Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 088

Thursday, December 24 1998

• Re: Bas Kol:Psak or Encouragement?
• Re: Menorah
• RYE and RYE
• Re: Menorah
• spelling of yerushalyim
• Re: Avodah V2 #86
• Re: Avodah V2 #87
• Re: Avodah V2 #87
• Re: Bas Kol and Halachah
• Historical Reality
• Re: Cases from the daf
• Defamation in the Gemorrah
• [none]
• Re: Ruach HaKodesh
• Re: Menorah
• Re: Defamation in the Gemorrah
• BOUNCE avodah@aishdas.org: Admin request of type /\buns\w*b/i at line 5 (fwd)
• Menorahs

In message , Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes
>In sum, we never follow the Bas Kol to override an established principle in
>Halacha i.e., following a minority against the majority. However, in the case of
>Beis Hillel we didn't know  if the majority can overrule a minority of wiser
>people. The Bas Kol established that in fact majority applies here also.[this is
>also the interpretation of Encyclopedia Talmudis]. The Bas Kol poskened halacha
>that we would not have been able to answer without it. Could you please explain
>how you read Tosfos to come up with your conclusion that Bas Kol was not
>mechadeish?
>

I'm off to Israel to plan weddings, so I don't have time for more than a
brief note (and i haven't seen any of this inside) - but I believe that
the Ben Ish Chai poskened that women should say brochas over mitzvos
oseh she hazman gramman (against the position of the Shulchan Aruch) on
the basis of a dream quoted by the Chida, in which the relevant talmid
chacham (I don't think it was the Chida himself)  asked Hashem (directly
or indirectly, I don't know) on the subject and was told that they
should (I don't know enough to know whether he asked whether they should
follow Tosphos or not, to bring it within the Or Samach's
understanding).  I believe that Rav Ovadia Yosef is vehemently against
this position, on the basis of lo b'shamayim he.

If my rendering is correct, it would seem that the Ben Ish Chai and Rav
Ovadiah have very different understandings of lo b'shamayim he and the
extent to which a Bas Kol can be mechadesh who to follow (alternatively
their dispute could be as to the extent to which following the Maran for
Sephardim can be seen to be following the majority when set against the
position of the Rema and Tosphos - although it would seem clear that,
without the dream, the Ben Ish Chai would not have argued, so there does
appear to be an overriding of an established principle).

Getting back to the main inyan, the problem seems to me is that the two
bas kol contradict.  After all, the one decision (by bas kol) is that a
majority (beis hillel) overrides a wiser minority (beis shammai), while
the other decision (by bas kol) would appear to be that a wiser minority
(of one, ie Rabbi Eliezer) overrides a majority (Rabbi Yehoshua et al).
In addition, the alternative on Eruvin 6b-7a seems to suggest that if
you hold like Rabbi Yehoshua, then even after the bas kol saying you go
like Beis Hillel, you don't necessarily, because of lo beshamayim he
(isn't that tosphos' question at the end there - that the position of lo
b'shamayim he  means that you don't take note of a bas kol at all, while
the more general (not lo bashamayim he) position cited earlier is that
you don't take notice of a bas kol only when it comes for the honour of
the particular individual (as you have stated).

Am I overreaching to suggest that maybe it is this distinction that is
the difference between the Ben Ish Chai and Rav Ovadiah? Namely, Rav
Ovadiah poskens, lo beshamayim he (and therefore presumably does not
follow the bas kol regarding beis hillel as halacha, - in which case he
would need an explanation like Micha's to the effect that it is merely
providing psychological emphasis for what was a non heavenly derived
position regarding following the majority), while the Ben Ish Chai is
following the position that in general you do follow a bas kol and
therefore you need an explanation that the bas kol was only coming for
the kavod of R' Eliezer.

>
>                         Daniel Eidensohn
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a message dated 12/23/98 0:20:02 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> Why do all participants in this debate not take heed of the Rambam's
>  treatment of the tzitz - re the discussion in the Gemara whether it was
>  one or two lines, Rabbanan say two and R' Eliezer says HE SAW IT IN ROME
>  (see the parallel!) and it was one line - the Rambam paskens that it
>  should be made on two lines - but that sometimes it was made on one line.
>  
>  V'hu ha'din b'nidon didan!
>  
See KS"M Al Asar that the Rambam rules that it is only Kosher Bdieved, and he
has to say that they did Bdieved, because of the Testimony of R"E, (which he
saw the actual Tzitz), to rely on the drawing of Rshoi'm is Sheloi Bdoroh
D'unoh.

