Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 142

Thursday, January 28 1999

• Judging actions, judging men
• Re: Apology
• Re: R. Soloveitchik on lamdut, philosophy and mada
• Re: Judging actions, judging men
• Ma'aser Kisafim
• Repeating aliyos
• Re: Repeating aliyos
• Re: MO and Mixed swimming
• Mixed swimming
• Re: Judging actions, judging men(ELI cLARK)
• More Rav's Hashkofo - Intensity
• Re: More on Avos
• MO, Moving right, Revisionism
• Torah u 'Mada
• Correction.
• swing to the right/offspring
• Re: MO and Mixed swimming
• progressive revelation -- ?? what does this mean??
• History and halakha

RYGB has written some harsh words regarding both R. Rackman and R.
Menashe Klein.
With respect to the first, he writes:

>Certainly, to call such a person "Rabbi" is a mockery of the
>term - unless we equally apply it to other non-Halachic observant "Mat'ei
>Hora'ah."

I wholeheartedly agree with R. Bechhoffer's assessment of their actions.
 And yet.

I think there is a difference between judging a person's actions and
judging the person.  When individuals' actions harm other people, as do
the actions of both of these rabbis, we are obligated to try to stop
them and prevent the harm.  But I see little benefit in titular
polemics.

For one thing, such attacks don't accomplish anything, except perhaps
the venting of emotion.  To whom are such attacks directed?  The
audience is composed of three groups -- those who disagree with these
men, those who agree and those who who remain undecided.  For those who
already see these men as mistaken, there is no need to vilify them
further.  For those who agree with these men (one hopes, a very small
group), such attacks will not persuade; to the contrary, it will
reinforce their image of these men as persecuted visionaries.  To the
undecided, I think we must make reasoned and balanced arguments,
persuading them with logic, not vitriol.

Also it should be kept in mind that, until fairly recently, both of
these men were making useful contributions to the frum community.  R.
Rackman was a pulpit rabbi and writer, very much on the Orthodox left,
and R. Klein was a prolific posek, very much on the Orthodox right.
While I think they have done some reprehensible things recently, I am
not in any position to weigh their credits and demerits.  Fortunately, I
don't have to, because the Ribbono shel olam has not delegated that
function to me.

As it happens, I have disagreed with most of R. Rackman's writings --
well before his anti-halakhic foray into the world of agunot -- and have
serious concerns about many of R. Klein's piskei halakah -- irrespective
of his equally tendentious meddling in the laws of ishut.  But I
recognize that both of these leaders have their constituencies and have
served them faithfully for decades.  It is not for me to determine that
their current activities somehow outweigh all of their earlier
accomplishments.

I heartily encourage any and all campaigns aimed at preventing these men
from subverting and/or controverting halakhah.   But I believe these
campaigns can and should be waged without resort to ad hominem attacks.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

  Dear Group,  

  I appreciate RYGB's response and would like everyone to appreciate 
  that I have real respect and admiration for RYGB. He and I have 
  had a few offline exchanges and he knows my real motives. At least,
  I hope so. I am very zohir in kovod chaveyrai and it always
  pains me to argue.- but, sometimes you have to speek up.
  This, Rav Rav Yosef Gavriel should have  gleaned out from our
  private correspondense.

  But, now that I have all your attention let me ask a question.
  I am sure all of you did not throw out my last post on the NH 
  and the Tanya. I accussed all of you of probably not being
  yotzeh one tefilah in your lifetime. Not one person seemed
  concerned. Don't you think some comment should come forward.
  I pointed to Chidushe Reb Chayim Halevi in hilchos berochos etc.

  Maybe, you were all distracted but how can you ignore this
  problem. Is our job to pick on others only or to see how we can better
  ourselves. Or, maybe no one thinks that this is a problem. Hergel
  naasis tevah-we are used to it.

 Shaya Beilin

In a message dated 1/28/99 11:45:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 > In addition, where does Madda fit in,
 >is
 >it Torah, Halacha or something else. If it's something else where exactly
 >does it fit in, and if it's Torah, do you get knowledge of Hashem the
 >same way out of Torah as out of Madda. My interest has been stimulated
 >by Mr. Wolpoe's post, please provide some of the answers.
 
