts me to forgo the
conversation altogether, as it
> Artscroll's misdeeds are copiously recorded and scored at the vaunted
Journal Of Torah U'Madda
I wasn't aware that JTU'M did such copious recording and scoring, or even
uncopious mentions, or indeed any mention. Citation would be appreciated.
(though I do remember the odd-uncopious swipe by Traditon, some fairer than
others)
Also wasn't aware that JTU'M was vaunted, which comes across, sagei nohor, as a
not so faint whiff of disapproval from our listmaster. Since I don't recall
JTU'M figuring in the thread conversational flow at all, one might consider
its reference here gratuitous and sits in an odd semichus haparshiyos within a
post which bristles with a perception of the next guy's "gratuitous, uncalled
for swipe" and leads one to reflect again on personal hot buttons and your own
vs other people's gored oxen (I think there's a metaphor in there somewhere -
and I know there's a run on sentence there).
I don't , c"v, mean to criticize our listmaster who is doing a yeoman job
captaining (quick promotions available in god's navy) this electronic ship. It
doesn't seem to me that the participation spectrum is quite as broad as in
mail-jewish (may it have a r"s"b"b"a"), but I am sure he still has to bite
down and swallow hard on a pretty regular basis
On another note, It is ironic that the self proclaimed (though hopefully only
part-time) zealot wing of this list is championing the so-called historical
argument for belief in ma'amad har sinai as well the validity of the classical
philosophical "proofs" for God's existence, while the rationalist (which
doesn't mean the other guys are irrational, at least not continuously) wing
trumpet the importance of emunoh and reject rationalizing Divine "proofs.
Mechy Frankel frankel@hq.dswa.mil
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807028994.AA899406093@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 98 14:54:51 -0500
To:
Subject: Re[2]: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>We would have to submit to that evidence - that is clear. I.e., were to be
>presented with stronger evidence of the veracity of, say, Islam, over
>Judaism, we would all have to become Moslems.
>I think that those of us who are open to thought do modify our beliefs
>when presented with evidence (in contradistinction, perhaps, to certain
>strains of Chassidus, and, it seems, perhaps, certain strains of Modern
>Orthodoxy :-) ). The acceptance of evolution and an older world are
>examples thereof.
1)There is a basic difference between accepting evidence that refutes a belief,
versus requiring evidence to validate a belief.
2) Even for people who believe that their belief is evidence based, for most,
the standard of evidence required to validate their belief is far different than
the standard of evidence required to invalidate it, suggesting that the belief
is primary, and the evidence is primarily a hizzuk (nothing wrong with that).
No philosophy operates in a vacuum.
3) Yeshaya Lebovits's position is perhaps of interest here, as almost the
direct opposite of the Kuzari. He argues that history, even when known and
agreed upon, never determines values. The decision to be oved hashem is a value
decision. I can know that hashem exists, and still choose not to worship him.
Thus, the dor hamidbar, which saw nissim and niflaot and directly
experienced mattan tora, was always mored. The dorot that heard the neviim
directly were ovdei avoda zara. However, in the middle ages, generations that
had no direct revelation from hashem were devoted to avodat hashem.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 02 Jul 98 13:52:34 -0500
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 2454 invoked from network); 2 Jul 1998 17:48:08 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 2 Jul 1998 17:48:08 -0000
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 2394 invoked from network); 2 Jul 1998 17:48:03 -0000
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (129.105.16.52)
by shamash3.shamash.org with SMTP; 2 Jul 1998 17:48:03 -0000
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA10464
for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:48:01 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:48:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
To: bais tefilah list
Subject: Re: Faith based vs. evidence based religion
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: baistefila@shamash.org
Sender: owner-baistefila@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
--simple boundary--
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110
From: "Newman,Saul Z"
To: "'baistefila@shamash.org'"
Subject: MO and Home grown poskim
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:17:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <359bdcbc2a06002@laurel.kp.org>
in re the possible point by rav YGB-- of MO not being able to produce
epic poskim 1) assume that a great posek emerged in the Hesder
world orthe YU world, e.g. How would he be defined a s great if the
chareidi world wouldn't be maskim? would anyone from the MO world be
able to write the rigorous kulas of rav moshe without being lambasted
from the right? 2] how many great poskim are there? five per dor? one?