The Rebbe in rejection of the Sevoroh that the Romans captured the Menoros
Shlomo, among his arguments is that for what reason would Shlomo make it
different then Moshe Rabbeinu, he also refers to Rashi (Shmos 25:9) D"H
V'chein Taasu, that the Menorohs that Shlomo made where like that of Moshe
Rabbeinu, the Rebbe concludes that in any case since the Menoroh that was made
by Moshe (and I'll add that HKB"H formed it) is the Ikar there is no reason to
reject that (when depicting the Menoroh) one which according to Rambam and
Rashi were diagnol, and replace it with a questionable one.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Reb Daniel suggested that everyone's silence might suggest that we (the
other readers of this list) are not interested in this topic.  I can only
speak for myself, but I have been closely following this debate for several
days.  The only reason why I haven't contributed is because I had nothing
to add that wasn't already said by someone else.  I happen to agree with
REC on almost every point, and I have found his posts to be quite
articulate and thorough, however the debate has been most interesting.
However, now I do have something to contribute.  I've spoken with my father
about the issue, and he told me that Rabbi J.J. Schachter is currently in
the process of writing a biography on RYEm.  At the recent RCA convention,
he mentioned that as a hisorian and a rabbi he has a difficult dilemma.  If
he is honest about what he finds (and apparently he has fouund some
things), he may be guilty of denigrating the reputation of a gadol batorah.
But if he is not honest, he will be just another revisionist historian.
Some of the list members may have been there so if you can add more info,
please do so.
Personally, I don't see much damage in finding out the truth, but I
understand Reb Daniel's warning that this may not always be possible.
Shaul Weinreb

Sorry, I still don't see why this precludes my proposal!

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> See KS"M Al Asar that the Rambam rules that it is only Kosher Bdieved,
> and he has to say that they did Bdieved, because of the Testimony of
> R"E, (which he saw the actual Tzitz), to rely on the drawing of Rshoi'm
> is Sheloi Bdoroh D'unoh. 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Does anyone know why yerusalyim is spelled in tanach without the yud at
the end and why do we add the yud. In addition, it is pronounced the way
it is because there is a chireek at the end of the word which goes with no
letter as there is already a vowel under the lamed, does this happen
elsewhere---all responses are appreciated
C.M.

On 12/22/98 23:18:55 Rabbi Clark wrote:
>
>
>Please do not misunderstand me: I would never ever think, suggest or
>imply that one could compare the Lubavitcher Rebbe, lehavdil elef alfei
>havdalot, to Shabbetai Zevi.  The notion is monstrous.  What is
>comparable -- in some ways -- is the actions of a small number of
>followers.  In both cases we have individuals who believed a living
>person was mashi'ah, who continue to believe so after his petirah -- or
>deny that he is dead, who (in extreme cases) are addressing tefillot to
>him.  What is scary is that this exact pattern unfolded then and is
>repeating itself now.  With all due respect to the talmidei hakhamim to
>whom you have spoken, I think there is reason for concern and almost
>anyone with a historical sensibility is likely to share it.
>
>

It is not clear to me why the "notion  is monstrous".  It would rather depend on examination of the empirical evidence and one should attempt to arrive at an honest conclusion.  Rav Shach, after all, saw marked similarities between the two, as did the Brisker Rov and Rav Aharon Kotler.  I do not choose to get into this argument now, but my own examination of the evidence has led me to conclude that the similarities far outweigh he differences.  As unpleasant as issues of this type are, their resolution should be based on rational criteria, not feelings about what is or is not "monstrous".  This is especially true where one is treading on sfeikos d'Oraisa; I have long ceased eating Lubavitcher meat, drinking their wine or answering to their prayers. You ought to either examine the issues thoroughly yourself or turn to those whom you ask she'elos of.  Elisha ben Avuyah was a bigger lamdan than either Shabetai Zvi or the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Melech Press

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

On 12/23/98 15:25:57 H. Maryles  wrote:
>

>My assertion that Roshei Kollel, Roshei Yeshiva, and Rebbeim could 
>rather easily size up the bochurim and avreichim under his jurisdiction 
>is pretty much a given.  If you are suggesting that a Rosh Kollel 
>doesn't know how his avreichim are learning then why bother having a 
>rosh kollel at all. 

I nowhere suggested that  a Rosh Yeshiva can't assess whether his student is learning, only whether he can predict whether he will become a gadol.  I an, however, unaware that Roshei Kolel are selcected based on their assessment ability.  It has been  my impression that they are generally chosen either because they are outstanding talmidei chachomim, good fundraisers or both.



> It should be the obligation 
>of these Roshei Yeshiva to guide certain of these individuals into a 
>life of learning (I'm sure if you ask any one of them privately they 
>would tell you who of their group has a chance to make it and who 
>doesn't) and others into a life of parnassah by urging them to GO TO 
>COLLEGE or the like while they yet are learning in a yeshiva beis 
>hamedrash (ala Ner Israel, HTC or YU).  This is Not being none on a wide 
>enough scale.

This is not exactly what you said when we began this exchange.  If your point is that Roshei Yeshiva are obligated to help their students assess who is clearly unable to profit from remaining in the Kolel or who lacks the temperament for certain or any Torah vocations I am in complete agreement with you.  However, I had the clear impression from your previous posts that you felt that long-term Kolel learning should be limited only to those who clearly had the potential for extraordinary accomplishment; I made clear my strong disagreement with that position.  As I noted, any society needs both a range of scholarly experts of different levels and a broader community that appreciates those experts.  Both of these groups can only be produced by long years of hard work at learning.

While I sometimes share your irritation at Roshei Yeshiva who neglect to counsel talmidim we also have to realize that they may know better than we do the conditions necessary to produce a cadre of scholars.  It is clear that by creating an atmosphere which encourages everyone to try their hand at long term learning we have a greater chance of producing scholars than by alternative routes.  Contrast this approach with that of YU (my alma mater).  There we have a world in which hundreds of young men respect and value learning, engage in it seriously, admire their roshei yeshiva and yet the vast majority, including many of the most talented, never consider devoting themselves to a career as a klei kodesh.  As a result, the significant majority of staff in institutions associated with Modern Orthodoxy are identified with the world of "black hat" yeshivos.
>

>Indeed predictions based on our present standardized tests ARE poor as 
>can be seen by the reliabilty quotients of the tests.  These are 
>objective tests.  On the other hand The Roshei Yeshiva/kollel are human 
>beings of extremely high caliber who are totally immersed in the welfare 
>and progress of their students.

The reliability of standardized tests is actually quite high and psychological studies repeatedly show that the more information available to the person predicting the more likely he or she is to err in their predictions. (I know some people believe this flies in the face of common sense, but much of psychological research is devoted to showing the errors of common sense.) Prediction is a very different process than concurrent evaluation; a rosh yeshiva who is a good assessor of present functioning may be a poor predictor of future achievement.  I might note that I personally can point to a number of prominent talmidei chachomim who have played important roles in our community but who as youngsters in kolel were rather mediocre; I won't name them for obvious reasons.
>
>>  Did I assert that all Jews should be in Kolel?  Does anybody?
>> Is Mr. Maryles so ignorant of reality that he does not know that in 
>>all the Kolelim in America there are >fewer than one thousand long term 
>>learners? 
>
>I find it difficult to beleive that the number is that small.  Certainly 
>In Eretz Israel the number is far greater. 

I deliberately spoke about America because there is much more freedom in choosing to stay in kolel.  In Eretz Yisroel the decision is complicated by the wish to stay out of the army and the inability to legally engage in any remunerative activity while exempt from the army. My figure is, however, accurate for America, give or take a few.  Even in Lakewood, where there are now over 2300 students, the majority do not stay more than several years beyond their marriage and there are very few of the "over 40" that you referred to.  It is also important to note that most of those who do stay are not in fact supported by the public but are maintained either by their families gifts or their wives' earnings.  This is a personal choice which they, their wives and their parents have every right to make.  I might (in fact I do) agree with you that a fair number of them might be better served by going out into the world either of Torah or parnasa but I do  not consider it my business to te!
!
!
ll them how to make life choices

On 12/23/98 15:25:57 H. Maryles  wrote:
>

>My assertion that Roshei Kollel, Roshei Yeshiva, and Rebbeim could 
>rather easily size up the bochurim and avreichim under his jurisdiction 
>is pretty much a given.  If you are suggesting that a Rosh Kollel 
>doesn't know how his avreichim are learning then why bother having a 
>rosh kollel at all. 