 It is ironic that the Rav, considered by votaries of Torah u-Madda the
 embodiment of that philosophy, did not per se address the issue of madda
 study and its place in one's avodat Hashem.  Philosophically, he
 considered part of man's divine mandate to master the physical universe
 ("mile'u at ha-aretz ve-khivshuha"), and the study of madda is an
 essential part of that quest.  (Note too that the Rav was a great
 student of mathematics and saw a parallel between its abstract
 structures and the abstract rules of Halakhah.)  In short, he offers no
 systematic defense of madda study (though one of his talmidim has), and,
 it seems, he felt no need to.  For him it was the most natural thing to
 do.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
 
  >>
wrt the "naturalness" issue-I'd like to quote from R' Isadore Twersky's  " A
Maimonides Reader" (he was dealing with philosophy)

'The whole debate revolved around Maimonides-and , in many ways , still does.
For Maimonides represents a type of mentality  and suggests a direction of
thought concerning which neutrality is impossible. In a final analysis, two
conflicting ideal types were juxtaposed: a traditional puritanism which is
distrustful of secular culture and insists upon absolute opposition between
divine wisdom and human wisdom; and religious rationalism which is convinced
of the interrelatedness and complementarity- indeed the essential identity- of
divine and human wisdom, of religion and culture, and strives doggedly for
their integration.'



This approach resists artificial differentiations and seeks to understand
hashem in all his ways as well as in all of ours.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

 Then my suggestion is that you explain the halachic points. You
 said that you disagree with some of piske Rav Klein then bring them up
 and show why. Even this statement which you make vaguely makes
 and assumption that he is wrong.

 And again, Rav Klein denies his part in the kedushe ketanah. (the
 heter meah rabonim I know nothing about-but, he probably has halachic
 grounds) So, unless you have proof why do you repeat RYGB's 
 statements as if it is so.

 I do not see "actions". Rabbi Rackman is a different story and I hope
 we are done with that for now.


At 12:35 PM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>RYGB has written some harsh words regarding both R. Rackman and R.
>Menashe Klein.
>With respect to the first, he writes:
>
>>Certainly, to call such a person "Rabbi" is a mockery of the
>>term - unless we equally apply it to other non-Halachic observant "Mat'ei
>>Hora'ah."
>
>I wholeheartedly agree with R. Bechhoffer's assessment of their actions.
> And yet.
>
>I think there is a difference between judging a person's actions and
>judging the person.  When individuals' actions harm other people, as do
>the actions of both of these rabbis, we are obligated to try to stop
>them and prevent the harm.  But I see little benefit in titular
>polemics.
>
>For one thing, such attacks don't accomplish anything, except perhaps
>the venting of emotion.  To whom are such attacks directed?  The
>audience is composed of three groups -- those who disagree with these
>men, those who agree and those who who remain undecided.  For those who
>already see these men as mistaken, there is no need to vilify them
>further.  For those who agree with these men (one hopes, a very small
>group), such attacks will not persuade; to the contrary, it will
>reinforce their image of these men as persecuted visionaries.  To the
>undecided, I think we must make reasoned and balanced arguments,
>persuading them with logic, not vitriol.
>
>Also it should be kept in mind that, until fairly recently, both of
>these men were making useful contributions to the frum community.  R.
>Rackman was a pulpit rabbi and writer, very much on the Orthodox left,
>and R. Klein was a prolific posek, very much on the Orthodox right.
>While I think they have done some reprehensible things recently, I am
>not in any position to weigh their credits and demerits.  Fortunately, I
>don't have to, because the Ribbono shel olam has not delegated that
>function to me.
>
>As it happens, I have disagreed with most of R. Rackman's writings --
>well before his anti-halakhic foray into the world of agunot -- and have
>serious concerns about many of R. Klein's piskei halakah -- irrespective
>of his equally tendentious meddling in the laws of ishut.  But I
>recognize that both of these leaders have their constituencies and have
>served them faithfully for decades.  It is not for me to determine that
>their current activities somehow outweigh all of their earlier
>accomplishments.
>
>I heartily encourage any and all campaigns aimed at preventing these men
>from subverting and/or controverting halakhah.   But I believe these
>campaigns can and should be waged without resort to ad hominem attacks.
>
>Kol tuv,
>
>Eli Clark
> 

A thought hit me last night.

Roman soldiers were paid in salt, which is the origin of the English expression
"worth his salt".

This little factoid affects how we understand a medrash. Eisav attempts to
impress Yitzchak by asking if ma'aser should be given on salt. He's asking
about ma'aser k'safim!

So, it would seem that this minhag is not as old as that medrash.

Where does the minhag really come from. R' Frand, in a taped lecture, implied
that it's not a religious minhag at all, yet, although in a generation or
two it might be -- we are now making it one. "Ma'aser k'safim", R' Frand
says, was the taxation system used in Europe to run the autonomous Jewish
community and its social services.

OTOH, what about all those sh'eilos about what can or can not be included. Seems
a bit much for a "not really a minhag".

Help!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6074 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I hope there isn't a problem repeating p'sukim from the previous aliyah. After
all, isn't that what (nearly) all of us do every Simchas Torah? And in
S'pharadi kehillot (final t intentional) hosafot are created by repeating
aliyot, not by the Ashkenazi custom of breaking a portion up into two aliyos
(s intentional).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6074 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

 There are 2 opinions in OC 282. You may not repeat for a chiyuv.
 There are 2 opinions regarding hosofot that are not chiyuvim.
 The mechaber is lienient hence the minhag sefardim. The Ramah
 is machmir except as he adds on Simchas torah. 

  Look it up.

 Shaya Beilin 




At 12:49 PM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I hope there isn't a problem repeating p'sukim from the previous aliyah.
After
>all, isn't that what (nearly) all of us do every Simchas Torah? And in
>S'pharadi kehillot (final t intentional) hosafot are created by repeating
>aliyot, not by the Ashkenazi custom of breaking a portion up into two aliyos
>(s intentional).
>
>-mi
>
>-- 
>Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6074
days!
>micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Jan-99)
>For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
>http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

In a message dated 1/28/99 5:04:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu writes:

<< 
 In the recent thread on MO (lite and otherwise), a number of  posters made
 offhand references to mixed swimming as something that the " MO lite " do as
 something that is clearly assur, and proof of their lax observance of
halacha. 
 While there is clearly room to be machmir, to view mixed swimming as
inherently
 assur and "outside the fold" is to be motzi la'az on many  rabbanim, as well
as
 many  kehillot, both here and in Europe. Current normative behavior in Boro
Park
 does not define the outer limits of halacha.
  >>
Perhaps a good starting point would be to list the "kama v'kama isurei
duraita" ( to quote a Rav I once heard speaking on this subject) which
one(male/female?) is over by going mixed swimming, or is it to a place where
mixed swimming occurs, or is it a place where women(or men) don't dress in a
tzniutdik manner, or act in one.....???

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> 
> In the recent thread on MO (lite and otherwise), a number of  posters made
> offhand references to mixed swimming as something that the " MO lite " do as
> something that is clearly assur, and proof of their lax observance of halacha.
> While there is clearly room to be machmir, to view mixed swimming as inherently
> assur and "outside the fold" is to be motzi la'az on many  rabbanim, as well as
> many  kehillot, both here and in Europe. 

Mixed Swimming!  I can't understand how anyone can possibly defend this 
practice today.  Back in the fifties, beach wear, although not Tzniusdik 
by Halachic standards, were more or less Tzniusdik by the sociological 
standards of American culture.  That is to say that when walking on the 
beaches of America in the fifties you would have encountered less than 
Halachicly sanctioned beach attire on the average woman, but relative to 
today, it was not something that would cause a second look.  The point 
is that our Tznius perceptions are defined down by our surrounding 
culture and, in effect, we've become immune to improper hirhurim.  And 
that, after all is what it is all about. Most people of that era simply 
would not have had hirhurim then.  My father went mixed swimming.  I 
went mixed swimming. And the fact is, some, who would be considered 
Gedolim of previous generations went mixed swimming. But that was 
then...This is Now! Today,anything goes and the issues of Tznius go way 
beyond even Ervah. The fact that  Anachnu, VeAvosenu Chotanu does not 
give us license to do so now, and please lets consider the standards of 
the fifties versus the standards of today. Today it is virtualy 
impossible not to be Over the Issur of Histaklus at the beach or at a 
pool!  The same is true of women covering their hair.  There were no 
Heterim in the twenties and thirties.  Women in the Lithuaniun 
communities just stopped doing it and R. Yechiel HaLevi Epstien laments 
that fact in his famous Teshuva on making brachos in front of a woman 
whose hair is uncovered. 

HM

>As it happens, I have disagreed with most of R. Rackman's writings --
>well before his anti-halakhic foray into the world of agunot -- and have
>serious concerns about many of R. Klein's piskei halakah -- irrespective
>of his equally tendentious meddling in the laws of ishut.  But I
>recognize that both of these leaders have their constituencies and have
>served them faithfully for decades.  It is not for me to determine that
>their current activities somehow outweigh all of their earlier
>accomplishments.

>Eli Clark

YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT RAV KLEIN'S PESOKIM.
I SUGGEST THAT YOU BACK THIS UP. PERHAPS, I COULD TRY AND 
CLARIFY SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. IF WE STILL HAVE AN ISSUE 
THEN WE CAN WRITE HIM OR CALL HIM. I AM WILLING TO, IF YOU
WANT. I ASSUME WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HASHKOFO POINTS
OF VIEW WHICH A HALACHIST SOMETIMES ENGAGES IN. EVEN
REB MOSHE HAS SOME OF THESE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS.

I HAVE READ A LOT OF HIS TESHUVOT  (NOT RECENTLY) AND HAVE
NOT FOUND MUCH OUT OF LINE.

I think Elie Clark captured a lot of what the Rav's hashkofo is/was all about.

The Rav's apprach to learning anything/everything was similar, because it was 
the approach and process that was ikkar not the text.

BTW, Rav Ruderman was quoted as follows:  Why are we mevatel TT to hear krias 
heMegillo?  Isn't megillo itself part of Torah His answer: if you are learning a
sefer below your capacity it is bittul Torah.

I think this would paralel the sotry of the Rav saying Tehillim.  If the Rav 
learned Tehillim be'iyun - that would be different.  (Certainly RSR Hirsch did).
But just zuggim tehillim is bitul torah (for someone on his level).  Similar to 
Megillo one can learn Megillo be'iyun (.e.g mashesches megillo <smile> but 
simply listeing to the krio is bitul torah, but required anyway (mishum pirsumei
Nisso I guess)

There is a maase re: the Gro that he was physcially ill when stuck on a kasha 
and coudn't even eat until RCV talked to him and gave him a teirutz.  (the Gro 
probably knew the teirutz but let's say had a mental block or something).  He 
was so relieved that he recovered his appetite, etc.

The common denominator re: the Gro and the Rav is the requisisite intensity.  
The Rav not only had a great brain, he had great focus and concentration.  

A possible liberal extension of this intensity concept might be to apply it to 
Tefillo.  This perhaps is the chassidishe response, i.e. that no-so-great 
intellectuals can focus on tefillo, in lieu of TT.  Again, it's the intense 
focus that counts the most.

Musicians and chazzonim out there know what I mean.  A great musician will be in
an altered state of consiousness when performing.  Even Rubinstein in his 90's 
had it.

The Rav when very sick came to life when he gave a shiur, and afterwards slid 
back into illness.  I heard the exact same thing about another Bostonian - 
Arthur Fiedler of the Boston Pops.  When he was very old and frail he still 
conducted like a tiger.

There are chassidishe stories about the baal tokeio who cried and the boy who 
whistled.  Perhaps it was their absolute, pure intensity that was so impressive.
The Rav had wit when learning.  His Kinos on Tish'a b'av used to extend from 
9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.  Alternating between reciting and explicating, all the while
seated on a milk crate and fasting.  And flowing forth pearls of wisdom that 
were tightly connected to the text of the kinos.  Highly focused, not rambling.

I'm sure a good mohel has this kind of focus when doing a bris.  And a sofer 
when writing a Torah.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe  

> Here is the first half... <
Lookin' forward to the second half (and the third half, and the fourth
half... :-).
> 1. What does the name Avos mean?
4. What is the connection between Avos and Seder Nezikin? <
Dealt with (by Rav Ovadiah?  Ay'yin sham...)...if you understand this
maseches as meant to provide instruction for judges, both questions are
answered.  The question then becomes what is the relevance of this maseches
in the post-Sanhedrin era, and answers to questions 5 and 6 will help
answer this question, too.
> 2. What is meant by the Mishno stating:  Moshe Kibel Torah Misinai...? <
The singular use of the "kibel" verb is noteworthy, as it hints at there
being only one kabboloh.  Since Purim is coming, check out BT Shabbos 88a
re the second (and final) kabboloh -- I used it in a shiur last year as
part of comparing&contrasting Avos 1:2 and Avos 1:18.
> 3. The Mishneh states Moshe.. umesoro LeeHoshua.  Didn't  Moshe give the
Torah
to ALL of Yisroel? <
The maseches mentions the m'sorah-transmitters of each generation after
Moshe.  NB, FWIW, that the use of this verb ceases with the present
(Tannaitic-era) generation.

As I said, looking' forward to the second half!

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

One of the components of the Rav's and YU's hashkofo was to see Halocho as more 
sicentific and analytical.  Chumros are sometimes due to a certain fuzziness, 
trying to be yotzei yedei kullom.  At RIETS, we were encouraged to be decisive.

One YU professor (Dr. Agus) used to whine: "Glatt kosher is nisht kosher!  
Because it ignores Yoreh Deah."  Well I concede that he exaggerated, but as a 
devotee of the Remo, he felt that this hashkofo was wrong.  If the Remo 
paskened, don't revise it. Case closed!

It's no the moving right per se that's the big problem; it's the revisionism 
that goes with it.  All of a sudden it was ALWAYS ossur. In that sense, Meir 
Shinnar's post is well taken.  

There used to be a much more liberal attitude towards halocho that's being 
lost.  Many halochos were understood as more lav davka.  Now it's all or 
nothing.

Mechitzos. Certain shuls that had mechitzo's that were not high enough, that 
were considered acceptable (at least bedieved or beshaas hadechak).  Gedolim 
would encourage complicity with better standards, but not demand it.  That's 
changed.  

Covering hair.  The Litvisher Rabbonin I knew growing up, were not makpid 
that their wive's covered their hair while inside their homes, and not makpid 
that ALL hair be covered.

Mixing of genders.  One congregation - solidly Orthodox - used to encourage 
mixed social events (not dancing).  The next rav they hired quashed it.  Now, 
if you ask the young people they think that was alwasy the policy. Only the 
old-timers remember the "good-old-days".  <smile>



Regards,
Rich wolpoe   

BTW, The Rav is not the one who invented this.  This was primarily the Hashkofo 
of Dr. Samuel Belkin and perhapsof his predecessor Dr. Bernard Revel.

I think the Rav demanded educated, knowledgeable, analytical, thinking people as
his talmidim, I don't think he felt that college or science was a prerequisite.

Regards, 
Rich W.

Whoops! Should be: 
RYGB may his new son live and be well until 120 writes:

First, I agree with much of what Eli Clark argues.  Of course, anyone can
grow a beard, wear tzitzis out, begin wearing Rabbeinu Tams, begin keeping
pas Yisroel or Cholov Isroel, or saying tikkun Chatzos, and it can be all
chitzonius

(the classic story of the Rebbe Rayatz, the "pious" Chassid and the horse
comes to mind -- the horse rolls around in the dust, etc. but is still a
horse).   And a lot of it is for sociological reasons and not theological
ones -- especially dress and kashrus chumras.  One also has to keep in mind
that many of the departures from the "ideal" were also sociological and
not theological -- in an ideal world, we consult Ravs on both chumras and
heters and not what might be fashionable.

As for the progeny of baal teshuvah issue, didn't Reb Moshe Feinstein
argue that those of us with clear Jewish lineages weren't halachic problems
in terms of marrying into the broader community.  One faces a potentially
similar problem with the edah folks as with the radical fringe of the
Meshichisten -- history shows that Hashem sorts this sort of stuff out within
a generation or two anyway.

There is an issur to intend to benefit from looking at a women. I believe
this applies to the pinky finger. There are a myriad of other problems
with looking at ervah-regardless of intent. Rav Moshe has a teshuva (I'll
look it up if I have to but othrewise trust me) whether or not it is an
inyun of yaharog val yavor to go to a beach. (he poskens it's not--but
it's still assur) I believe the burden of proof is on those who want to
justify the practice, not the ones who say it's assur. Hiding behind what
others did doesn't seem justified in this case, one must understand the
reasons of the past and see if they really are comparable nowadays.
Otherwise this appears like another way to justify basic Taavah. (much
like the justifications for going to movies---I'm sure everyone can find
some
gadol who went to a movie in the 50's ...but that's another issue.)
Elie Ginsparg

Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@idt.net>

>I am confused as to what all of this means.  Is history not
>from from Hashem; can anything happen out side of Hashem's will.  If so
>exactly where do we put the limits on revelation.  Is it revelation only
>when there is a verbale message?  Are there other signs that HKB"H means
>for us to interpert.

I will try to explain.  Ordinarily we think of the Divine revelation of
the Torah as a unitary historical event -- mattan Torah at Har Sinai.
This Torah is immutable.  Many sources in Hazal indicate that this
revelation included every Halakhah, down to its last detail, and every
derashah from which that detail is derived.  This does not mean that
Hashem stopped communicating to human beings.  Nevu'ah continued through
Haggai, Zekharyah and Malakhi.  Ru'ah ha-kodesh also continued.  But
subsequent nevu'ah or ru'ah ha-kodesh cannot overturn any part of the
revealed Torah.  This principle is embodied in the famous dictum "Lo
ba-Shamayim hi" as enunciated in the story of tanuro shel Akhnai.
(Indeed, this list recently discussed how to understand the famous bat
kol which declared "Halakhah ke-Beit Hillel.")  Similarly, history is
from Hashem, but does not affect Torah principles.  An action that
constituted a melkahah on Shabbat in the time of Moshe is still a
melakhah today, notwithstanding all of the intervening social and
technological changes.