if the chareidi/MO ratio is five or ten to one, wouldn't it follow that
the great pposkim will come from the majority? 3] there are
unfortunately too few MO mosdot hatorah at least in USA (?reflective of
the actual need?)--so maybe no one speciallizes in psak 4]the MO
rebe'im will prob always defer to the universally recognized gdolim for
psak [but not for da'at torah}
szn
----__ListProc__NextPart____BAISTEFILA__digest_110
Message-Id: <199807021927.PAA19869@dvqa1.nyc.deshaw.com>
Subject: Trust, Argument, Proof
To: baistefila@shamash.org
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Aside from the distinction I made earlier (belief based on (1) proof; (2)
argument; (3) no real indication either way, but I trust it's true), I'd like
to make another one.
Are we discussing whether emunah ought be BASED ON proof or argument, or if it
ought be BOLSTERED BY SEEKING proof or argument?
If we're to say emunah is based on evidence then if the particular set of
evidence that you know happens to evaporate -- proven false or whatnot -- your
emunah would collapse as well.
Instead, if we're to say that emunah ought spur one to seek evidence, the
problem evaporates, and yet we're still not talking about "faith" as per
Christianity.
I might suggest that true emunah is not the belief, but the trust that such
evidence (proof and argument) exist.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5853 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 2-Jul-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_110
From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Message-Id: <9807028994.AA899408776@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 98 15:41:20 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: Rabbi Bechofer's putdown of Norman Lamm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>stereotypes, please - but, I should note, that in this context, RW
>includes, say, to the best of my understanding, the talmidim of Rav Kook
>and others at the RW of the Religious Zionist world as well).
>The RW, holding Yahadus as emet muchletet ("emes l'amisa"), can never
>accept that there is any spiritual significance to those beyond the pale
>- even if they are sincerely misguided and worthy of pity and assistance.
>Their strength would only be regarded as "kesher resha'im eino min
>ha'minyan" - Hashem's reassurance to Chizkiya in the face of Shavna's
>massive threat. Terms like "valid" and "spiritual dignity" cannot apply -
>"sheker ein lo raglayim" - human dignity, common courtesy, la'adam
two comments:
1) Most MO do not deny the existence and validity of "emes muchletet", they
just don't know how to prove it. I have heard the claim, but not the evidence
of valid proofs from the RW. Is the difference merely a difference in assessing
evidence?
Given our inability to prove conclusively the emes muchletet, our ability to
judge those who do not accept it is different, as they are no longer mordin
(the Hazon Ish ( hopefully accepted as a member of the RW :)) was cited in this
regard - is he now part of the "torat ha'emet ha'yachasit"?
2) While Rav Kook clearly held in emes muchletet, he also held in the spiritual
significance of those beyond the pale.
>But, he did confer "validus" - not legitimacy, but a strength, a
>significance, and spiritual dignity to the non-Orthodox. This is not a
>status of legal "legitimacy" but a status of spiritual "reality".
strength and significance - do you deny that? You may have a negative
evaluation of their significance, but how can you deny the metzius that they are
a strong and significant component of am Yisrael? That is what Rav Lamm is
saying.
With regard to spiritual dignity, there is (hopefully) a difference between
someone who denies Torah misinai and still tries to act with spiritual dignity,
and someone who denies Torah misinai and concludes that everything is permitted.
There are gradations even among epikorsim. This is epecially true as almost
all the Conservative and reform, even the rabbinate, may have the status of a
tinok shenishba, rather than an epikoros.
The Rambam, in Iggeret hashmad, is quite insistent that just because someone
did (and continues to do) averot (even avoda zara), does not mean that he should
not try to do mitzvot, and we have an obligation to be mkarev them and
appreciate whatever spiritual dignity they have.
Rav Soloveichik, in one of essays in Al Hatshuva, refers to "hayehudi hagadol
Franz Rosenzweig", even though Franz Rosenzweig never fully accepted Torah
misinai. However, given where he started, he can not be called a rasha, and
came close to true avodat hashem. That is not a reflection of the relativeness
of truth, but the appreciation that not everyone arrives at the truth. No one,
even the RW, requires a tinok shenishba to accept torah on the basis of his own
thinking.
Meir Shinnar
--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 02 Jul 98 14:32:26 -0500
Return-Path: