Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 187

Thursday, March 11 1999

• Re: Nusach Ari
• Maariv
• Ruach haKoesh and Halocho
• Re: response to YGB
• Re: response to YGB
• Re: Minyan Shmitto
• Re: Women/Minyan/Megilla
• How do Chazal have Authority?
• Moshe's Infallibility
• Divinie Inspiration
• Re: How do Chazal have Authority?
• Yotzros
• Hillel vs. Shammai
• Re: science and history
• Re: derabbanan - response to YGB
• More on Authority
• Shidduch money
• More on Authority
• re: science and history

Raffy D wrote:

> 
> Does anyone on the list know of any current editions of the "Nusach Ari"
> of R'Shneur Zalman, besides Kehot's "Tehillat Hashem" Siddur?


I'm not sure how it compares with the "Nusach Ari" of R'Shneur Zalman, but
the siddur "Od Yosef Hai" of the Ben Ish Hai says on the title page that
it follows the nusach of the Ari. Officially, though, it's a Sefaradi
siddur.


---sam

Question:  At what point in history did Maariv (actually Arbis) turn from Reshus
to Chov?

Rich Wolpoe

Micha:<<
I therefore think it important that we be clear in the distinction between
Hillel and Beis Hillel WRT the whole issue.<<

All I meant to say is that Ruach Hakodesh does not carry Halachic weight per se.
lihc'ora R. Elizer had more than his baalie Plugto but the Halocho wnet against 
him anyway.

I do agree with RYGB that there is an nelement of Ruach Hakodesh, but it is too 
nebulous to quantify - at least halchically.

BTW this goes along with every Chazal's memro haveing "emes" n it, even when we 
do not take them literally.

Rich Wolpoe

>>>By OBJECTIVE you mean halachic.  By SUBJECTIVE you mean areas of Avodas
Hashem and Aggada.  I think your distinction between OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE
is SUBJECTIVE.<<<

No.  Objective=subjective to outside verification, e.g. is ice cream cold.  I
can prove to you from sugyos that various dinim are true.  R' Chaim can bring
a ra'aya that his pshat in Rambam is correct.  Subjective=personal, relative,
not able to to be verified through absolute means, e.g. is chocolate ice cream
better than vanilla.  IS your spiritual feeling on Y"T sheni due to kedusha
and various kabbalistic notions?  Maybe, but its your personal experience not
subject to outside verification.  Tos. only discuss whether you have a neshama
yeseira on Y"T viz. the beracha on besamim, not viz. their avodas hashem!  If
there is no nafka minah, then you can't prove it, can you?

>>>And why should I accpet them if they are no different than you and me<<<

Sorry, don't mix me in with D' Glassner's position!  They certainly are
different, but that is not the reason to accept their authority - lo tasur is,
see below.

>>>Gee. Where do Chazal justify their authority?!<<<

Lo Tasur.  Also you know the gemara in Shabbos about birchas ner chanukah. 

Allow me to summarize and restate my questions so you can answer with an
answer instead of with a question:

(1) Is Chazal's legislation  validated based on a pasuk in chumash (my
position based on gemara in Shabbos) or based on the fact that they had ruach
hakodeh (yours, still waiting for makor.  The gemara in B"B is not a
validation but description of the special qualities of Chazal's knowledge - D'
Glasner may debate that, but not I).  

(2) If this notion of ruach hakodeh and machshava/avodah is so dogmatically
significant why was it ignored by the likes of R' Chaim, R' Baruch Ber, the
Minchas Chinuch, etc.  If not for the introduction of mussar to yeshivos in
the 19th century we would have a pure model of gemara-only, which existed in
Volozhin despite R' Chaim Volozhiner writing NEfesh HaChaim.  Your kashe re:
what role do I see machshava playing is not on me, but on the whole history of
yeshivos from Volozhin to present, where sifrei machshava are given scant
attention. 

(3) You ask what means I have to appreciate Y"T Sheni.  Do you think R' Chaim
Brisker appreciated Y"T Sheni less than you because he didn't read R" TZaddok
or MaHARaL???


-Chaim
  

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> cold.  I can prove to you from sugyos that various dinim are true.  R'
> Chaim can bring a ra'aya that his pshat in Rambam is correct. 

I can prove to you from sugyos, as well, that Chazal possessed a keener
understanding of ratzon Hashem, and knowledge of the olamos elyonim which
makes their thought process higher and holier. Recall the Gemoro about the
eighty talmidim of Hillel.

> Sorry, don't mix me in with D' Glassner's position!  They certainly are
> different, but that is not the reason to accept their authority - lo
> tasur is, see below. 
> 

I am curious to hear you make the case that Lo Sasur applies to Babylonian
amoraim.

> Lo Tasur.  Also you know the gemara in Shabbos about birchas ner chanukah. 
>

Again, I do not mean Sanhedrin - as in Chanukah.

> (1) Is Chazal's legislation validated based on a pasuk in chumash (my
> position based on gemara in Shabbos) or based on the fact that they had
> ruach hakodeh (yours, still waiting for makor.  The gemara in B"B is not
> a validation but description of the special qualities of Chazal's
> knowledge - D' Glasner may debate that, but not I). 
>

Ruach HaKodesh as the catalyst for universal acceptance.
 
> (2) If this notion of ruach hakodeh and machshava/avodah is so
> dogmatically significant why was it ignored by the likes of R' Chaim, R'
> Baruch Ber, the Minchas Chinuch, etc.  If not for the introduction of
> mussar to yeshivos in the 19th century we would have a pure model of
> gemara-only, which existed in Volozhin despite R' Chaim Volozhiner
> writing NEfesh HaChaim.  Your kashe re:  what role do I see machshava
> playing is not on me, but on the whole history of yeshivos from Volozhin
> to present, where sifrei machshava are given scant attention.
> 
> (3) You ask what means I have to appreciate Y"T Sheni.  Do you think R'
> Chaim Brisker appreciated Y"T Sheni less than you because he didn't read
> R" TZaddok or MaHARaL??? 
>

These are excellent questions that I will not answer now lest I offend
some loyal Briskers on the list. V'ha'mayvin yavin. Let yod'ei chen recall
the difference between the Beis HaLevi's Pesach seder and that of the
Netziv as described by R' Epstein in the Makor Baruch. V'dai l'chakima. 

YGB

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

>Isn't there a Tosfos that uses 3 as PI?  My understanding that for
Eiruvin, etc.
>this was an pproximation that works, and not as a substitute for PI in 
>engineering.

Actually, there is a reference in Tanakh.  See 1 Kings 7:23.

I vaguely recall reading that Rambam discusses this.  He knew, of course,
that pi is an irrational number, so any value is an approximation.  This
was a good enough approximation for the purpose.

When I was there in the late 1950s and early 1960s, some Christian
fundamentalist wrote to the Harvard Math Dept. that they were obviously
wrong about pi, because the Bible said it was 3 so it must be 3.

The contrast in the two approaches to the text was striking.

Kol tuv,

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

> Do any of the sources discuss being mitzaref women and men legabei Megilla?             Rich Wolpoe

	R. Moses Hayyim Lits Rosenbaum, Sha'arei Emet, 3, Hilkhot Megillah,
Hemdat Aryeh 4:5.
	R. Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, Hazon Ish, O.H. sec. 155, no. 2.
	R. Hanoch Zundel Grossberg, Iggeret ha-Purim, first edition chap. 7,
parag. 2; second edition chap. 8, parag. 3.
	Rav Aharaon Lichtenstein did so Halakha le-Ma'aseh when he organized a
reading for his parents za"l at home.

RYGB: >>
No. What authority do the Chachmei HaTalmud - not those of the Sanhedrin, 
but beyond - wield if not based on subsequet acceptance. And why should I 
accpet them if they are no different than you and me - or, if that be 
presumptive - than Beethoven and Einstein.<<

This is the crux of about 3 or 4 threads. How do Chazal get authority in the 
post-Sanhedrin era?
My thesis:  Minhog/Mesorah (Dr. Agus called it "tutorial authority").  It is 
also ratified by "consensus".   

By tutorial authority, we submit to our rebbe's Torah.  Rav - literally meaning 
master - has gained authority over his talmidim.  

Rich Wolpoe

This is a potentially interesting thread.

Q: when was Moshe Rabbeinu infallible (and when not?)
A: Lich'ora his infalliblity was only within the role of Hashem's secretary or 
scribe, IOW in transmitting Ttorah miSinai.

See RSR Hirsch in Chyukas WRT to Moshe's "cheit".  What was it?  It was his 
slight deviation from dibbur to hitting the rock taht potnetially called into 
question the entire Mesora; IOW people might ask what else did Moshe do to 
"embellish" Hashem's commands.  So Hashem's punishment was swfit and severe, 
thereyb demonstrating that this one deviation was an exception to the rule.

BTW, this weeks parsha, Pekudei, makes a BIG DEAL repeating over and over 
kaasher Tzivo Hashem es Moshe...

In a sense, bechol beisi neemaon hu refers to Moshe's meticulousness in NOT 
deviating from Hashem's will. He was THE reliable transmitter of Mesorah! (I 
attribute this to his anivus, his egolessnes enabled him to totally submit to 
Hashem's commands...)

However, as a private citizen, or even as a dayan, he was potentially fallible, 
as in Parhas Shemini. 
    
Rich Wolpoe

RYGB: >>
No. What authority do the Chachmei HaTalmud - not those of the Sanhedrin, 
but beyond - wield if not based on subsequet acceptance. And why should I 
accpet them if they are no different than you and me - or, if that be 
presumptive - than Beethoven and Einstein.<<
   
BTW I think that R. Mechy meant to say that Beethoven was authoritative in the 
province of music and Einstein in Physics/Astronomy, but neither in the realm of
Halocho! Am I right?.

I started an abortive thread wrt to cholak mechochmoso levsor vodom.  This is a 
classic situation. Let's say that given  R. Moshe F. would have been a candidate
for shecholak ..liyreiov  - by virtue of his being the "Gadol haDor"". And that 
Beethoven was worthy of shecholak ... levosor vodom (via Ruach haKodesh, Mechy?)

Q:  Where would Einstein fit?
A:  In Ner Yisroel (circa 1967)I heard a lengthy chakiro (I would say halachic 
<smile>) i that asserted that as as Yid - even though a secular genius - AE 
would fail both categoreis, and therefore was not entitled to either Brocho!

Rich Wolpoe

On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> This is the crux of about 3 or 4 threads. How do Chazal get authority in
> the post-Sanhedrin era?  My thesis:  Minhog/Mesorah (Dr. Agus called it
> "tutorial authority").  It is also ratified by "consensus". 
> 

The Rambam makes a sinilar statement in his Hakdomo to Mishne Torah -
buttressing it with the principles underlyingg sugyos of "gezeira
she'pashta b'kol Yisroel." It is not clear, but I invite others to
comment, whether he holds Lo Tasur applies to gezeiros and halachos that
emanate from post-Sanhedrin Chazal that were then collectively accepted by
the nation.

Again, however, "arvach arrva tzarich" - seeing that bereft of Sanhedrin
Lo Tasur does not apply without "nispashta" - at a minimum - why should we
accept Chazal, if not for...

YGB

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

I heard besheim RSR Hirsch that he was makpid on saying Yotzros because the 
Reform Davka eliminated them.

If anyone knows the specific source I would appreciate it.

Rich Wolpoe

From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

...
R SR Hirsch addresses his former student's book at length. In one article
(printed as a chapter) he shows that the story, when cited in full, shows
that BB certainly knew about d'rashah already, and questioned Hillel's usage
in that particular case. ...<<


On a simple level, BB did not object to Hillel's drush, they just sat tight and 
would not overturn the Halocho UNTIL Hillel told them he got this (either the 
psak or the drush) from his rebbes.  That's what gave it authority.

IOW, we are free to darshen (more or less) as we see fit. (this is the Nishma 
part). The halacha ideally should come from Mesorah (the Naase part).

Perhaps BB were afraid that by giving in to Hillel's droshos, they would set a 
precednet that anyone can darshon away halocho.  When they heard it was al pi 
Mesorah, they deferred to it.

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 3/10/99 12:58:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV
writes:

<< 
 This is an interesting tangent (quite independent of our current discussion)
to
 pursue.  I assume that you are basing this on some source in Chazal which I,
 if I ever saw it, no longer recall.  However, I personally doubt that Shaul
 would have received such a severe punishment for his conduct if he had
 had acted as concientiously as this implies.  W >>

Actually, I had always understood the story of Shaul to reflect perfectly
decent reasons for not wanting to destroy Amalek. His Aveiroh was that he was
wrong, and should have just listened to Shmuel, and had more Emunah in the
Navi, and the explicit Mitzvah in the Torah, than in his sincere but misplaced
Chesed.

Jordan Hirsch   

In a message dated 3/10/99 2:55:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 I keep referring to the Gemara in BB 12 of "Chacham adif me'navi", the
 Ramban says that the Gemara means that Chazal "yod'im ha'emes b'ruach
 hakodesh she'b'kirbam!" So...
  >>
Yes, I understand that, but I feel a little more comfortable sticking to a
plainer P'shat of the text for the purposes of this discussion. I guess one
could say that there is a difference between "Technical" Ruach HaKodesh, and
the idea that our sages had some kind of sensitivity and heightened awareness
of the divine which lies in all of us.

Jordan  

I am studying Mishanyos Brochos and Huryos.  2 questions come to mind wrt 
authority of BD.

1) Brochos III:5 re: Baal Keri.  
A) Did Takkonos Ezra take-hold and fall into disuse or never take hold in the 
fst place?
B) How is it that the Mishna is Soseim based upon Takkonas Ezra, yet it seemed 
to have been botel long before Stimas haMishno?
C) Given that Ezra made the takkono, how long did the process of ein rov 
hattzibbur yochol laamod bo take?  Did BD moiinotr the takkono and then relized 
it was being ignored after a tiral period?  Or did they decide at one point in 
time to undo the Takkon because they realize it would never fly?  

2) re: Horyus.
A) How can BD Hagodol ever make an "error"? IOW, isn't their psak ipso facto 
authoritative?
B)  If not, how is their authority binding? 
C) While a subsequnet BD can overturn an earlier BD, how can it point to the 
earlier BD and say it was wrong? 
D) re: I:4, Could R. Yeshosua say that re: Rabban Gamliel's cheshbon?  Could R. 
Eliezer say that re: tum'as kirayim?  (I suspect post-churban habayis impacting 
this)

Rich Wolpoe

I seek a source for the two following assertions, which have been quoted to
me without adequate attribution:

1) Shidduch gelt is the "cleanest," i.e. most honest, way to earn money.

2) Shidduch money ought to be used to purchase the shaddchan(im)'s cemetery
plot(s). (Maybe that's what the couple would like the shaddchan to do . . .
.. )

Sources, please.

NW

When did the title Rabbi originate?  

Rich Wolpoe 

Rabbi Bechhoffer writes:

<<<
> personally doubt that Shaul would have received such a severe
punishment
> for his conduct if he had had acted as concientiously as this implies. 

Why not? What about a Zaken Mamreh - a tragic, heroic figgure if there
ever was one, no?
>>>

I see your point.  Nevertheless, a zaken mamreh has many opportunities to
do t'shuvah before finally being carted off, knowing full well that his fate is in
his own hands.  Shaul made one slip, and apologized profusely.  But he was
history.

<<<
> Let's be careful.  I said "I have difficulty distinguishing" between the
> "divine insparation" of Chazal and that of Beethoven.  Certainly there
> must be a difference, but miserable creature that I am, I cannot
> describe what the difference is. 
> 

I am not impressed by humility :-). 
>>>

Oh really?  And when the Torah tells us that Moshe was "anav mi-kol adam"
how do you respond to that interesting bit of insight into his character?  But
doubtless you meant to say "false humility."  

<<<
Why don't you look up either the
Ramchal in Derech Hashem 3:3 or Moreh Nevuchim 2:45 with their detailed
gradations of Ruach HaKodesh and get back to us?
>>>

Thanks for giving me my marching orders, but I was insubordinate and
instead consulted the Dor Revi'i.  I provide for your edification some relevant
excerpts from his introduction to Or Bahir on the laws of mikvaot.  By way of
historical background, the Dor Revi'i wrote this short book around 1907 in
response to criticisms from various Hasidim both in and out of Klausenburg of
the Klausenburg mikvah which had been built to his specifications.  The
Hasidim based their complaints on the p'sak of the Divrei Haim which
conflicted with the opinion of the Hatam Sofer.  The book is devoted to an
analysis of the relevant halachic material and a detailed criticism of the
position of the Divrei Haim.  For daring to criticize the Divrei Haim, whose
opinions were said to be based on ruach ha-kodesh, the Dor Revi'i was
taken to task by an unnamed interlocutor for a) disrespect for the Divrei Haim
and b) defiance of a p'sak based on ruach ha-kodesh.  In his introduction,
the Dor Revi'i includes the text of his letter responding to the unnamed
interlocutor.

Herewith some excerpts:

Chazal and experience show us that the Holy One Blessed be He set
boundaries in His world between Niglah and Nistar.  The two cannot be
successful together.  The Sages are separate (l'hud) and the Prophets are
separate (l'hud).  One who is involved in Merkavah, which is called Davar
Gadol is not fit be closed into the problems of Abaye and Rava and will easily
stumble in determining the halachah l'amitah shel Torah.  And so we find
often in the words of Chazal.  For example, Taanit 21b.  Abba Umna received
greetings from Heaven every day.  Abbaye every Erev Shabbat.  Rava every
Ma'ali Yoma d'Kippuri.  And Abba Umna did not reach the level of hora'ah at
all.  And relative to Abbaye, the halachah is like Rava except for y'al k'gam.

And in truth we have a great principle in our hands.  The Torah is not in
heaven and we do not pay attention to a Bat Kol or to the walls of the house
of study and not to the rulings of the Heavenly Academy as it is explained in
Bava Metzia 59.  For the Torah was given to us as a gift and like one who
uses his own property, the Sages of Israel debate and negotiate the Torah
according to the fixed principles that were transmitted to us.  And we decide
the halachah according to the majority and even if they erred and purified
that which is unclean and permitted that which is prohibited, we don't care. 
As the Hinuch wrote about commandment 496 d'varim kilorin la-einaim.  And
if anyone says to us a halachic ruling that he cannot explain sufficiently to
allow us to understand the foundations on which it rests, we do not accept it
from him even if he says that the halachah was revealed to him from Heaven.
 And thus Chazal said in Eruvin 13 that they did not establish the halachah
according to R. Meir becaue they could not fathom the depth of his
reasoning.  Thus, they were not troubled by the rulings of R. Meir, who
enlightened the eyes of the Sages in halachah, whenever they could not
fathom the depth of his reasoning.

And in truth for weighty reasons the holy Torah distanced halachic
determination from the Prophets and masters of Nistar when it said "ki yipalei
mimcha davar, v'kamta v'alita el ha-kohanim v'el ha-shoftim" and not to the
navi "asher yihiyeh ba-yamim ha-hem."  And the reasons are explained to all
mevinei davar, but we don't reveal them to everyone, only to the tz'nuim. 
But one of the reasons is that what would we do if some of the prophets said
one thing and some said the opposite, because with their ruach ha-kodesh
they saw the opposite of what their colleagues saw.  Would we follow the
majority as we do in the Sanhedrin?  But this is testimony, and two witnesses
are like a hundred.  And in the end, one who believed one way would follow
his decision and the other side would follow the second decision.  And the
Torah and the people would be split into pieces.  That is why the Torah said
to follow the majority, so that the Torah should not be split into two.  

And see the words of the Zohar ha-hadosh, Tzav 36.  "Come and see what
is between those who study the Torah (mishtadli b'oraita) who are more
trustworthy than prophets.  Those who study the Torah are at all times
stronger (adifi) than prophets.  What is the reason?  They stand on a higher
level than prophets. . .Those that say words through divine inspiration
(d'amrin milin b'ruakh ha-kodesh) stand beneath all of them.  Those that
study Torah are more worthy because they are on a higher level than
everyone else and . . .they do not require sacrifices because the Torah is
stronger than everything . . .and that is why it is written d'raheha darkhei
noam v'kol n'tivoteha shalom."

These words of the Zohar correspond to that which Chazal said haham adif
mi-navi.  And what appears plain is that ruach ha-kodesh is separate (l'hud)
and halachah and Torah are separate (l'hud).  But the problem is that anyone
upon whom ruach ha-kodesh dwells must certainly be a Sage . . . If so, the
Navi has both. . . But the matter is explained according to what Chazal said,
"eilu osrin, v'eilu matirin, eilu v'eilu divrei elokim hayim."  But this is contrary to
reason, because the mind cannot maintain two contradictory opinions on a
single subject.  But the world was divided into different parts and what may
be tamei under one set of circumstances may be made tahor under other
circumstances. . .Similarly, Niglah and Nistar are two opposites and each has
its own domain.  But concerning Nistar the Torah said, ha-nistarot la-Hashem
Elokeinu and concerning Niglah it said, v'haniglot lanu u'l'vaneinu la-asot et
kol divrei ha-Torah ha-zot, for we have nothing to do with nistarot (ein lanu
eisek b'nistarot).  And if anyone comes to us in a halachic matter with a
Heavenly secret (sod Eloki), we push him away with the words of R. Joshua
"lo ba-shamayim hi."  And therefore the prophets who were also Sages did
not arrive at the same opinion as the Sages, because the power of prophecy
would overcome wisdom and reach another higher hiddern opinion that has
no share in the halachah that walks on the earth.

And so, if it is true that the holy gaon, the Divrei Haim, wrote his responsa
through ruach hakodesh and his rulings conform to sod and the wisdom of
kabbalah, while for you that is a merit, for us, the disciples of the Nodah
bi-hudah, the Hatam Sofer, and the Maharam Shik, it is a great demerit.  And
we will not rely on rulings of ruach ha-kodesh, and the secrets of kabbalah,
because our tradition from our Rabbis of blessed memory is that we have
nothing to do with Nistarot.  If one follows the wisdom of kabbalah in his
halachic rulings, who knows which idea came first?  One who is stripped of
earthly material and is close to Heaven and dwells in the higher worlds, will
almost certainly see the Heavenly secret first.  Therefore he is suspect to
adjust the Niglah to that secret which he saw, and for this very reason he is
unreliable. 

Whew!

So you see, based on the Dor Revi'i, I am quite willing to dismiss your
question about the extent to which Chazal were the beneficiaries of ruach
ha-kodesh in arriving at any of their rulings as -- how shall I put it? -- none of
my business.  Ein li eisek b'nistarot.  If you wish to discuss the gradations of
ruach ha-kodesh in the Rambam or the Ramchal, I'm afraid you will have to
do so with someone else. 

Now you may protest that you are asking me what spiritual significance I
attach to the celebration of, the second day of Yom Tov, if I am unwilling to
say that Chazal were divinely inspired in instituting the celebration.  To which
I respond, if ruach ha-kodesh is off limits in reaching halachic decisions
involving the interprettaion of Biblical verses, I cannot fathom why it is less off
limits in purely Rabbincal enactments.  Perhaps "minhag avoseinu b'yodeinu"
resonates sufficiently within me to impart all the spiritual significance I require.

<<<
> I appreciate and respect your forebearance in the face of my> provocation.
 On the other hand, why should a comparison to one of the
> greatest geniuses and most heroic personalities in human history be
> considered in any way disrespectful or diminishing (c'v) of Chazal?  Is
> not a gentile who studies Torah (presumably the seven Noahide laws) on
> the level of the Kohen Gadol?  If Beethoven was the beneficiary of
> divine inspiration, on how much higher a level must he have been?  Why
> is admiration and reverence for Chazal inconsistent with the reverence
> due to the "spark of divinity" that gentiles are clearly also endowed
> with? 
> 

This is an interesting discussion, and one I am willing to take up in
greater detail, but, superficially, Torah itself imparts a kedusha and a
more kadosh chochma, than any secular knowledge can ever impart. The
distinction between the bracha on a Chacham mei'Chachmei Ha"Umos and
one
on a Chacham me'Yisroel alludes to this dichotomy.
>>>

I don't disagree, and I don't recite a b'racha before listening to a Beethoven
symphony, even the ninth.  All I said was that I could not clearly distinguish
between the divine inspiration granted to Chazal and the divine inspiration
that enabled Beethoven to achieve what to me, at any rate, seems to have
been a miraculous, almost inexplicable, feat.  Of course, now that I have
reread the Dor Revi'i, I wonder if I was too quick to agree with you that
Chazal were the beneficiaries of any ruach ha-kodesh, but I'll just let that one
pass.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]