I nowhere suggested that  a Rosh Yeshiva can't assess whether his student is learning, only whether he can predict whether he will become a gadol.  I an, however, unaware that Roshei Kolel are selcected based on their assessment ability.  It has been  my impression that they are generally chosen either because they are outstanding talmidei chachomim, good fundraisers or both.



> It should be the obligation 
>of these Roshei Yeshiva to guide certain of these individuals into a 
>life of learning (I'm sure if you ask any one of them privately they 
>would tell you who of their group has a chance to make it and who 
>doesn't) and others into a life of parnassah by urging them to GO TO 
>COLLEGE or the like while they yet are learning in a yeshiva beis 
>hamedrash (ala Ner Israel, HTC or YU).  This is Not being none on a wide 
>enough scale.

This is not exactly what you said when we began this exchange.  If your point is that Roshei Yeshiva are obligated to help their students assess who is clearly unable to profit from remaining in the Kolel or who lacks the temperament for certain or any Torah vocations I am in complete agreement with you.  However, I had the clear impression from your previous posts that you felt that long-term Kolel learning should be limited only to those who clearly had the potential for extraordinary accomplishment; I made clear my strong disagreement with that position.  As I noted, any society needs both a range of scholarly experts of different levels and a broader community that appreciates those experts.  Both of these groups can only be produced by long years of hard work at learning.

While I sometimes share your irritation at Roshei Yeshiva who neglect to counsel talmidim we also have to realize that they may know better than we do the conditions necessary to produce a cadre of scholars.  It is clear that by creating an atmosphere which encourages everyone to try their hand at long term learning we have a greater chance of producing scholars than by alternative routes.  Contrast this approach with that of YU (my alma mater).  There we have a world in which hundreds of young men respect and value learning, engage in it seriously, admire their roshei yeshiva and yet the vast majority, including many of the most talented, never consider devoting themselves to a career as a klei kodesh.  As a result, the significant majority of staff in institutions associated with Modern Orthodoxy are identified with the world of "black hat" yeshivos.
>

>Indeed predictions based on our present standardized tests ARE poor as 
>can be seen by the reliabilty quotients of the tests.  These are 
>objective tests.  On the other hand The Roshei Yeshiva/kollel are human 
>beings of extremely high caliber who are totally immersed in the welfare 
>and progress of their students.

The reliability of standardized tests is actually quite high and psychological studies repeatedly show that the more information available to the person predicting the more likely he or she is to err in their predictions. (I know some people believe this flies in the face of common sense, but much of psychological research is devoted to showing the errors of common sense.) Prediction is a very different process than concurrent evaluation; a rosh yeshiva who is a good assessor of present functioning may be a poor predictor of future achievement.  I might note that I personally can point to a number of prominent talmidei chachomim who have played important roles in our community but who as youngsters in kolel were rather mediocre; I won't name them for obvious reasons.
>
>>  Did I assert that all Jews should be in Kolel?  Does anybody?
>> Is Mr. Maryles so ignorant of reality that he does not know that in 
>>all the Kolelim in America there are >fewer than one thousand long term 
>>learners? 
>
>I find it difficult to beleive that the number is that small.  Certainly 
>In Eretz Israel the number is far greater. 

I deliberately spoke about America because there is much more freedom in choosing to stay in kolel.  In Eretz Yisroel the decision is complicated by the wish to stay out of the army and the inability to legally engage in any remunerative activity while exempt from the army. My figure is, however, accurate for America, give or take a few.  Even in Lakewood, where there are now over 2300 students, the majority do not stay more than several years beyond their marriage and there are very few of the "over 40" that you referred to.  It is also important to note that most of those who do stay are not in fact supported by the public but are maintained either by their families gifts or their wives' earnings.  This is a personal choice which they, their wives and their parents have every right to make.  I might (in fact I do) agree with you that a fair number of them might be better served by going out into the world either of Torah or parnasa but I do  not consider it my business to te!
!
!
ll them how to make life choices

Micha Berger wrote:

> Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
> : You seem to be saying this was not a real question but rather was a minor
> : uncertainty. They could simply have ignored it - without the aid of the Bas
> : Kol. The Bas Kol only came to reassure them that the rule of following the
> : majority was simply what they had known all along.
>
> My understanding is not that they "could simply have ignored it", but that
> they /should/ simply have ignored it. Because they didn't, and let the
> diversity of p'sak continue, a bas kol came to finally close the case.
>

At this point, I think we are just recycling. We both agree that Tosfos is
bothered by the fact that Bas Kol asserted a view in two halachic disputes. In the
case of Rabbi Eliezer it was ignored and Rabbi Eliezer was rejected. In the case
of Beis Hillel it was apparently accepted. After this we disagree significantly
what Tosfos is saying. I say - based on the context of the gemora and Maharsha
that it was poskening - saying something which could not be learned because of the
issue of wise minority. Rabbi Eliezer was not a case of a wise minority but a case
of whether Heaven overrules a majority. The gemora there specifically asks what is
Lo Bashamayim and answers that since Sinai we follow the majority. It doesn't say
we were doubtful of whether to follow Rabbi Eliezer because he was wise. Thus
Tosfos gives different explanations for the Bas Kol in the two cases. The common
factor Tosfos notes is whether the Bas Kol is uprooting previous halacha or not.
Since by Rabbi Eliezer it was - it is irrelevant to halacha l'maaseh and thus was
only for kavod. By Beis Hillel it was not violating any known rules and thus could
be accepted as "the" authority.

I agree with Chana Luntz that the interpretations depend in large part on your
starting point. If you follow the Rambam - the gemora must be assumed to not be
the source of psak and is more psychological or dealing with the status of the
person (Ohr Someach).. My original point was that one does not have to agree with
the Rambam based on the sources and that Tosfos can readily be understood to be
allowing the Bas Kol a role in Halacha.

                                                   Daniel Eidensohn

Saul Weinreb wrote:

> However, now I do have something to contribute.  I've spoken with my father
> about the issue, and he told me that Rabbi J.J. Schachter is currently in
> the process of writing a biography on RYEm.

Rabbi Schachter already wrote a biography about Rav Yaakov Emden. It was his
doctoral dissertation at Harvard. It is readily available  - Bar Ilan has a
copy in their library. It is useful for sources - but the crunch is how to
understand the sources.  As Professor Moshe Idel noted in his criticism of G.
Scholem. If your are an academic and your  sources are what is  written - there
is an inherent distortion from reality. Much important if not critically
important material is not contained in the written sources. Furthermore - as
our discussion regarding how to understand Tosfos on Bas Kol  - intelligent
people looking at the same words - see different things because of what they
assume to be the context.  If you are looking for the smoking gun - it is
doubtful whether you are  going to find it. This is discussed in details in a
book called Historians' Fallacies which was required reading when I was in
graduate school - highly recommended. I would also recommend the dissertation.


                                                   Daniel Eidensohn.

Does anyone have any insights into shkalim mishna bet on daf 8. where R'
Yishmael states that the kupot had alpha beta gamma in yivanit ?  The k"h
seems to say that they were ragil in yivanit due to yafyutei shel yefet(we do
see elsewhere that yivanit was considered  a beautiful language)  but it still
seems strange that it would supplant the hebrew(v'rommamtanu mkol lashon etc.)
The Bartenura's explanation that hashem promised noach(yaft elokim lyefet)that
yivanit would be in bet mikdash seems a bit unsatisfying as is the Rvvvan
simple historical note. 
Do we assume that R' Yishmael is arguing on the tanna kamma who says it was in
hebrew or just a different time period.? If an argument, what's the hesber?
Any insights are appreciated.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Hi all,

