Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 144

Friday, January 29 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:50:22 -0500
From: Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com>
Subject:
Re: credit and discredit


A
>
>If there is a constant and unremitting sh'mu'a about someone, one has to
>suspect that there is something there.  The g'mara in Kiddushin discusses
>l'shon hara and being suspicious.
>

SO DON'T GO TO HIM. BUT, DON'T SPREAD IT. THAT IS ANOTHER 
INYAN.  WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO DISCUSSED BY THE GROUP.
IS THIS NOGEAH TO ANYONE?


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:41:06 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject:
capitalization


May I make a small request?  STOP CAPITALIZING!

You see capitalizing is a kind of shouting.  If we want to create a 
cyber-environment in which the ideals of darkei noam are practiced, it would
be helpful if we stopped shouting at each other.  I can't promise that not
capitalizing will improve the content of this high-level list, but I do think it will
help reduce the apparently high and rising annoyance level.  My other
suggestion for those who agree with me is not to read any posting (after this
one of course) in which entire words are capitalized.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:46:34 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject:
modern orthodoxy


Although I identify myself, without embarrassment, as modern orthodox, I use
the term only to affirm what I am not, i.e., Yeshivish/Chassidish, not because
the term properly describes or even suggests what I believe.  The
characteristic approach of the Y/Ch, it seems to me, is to use a rigid set of
kosher dogmas as a filter through which not only their speech but also their
thought must pass.  As has become apparent to me since I have been
participating on this list, the set of required dogmas is considerably more
expansive than the thirteen principles of Maimonides, which roughly (since
even undisputed Gedolai Yisrael have questioned some of the thirteen)
constitute the set of dogmas subscribed to by the modern orthodox.

The problem with "modern" as a modifier of "orthodox" is that it suggests that
"modernity" has some independent moral or ethical or religious value.  That
notion does not seem to me to be defensible.  Besides, "modern" is
rhetorically self-defeating, because, by seeming to elevate modernity to the
position of a standard by which religious belief or practice ought to be judged,
it undercuts its own legitimacy as a religious doctrine.  Finally, "modern"
wrongly suggests a discontinuity between the viewpoint it describes and
"premodern" approaches, so that being "modern" somehow requires
changing earlier religious dogma or practice.  The attempt to substitute
"centrist" for "modern" seems to acknowledge the problems with the latter,
but it is hopelessly fuzzy and is thus even less compelling rhetorically than
"modern" while offering even less resistance than "modern" to the claim of
the Y/Ch to the religious high ground.

The more relevant distinction between different varieties of orthodoxy is that
between parochialism, provincialism, and insularity on the one hand and
cosmopolitanism and humanism on the other.  In the Y/Ch velt, there is no
adjective more pejorative than "goyish" (with the possible exception, in some
Charedi circles, of "Zionist").  Anything so characterized is ipso facto taboo
and worthy of nothing but scorn and contempt.  As a matter of principle,
nothing produced by the goyim can have any independent value apart from
its instrumental utility in serving the material needs of the Yidden.  Science
(forget about the humanities) no, technology maybe.  This does not mean
that all Y/Ch lack secular knowledge, which is clearly not the case, but the
notion of a pursuit of any secular knowledge lishmah is, I think, firmly,
categorically, rejected.  Even the lives of the goyim have questionable value,
since their entire existence is justified only insofar as they serve the interests
of the Yidden, which they have obviously failed to do very well.  [Query: 
what, if any, halachic justification is there for hilul shabbat to save the life of a
Gentile?  I believe the answer is none, but nevertheless is it not permitted
(required?) because of darkei shalom?  How are we to understand the priority
of darkei shalom over halachah?]

The alternative approach is to recognize and to celebrate the positive
contributions of the Gentiles (and their Jewish collaborators) to human
civilization and secular knowledge, and where appropriate, to study,
understand and to assimilate those contributions into our own framework. 
This does not imply an uncritical acceptance and approval of every trend in
modern society, because no morally serious individual, let alone a fearer of
Heaven, could fail to be appalled at the moral squalor engulfing modern
society and popular culture.  But a morally serious person, and a fearer of
Heaven, should also be able to distinguish between the towering cultural and
intellectual and moral achievements of Western Civilization and the
decadence of a society that is itself busily at work trashing its own priceless
heritage.  As a light unto the nations, it is the responsibility of Jews to try to
show the rest of the world (by example, but also through engagement and
dialogue) how the teachings and insights of our tradition could help others
seeking to cope with the challenges confronting contemporary society.  In
our own time, this means, to give just one example, helping to conserve a
precious cultural and moral legacy that is now being so thoughtlessly
polluted, dissipated, and debased.

The conflict between the parochial, provincial, and insular on the one hand
and the cosmopolitan and humanistic on the other dates back at least to R.
Judah bar Ilai and R. Shimon ben Yohai and their disagreement about the
praiseworthiness of Roman contributions to civilization which led to R.
Shimon's years in the cave.  R. Shimon may be the most celebrated of the
students of R. Akiva, but R. Judah is no less a bar samha, as is shown by the
fact that the halachah usually accords with his opinion against that of R.
Shimon.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:48:47 -0500
From: Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com>
Subject:
Re: capitalization


 That was not meant as a sign of shouting. I copied the idea from
 someone who used that when he inserted shis words between the 
 senders words. If I am writing a whole new letter, I usually 
  use lower case. (If I did not forget to turn off caps)

 But, you are right. I am not going to contribute anymore. I
 am surprised that the creme (to use YGB's term) is
 involved in these kinds of discussions. Look at some
 of the people and institutions bashed. Since, I will change
 nothing I am going to sit behind the scenes. Let my silence from
 now on not be construed as agreement. If anyone wants to write
 me privately I will be glad to respond.


At 12:41 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>May I make a small request?  STOP CAPITALIZING!
>
>You see capitalizing is a kind of shouting.  If we want to create a 
>cyber-environment in which the ideals of darkei noam are practiced, it would
>be helpful if we stopped shouting at each other.  I can't promise that not
>capitalizing will improve the content of this high-level list, but I do
think it will
>help reduce the apparently high and rising annoyance level.  My other
>suggestion for those who agree with me is not to read any posting (after this
>one of course) in which entire words are capitalized.
>
>David Glasner
>dglasner@ftc.gov
> 


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:53:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Yochana Kohen Gadol


I was criticized for having suggested that the psakim of an individual
dating from prior to his questionable activity might have aspersions cast
against them.

I concede error on this point, as I believe it was the Yochanan Kohen
Gadol that b'sof yamav became a Tzedoki that instituted the takkana of
Demai - and that stuck despite his leaving the proper path.

So too, I would conclude, that a layperson (i.e., not equipped to actually
critically assess the teshuvos on his or her own) would be allowed to rely
on psakim of an individual posek that date from before he went astray.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:46:09 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Avos as Prototypes


This is a touch simplistic, nevertheless it's useful...

Yitzchok can be viewed as the prototype for Chareidim as it says - Vacherad 
Yitzchok <smile>.  Seriously, his midos of Yir'oh and Gevuro combined with his 
relationships "v'atem sneisem osi..." seem to correspond to the Chareidi 
hashkofo.  Steadfast, he see the "goyim" as hostile (or at least their culture 
as hostile). etc.  Yitzchok does not venture outside EY, staying within his 
proverbial daled amos... etc. 

Avrohom could be the model for the MO.  Outgoing, involved in Chessed and 
outreach; Nesi Elokim ato besocheinu - involved in influencing society as a 
whole, even intervening on behalf of S'dom, Concerned (al pi Medrash) as to his 
Bris will be viewed by his neighbors and consults Oner, Eshkol and Mamre., Tries
to slavage Yishmoel, etc.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:57:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
[none]


Joel Rich writes:

>I am only a 'bookcase' so let me quote from The Rav(Soloveichik) in "The Rav
>Speaks"(Chamesh Drashot) originally delivered in Yiddish to Mizrachi.

>'If I now identify withthe Mizrachi, against my family tradition, it is only
>because , as previously clarified, I feel that divine providence ruled like
>"Joseph" and against his brothers; that he employs secular Jews as
instruments
>to bring to fruition His great plans regarding the land of Israel.'

The work from which you quote, "Hamesh Derashot," is a stirring and
illuminating collection of speeches. For persons interested in religious
Zionism or the Rav's views of the Jewish State, the work is
indispensable.  The derashot also illustrate the Rav's homiletical gifts
which I found nothing short of extraordinary.

But let us not confuse homiletics with theology.  These are derashot in
the full sense of the term.  I think it is plain that the Rav is
speaking metaphorically.  Note that the subject of the sentence is
Hashgahah.  The Rav believed, as do most religious Zionists, that
history has provided a retroactive justification for the Zionist
enterprise.  I agree.   (I have also read some incredibly strained
arguments that attemot to defend the misjudgements of the pre-war
gedolim.)  History has also proven the wisdom of the American day school
movement.

But I think all the listmembers should be able to agree that history can
demonstrate that a particular policy was wise; it does not dictate
Halakhah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:51:47 -0500
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Subject:
Imitation Judaism


     On the mix swimming (and other proofs) -   if I would show that a
gadol, C"V, stood by while someone else spoke loshon harah or embarrassed
another person (or even, C"v 2X, did the evil act) would that make it
mutar?  I know their is a concept of masei rav & shimush> limud, but
doesn't that entail asking questions and getting explanations, and isn't
their a limit? On any topic if someone can show a uniformity of written
p'sak shouldn't that overwhelm negative concents of rabbonim (i.e., it must
be mutar because the rabbi didn't say it wasn't.)

     Also I heard from a major Rosh yeshivah (name available to the
moderator on request) that there exists no limud zchus for the fact that
some women in the old days did not cover their hair.  Before we start
naming names I guess it's just like there is no heter  to speak LH, but
people do.

Moshe Luchins


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:10:04 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Bekitsur


>>From: raffyd@juno.com
Subject: Re: Learning Halacha

"One who learns Kitzur Dinim and is not m'ayin in the entire halacha and 
its source is a ramai and in the end will forget everything." 

What does that say about kitzur s'forim such as the kitzur SH"A and the 
Chayei Adam.  Is it wrong to rely on them?  Are we all expected to go 
thru shas-rishonim?  And could this gra be the reason the Chofetz Chaim 
chose the format he did for the Mishna Brura? <<

Let me share a bit of history...

First came the Mishno, then the Gemoro
Later came the Rambam, then some no'si Keilim

Thene Rosh, Piskei Horosh and the Tur
Then came the Beis Yosef,

Then came the SA then came the Mappo 
Then came SA no'sie keilim,
Then came the Ba'er Heiteiv
Then came Chayei Odom
Then came KSA
Then came Mishno Bruro
BTW Even the MB has been reduced.  E.g. see the Shoneh Halochos. 
And the KSA has no'sei kielim (end of history lesson)

With all due respect to R. Sternbuch there has been a plethora of cycles of 
both expansion and contraction with regard to halachic texts. 

Your kasha could be applied to the SA itself.  He clearly knew that he was 
leaving out a LOT of Torah from his own BY.

By co-incidence, last Shabbos while learning the Tur, I said to my chavrusa as 
as we started the BY "Now we'll REALLY learn this stuff." And he seriously  
objected to my slighting the Tur's kovod etc. (BTW I asked the Tur for mechilo).
What my point was The Sefer haTur, while written by a big gadol, does not 
provide the same challenge (and reward) as learning the BY.

I think any halocho sefer should be learned more of as a text than as a source 
for psak.  Leave psak to Poskim, and even poskim would be well advised to 
consult another poseik when they are nogei'a bedovor.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:28:56 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
More on the Rav's Hashkofo on TT


Raffy writes: >>
"One who learns Kitzur Dinim and is not m'ayin in the entire halacha and
its source is a ramai and in the end will forget everything."<< 

See my earlier postre: the Rav and TT.  IMHO it's not the book that is 
questionable, it is the apporach to learning (halocho or anything) that the Gro 
is questioning.

I heard beshaim the Rav that he discouraged learning daf yomi.  I also heard 
that he said learning Gemoro "Bekios-steyl" is NOT learning.  The Rav expected -
no demanded - hard work in learning, being fully engaged, etc.

I suspect he derived this (directly or indirectly) from the Gro.  The Rav felt 
that superficial learning was a waste of time.  The Gro felt that superficial 
learning would soon be forgotten AND in the case of Halocho be misleading.

If one were to learn the KSA or Chayei Odom be-iyun (I guess that would require 
other texts) then it might be quite different.

I give a shiur in KSA. Unlike my audience, I am conscious of the fact that there
are numerous other poskim, I realize that the KSA might not be lehalocho, and 
when I can, I do consult other sources.  Sometimes I point out that we do not 
follow a given KSA, and I tell the shiur that's why they hired me. <smile>

(BTW, for the record) I do not fully comply with the Gro and the Rav and I do 
learn Mishnayos and other things without iyun.  

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:31:30 -0600
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Subject:
Re: capitalization


Please do't be so sensative. We enjoy reading your contributions because 
you usually have much to say. Hoping that you will reconsider and not 
remain in the background.
SHABBAT SHALOM
steve


Isaiah Beilin wrote:
> 
>  That was not meant as a sign of shouting. I copied the idea from
>  someone who used that when he inserted shis words between the
>  senders words. If I am writing a whole new letter, I usually
>   use lower case. (If I did not forget to turn off caps)
> 
>  But, you are right. I am not going to contribute anymore. I
>  am surprised that the creme (to use YGB's term) is
>  involved in these kinds of discussions. Look at some
>  of the people and institutions bashed. Since, I will change
>  nothing I am going to sit behind the scenes. Let my silence from
>  now on not be construed as agreement. If anyone wants to write
>  me privately I will be glad to respond.
> 
> At 12:41 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >May I make a small request?  STOP CAPITALIZING!
> >
> >You see capitalizing is a kind of shouting.  If we want to create a
> >cyber-environment in which the ideals of darkei noam are practiced, it would
> >be helpful if we stopped shouting at each other.  I can't promise that not
> >capitalizing will improve the content of this high-level list, but I do
> think it will
> >help reduce the apparently high and rising annoyance level.  My other
> >suggestion for those who agree with me is not to read any posting (after this
> >one of course) in which entire words are capitalized.
> >
> >David Glasner
> >dglasner@ftc.gov
> >


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:49:39 -0500
From: Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com>
Subject:
Follow up on Tanya and NH


  I had this post in file for close to a week. I am not sure wheher to post
it.
  But, since I did intend it, I will throw it in. But, this is it.
___________________________________________________________________
  The point of this post is to show that the concept of "ahava azah" comes
from the
  Talmud and it was formulated by the Rambam in hilchos teshuvah. So, it is
not
  only a chasidic concept. In fact, there is nothing that the Baal Shem Tov
and
  chasidus that cannot be found in kabalah and traced back to halacha. He did
  not invent many new things, but rediscovered and emphasized old one. 

  By now, if you followed my last post it should be clear that davening
properly is 
  difficult. Indeed according to the halacha, most people have never been
yotzeh
  a single tefilah. Thus, it is no surprise that the Baal Hatanya and the
NH address
  this subject. Thus, It is not only a question if tefila is or is not more
important than TT. 
  The point is that we are required to do tefilah and we must strive to do
it properly.

  Before I proceed, let me point out that the NH chewed out  a class of people
  who were described to him as your typical chosid. In my opinion, he was
given bad 
  information. The picture he had was that the chosid was busy with hachonot
  and never got down to the real thing and because "torah shelo lishma" is
considered
  a bad thing the chosid showed talmide chachomim disrespect.  To answer,
the former
  he goes into an explanation of what kavonoh for mitzvot mean. To answer
the later,
  he explains that even if you learned "lo lishmo" there is sechar. Also,
there
  had to be "some lishmo" since "mitoch shelo lishmo bo lishmo" and that
redeems
  this talmid chochom. I will get to the last remark later.

  I do not believe that such a chosid who does not get to perform the
mitzvah exists.
  Some of the real ones tried to achieve the kavonot Ari etc. and then
performed the
   mitzvah. But, I repeat that  a character who did not get to the mitzvah
did not 
  and does not exist. But, I will comment that respect is a two way street.
I have seen many
  talmide chachomim who have total disrespect for the hamon and yet expect
that the
  hamon owes them respect-"kovod hatorah". It is too bad that the NH did
not musser
  these people since he probably met quite a few. I have.

  Now, let us address learning and find out, if we know how to do that.
There are
  many categories. But, first let us see the gemoroh in pesochim 50b. The
gemoroh
  says aprox "That a person should do torah and mitzvot shelo
lishmo-shemitoch lo
  lo lishmo bo lishma." The Rambam brings this in two places. In hilchos
TT(3:5)
  he warns us that we will give din vecheshbon on TT and thus we must learn
even
  if lo lishmo. In Hilchos Teshuva(10) he talks about the performance of TT
and mitzvot.
  There are two types - lo lishmo and lishmo. The former are for am
horatzim, children,
  etc. The later are for those who have acquired the proper hashkofoh. The
theme he 
  develops in (10:3) that he develop a love for the Almighty that is at the
level of a
  fresh love of man to woman where there is suffering to sickness when they
are apart
  etc. It is this passion the Rambam wants us to strive for. In (10:6) he
tries to advise
  as how to achieve this. But, if a person has such passion how can he work
and do
  what is required? This is the paradox Rav Yosfef Gavriel mentioned. This
must be
  addressed by all Jews. This is the desired goal. This is how the Rambam
defines
  learning lishmo. How can you think of G-d while learning. If a new choson
goes to
  work he will "forget" his new bride for a short period. Yet, we must
learn, hear the
  words of the torah and still be in the midsts of passion. Some
requirement. This 
  problem is left to the reader. The Ball Hatanya gave his solution. It is
amazing that the
  NH gave the same one. I described it in another post. Do teshuvah.
Contemplate
  that the words you are saying are G-d's words and that when you speak He
speaks.
  The Baal Hatanya says to renew this every hr, the NH gives no prescribed
time.
  "horshus nitna" I would say it is like two doctor's prescriptions. One
says, take
   every 4 hrs., the other says take as needed. The later is subjective. If
the person
   feels that he "needs" this renewal then he should do it. This is a
function of where
  a person stands.

  There are a few categories discussed by the Rav and NH. These issues are
discussed
  by the mekubalim. Lekanter,lo lishmo, stam i.e. without thinking such as
rote or going to
  a shiur and lishmo as described. According to kabalah as explained by NH
and the Rav
  only the lishmo will go up into the sphirot of the worlds of briya and
yetzirah (machshava
  and dibbur) The case of lo lishmo of the Rambam where a person does it
myirah and not
  maahava will also rise but only to yetirah. (see the tanya ch 39-41-also
see the chapters
  before shaar 4 and shaar 4 of the NH) But, the lo lishmo for a "reason"
such as learning for 
  kovod or to get a position as a Rabbi is "bad". True, as the Rambam and
the NH state
  there is sechar, but it does not accomplish what has to accomplish. The
performance of
  a mitzvah done improperly is a little blemished. It is not only important
to do it, but it
  is also important "how you do it". This is what is hinted in the Talmud
and explained
  more thoroughly by the mekubalim. Everyone believed in it (Geroh, tanyaa
etc) Today, only
  chasidim and sefardim concern themselves. It is because it has been
neglected in the
  Yeshivah world. Also, stam (which includes most people who attend a
shiur) cannot 
  accomplish.

  There is a machalokes between the NH and the Baal Hatanya how to fix the
problem. If
  a person learned lo lishmo and then did some learning lishmo he can
elevate the previous
  learning. The NH says that if during a seder of 10 hrs. the learner has a
few minutes of
  lishmo it is enough. The Rav requires that this solution be applied, but
he must review
  everything. Only, that which he reviews lishmo can elevate that same
learning. I will
  not be machriah. Also, when it comes
  to lo lishmo for a reason the Rav requires teshuvah also. This is an
interesting concept
  in chasidus. I get sechar, but I still have to do teshuvah. I will not
develop it-but, it is a
  profound concept. In short it means that when we improve from good to
better that also is
  teshuvah. Even talmide chachomim who did not sin do teshuva-to elevate
their incomplete
  mitzvot. Of course, if you pasken like the NH the talmid chochom who
learns lo lishmo
  deserves kovod. My opinion is that everyone deserves kovod. That talmid
chochom will
  be mechabed es habriyos then he will get it as it says in perek.

  So, Rav yosef Gavriel you are correct. There is a paradox. But, the NH
gave the solution-the
  same as the Alter Rebbie. But, I disagree what you said about misnagdim.
  The misnaged is concerned. But, not today's type misnaged, who should.
The NH was 
   written to be learned. It is neglected.

  The conclusion is that we do not daven properly or learn properly. This
is what chasidus 
  addresses. The misnagdim of old worried about it. It seems that only
Chabad is still
  actively concerned. Good for them-although, many can improve as the
"assur ledaber"
  sign implies.
  

  

  


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:56:20 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject:
Re: R. M. Klein


I do not wish either to defend or attack R. M. Klein.  If I wanted to use this list
to start bashing right-wing rabbinical figures, there are others, as Mechy
Frankel could readily confirm, with whom I would start.

However, I would point out that, notwithstanding Elii Clark's, observation that
R. Klein invariably paskens l'chumroh, R. Klein is, or used to be, well-known
for adopting a notably meikil stance concerning the  Manhattan eruv.  As I
recall, and it's been a number of years since I heard his position described, R.
Klein argued that cliffs of Manhattan island constitute halachic walls
surrounding the city, so that there is a natural eruv around Manhattan and it
is permissible to carry there on Shabbat.  His actual p'sak may have been
more nuanced than this summary suggests, but that is the substance of what
I remember.  I make no further editorial comment.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:53:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: mixed swimming


On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> 
> The point is not just mixed swimming.  Many of the practices of the MO are not
> based on written heterim, but a tradition that was followed by communities and
> rabbanim.   The assumption of many here is that people fell into lax observance,
> and the rabbanim lacked the power to change them.  Rav Epstein suggests this for
> hair covering.  However, this is not always true, and the lack of a written
> heter does not invalidate the practice. One has to look at who followed the
> particular practice.  When the practice was followed by rabbanim and gdolim we
> are obligated to assume that they thought it acceptable. 
 but yes, the fact
> that gdolim went to the opera and movies is sufficient for me, and I don't think
> it is just to satisfy basic taavah.  To say otherwise is to be motzi la'az on
> gdolim and whole communities.  

Although my comments follow Meir Shinnars post, they are not directed at
him because I don't know his view on the particular point I will make, BUT
for those who have pointed out to us so many times that gedolim are not
infallible because they are just humans and make mistakes, and we should
look things up for ourselves to make sure WE understand why we do what we
do---seem to be hypocrites if they agree with Meir's approach. we can't
say their haskafas and cxhumros aren't infallible but their actions which
contradict written psak din are torah misinai. I'm not suggesting we
ignore maase avos, just question it-- When it goes against accepted
HAlacha.
It seems very strange that we preach to be open minded when dealing with
statements of gedolim yet close up when it comes to following their
heterim. We must all serve Hashem the best we can on our level but the
approach must be with EMES otherwise this is just one big joke
Elie Ginsparg


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:03:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: More on the Rav's Hashkofo on TT


I must admit, as one who teaches DY - both Bavli and Y-mi - I am nogei'a,
but, R' Rich, on the very same page in Even Shleima (Chap. 8) where the
GRO comes out against kitzurei dinim he comes out pretty strongly
pro-bekiyus learning!

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> I suspect he derived this (directly or indirectly) from the Gro.  The
> Rav felt that superficial learning was a waste of time.  The Gro felt
> that superficial learning would soon be forgotten AND in the case of
> Halocho be misleading. 
> 

YGB

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


Go to top.


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


[ 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 ]

< Previous Next >