In sum, we generally believe that the revelation of Torah was limited to
what Hashem taught  Moshe at Sinai (or perhaps a bit later).

Among various mekubbalim, however, mattan Torah is seen as an ongoing
event.  The voice of Hashem which began at Sinai is still speaking,
except that now it is flowing from the mouths of gedolei Torah.  Their
words of Torah are not interpretations of devar Hashem; their words are
devar Hashem.  (Don't ask me what this really means; I am not a mystic.)

It seems that R. Kook took this farther and suggested that historical
events can also be seen as part of this process.  I have not seen his
words inside, but I imagine he viewed the return to Zion in his day as
something more than a migration of people.  He saw Hashem's voice, as it
were, in the movement of hundreds and thousands of Jews back to Eretz
Yisrael.  The kibbutz galuyot was not merely a fulfillment of Hashem's
promise; it was part of that promise, a pulsing expression of devar
Hashem through the hands that steered the plows and sowed the fields of
Eretz Yisrael.  (Note that I am substituting eloquence for information;
anyone who is familiar with R. Kook's actual statements on this issue is
invited to clarify his views.)

In any case, viewing a historical development as an extension of mattan
Torah is a fairly bold innovation.  Far more radical is to apply this
notion to historical developments that run contrary to traditional Torah
concepts, such as feminism.  It is a way of saying that Hashem's will,
as reflected in the Torah, was that men and women would behave in a
certain way for thousands of years, but then this ongoing mattan Torah
modifies (halilah) the terms of the Torah and calls for sexual equality.

(Interestingly, the professor who propounded this theory compared the
situation to the institution of slavery, which was necessary at an
earlier point in history and is reflected in the Torah, but is no longer
practiced.  Halakhically speaking, of course, these laws have not
changed; they have merely fallen into a state of disuse.)

Spelled out this way, it is easy to understand why RYGB wrote, "Sounds
like kefirah to me."

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I had written:

>> In another context, R.
>> Sacks of Great Britain has suggested that Orthodoxy rejects the idea
>> that history is normative in Halakhah.  If that is true in Halakhah, kal
>> va-homer in hashkafah.

This prompted Joel Rich to ask:

>More detail please. Didn't HKB"H pasken through history that chassidut wasn't
>apikorsus, that those who worked for shivat tzion in the 19th and 20th
century
>were correct etc.

I think we need to be careful about our terminology.  As ma'aminim we
see human history as an expression of Hashem's will.  But this is not
the same as viewing Hashem weighing in on specific halakhic issues.
More importantly, history should never be seen as modifying Halakhah.
This is precisely where so many Conservative scholars deviate from
Orthodox hashkafah.  We recognize that historical factors sometimes
affect Halakhah, but we reject the notion that halakhic principles
themselves change with time.

For example, the Reform movement has always claimed that their "reform"
of Judaism followed Hillel's example of instituting prosbol.  Of course,
it is absurd to compare the outright rejection of ikkarei emunah to
Hillel's takkanah.  In one sense, Hillel was repsonding to a historical
development in which shemitat kesafim was discouraging Jews from making
loans.  But the important thing to understand is that Hillel never
abrogated a single halakhah; he found a technical method to circumvent
the law.  Yet, the laws of shemitah remain in effect, and they apply to
any loan that is not transferred through prosbol.

Similarly, if hasidism is not apikorsut today, then it wasn't apikorsut
in 1775 either (assuming for the sake of argument, that we are speaking
of the same, unchanging hasidism, which, of course, we are not).  The
halakhic definition of apikores has not changed.

The very notion that history represents a kind of halakhic verdict is
perverse.  As many are aware, there were numerous Jewish communities in
eastern Europe that went from year to year without a kosher etrog.  This
was never seen halilah as some kind of heavenly statement that the
mitzvah was no longer relevant.

If the Zionists were shown retroactively to have made the better
decision than the Jews who stayed behind, that can be characterized as
sound political judgement, yad Hashem or dumb luck.   But it has nothing
to do with "paskening" or with halakhic principles.

As I said in my earlier post, if we reject this idea as applied to
Halakhah, then kal va-homer with respect to hashkafah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

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


[ 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 ]