As my chavrusa and I were were learning this morning, we came across a
piece (Brachos 14a) where the gemorrah was trying to figure out the
halachos of being poseik during hallel to greet someone.  The gemorrah
quotes Raba as saying that on days that a "yachid is gomer the hallel" -
you can be posek between perakim only and on days that a yachid is not
gomer the hallel - even in the middle of perakim you can be posek.  Then
the gemorrah asks "eini - but rav bar cheva once went by Ravina on a day
that a yachid is not gomer the hallel and he wasn't posek for him (to
greet ravina).  The gemorrah answers that he didn't think ravinah was
chashuv.  My question is  - why did that have to be included in the
gemorrah.  Isn't it just lashon horah?  What does one learning the
gemorrah gain from this maaseh - that rav bar shva didn't think Ravina
was chashuv?  I can understand asking the question in the beis medrash
because there was a ma'aseh Rav - but when the gemorrah was codified -
what does it give future generations.  There are many examples of
derogatory language in the gemorrah when one amorrah insults the other -
I have the same question on those incidents.  What about lashon
nekiyah?  Chas v'shalom should anyone think that I am accusing the
codifiers of the Gemorrah of Lashon Horah or implying that they included
unnecessary information - but I'd like to hear people's opinions of why
these types of phrases and ma'asim were included.  

Take care,

Joel  
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-761-1404

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE2F18.41AC8B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Therefore, through the lens of history, we are far better off today as =
a
result of this machlokes. Perhaps there will be an equivalent gadol who =
will
address the Lubavitch threat in the same way.

Arnie Lustiger"


As  a Lubavitcher Schliach who has gone on the public record on this =
issue let me clarify a few points.

The institutional and Rabbinical leadership  of Lubavitch  has spoken =
out strongly on this issue. A Gadol from the outside, in particular one =
with a poor track record on Lubavitch would only serve to give the =
Mishchistim  what to be excited about. Basically it is a theology of =
slogans looking for  a raison de etre. A theology that is losing support =
when it has no agenda. A challenge from the outside will only give it =
new impetus. Also what is poorly understood by others is that Moshiach =
is a cover for other internal issues that have nothing to do with =
Moshiach.

We are dealing with this painful issue in a wide variety of ways.  Those =
outside of Lubavitch who are truly concerned-not those who have nothing =
but criticism for  years and have now found a new issue-are aware of =
intense efforts to remedy this situation.=20

As for the threat of the Moshistim. They are not a threat to Klal =
Yisroel but to the legacy of the Rebbe. Their distortion of his =
teachings and goals has tainted his accomplishments. They are  Yidden =
shomer Torah and Mitzvos to the highest degree. Any effort to compare =
them to others of two hundred years ago who moved away from normative =
Yiddiskiet is absurd.

When  one looses a parent many react to that loss in  different ways. =
Gimmel Tammuz, the day of Rebbe's T"ZL  was  an personal and spiritual =
earthquake of over  10 on the Richter scale. Still the prophets of doom =
and gloom have not had their visions fulfilled. Despite the pain, and =
loss we are recovering. And we have the moral and spiritual courage to =
deal with our challenges, internally and externally.=20

Excuse me for me harsh tone. This was not meant to be confrontational =
only honest.
Dovid Eliezrie

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE2F18.41AC8B20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&quot;Therefore, through the lens of history, we are far better off =
today=20
as a<BR>result of this machlokes. Perhaps there will be an equivalent =
gadol who=20
will<BR>address the Lubavitch threat in the same way.<BR><BR>Arnie=20
Lustiger&quot;<BR></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>As&nbsp; a Lubavitcher Schliach who =
has gone on=20
the public record on this issue let me clarify a few =
points.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The institutional and Rabbinical=20
leadership&nbsp; of Lubavitch&nbsp; has spoken out strongly on this =
issue. A=20
Gadol from the outside, in particular one with a poor track record on =
Lubavitch=20
would only serve to give the Mishchistim&nbsp; what to be excited about. =

Basically it is a theology of slogans looking for&nbsp; a raison de =
etre. A=20
theology that is losing support when it has no agenda. A challenge from =
the=20
outside will only give it new impetus. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>Also what =
is poorly=20
understood by others is that Moshiach is a cover for other internal =
issues that=20
have nothing to do with Moshiach.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>We are dealing with this painful =
issue in a wide=20
variety of ways.&nbsp; Those outside of Lubavitch who are truly =
concerned-not=20
those who have nothing but criticism for&nbsp; years and have now found =
a new=20
issue-are aware of intense efforts to remedy this situation. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>As for the threat of the Moshistim. They are not a =
threat to=20
Klal Yisroel but to the legacy of the Rebbe. Their distortion of his =
teachings=20
and goals has tainted his accomplishments. They are&nbsp; Yidden shomer =
Torah=20
and Mitzvos to the highest degree. Any effort to compare them to others =
of two=20
hundred years ago who moved away from normative Yiddiskiet is=20
absurd.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>When&nbsp; one looses a parent many =
react to=20
that loss in&nbsp; different ways. Gimmel Tammuz, the day of Rebbe's=20
T&quot;ZL&nbsp; was&nbsp; an personal and spiritual earthquake of =
over&nbsp; 10=20
on the Richter scale. Still the prophets of doom and gloom have not had =
their=20
visions fulfilled. Despite the pain, and loss we are recovering. And we =
have the=20
moral and spiritual courage to deal with our challenges, internally and=20
externally. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Excuse me for me harsh tone. This =
was not meant=20
to be confrontational only honest.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dovid =
Eliezrie</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE2F18.41AC8B20--

RDE writes:

<<
If I understand you properly your are asserting there is nothing gained by the
explanation of Rav Yonason Eybeshuetz and Rav Sternbuch. You feel that the
same
halachic status is produced by the mechanism of d'var mishna and furthermore
you
know that Ruach haKodesh is not involved.
>>

My feeling is that ruach hakodesh is not the determining factor in a work
bring accepted, unless you want to claim that all of Klal Yisrael had ruach
hakodesh and used that to accept the SA.  The inspiration that went into the
writing of the SA can arguably be the same that went into the Levush, or any
of the other codifications of halacha that did not gain as wide acceptance.

By your standard, it would seem that more ruach hakodesh went into the Mishna
B'rura than into the Aruch HaShulchan, when the reality of the former's
greater acceptance might be its easier, more familiar format, and less lomdish
approach.  There is no way to use general acceptance as a barometer for
inspiration.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 12/23/98 11:58:05 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> Sorry, I still don't see why this precludes my proposal!

If not that we had testimony of indisputable integrity we would not have
entertained that in the Beis Hamikdosh they relied on Bdieved, so why rely on
unsubstantiated claims according to Torah to say that they did other then the
original Menorah, (if we are going to start using such proof then how many
other cockroaches will come out of the woodwork).

In our case there is the additional Rashi that Vchein Taasu Ldoros.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Joel Margolies wrote:

>  My question is  - why did that have to be included in the
> gemorrah.  Isn't it just lashon horah?  What does one learning the
> gemorrah gain from this maaseh - that rav bar shva didn't think Ravina
> was chashuv?  ....  There are many examples of
> derogatory language in the gemorrah when one amorrah insults the other -

The Chofetz Chaim included the Tshuva of the Chavis Yair #152 which directly
addressed this question.

Approvedtide/asp
From domo@aishdas.org  Thu Dec 24 13:13:40 1998
Received: from atlas.host4u.net (atlas.host4u.net [209.150.128.12])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15800
	for <avodah.atlas@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:13:40 -0600
Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (casbah.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.52])
	by atlas.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA09308
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:13:39 -0600
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
	by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA01300
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:13:40 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:13:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Menorah
In-Reply-To: <69db84d6.36827a18@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.93.981224131130.1115A-100000@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> If not that we had testimony of indisputable integrity we would not have
> entertained that in the Beis Hamikdosh they relied on Bdieved, so why
> rely on unsubstantiated claims according to Torah to say that they did
> other then the original Menorah, (if we are going to start using such
> proof then how many other cockroaches will come out of the woodwork). 
> 

Nope.

Still not convinced. (But keep trying!)

I believe Titus's arch vis a vis the shape of the menorah has a geder of
akum mei'si'ach lefi tumo (it might even be a geder of kefeila arama'a!).

> In our case there is the additional Rashi that Vchein Taasu Ldoros.
> 

Yes, but not necessarily in this prat, that is not explicit in Chumash!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Cheryl M. (I think) suggested that menorah at arch may be privately owned.
Since it is prohibited to replicate menorah (outside of mikdash?), is this
truly a viable alternative.  If prohibition stands, does using curved
branches circumvent the prohibition?

NW

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]